Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 27, 2016 -> 12:50 PM) Note that with the fake IRS scandal stuff with Obama, it was some two bit groups and not the major conservative pacs who actually mattered. It'd be weird to deliberately target irrelevant groups only. "Two bit groups" meaning they were just too small to matter on a national scale. They were still legitimate conservative groups and there were a number of them suddenly audited because of their names. You know if this happened under W you wouldn't be justifying it. But, #itsdifferent, as usual.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 27, 2016 -> 12:44 PM) No, certainly those in power are all capable of it. I think my point is that Trump has shown himself to be especially vindictive, both from his pre-political life (constant frivelous lawsuits against anyone who writes something he doesn't like just to hurt them financially), to his post-convention hit pieces on Kasich/Cruz, to now this. Clinton is certainly capable of this, but the fact is the Federal criminal and regulatory wings have been used vindictively in the past, and to an astonishing degree under a president Nixon who showed signs of being vindictive prior to presidency. I don't think we disagree that Nixon was far more wide-reaching than any other. So...yes, it is terrifying that Trump, with all of these signals could get access to groups that could abuse their power. True, though Nixon's vindictiveness came from fear and paranoia. Not sure Trump's the same there.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jul 27, 2016 -> 12:38 PM) Trump's actual quote today was "Russia, if you are listening, I hope you are able to find the 33,000 emails that are missing — I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press." Arguing over what administration used what clout to have the IRS investigate its political enemies is a far cry from a Presidential candidate asking a foreign country to hack their Presidential opponent. That's degrees worse than the stuff with the IRS - even the implication of foreign governments influencing our Presidential election should be chilling. I disagree there. Using the executive to financial hurt/trample political enemies is an affront to our entire system of government.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 27, 2016 -> 12:12 PM) I responded to you in earnest. Fact is almost every presidential admin after Nixon has been accused of this (not surprising). But, there is no actual link to the Clintons and that. There was no link from Obama to the IRS. And there was no link from the Bush's to the IRS. So basically, whomever are the outside groups every time, if you audit them, it will be a "did the administration order an IRS audit?" Absent a smoking gun document like an email from the WH to the IRS saying "go f*** with these guys," you're never going to have actual proof. However, much like we do with racial discrimination, we can look at the disparate treatment of one group versus another and infer there was some bulls*** going on, which WAS the case in the IRS scandal.

No one has said it yet, but can we call agree Hillary's campaign logo is awful? I don't even get it. Is it supposed to mean progress? Doesn't it just mean she's moving further to the right?

All charges against the remaining officers have been dropped. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/us/freddie-g...cers/index.html

It's funny that liberals b****ed and moaned about the RNC speakers talking about Hillary for days instead of their nominee. Thus far my twitter feed is nothing but Trump burns, not one word about why Hillary would be a good President.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-e...n-forecast/#now Well that turned quickly.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jul 22, 2016 -> 12:34 PM) They may be looking, but that doesn't mean they won't ultimately vote for Trump. Republican voting blocks (particularly senior citizens and Evangelicals) are pretty reliable. Yeah but to Lost's point, those people don't come out when the candidate isn't conservative enough, just like the young don't come out for liberals unless there's a special reason (change you can believe in!)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 22, 2016 -> 12:26 PM) That's just it. Republicans aren't showing up this election. There are a lot of them looking elsewhere. I bet the numbers will ultimately surprise here come election day. I think Trump gets a huge bump from the "anti-Trump, but REALLY anti-Hillary" group.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 22, 2016 -> 09:30 AM) The way he was saying LGBTQ seemed so uncomfortable and forced. Agreed, though it sounded like he was just trying to get the letters out without mumbling. The 2 or 3 times he said it were the same. L-G-B-TEEE-Q Also, one thing I will give him credit for, the dude spoke (yelled) for 1.5 hours and never took a drink! That was amazing. I'd be dying after 15 minutes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 22, 2016 -> 09:23 AM) Also man is Trump weird with Ivanka https://mobile.twitter.com/Rschooley/status...349787604185088 Jesus Christ you guys are sad.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 22, 2016 -> 09:08 AM) I think the central part of his voter bloc are people that have been affected by all the factory closings. And the manufacturing economy does suck now. The problem is he has no idea how to fix that stuff and he has yet to even offer a real proposed solution. And the hate-filled fear mongering bulls*** is a problem too. This. That speech last night was to get everyone angry at Hillary and then promise the moon. Zero specifics were provided. However, next week, we'll be able to say the same thing about Hillary. She'll attack Trump. She'll focus on the fear that he becomes President. Then she'll also promise the world (jobs! healthcare! security! education! think of the children/future!) with little to no specifics. Not sure what people were expecting. Conventions speeches, and really all campaign speeches, rarely have specifics. It's all about promises that will never be fulfilled. The best part of the speech was his ad lib thanking the audience for clapping when he said he'd do everything to protect the LGBTQ community from extremist ideologies. It was like they were confused since he said protect them against terrorists. "Yeah, protection from terrorists! Wait, did he says for gays too?"

