The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
So do I, so here are some just in case you missed them:
As a consequence of his conduct in the Jones v. Clinton civil suit and before the federal grand jury, President Clinton incurred significant administrative sanctions. The Independent Counsel considered seven non-criminal alternative sanctions that were imposed in making his decision to decline prosecution:
(1) President Clinton’s admission of providing false testimony that was knowingly misleading, evasive, and prejudicial to the administration of justice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas;
(2) his acknowledgement that his conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Arkansas Supreme Court;
(3) the five-year suspension of his license to practice law and $25,000 fine imposed on him by the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas;
(4) the civil contempt penalty of more than $900,000 imposed on President Clinton by the federal court for violating its orders;
(5) the payment of more than $850,000 in settlement to Paula Jones;
(6) the express finding by the federal court that President Clinton had engaged in contemptuous conduct;
(7) the substantial public condemnation of President Clinton arising from his impeachment.
Seems like something stuck there. He also lost his AR law license, which he never got back, and would have been disbarred by the U.S. Supreme Court had he not surrendered on the last day before they were going to disbar him.
Last edited:
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Clinton got a BJ in the Oval Office. Monica Lewinski got some of it on her dress. That's old news. Clinton paid the fine and went on with his life.
He has done a lot of good with their foundation all over the world. Folks still think that he was a great president. Some things didn't go well, like all the black men that were incarcerated back in the 90s due to a bad law. He had good intentions at the time. That was definitely a negative.
He has done a lot of good with their foundation all over the world. Folks still think that he was a great president. Some things didn't go well, like all the black men that were incarcerated back in the 90s due to a bad law. He had good intentions at the time. That was definitely a negative.
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
Actually it was his testimony in Jones V Clinton that got him in trouble and it wasn't just fines, he LOST his license to practice law in AR and the U.S. Supreme Court.
And I am only bringing it up because someone said nothing ever stuck and I think that is untrue.
I never said he was a bad president or didn't do anything good.
Please remember when reading my posts that I am trying to bring a little balance to this partisan thread by pointing out when reality is being conveniently distorted or completely ignored. Some things I comment on, many I do not. I did make fun of Trump also since he deserves it. Non partisan intellectual honesty is a must if we are going to get anywhere with this discussion. Otherwise this thread is a waste of my time. I am participating here because I have not decided what to do and can still be swayed.
Last edited:
Bdubbdiblets
Well-Known Member
Well I do know that Bill is not running so you can rest easy there... regardless of what "stuck" (even on the dress)...
Bump...oops wrong thread. I am vaped tho
Bump...oops wrong thread. I am vaped tho
grokit
well-worn member
While hillary isn't the best bet to beat drumpf,
she's what we have to work with.
It's not hitler vs mussolini, more like hitler lite vs...
a slightly better/worse version of obama depending on the issue.
It will depend passion, which = turnout.
Bernie is right that drumpf must be stopped.
Bernie is always right.
she's what we have to work with.
It's not hitler vs mussolini, more like hitler lite vs...
a slightly better/worse version of obama depending on the issue.
It will depend passion, which = turnout.
Bernie is right that drumpf must be stopped.
Bernie is always right.
little maggie
Well-Known Member
And apparently he's ahead right now in the polls. I wonder how many misogynists who would never vote for a woman he is gathering.When I read about this kind of confidence, it reminds me of michael moore saying, "get out of your bubble!". I'm guessing you are safe and quite content in there, but many people are not, and there is revolution in the air. The gop just nominated the most revolting candidate they could find, because it's that kind of year.
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
This is absolutely true. Breaking the "Be Nice" rule is not a good idea and could result in this threads termination.
Silat
When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
Well he could have got the license back. He chose not to get it.
And I stick with my analysis.
But you go ahead and keep posting about his having sex and lying about it. Which I already stated.
How about this. Nothing of any consequence STUCK to the Clintons.
grokit
well-worn member
He is betting on men alright, many of those in the rust belt that have lost their jobs through trade deals and tax-breaks etc. Misogyny is in play, but it's really about all the high-wage jobs in swing states that are gone, and how emasculating that can be for the ex-wage earner that used to be able to provide for his family.
