Hillary Clinton caught lying in email scandal

[MENTION=9860]Grayman[/MENTION]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but it is an established fact that he insisted on deporting all illegal immigrants in America and when pressed on how he would accomplish such a feat (with most commentaries declaring it an impossibility) he never could give a straight answer nor could he ever give a straight answer as to how he would force Mexico to pay for the construction of a border wall.

Yes and his exaggerations are likely a consequence of his narcissistic arrogance. I don't believe he 'plans' on illegally stopping people in order to look for illegal immigrants. He probably just thinks (I'll make it work when I get there) which has it's own dangers.
 
Letting people in who want to change the rules and traditions to fit their culture of their country is insane and it is destructive to our countries cultures and traditions that have evolved among the many ethnic groups and races of our nation.

So it cannot continue to evolve and must remain static because the country is perfect as it is?

But the other part of the accusation is that Obama wasn't born in the USA which is a requirement of being president. That is up to the president to defend and prove and the news to relay the evidence. Why is that Trumps responsibility?

That's fine to take to take position but it leaves out one critical detail. Trump was birther-in-chief, the one person that promoted those accusations without a single shred of evidence and never has been called to task for it. The whole birther movement was based on pure racism and I dare anyone reading this to refute that fact.
 
That may be so, but that doesn't make your argument consistent. If nationalists are for strong anti-immigration policies then it was a mistaken statement on your part to single out Mexicans. Mexico makes up about half of all unauthorized immigrants, but that doesn't mean nationalists are only concerned with them and not all other countries. If you plan on correcting people on their definitions, then make sure you are using yours correctly first.

I listed people of several origins when I first brought up Nationalist. I am not sure what your complaint is or more importantly why you are making it.

Is your argument more that I am incorrectly defining Trump as nationalist because he focuses more on Mexicans than other groups or are you accusing me of focusing too much on Mexicans when talking about nationalism?
 
I listed people of several origins when I first brought up Nationalist. I am not sure what your complaint is or more importantly why you are making it.

Is your argument more that I am incorrectly defining Trump as nationalist because he focuses more on Mexicans than other groups or are you accusing me of focusing too much on Mexicans when talking about nationalism?

You incorrectly focused on Mexicans when defining nationalism. Yes. My point (which I've stated twice already) is if you plan on lecturing someone about definitions is to be sure yours are also correct. Playing innocent or ignorant isn't going to change that fact.

Yes and his exaggerations are likely a consequence of his narcissistic arrogance. I don't believe he 'plans' on illegally stopping people in order to look for illegal immigrants. He probably just thinks (I'll make it work when I get there) which has it's own dangers.

Oh! You don't believe!!! Oh thank god for your beliefs then!!! I was worried we were talking about facts and evidence which you previously demanded I supply to support an argument. Thank god for your beliefs though. I am reassured now since you don't believe Trump is really, truly racist. He just says such silly things, but he's a really stand up guy.

Are you just giving me 'your' perception of Trump or an actual perception of who Trump is, backed by actual evidence to support it?
 
So it cannot continue to evolve and must remain static because the country is perfect as it is?

Animals evolve in their semi-isolated environments. Moving monkeys to Yellowstone National Park isn't going to help the monkeys or the existing animals evolve in any positive way. I am talking about preserving that 'semi-isolated' environment in order to protect the existing habitat from unnecessary stress, violence, and upheaval and to make sure that the environment is still beneficial to the existing animals adaptations while the environment slowly changes to newer conditions.

That's fine to take to take position but it leaves out one critical detail. Trump was birther-in-chief, the one person that promoted those accusations without a single shred of evidence and never has been called to task for it. The whole birther movement was based on pure racism and I dare anyone reading this to refute that fact.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/...mas-birth-certificate-his-response-is-brutal/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJU37U5_rbc

Do you have specific details on how the two are tied together and evidence that shows how that tie does in fact exist? Any theories of how the two are connected? I don't know what I am refuting if you do not provide any of these.
 