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 04:55 PM) But Mike Pence said last night that we need to be more assertive in foreign policy, that we have become too weak. So which is it? No President should ever even imply that we will not 100% hold up our end of NATO. This is not a settlement negotiation, this is not "My client is going to file BK so if you dont take $.10 on the dollar you get nothing", these are treaties that were put into place to protect other countries, with the US fully well knowing that it would never be an equal partnership. Even more importantly this isn't a negotiation at all, members of NATO are supposed to be our partners. I dont even know what the Republican party is anymore. And its become blatantly obvious that Trump has not even contemplated how to implement his ideas. Its really easy to say "I am going to make a better car that is also cheaper." The hard part is actually delivering, and anyone who has ever had the displeasure of working with a Trump run business knows that he very rarely delivers. So no matter what happens between now and the end of time, we should never reconsider NATO or the obligations and responsibilities of its members. If 25 of the 28 members say f*** it, i'm done paying my share and sending out my people to be in the armed forces, we should still be obligated to play our part simply because they are our partners? That's bulls***. They are partners as well. So when we feel like they're taking advantage of us, that's not being a good partner. We should be able to consider leaving. That's our right. Simply talking about that in hypothetical (and not even in complete hypothetical!) doesn't harm anything. That's a bunch of made up fear-mongering nonsense.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 03:39 PM) At what point is what Trump says meaningful and not "spitballing" to you? Spitballing still defines his positions but my argument is that one statement in this interview does not set up the WWIII commie take-over that is apparently feared by some people around here and at The Atlantic. If bmags and that author can read way more into his answer than what was written, why can't I do the same thing in reverse and put those statements into a fair context? No matter what bmags claims, he's never, to my knowledge, advocated getting rid of NATO or not coming to the aid of a member or anything along those lines. He simply said in this interview that he would make sure that the other country in need of help is doing their part, e.g., paying their 2%. I ask again, what the hell is wrong with that? Why does the US (and the other members of NATO meeting their responsibilities) need to continue doing all the work if the other countries don't? Why is that our obligation? Perhaps it is under the existing treaty, but we can't even discuss possibly changing that agreement? That's sacrilegious? Why?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 03:10 PM) But the leverage that he's talking about here is not assisting a NATO nation if they are invaded. That has massive ramifications in Eastern Europe, particularly in the face of a very aggressive Russia. It's not the first time that Trump has talked about leverage as if he were a private businessman negotiating a deal with a creditor. Remember when he said that he would tell America's creditors that they would take less money on America's debt? That works when you are in the private sector. That doesn't work when the ramifications are people stop lending to America, or lend at significantly higher rates. Yeah, the headline in that Atlantic article is bad, but an American Presidential candidate even implying that he might not honor the NATO treaty has major potential ramifications... But his statement about the Baltic states or of Ukraine in particular are just examples, right? It's him spitballing. Everything he said in that interview is consistent with his general foreign policy, which is we can't afford to be the world's police and other countries should start picking up the slack and/or starting paying us to be their defenders. He's an isolationist. That's part of it. Yes, we can argue whether that's good policy of the US or not, but it doesn't mean that it's Trump's desire to back out of NATO and let Putin run roughshod over eastern europe, which is what that article says and what bmags wants to believe.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 03:06 PM) If you think your negotiations with a car salesman are equal to geopolitical negotiations... You don't hold public statements indicating the US will not support its allies to force estonia to marginally up it's military. Perhaps he should ask his butler Newt whether their alliance with the Baltic states is important. So creating/holding leverage has no use in geopolitical negotiations? That's your position?