The "big con" about this is those jobs will never come back no matter what we do. This is because humans need not apply for manufacturing and many other kinds of jobs, starting a lot sooner than people expect; within a generation or two the robot revolution will have begun in earnest. Edited to ramble about it.
Last edited:
Silat
When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
It was interesting that bernie said hillary
"must be the next president",
and that he "was proud to stand with her".
But he never said "endorse"
Hillary or bust.
And many more statements made it very clear he supports Hillary and endorses her.
grokit
well-worn member
That's how they got howard dean to stop "causing trouble" for the establishment.
Another vermonter
Respectfully, that would certainly please the ONE participant that's doing the name calling.I'm letting you all know that anymore name calling will cause this thread to be shut down.
That participant no longer participates in this thread. So my message is for the rest of you.... just in case.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
This is an awesome article.
Trump's Appetite for Destruction: How Disastrous Convention Doomed GOP - Rolling Stone
Watching Sephen Colbert - Death, Taxes and Hillary
The Democratic National Convincing
Trump's Appetite for Destruction: How Disastrous Convention Doomed GOP - Rolling Stone
Watching Sephen Colbert - Death, Taxes and Hillary
The Democratic National Convincing
Last edited:
t-dub
Vapor Sloth
Yes with his AR license, after 5 years of suspension, but not his U.S. Supreme Court license.
That is not all that he did. He also obstructed justice by attempting to subvert the legal system. Here are 6 examples:
- During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.
- During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.
- President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.
- The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.
- President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.
- President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
Ah yes, the constant boos for anyone involved in the suppression of Sanders. Both parties are bleeding. It makes it more fun when you don't have a vested interest in either one 
You have to remember, the legal system is only applicable when adherents agree to the premise, whether or not it is factual. Just like the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot." It was a total farce, but the premise was dismissed because the adherents felt the cause was more important than facts.
You have to remember, the legal system is only applicable when adherents agree to the premise, whether or not it is factual. Just like the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot." It was a total farce, but the premise was dismissed because the adherents felt the cause was more important than facts.
Last edited:
gangababa
Well-Known Member
Not directly related to the Presidential campaign, but directly related to the subject of 'what does one know and how does one know it'.
In the Michael Brown story, "Hands up don't shoot" was reported immediately by objective witnesses.
It was later 'discredited' but not disproved by right-wing talking points repeated ad nauseum.
Why should the veracity of latter 'it didn't happen' witnesses be accepted as more more accurate than the immediate, pre-second guessed reactions of other witnesses?*
Watch the video here
"Two (white) construction workers say they could not believe their eyes when a police officer shot and killed an unarmed teenager whose "hands were up."
A recently unearthed video shows the contractors, who were near the shooting site in Ferguson, Mo., for work, reacting to 18-year-old Michael Browns death at the hands of Officer Darren Wilson about 50 feet away on Aug. 9.
"He had his f---ing hands up," one man says in the footage, as he holds his hands above his head."
*Answer: Because people and societies will always try to avoid truths that cast a bad light on one's own beliefs about the world. This goes as far as denying science, fact, tradition and wisdom.
In the Michael Brown story, "Hands up don't shoot" was reported immediately by objective witnesses.
It was later 'discredited' but not disproved by right-wing talking points repeated ad nauseum.
Why should the veracity of latter 'it didn't happen' witnesses be accepted as more more accurate than the immediate, pre-second guessed reactions of other witnesses?*
Watch the video here
"Two (white) construction workers say they could not believe their eyes when a police officer shot and killed an unarmed teenager whose "hands were up."
A recently unearthed video shows the contractors, who were near the shooting site in Ferguson, Mo., for work, reacting to 18-year-old Michael Browns death at the hands of Officer Darren Wilson about 50 feet away on Aug. 9.
"He had his f---ing hands up," one man says in the footage, as he holds his hands above his head."
*Answer: Because people and societies will always try to avoid truths that cast a bad light on one's own beliefs about the world. This goes as far as denying science, fact, tradition and wisdom.
