So Trump describes jobs leaving the US faster than Grant took Richmond. Seriously why would he makes a negative reference to the union winning the civil war?
So Trump describes jobs leaving the US faster than Grant took Richmond. Seriously why would he makes a negative reference to the union winning the civil war?
I think the most disturbing thing Trump said in his Arizona speech was "To keep immigration levels, measured by population share, within historical norms."
Measured by population share of what?? Race? If 28% of the US is non-white, then only 28% of immigrants can be non-white? Religion? If 1% of the US is Muslim, only 1% of immigrants can be Muslim? Extreme vetting? If 40% of people hold the value that same sex marriage should be illegal then 40% of immigrants should share that value?
And then after his Arizona speech he said there'll be "quite a bit of softening", and people on his campaign refuse to say what will happen to illegals that aren't criminals.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Confidential is one type of classified designation c=confidential, s=secret, and ts=top secret.
Trump wasn't really wrong.
The more and more I read, the less problem I have with any of the email stuff
There really isn't much of an issue here. I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe their is a dissemination issue and I'm confident in saying that is why the FBI hasn't done anything against Clinton. The vast majority of people that work in government struggle with data classification and handling regulations, so it is not surprising this has been a confusing issue.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
I think the most disturbing thing Trump said in his Arizona speech was "To keep immigration levels, measured by population share, within historical norms."
Measured by population share of what?? Race? If 28% of the US is non-white, then only 28% of immigrants can be non-white? Religion? If 1% of the US is Muslim, only 1% of immigrants can be Muslim? Extreme vetting? If 40% of people hold the value that same sex marriage should be illegal then 40% of immigrants should share that value?
And then after his Arizona speech he said there'll be "quite a bit of softening", and people on his campaign refuse to say what will happen to illegals that aren't criminals.
He means share of the total population. Immigrant population as a share of the total is a number that's increasing, though not historically high (higher in the late 19th/early 20th century). What is at historical highs is the number of immigrants, though that should be obvious based on total population also being historically high.
Some facts that kind of destroy Trump's platform:
1) overwhelming evidence that immigrants in general commit far less crime than the native population and contribute positively from an economic standpoint. In fact, due to very low birth rates, they're would be catastrophic economic challenges if immigration stopped or slowed significantly. The US needs immigrants badly.
2) more illegal immigrants left the country from 2009-2014 than came in. The problem is fixing itself for the most part.
3) The "failing Obama administration" already tripled the number of border agents over the last few years and his plan is to aggressively deport criminal illegal aliens.
4) his new problem with visa overstays is actually a Canadian problem as we are responsible for more than double what any other nationality is. I guess we're illegals now
Confidential is one type of classified designation c=confidential, s=secret, and ts=top secret.
Trump wasn't really wrong.
The more and more I read, the less problem I have with any of the email stuff
Everyday I see smart people who have been trained over and over again put export controlled data in e-mails when they shouldn't be or talk about intellectual property etc. it's technically breaking our company rules and even federal law but it happens through honest mistake. It isn't a huge deal unless there is a strong intent. By the same token there likely isn't a person on the hill who hasn't mishandled information.
The Following User Says Thank You to ernie For This Useful Post:
Everyday I see smart people who have been trained over and over again put export controlled data in e-mails when they shouldn't be or talk about intellectual property etc. it's technically breaking our company rules and even federal law but it happens through honest mistake. It isn't a huge deal unless there is a strong intent. By the same token there likely isn't a person on the hill who hasn't mishandled information.
The reasons for my diminishing concern are the following:
1) There were 60,000+ emails gone through at this point from over the 4 years she was Secretary of State. That's an average over 40 per day, 365 days per year. Not sure how you're gonna bat 100% here or even be confident in all of the contents of those emails. Most of us skim for the important bits. I'm sure she did the same.
2) There were 3 emails with marked confidential information (lowest form of classified info) that the FBI conceded posed zero danger (one was a quotation from a newspaper article). That's 0.005% of them. The others containing classified info were not tagged as classified at the time of sending/receiving
3) The 3 emails that did have classified markings, were not labeled of flagged in the normal spots (subject field and headers). There was merely a "c" designation in the body of the email. That's a pretty easy oversight to understand
4) While she used private servers for work related emails so has every Secretary of State since emails started existing. While this is against department policy, it isn't against the law. Retention laws were followed
5) Records were destroyed by physically demolishing computers, because isn't that how you destroy them??????
Seems more and more like a scandal about a scandal that would appear scandalish, but with nothing actually done wrong
Seems more and more like a scandal about a scandal that would appear scandalish, but with nothing actually done wrong
This is a feeling I've been having during this election cycle in general. The more I learn about the "scandals" around Clinton, the less problematic she seems.