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 02:52 PM) Trump has actually said other things I agree with in the past (yeah... I know...) but I don't bring those things up, obviously, since I don't take issue with them. Trump is very much a "broken clock" type. He is almost always wrong, except the couple of times when he isn't. Ok, but bmags posted an article with a bunch of dumb points, and one of the dumb points was about that particular statement. I was just responding to it. I wasn't bringing up past things with Trump just to prove he can be right about something.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 02:50 PM) Note to self: never sign treaty with jenks Have you ever been involved in negotiations before? Leverage is the name of the game. From what I can tell based on that interview all he was saying was that he wanted some leverage. He did not say, as you want him to say, that he thinks NATO is a waste and we're getting out of it as soon as he's sworn in so Putin can take over the world because they're besties.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 02:32 PM) Yes. Because that is what people are upset about. That question. QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 02:37 PM) That's not the part of his interview anyone's criticizing him for, especially in this thread, so it sounds like you're trying to play a semantic game where you can score points than actually engage the criticism of Trump. I didn't mean to throw that in as a "ah ha! you see!" I just thought it was interesting to point out his very reasonable statement that we should look at our own f***ed up situation before we start lecturing other countries. The dude in The Atlantic article made a big deal about this, like no US citizen has ever spoken ill of the country before.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 02:31 PM) So NATO is this treaty signed by a bunch of North Atlantic countries that's core purpose is basically that if you attack any of those countries you attack all of them. It served as a check on Russian overreach, and has continued to preserve peace against western Europe. That's the core purpose of NATO. The question was if Russia invaded a NATO baltic country would the US come to their defense. And he said "have they fulfilled their obligations to us". The 2% thing is nice, but all countries did send troups to the ISAF. If you are saying you will fail to come to the assistance of a NATO ally unless you like how much they contributed, you are walking away from NATO. What is its purpose otherwise? Russia invading a sovereign nation is a big deal even if it is not NATO. But come on. Why on earth would you signal that you wouldn't protect the biggest treaty the US has going? It's not like he's saying the Monroe Doctrine is bulls***. So, right, he didn't say he wanted to get rid of NATO or that the US wouldn't fulfill it's obligation. That's what I thought.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 02:31 PM) Good point. We really can't criticize other countries for anything given that Donald Trump is a major party nominee here. More seriously though, what s*** are you referring to? "Hey Turkey, stop trending towards dictatorship and purging massive numbers of suspected opponents from government and academia." "Shut up America, you had some a-hole shoot 5 cops." "Good point, nm" I mean, that's kind of a good point actually... we nominated a permanently sunburnt racist with no political experience whatsoever as a nominee for President, so yeah, maybe we shouldn't be going around the world telling people how to govern themselves. That's different from telling countries to stop murdering people though. You went a little extreme there with your example.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 02:28 PM) Place the goalposts back where you found them please. Huh? That was a point raised in that crap article bmags posted.

And how do YOU guys not agree with this: I 100% agree with this! How can we lecture other people about how they act when we have the problems we have? It's completely disingenuous. That doesn't mean democracy and freedom aren't great things and we should be pushing that around the world, but how do we have the standing to lecture with the s*** going on in our own backyard? Hot damn, I think that's the first time i've agreed with something he's said.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 02:09 PM) OK so you are agreeing that his strategy is we abandon NATO. Uh, no. I think he pretty clearly states that that's not his desire, that's not his wish and that as a negotiation tactic it would be better if those countries understood that we COULD leave. That's literally all he says there. Again, please cite to me where he says he won't honor NATO or he wants to get rid of it (or at least our involvement in it). I'd like to see that because apparently i've glossed over it.