Amoreena
Grown up Flower Child
The Rude Pundit
Proudly lowering the level of political discourse
7/25/2016
Trump, Russia, Clinton, Email, and the Great Cosmic Jokes of This Stupid, Stupid Election
"... one can only say: You know who will get hurt by a Trump presidency? Every fucking group you think you're defending with your purity. And don't fucking get upset when we say that not voting or voting for Stein or Johnson is as good as voting for Trump. It's as good as voting for Trump because Clinton is the only candidate who can beat him, and any vote not for her is a net gain for Trump, and that shit'll matter in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and elsewhere. And, yeah, fuck you if you think that voting for Clinton to stop Trump ain't enough of a reason. It is enough of a reason. It's always been, in every election, enough of a reason. Sorry, sunshine, that's the fuckery of democracy.
Fuck you for not knowing your history and not wanting to do everything you can to stop someone like Trump from ascending to the White House and appointing Supreme Court justices, which will fuck us all for the rest of our lives. You know who agrees with us and disagrees with you? Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren. Michael Moore. President Obama. And a fuck-ton of liberal writers (and a shitload of conservative writers, but fuck them where they stand anyways). ..."
I just quoted a tiny bit. The whole thing is worth reading if you're not planning to vote for Clinton, IMO.
Proudly lowering the level of political discourse
7/25/2016
Trump, Russia, Clinton, Email, and the Great Cosmic Jokes of This Stupid, Stupid Election
"... one can only say: You know who will get hurt by a Trump presidency? Every fucking group you think you're defending with your purity. And don't fucking get upset when we say that not voting or voting for Stein or Johnson is as good as voting for Trump. It's as good as voting for Trump because Clinton is the only candidate who can beat him, and any vote not for her is a net gain for Trump, and that shit'll matter in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and elsewhere. And, yeah, fuck you if you think that voting for Clinton to stop Trump ain't enough of a reason. It is enough of a reason. It's always been, in every election, enough of a reason. Sorry, sunshine, that's the fuckery of democracy.
Fuck you for not knowing your history and not wanting to do everything you can to stop someone like Trump from ascending to the White House and appointing Supreme Court justices, which will fuck us all for the rest of our lives. You know who agrees with us and disagrees with you? Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren. Michael Moore. President Obama. And a fuck-ton of liberal writers (and a shitload of conservative writers, but fuck them where they stand anyways). ..."
I just quoted a tiny bit. The whole thing is worth reading if you're not planning to vote for Clinton, IMO.
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
Except two independent autopsies proves this is impossible. There were also videos where people were in awe that he rushed the cop. I don't get my information from pundits but from source documents.
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
I may get a flag thrown for this play.......
Am I the only one that cringed when the undocumented folks spoke? It hurt my heart to hear their speeches but didn't these folks out themselves and place themselves in the very danger they have been avoiding for so many years? Maybe not...see below. It gave the Trumpeteers plenty of ammunition though. You can safely bet that the repubs will be screaming 'It's against the law and the democrats/Hillary are all for harboring people who are here illegally'.
*----*
The spouses and children of U.S. lawful permanent residents (green card holders) who have filed a visa petition for them to immigrate. Because of annual limits on visas, these spouses and children may be on a waiting list, with no current right to be in the United States. But some have come to the U.S. anyway, unwilling to be separated from their family, or unclear on the law. And if they are covered by an old law called Section 245(i), they’re better off staying in the U.S. than leaving, because leaving could expose them to a bar on reentry (as described in “Consequences of Unlawful Presence in the U.S. -- Three- and Ten-Year Time Bars”), whereas staying will allow them to "adjust status," or submit their green card application with their local USCIS office. The immigration enforcement authorities deliberately make no effort to remove such family members from the United States.
What's more, under a policy called “prosecutorial discretion,” various immigrants, such as students and those with close family members in the U.S., are supposed to be largely left alone by the immigration authorities, so that the authorities can concentrate on immigrants who are criminals or otherwise a risk to U.S. society. Some of these immigrants may actually be granted a sort of limbo status called "deferred action," and in some cases a work permit. See, for example, Nolo's articles on “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)” and “How ICE Policy of Prosecutorial Discretion May Help Gay or Lesbian Partners of U.S. Citizens.”