You incorrectly focused on Mexicans when defining nationalism. Yes. My point (which I've stated twice already) is if you plan on lecturing someone about definitions is to be sure yours are also correct. Playing innocent or ignorant isn't going to change that fact.



Oh! You don't believe!!! Oh thank god for your beliefs then!!! I was worried we were talking about facts and evidence which you previously demanded I supply to support an argument. Thank god for your beliefs though. I am reassured now since you don't believe Trump is really, truly racist. He just says such silly things, but he's a really stand up guy.

Why are you unnecessarily condescending and arrogant in our discussion? I have some things to do and will reply later when I can reply decently.
 
Why are you unnecessarily condescending and arrogant in our discussion? I have some things to do and will reply later when I can reply decently.

You cannot hold others to some standard that you won't hold yourself to. You want to make misleading statements about things while correcting others on theirs and then demand facts and evidence to support arguments regarding Trump while you present your beliefs regarding Trump as a valid argument.

That is the definition of a double standard.

double standard
noun
any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, especially an unwritten code of sexual behavior permitting men more freedom than women.

If you do not like being called out on it, you can either cease doing it or cease participating in the discussion.
 
You cannot hold others to some standard that you won't hold yourself to.

People are different and have different backgrounds. People should be held to different standards based on their knowledge experiences and abilities. Many parents do this with their children. Example: they know Susy is responsible and always completes her homework on time she doesn't have to finish it as soon as she comes home but Tommy hasn't show that he is responsible enough to handle taking appropriate breaks and managing his work so he needs to start on his homework as soon as he comes in.


But I do believe in personal responsibility.

You want to make misleading statements about things while correcting others on theirs and then demand facts and evidence to support arguments regarding Trump while you present your beliefs regarding Trump as a valid argument.

What do you mean? I didn't 'demand' facts. I said that I cannot argue against their position if I don't know how they obtained their position. What are their theories, opinions, and what facts did they base them on?

If you do not like being called out on it, you can either cease doing it or cease participating in the discussion.
I like people pointing out my inaccuracies. I prefer it being done in a way avoids being unnecessarily confrontational. You seem more concerned with me than the actual thing being discussed. You don't even seem to know what I was trying to covey in the first place. I never tried to give a lesson on Nationalism. I was only trying to say that Trumps nationalism is being confused with racism. So it really doesn't bother me that you think my lesson on nationalism wasn't perfect and was based on ignorance because there was never a lesson on nationalism in the first place. In fact counter to your claim that I only focused on Mexico the first post that mentions nationalism also mentions groups outside of Mexico and mexicans.

Anyways, why don't you hold yourself to a higher standard and stop starting shit. If [MENTION=14199]brightmoon[/MENTION] has a problem with the way I corrected him/her I would be happy to apologize for it. I don't need you coming in and possibly creating problems where there were none in the first place.
 
Last edited:
People are different and have different backgrounds. People should be held to different standards based on their knowledge experiences and abilities. Many parents do this with their children. Example: they know Susy is responsible and always completes her homework on time she doesn't have to finish it as soon as she comes home but Tommy hasn't show that he is responsible enough to handle taking appropriate breaks and managing his work so he needs to start on his homework as soon as he comes in.

What sort of excuse is this? Should I start talking down to you like a child now because you seem to think it okay to treat others differently depending on your opinion of them? We're talking about adults here, not children.

What do you mean? I didn't 'demand' facts. I said that I cannot argue against their position if I don't know how they obtained their position. What are their theories, opinions, and what facts did they base them on?

Since you may have missed it the first time I posted it, this is a direct quote from you to me:

Are you just giving me 'your' perception of Trump or an actual perception of who Trump is, backed by actual evidence to support it?

And you, in turn, threw out some vague impression of Trump as if that was an acceptable argument.

I was only trying to say that Trumps nationalism is being confused with racism.

This is the problem, in that, it's not being confused at all. It has been purposefully racist from the beginning. I think the real problem here is that you have some superficial understanding and definition of what racism is as if only people who are Klan members yelling 'White power' are the only acceptable examples of racism.

