2016 Election Thread Part Deux

[volbeast33]

Must be talking about the 3 bills she sponsored that were actually passed. They were major groundbreaking pieces of legislation I tell you.

pretty impressive lol

 

[hog88]

Earmarks were banned in November of 2012.

And was a great idea. NOT!

Not only has banning earmarks not made a dent in overall federal spending, a ban doesn’t even stop the same dollars from being appropriated — it just shifts the authority for allocating those dollars from Congress to federal agency bureaucrats. At a time when most Republicans are highly critical of the Obama administration and highly suspicious of the ability of this bureaucracy to function at even the most basic level, it is certainly odd that Congress would choose to eschew any of its ability to direct spending.

The Congressional Earmark Ban: the Real Bridge to Nowhere | Commentary

 

[BeecherVol]

The Affordable Care Act and the Patriot Act are two of the biggest, steamiest turds ever squeezed out of Washington.

Both of those sound like something people would want. Right? Just don't ask questions. K?

Exactly. The name is sold much more than what the actual bills do or don't do. "It sounds good..."

 

[AirVol]

Earmarks were banned in November of 2012.

Good lord, wake the F up Carlos. You cannot be so naive.

 

[hog88]

Good lord, wake the F up Carlos. You cannot be so naive.

He's a true believer.

 

[BeecherVol]

Good lord, wake the F up Carlos. You cannot be so naive.

That falls into the category of what Septic posted.

That "sounds good", it must be.

 

[mrorange211]

Must be talking about the 3 bills she sponsored that were actually passed. They were major groundbreaking pieces of legislation I tell you.

"During her eight years in the Senate, Hillary Clinton sponsored 10 bills that passed the chamber. The mean senator passes 1.4 bills a year, so Clinton’s 1.25 bills per year is approximately in line with the chamber average. Clinton successfully amended bills 67 times in her eight years in the Senate, coming to 8.4 a year while a Senator; the mean senator passed 7.4 amendments."

Source: Washington Post.

In reference to the three bills you cite, much like Jeb's claim when he made it, it goes further than that. Senators influence legislation in a variety of ways. She co-sponsored 74 bills in total during her tenure working with Republicans to pass bills from disaster relief to paycheck fairness.

 

[hog88]

"During her eight years in the Senate, Hillary Clinton sponsored 10 bills that passed the chamber. The mean senator passes 1.4 bills a year, so Clinton’s 1.25 bills per year is approximately in line with the chamber average. Clinton successfully amended bills 67 times in her eight years in the Senate, coming to 8.4 a year while a Senator; the mean senator passed 7.4 amendments."

Source: Washington Post.

In reference to the three bills you cite, much like Jeb's claim when he made it, it goes further than that. Senators influence legislation in a variety of ways. She co-sponsored 74 bills in total during her tenure working with Republicans to pass bills from disaster relief to paycheck fairness.

So you agree she has very little in the way of substantial legislation to show for her time in office?

 

[carlos86]

Good lord, wake the F up Carlos. You cannot be so naive.

Your calling me naive. Have you forgotten that your a Trump supporter.

 

[BeecherVol]

Its similar to saying "you can't have a private server" and then say, "Well, that must mean it doesn't happen."

 

[AirVol]

Your calling me naive. Have you forgotten that your a Trump supporter.

I sure as hell won't support her and the syndicate, obviously you are ok with her and her criminal ways.

Don't worry, you will still get your Gov't assistance under Trump.

 

[volbeast33]

Your calling me naive. Have you forgotten that your a Trump supporter.

This election is between someone that says pretty things and constantly BS up your ass and one that talks sh&t constantly but has no filter. I don't see why you think trump is so bad with what we are stuck with every year.

 

[AirVol]

This election is between someone that says pretty things and constantly BS up your ass and one that talks sh&t constantly but has no filter. I don't see why you think trump is so bad with what we are stuck with every year.

He gets free stuff.

 

[mrorange211]

So you agree she has very little in the way of substantial legislation to show for her time in office?

Yeah, I would overall agree with you about that. My thinking last night left me thinking about her ability to compromise. I don't think she would be as stubborn as our current president.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

It has been 258 Days since Crooked Hillary last held a press conference.

 

[volprof]

God man your posts are hilarious and ridiculous all at the same time. So Trump gives his opinion that the press shouldnt be able to say false things and you equate that to him essentially controlling the media. That would be effectively negating the first amendment. Which you said he couldnt do anything against. So which is it?

So, essentially what you're saying is that you don't understand the stated policies of the individual you're most likely about to elect.

Let me explain Trump to you, since you obviously don't get him.

When Dear Leader says the press shouldn't be able to say "false things" about him, he doesn't mean that the press shouldn't be able to say false things. He means that the press shouldn't be able to publish anything that portrays him "unfairly," in his opinion. In other words, the press should only be able to portray him in a good light, one he finds preferable. And if doing so involves the press lying, as it clearly would have to in order to make such a moron appear constantly good, then that is all the better as far as Trump is concerned.