Another gray area is people fleeing persecution, and planning to apply for asylum in the United States. Particularly if they are being sought for persecution by their own government, or unable to make direct contact with a refugee agency, their only choice for U.S. entry may be to come illegally. During the time that they are preparing an application for asylum, they have no actual right to be in the U.S. – but then again, if they are caught and placed in removal proceedings, they are allowed to claim asylum at that point, and may very well be approved for asylum (and one year later, eligible for a green card).
*----*
Hopefully the undocumented families that spoke will fit in the grey areas above and will not be harmed.
Am I the only one that cringed when the undocumented folks spoke? It hurt my heart to hear their speeches but didn't these folks out themselves and place themselves in the very danger they have been avoiding for so many years? Maybe not...see below. It gave the Trumpeteers plenty of ammunition though. You can safely bet that the repubs will be screaming 'It's against the law and the democrats/Hillary are all for harboring people who are here illegally'.
*----*
The spouses and children of U.S. lawful permanent residents (green card holders) who have filed a visa petition for them to immigrate. Because of annual limits on visas, these spouses and children may be on a waiting list, with no current right to be in the United States. But some have come to the U.S. anyway, unwilling to be separated from their family, or unclear on the law. And if they are covered by an old law called Section 245(i), they’re better off staying in the U.S. than leaving, because leaving could expose them to a bar on reentry (as described in “Consequences of Unlawful Presence in the U.S. -- Three- and Ten-Year Time Bars”), whereas staying will allow them to "adjust status," or submit their green card application with their local USCIS office. The immigration enforcement authorities deliberately make no effort to remove such family members from the United States.
What's more, under a policy called “prosecutorial discretion,” various immigrants, such as students and those with close family members in the U.S., are supposed to be largely left alone by the immigration authorities, so that the authorities can concentrate on immigrants who are criminals or otherwise a risk to U.S. society. Some of these immigrants may actually be granted a sort of limbo status called "deferred action," and in some cases a work permit. See, for example, Nolo's articles on “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)” and “How ICE Policy of Prosecutorial Discretion May Help Gay or Lesbian Partners of U.S. Citizens.”
Another gray area is people fleeing persecution, and planning to apply for asylum in the United States. Particularly if they are being sought for persecution by their own government, or unable to make direct contact with a refugee agency, their only choice for U.S. entry may be to come illegally. During the time that they are preparing an application for asylum, they have no actual right to be in the U.S. – but then again, if they are caught and placed in removal proceedings, they are allowed to claim asylum at that point, and may very well be approved for asylum (and one year later, eligible for a green card).
*----*
Hopefully the undocumented families that spoke will fit in the grey areas above and will not be harmed.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Why don't you start a new thread with your cop shooting information and aggravation?
Edit FYI
DONALD TRUMP is a man of ideas. Although critics have lambasted him for flip-flopping on some policies (he now proposes to ban immigrants from "terrorist nations" rather than all Muslims), Mr Trump has stood firm on at least one proposal: his wall. A new report from Bernstein Research looks at the economics of the wall's construction.
The border between the United States and Mexico stretches 1,989 miles (3,200km), but the wall itself needn’t be as long thanks to the preponderance of natural borders such as the Rio Grande. Assuming a length of 1,000 miles and a height of 40 feet (12 metres), Bernstein reckon that the wall would require $711m worth of concrete and $240m worth of cement. Including labour, the total cost of between $15 billion and $25 billion is a bit more than Mr Trump's suggested $10 billion. (Bernstein’s estimates presumably do not factor in Mr Trump’s construction expertise.)
As it is not economically feasible to transport cement and concrete across great distances, the biggest business beneficiaries will likely be within 200 miles of the border. America has many more factories and quarries than Mexico, yet Mr Trump is adamant that the wall will be built with Mexican money. Cemex, a Mexican firm with around half the quarries close to the border, is likely to profit. At least some will benefit from the wall’s construction.
Last edited:
neverforget711
Well-Known Member
Pandering is of course what they offer, yet that was heavy-handed. It absolutely will polarize against their cause to anyone that is not a repeat shopper. I remember in elementary school in the 90s, we had the sweetest elderly hispanic teacher aide, she was an alien and was not bothered with being denoted as one. Given my age at the time, I immediately thought she was talking outer-space to have her correct me. I really don't see why we have to say a stout shovel is not a spade, undocumented? more like undeported.