If we are talking about anti-immigrant nationalism, then why aren't British, French, German, Irish, Italian, or Russian immigrants harassed regarding their status as immigrants? Likely because it isn't about nationality at all and it has to do with ethnic minorities. When you made the distinction between Mexicans and other Latino nationalities to distinguish between who's problematic and who's not you only further emphasize that it's not really about nationality at all, but rather that one particular nationality represents a very large demographic (ethnic) shift which is threatening because it represents a possible shift in political power. So if nationalists are so concerned with immigration across the board, then why is it only Mexicans and Muslims who we're really speaking about?

It's not a consistent argument and never has been. It's a "No True Scotsman" fallacious argument to justify racist and prejudicial behavior. Why is it that you think nationalism isn't inherently racist? What does its views accomplish other than the political oppression of minorities or promulgating the fallacious view that foreigners are inherently more violent or dangerous than our domestic population?
 
What sort of excuse is this? Should I start talking down to you like a child now because you seem to think it okay to treat others differently depending on your opinion of them? We're talking about adults here, not children.

Hmm, I wasn't expecting you to actually make that argument. Your actions indicated that you didn't understand that concept.

Quote Originally Posted by Grayman View Post
Are you just giving me 'your' perception of Trump or an actual perception of who Trump is, backed by actual evidence to support it?

You treated your view as if it was something that Trump IS going to do because you couldn't think up of another possible way that Trump might handle the issue. That is one giant assumption. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform This is what he actually says. I don't demand that you provide evidence I just am not going to be able to understand you claims or have a conversation with you if you choose to withold it when I say that I might need it when trying to understand your position. ...unless you just want to shout opinions at each other and not try to obtain a new point of view as a result of this discussion. Presenting me with evidence isn't a demand on my part. I am offering you an opportunity to change my mind.


This is the problem, in that, it's not being confused at all. It has been purposefully racist from the beginning. I think the real problem here is that you have some superficial understanding and definition of what racism is as if only people who are Klan members yelling 'White power' are the only acceptable examples of racism.
You don't appear to have an understanding of my understanding...

If we are talking about anti-immigrant nationalism, then why aren't British, French, German, Irish, Italian, or Russian immigrants harassed regarding their status as immigrants? Likely because it isn't about nationality at all and it has to do with ethnic minorities. When you made the distinction between Mexicans and other Latino nationalities to distinguish between who's problematic and who's not you only further emphasize that it's not really about nationality at all, but rather that one particular nationality represents a very large demographic (ethnic) shift which is threatening because it represents a possible shift in political power. So if nationalists are so concerned with immigration across the board, then why is it only Mexicans and Muslims who we're really speaking about?
I am glad you summed this up so eloquently. It is a really good argument against my claim. Let me answer this along with your last 'quoted' below.


It's not a consistent argument and never has been. It's a "No True Scotsman" fallacious argument to justify racist and prejudicial behavior. Why is it that you think nationalism isn't inherently racist? What does its views accomplish other than the political oppression of minorities or promulgating the fallacious view that foreigners are inherently more violent or dangerous than our domestic population?

It is easy to distinguish between immigrants and citizens. Are you arguing that all nationalism ends in extremist views like that of Nazism? I would argue that people who are supremacists would be attracted to nationalism but nationalism does not necessarily lead to racism. That is like saying all Muslims American, Middle Eastern, Sunni, and Shi'ite are going to bomb and murder people for their religion because their religion is inherently evil.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

This is Trumps immigration policy. The reason there is so much focus on mexicans is because of this... http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000845 (Mexico illegal immigration = 6,720,000 in 2012) (Next in line is El Salvador = 690,000 in 2012)

If you are not focusing on mexico than you are ignoring the largest problem we have in regards to illegal immigration. That is why he focuses on a wall. Outside of building the wall the rest of the reforms are focused on all immigration and that includes immigration from Europe. I must also add that we already have a wall built between us and most other countries. Mexico and Canada are the only places to build walls. People coming in from Canada illegally really isn't a very large issue especially while they are economically better off than we are.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/video-resurfaces-donald-trumps-views-on-the-muslim-problem-whoa/
Of course there is a lot of religious and ethnic discrimination in regards to people who look or of the muslim faith which has been elevated since 9/11. I have a lot of research to do in this area so I am not commenting on that just yet. http://www.examiner.com/article/as-muslim-population-grows-what-can-happen-to-a-society

In Trumps view next to Mexico outside Muslims represent the greatest security risk to our nation. Is this true or is it ignorance or ignorance chosen to support a racist agenda? It is a common republican view.
 