And meanwhile nothing sticks to Trump. The media seems to want a horse race so when Bill gets on an airplane to talk to someone people lose their minds but when Trump actually makes a real illegal contribution to an attorney general's PAC who immediately shuts down an investigation into Trump's Scamiversity it barely registers in the media.
The media go on and on for months about the Foundation (without actually reporting anything real, just 'raising questions' to imply corruption) but anything Trump does disappears within days because within days there's something new to talk about for Trump. So in a weird way that makes Clinton look more corrupt!
I guess Trump's succeeded in framing Clinton.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
And meanwhile nothing sticks to Trump. The media seems to want a horse race so when Bill gets on an airplane to talk to someone people lose their minds but when Trump actually makes a real illegal contribution to an attorney general's PAC who immediately shuts down an investigation into Trump's Scamiversity it barely registers in the media.
The media go on and on for months about the Foundation (without actually reporting anything real, just 'raising questions' to imply corruption) but anything Trump does disappears within days because within days there's something new to talk about for Trump. So in a weird way that makes Clinton look more corrupt!
I guess Trump's succeeded in framing Clinton.
It's almost better sometimes to have a big obvious scandal that you can get in front of an own because then people forget about it. With this email thing, Clinton is damned either way. If they get out and own it, it will give it way more validity than it deserves, but if they ignore it, people won't stop talking about it.
Trump has said and done some really stupid things, but most of them just get swept under the rug because it has become par for the course. By the time election time comes around, people will have been inundated with so much Trump stupidity, that the specifics will be lost. But with Clinton, they will remember that one specific scandal because it has been consistently harped on for the whole race.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Clinton camp is partly to blame for that though. They have been very quiet over the past few weeks, but it is now clear that she can't just play out the sting and ride Trump's unfavourable ratings to the White House. They need to have their surrogates out there on the offensive every day, and I don't know why they don't.
Trump University is the obvious choice to hammer Trump on. Can directly link him to corruption, shows he's a fraudulent huckster, ruined many people's lives. But I agree the media is desperate for a horse race (primarily because ad buys have to be significantly down at this point), and will continue to ignore Trump to focus on Hillary. Of course it's all mostly meaningless, the debates will be everything. Ideally the media re-adjusts their expectations by that point and doesn't hand Trump a debate win just because he didn't say Hillary was on her period.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Well generally speaking the only event in the last two months that has any significant impact on the polls are the debates. This cycle is probably not going to be any different, I don't think Wikileaks has anything meaningful that could hurt Hillary, if they did when they released it would be irrelevant, if it was catastrophic they could release it now and it'd be the end for her. So whatever October surprise they have will probably be a dud. Maybe we see something else negative against Trump, but it's unlikely to swing voters away from him seeing as he's basically held 700 different positions in the last couple weeks and it's had almost no effect.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The one thing that could really really hurt Trump would be his tax returns. But he won't release anything until after the election. So if he does indeed win people will find out after how badly they've been duped.
The Clinton camp is partly to blame for that though. They have been very quiet over the past few weeks, but it is now clear that she can't just play out the sting and ride Trump's unfavourable ratings to the White House. They need to have their surrogates out there on the offensive every day, and I don't know why they don't.
It's not Clinton's fault that Trump has been asked exactly once about his birther claims. He's been asked exactly once about the Bondi donation, zero times about his mob ties, and I have yet to hear him explain how he got away with it in Texas. Nobody is asking about his bankruptcies, 3500 lawsuits he's been involved in. Many federal investigations. Who has asked him about raping Ivana when they were married?
Not only did Trump Foundation donate to Bondi while she was running for reelection as Florida's attorney general while looking into charges for fraud from Trump university. What hasn't even been discussed is Trump's original explanation. If everything was on the up and up, why did they insist they donated the money to the organization they listed on his irs paperwork? They wrote "Justice for All" on the paperwork which is a charity in Utah trying to stop abortions. They flatly deny receiving $25,000. You know who did receive that much? Pam Bondi's reelection captain called And Justice For All. Pam Bondi stated she decided not proceed with the lawsuit as no complaints about the university were bright forward except the original one. She clearly lied as there are 8491 documents in her office (obtained by journalists) outlining literally dozens of complaints and she knew about them.
It's mind blowing how that's Clinton's fault
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
^^I honestly don't see what could hurt him in the tax returns, unless he is deep into the Russians. Otherwise the fact he pays almost no tax won't hurt him, neither will the fact he isn't as rich as he says (most people don't believe him on this one anyway), or that he stiffs charity when he says he gives big. His supporters don't care, and really most other people won't bat an eye at that stuff because they already think very little of him.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