 

[Hayezb]

So, essentially what you're saying is that you don't understand the stated policies of the individual you're most likely about to elect.

Let me explain Trump to you, since you obviously don't get him.

When Dear Leader says the press shouldn't be able to say "false things" about him, he doesn't mean that the press shouldn't be able to say false things. He means that the press shouldn't be able to publish anything that portrays him "unfairly," in his opinion. In other words, the press should only be able to portray him in a good light, one he finds preferable. And if doing so involves the press lying, as it clearly would have to in order to make such a moron appear constantly good, then that is all the better as far as Trump is concerned.

So you have no proof to back this claim up. Literally nothing. Just how you interpret him saying "false things".

Know what we do have proof of? Hillary and the DNC controling most of the media.

Nice try.

 

[volprof]

Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort has resigned per Washington Post,

And soon about to be in federal handcuffs, unless his GRU handlers can somehow get him back to Russia.

I know they've pulled a lot of slick ones on us lately, but the Russian intelligence services were getting far too brazen when they funneled this guy to the Trump campaign. It was only a matter of time before his subterfuge was exposed, and it was.

 

[Silence Dogood]

Trump's new TV ad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mKzYPt0Bu4

 

[BeecherVol]

So, essentially what you're saying is that you don't understand the stated policies of the individual you're most likely about to elect.

Let me explain Trump to you, since you obviously don't get him.

When Dear Leader says the press shouldn't be able to say "false things" about him, he doesn't mean that the press shouldn't be able to say false things. He means that the press shouldn't be able to publish anything that portrays him "unfairly," in his opinion. In other words, the press should only be able to portray him in a good light, one he finds preferable. And if doing so involves the press lying, as it clearly would have to in order to make such a moron appear constantly good, then that is all the better as far as Trump is concerned.

Pretty much.
That applies to Clinton (in those rare cases where the MSM drops the water)as well and is standard politics in general really.

 

[volprof]

So you have no proof to back this claim up. Literally nothing. Just how you interpret him saying "false things".

Know what we do have proof of? Hillary and the DNC controling most of the media.

Nice try.

Spoken like a true Trumper. You want so hard to believe this guy is some sort of lottery ticket, for you and for America, you defy common sense and everything he has told you, directly.

Because a claim must be false to be libelous, truth is an absolute defense against libel. So, for instance, if I write that Donald Trump is a blazing jackass who has driven his companies into bankruptcy four times, mainly because he doesn’t know how to handle debt, Trump can’t do anything about that, because it is true. If I write that Trump is poorly positioned to take on Wall Street because he owes practically every bank on the street enormous sums of money, I’m golden, because it is true. If I write that Donald J. Trump is a lowlife who has cheated on his wives and betrayed his own family and the families of others through his remarkable personal commitment to adultery, Trump has no recourse, because this is true. If I write that the fact that Melania Trump was a client of Trump’s dopey little modeling agency strikes me as creepy indeed — I advocate the separation of sex and payroll — I’m on solid ground, because the facts of the case are not in dispute. If I write that you credulous yokels who believe that Trump is self-funding his presidential campaign have fallen for an obvious lie, I am protected by the fact that this is documented truth

Donald Trump: Libel It Is Not if It?s True | National Review

You probably even believe he is going to finally make all his stupid crap here in the US too once he is elected.

 

[Grand Vol]

So let me get this straight...

Paul Manifort resigns because of Ukrainian connections and is being vilified by the press.

Yet there is a pretty clear line between Hillary and the pay for play by allowing a Russian company to purchase a company that deals exclusively in uranium and the press is silent?

Have I got that right?

 

[hog88]

Yeah, I would overall agree with you about that. My thinking last night left me thinking about her ability to compromise. I don't think she would be as stubborn as our current president.

I remember her tantrums during the push for Hillarycare. There was no compromise on her part.

 

[hog88]

So let me get this straight...

Paul Manifort resigns because of Ukrainian connections and is being vilified by the press.

Yet there is a pretty clear line between Hillary and the pay for play by allowing a Russian company to purchase a company that deals exclusively in uranium and the press is silent?

Have I got that right?

You do. Pretty amazing isn't it?

 

[volprof]

So let me get this straight...

Paul Manifort resigns because of Ukrainian connections and is being vilified by the press.

Yet there is a pretty clear line between Hillary and the pay for play by allowing a Russian company to purchase a company that deals exclusively in uranium and the press is silent?

Have I got that right?

Although I imagine the Russians don't lack for nuclear grade material or for nuclear weapons, for that matter, it's still a principle issue - a matter of word and honor - that the press should take her to task for. Much more so than it has.

That being said, these two aren't really even analogous. One pits honor (again, Russians can get uranium anywhere) against the actual Russian penetration of an American presidential campaign and its attempt to influence an election.

I've read some statements from several conservative ex-intelligence community folks that have stated the same. The two, while upsetting and concerning, aren't really even comparable.

It's like comparing the actions of two dopey people, the Clintons, with those of the GRU and SVR.