Last edited:
You treated your view as if it was something that Trump IS going to do because you couldn't think up of another possible way that Trump might handle the issue. That is one giant assumption.

Is it an assumption on my part to consider the outcome of 2+2 as only being a singular answer? Given that I have to assume certain axioms, sure. Those assumptions lead to only one possible solution though. I never said I assumed Trump would follow through with any of his proposals (I don't believe them to be possible). What I said was that his proposals and his rhetoric was inherently racist.

It is easy to distinguish between immigrants and citizens. Are you arguing that all nationalism ends in extremist views like that of Nazism? I would argue that people who are supremacists would be attracted to nationalism but nationalism does not necessarily lead to racism. That is like saying all Muslims American, Middle Eastern, Sunni, and Shi'ite are going to bomb and murder people for their religion because their religion is inherently evil.

No, it is not easy to distinguish between immigrants and citizens. In theory it is because it's simply paperwork, but that's not how reality works. As I pointed out earlier, police have to have reasonable cause to detain or search people. Have you ever heard of a police investigation (not initiated internally or by some regulatory or oversight committee) that uncovered white collar or corporate crime? It's not very likely because it requires investigation into paperwork which is easily concealed and isn't necessarily indicative of any crime being committed. It is sometimes the plot of some great detective story, but how often does it take place in real life if ever? Losing your paperwork is also not a criminal offense. Regulatory agencies have to be tasked with maintaining these records.

Everything he's proposed in his plan amounts to scapegoating and fear-mongering and it will ultimately hurt the economy, not improve it. Do you understand what makes an economy healthy or not? Do you think a national deficit works the same way as an individual debt? Trump is an idiot and a failure as far as business acumen goes. The only reason he isn't broke yet is simply because of how rich he is. He has been hemorrhaging money his entire life. Who the fuck thinks a personal action figure is a good fucking business idea?

[video=youtube;vvPh9I_jwBo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvPh9I_jwBo[/video]

He's appealing to the poor and uneducated Americans and they forget that he is a billionaire that does not give a flying fuck about them and is only concerned with his own personal wealth. How badly do you think he was hurt during the economic recession? He currently refuses to release his tax information and he's being sued for fraud in his failed Trump university scam.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...s-delegates-should-abstain-if-he-wont-release

That anyone thinks this moron is capable of accomplishing anything is utterly beyond comprehension to me.
 
Is it an assumption on my part to consider the outcome of 2+2 as only being a singular answer? Given that I have to assume certain axioms, sure. Those assumptions lead to only one possible solution though. I never said I assumed Trump would follow through with any of his proposals (I don't believe them to be possible). What I said was that his proposals and his rhetoric was inherently racist.
When did he propose what you suggested or anything that can be interpreted that way? Did you read his website I linked?

Do you understand what makes an economy healthy or not? Do you think a national deficit works the same way as an individual debt?

That is more of a republican view than a Trump view. While the debt is concerning, Trump has focused on what keeps a country economically sustainably strong, Industry and corporations. He isn't sacrificing the paycheck of workers in order to achieve it, like hardcore republicans would do, he is making our country attractive to corporations and industry by reducing extra tax like the corporate tax which is a pure tax on business while forcing those who get money from the corporations as income to pay up. He is also talking about taxing companies who go overseas and then make the product and sell it back to us causing us to lose jobs. Regulating immigration also will increase jobs. Overall the best way to better the economy is to create more jobs. When companies have a hard time filling jobs there will be increases pay naturally through supply and demand. Labor is not exempt from supply and demand. The more money that people have the more they spend and the better companies will do assuming the money is spent in ways that benefited local companies and not overseas companies like it currently does with cheap foreign goods. There used to be an american pride in american products this also made local companies stronger. We have lost some of that pride but some still recognize the importance of supporting our country by buying american. http://www.ibuyamericanstore.com/

No, it is not easy to distinguish between immigrants and citizens. In theory it is because it's simply paperwork, but that's not how reality works. As I pointed out earlier, police have to have reasonable cause to detain or search people. Have you ever heard of a police investigation (not initiated internally or by some regulatory or oversight committee) that uncovered white collar or corporate crime? It's not very likely because it requires investigation into paperwork which is easily concealed and isn't necessarily indicative of any crime being committed. It is sometimes the plot of some great detective story, but how often does it take place in real life if ever? Losing your paperwork is also not a criminal offense. Regulatory agencies have to be tasked with maintaining these records.

Trump seems to support an alternate method of granting citizenship than the US currently has. The USA and Canada are the only one who give citizenship to tourists and illegal aliens. https://www.numbersusa.com/content/.../nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html
Citizenship would be given through you parents or earned through naturalization where a person can prove themselves capable of following the laws and holding a job or serve in the military.

Who the fuck thinks a personal action figure is a good fucking business idea?
lol
Amazon has good ratings on this doll. It is sold at a crazy price too! What really gets me is how his antics actually work.

That anyone thinks this moron is capable of accomplishing anything is utterly beyond comprehension to me.
Well his ability to handle presidency is a different topic than racism but it isn't as if I was ever on topic in the first place. I have had my own concerns in this as well.
 
Last edited:
When did he propose what you suggested or anything that can be interpreted that way? Did you read his website I linked?

All of his demagoguery has been racist and been nothing but scapegoating immigrants for crime (explicitly) and a weakened economy (implicitly) of which neither are demonstrably true. I've already stated how his statements are reflective of policies that already occur today as examples of systemic racism.

That is more of a republican view than a Trump view. While the debt is concerning, Trump has focused on what keeps a country economically sustainably strong, Industry and corporations. While he isn't sacrificing the paycheck of workers in order to achieve it, like hardcore republicans would do, he is making our country attractive to corporations and industry by reducing extra tax like the corporate tax which is a pure tax on business while forcing those who get money from the corporations as income to pay up. He is also talking about taxing companies who go overseas and then make the product and sell it back to us causing us to lose jobs. Regulating immigration also will increase jobs. Overall the best way to better the economy is to create more jobs. When companies have a hard time filling jobs there will be increases pay naturally through supply and demand. Labor is not exempt from supply and demand.

Illegal immigrants hold jobs and are consumers in our economy. It would be a net loss overall and would weaken our economy. These are not likely to be filled by legal citizens as they are typically underpaid and taken advantage of because of their legal status they have no legal protections.

It would benefit some people by implementing systemically racist policies designed to profit from human trafficking. I suppose since the nation is losing the war on drugs scam and slowly moving towards decriminalization, our worldwide leading position in the incarceration and institutionalized slavery of the poor needs a new source to feed to it. Either way, we take advantage of them and then accuse them of leaching off the system.

The naturalization process itself has historically been systemically oppressive as well by being extremely difficult, long, and drawn out.

The U.S. agriculture industry, which depends heavily on low-skilled workers, is experiencing a dearth of qualified available authorized workers, according to a recent White House report. Making immigration easier for such workers would be economically beneficial to the U.S., the report argues.

http://www.ibtimes.com/immigration-...us-citizen-play-game-interactive-game-1370721

I posted a link already on the idiocy of his foreign trade policies. Nothing he has proposed has been perceived by anyone knowledgeable to be true or effective proposals. It's idiocy, plain and simple.
 
Not that I care but this seems to have gotten a bit off topic. This thread is about the harpy and her lies concerning national security affairs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
This is why I doubt any jail time.


DOJ employees donate over $70K to Clinton campaign

Citizens United has uncovered the fact that Department of Justice employees have given over $70,000 to Hillary Clinton's campaign for President, making our Justice Department hardly impartial or blind.
In fact, the DOJ will be responsible for determining what happens if the FBI finds Clinton acted criminally with her private, secret email server.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

Everyone has forgotten about this one, the media never mentions it. 22 million e-mail mysteriously vanished. The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee for various communications of unknown content or purpose.

There was no accountability for this and there won't be for Hillary either. http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the..._the_media_has_conveniently_forgotten_partner

"Looking back, it’s curious how the D.C. scandal machine could barely get out of first gear when the Bush email story broke in 2007. I’m not suggesting the press ignored the Rove email debacle, because the story was clearly covered at the time. But triggering a firestorm (a guttural roar) that raged for days and consumed the Beltway chattering class the way the D.C. media has become obsessed with the Clinton email story? Absolutely not. Not even close."

Liberal media? I don't think so
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

Everyone has forgotten about this one, the media never mentions it. 22 million e-mail mysteriously vanished. The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee for various communications of unknown content or purpose.

There was no accountability for this and there won't be for Hillary either. http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the..._the_media_has_conveniently_forgotten_partner

"Looking back, it’s curious how the D.C. scandal machine could barely get out of first gear when the Bush email story broke in 2007. I’m not suggesting the press ignored the Rove email debacle, because the story was clearly covered at the time. But triggering a firestorm (a guttural roar) that raged for days and consumed the Beltway chattering class the way the D.C. media has become obsessed with the Clinton email story? Absolutely not. Not even close."

Liberal media? I don't think so

Yeah, I brought that up once before.
(prepare for it to be dismissed by the OP)
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

Everyone has forgotten about this one, the media never mentions it. 22 million e-mail mysteriously vanished. The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee for various communications of unknown content or purpose.

There was no accountability for this and there won't be for Hillary either. http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the..._the_media_has_conveniently_forgotten_partner

"Looking back, it’s curious how the D.C. scandal machine could barely get out of first gear when the Bush email story broke in 2007. I’m not suggesting the press ignored the Rove email debacle, because the story was clearly covered at the time. But triggering a firestorm (a guttural roar) that raged for days and consumed the Beltway chattering class the way the D.C. media has become obsessed with the Clinton email story? Absolutely not. Not even close."

Liberal media? I don't think so

I remember this, and yep there are some big similarities. But the differences are considerable too:
1. First of all, there’s the difference in who’s involved. So the Bush staff involved a group of government higher-ups (big deal was Rove, not the president or prospective president) who occasionally (not exclusively) used the e-mail for official business. Here we have Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state, who only used private email when conducting official government business.
2. Hillary is now running for president, so we are scrutinizing her judgement. Like will she jeoparidize national security? The Bush e-mail scandal was end of 2nd term and we weren't looking to elect involved officials for president.
3. The Bush e-mail scandal came up in context of the fact that the e-mail server was used to discuss the firings of 8 US attorneys. The scandal with Hillary is national security and potential breech of. Both camps violated the Hatch Act, but only Hillary potentially violated the the Espionage Act.
The Pinto Calls The Bottom line: The Bushes were stinkers too, but they are not running for president.
 
I remember this, and yep there are some big similarities. But the differences are considerable too:
1. First of all, there’s the difference in who’s involved. So the Bush staff involved a group of government higher-ups (big deal was Rove, not the president or prospective president) who occasionally (not exclusively) used the e-mail for official business. Here we have Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state, who only used private email when conducting official government business.
2. Hillary is now running for president, so we are scrutinizing her judgement. Like will she jeoparidize national security? The Bush e-mail scandal was end of 2nd term and we weren't looking to elect involved officials for president.
3. The Bush e-mail scandal came up in context of the fact that the e-mail server was used to discuss the firings of 8 US attorneys. The scandal with Hillary is national security and potential breech of. Both camps violated the Hatch Act, but only Hillary potentially violated the the Espionage Act.
The Pinto Calls The Bottom line: The Bushes were stinkers too, but they are not running for president.


Still, if we are talking about people who should go to prison for improper e-mail conduct, Carl Rove should be first in line.
 
Back
Top