IG Horowitz report on Clinton email due soon

[DaysOff 7851]

You're a drama queen idiot.

[Sawbonz 27424]

The most amazing part of that is how they got Hillary the democratic nomination

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This IG report is a pretty good trial run for how the Mueller findings will go in the court of public opinion.  If the Trump people can’t accept this IG report as fact, then there’s no use trying to persuade them to accept Mueller’s findings.  

Politics is politics. Regardless of the allegation, your side is always being screwed by the other side. IT'S THE REFS FAULT WE LOST!

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[GW Hayduke 1952]

38 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Because the other side doesn't have the intellectual capacity to troll a bait line.

Wrong. The right doesn’t troll because the left are dumb. That makes no sense. The right trolls because they are dishonest, lack values, and are consistently in weak positions. If they were honest and had values, the right would modify their positions, rather than having to troll

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

Yes, more humility would have helped, but that's not her strong suit and part of what makes her a poor elective candidate. I think she said that the server had been checked or set up by the Secret Service.

"The server was set up by the Secret Service so I, wrongly, assumed it was secure to the standards of the State Department. That was a mistake on my part which will be corrected going forward. Frankly, I'm glad the mistake was discovered and I thank the security people who did so."

 

Yeah, then she sent it out to un authorized third party people, and lied about what she was storing on it...  So there's that...  

The only reason it came to light was during the Benghazzi hearings I believe, So it was her Waterloo it turns out, it was just a delayed reaction. I'm sure she was laughing about how they didn't get shit on her at the time.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

Wrong. The right doesn’t troll because the left are dumb. That makes no sense. The right trolls because they are dishonest, lack values, and are consistently in weak positions. If they were honest and had values, the right would modify their positions, rather than having to troll

I'll just bet you think The Wizard Of Oz is a true story....

[David Dennison 18655]

12 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah, then she sent it out to un authorized third party people, and lied about what she was storing on it...  So there's that...  

The only reason it came to light was during the Benghazzi hearings I believe, So it was her Waterloo it turns out, it was just a delayed reaction. I'm sure she was laughing about how they didn't get shit on her at the time.

Who did she lie to?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

If she had kept only private communications on the server she would have been fine. It was the commingling that was the problem. And again she was given the benefit of the doubt on intent, but she paid a huge price politically. I actually think she would have been better off taking a deal on some misdemeanor and apologizing for not better understanding the rules rather than letting it play out like it did

 

 

She deleted 30k plus emails after she knew there was an issue.  I guess we just have to trust her they were all about yoga and Chelsea’s wedding.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

Wrong. The right doesn’t troll because the left are dumb. That makes no sense. The right trolls because they are dishonest, lack values, and are consistently in weak positions. If they were honest and had values, the right would modify their positions, rather than having to troll

Sounds like the left is good and honorable and the right is evil.  

[jimmyjazz 45555]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Sounds like the left is good and honorable and the right is evil.  

Pretty much these days.

[David Dennison 18655]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

She deleted 30k plus emails after she knew there was an issue.  I guess we just have to trust her they were all about yoga and Chelsea’s wedding.  

From a practical standpoint, how did these emails get deleted?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Pretty much these days.

Oh, you silly bastard. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, David Dennison said:

From a practical standpoint, how did these emails get deleted?

They were wiped. With a cloth. 

[David Dennison 18655]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

They were wiped. With a cloth. 

Be serious for a second and address the question. How did those 30,000 emails get deleted?

[BabaYaga 15211]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

She deleted 30k plus emails after she knew there was an issue.  I guess we just have to trust her they were all about yoga and Chelsea’s wedding.  

Her graveyard of dirt on anyone and everyone entrapped in her "Foundation" pay-to-play scheme.  Of course, had I defied a federal subpoena....I'm sure I'd face no repercussions either.  Some animals are in fact more equal than other.  

[jimmyjazz 45555]

 

18 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Her graveyard of dirt on anyone and everyone entrapped in her "Foundation" pay-to-play scheme.  Of course, had I defied a federal subpoena....I'm sure I'd face no repercussions either.  Some animals are in fact more equal than other.  

Why did you put Foundation in quotes?

[Brisketexan 104598]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

 

Why did you put Foundation in quotes?

He thought he was talking about the Trump foundation?  You know, the one for which there is clear evidence that it funded campaign activities on behalf of the associated candidate?  I mean, that sure seems like an actual, verified illegality regarding the use of a "foundation," so that would be a good time to use the quotes.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Question for the hardcore Hillary haters -- what do you think was on those 30,000 emails that has y'all in such swivet? Her sending out cackling messages about all the people she's whacked over the years? Do you think she had a file called "Hill's Plot For World Domination and Giggling Over Past Murders" on her desktop?

[RomaVicta 29783]

57 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The only reason it came to light was during the Benghazzi hearings I believe

A proud moment for your team. Pride all drained away now that it's not Ebil Hildabeast the lesbian who murdered her male lover and giggled while terrorists slaughtered Americans in Libya?

You'll use anything to attack the ebil left and the ebil libs. Juden  Libs are ruining the fatherland! Round them up by whatever means! Our lives and beloved country relies upon us in these dire times when white men and Christianity are flickering into persecuted extinction!

[David Dennison 18655]

9 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Question for the hardcore Hillary haters -- what do you think was on those 30,000 emails that has y'all in such swivet? Her sending out cackling messages about all the people she's whacked over the years? Do you think she had a file called "Hill's Plot For World Domination and Giggling Over Past Murders" on her desktop?

I still want to know how they coordinated deleting 30,000 emails not just from Hillary's devices, but also from the devices of the every single sender/recipient.

Edited June 15, 2018 by David Dennison

[jimmyjazz 45555]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

He thought he was talking about the Trump foundation?  You know, the one for which there is clear evidence that it funded campaign activities on behalf of the associated candidate?  I mean, that sure seems like an actual, verified illegality regarding the use of a "foundation," so that would be a good time to use the quotes.

Whereas the "Clinton" "Foundation" performance has been verified by review of IRS filings for many years now, and always ends up with very high ratings.

[hobbes2702 12805]

3 hours ago, Tuco said:

This is my Congressman's Facebook post:

(Don Bacon - Freshman Republican, NE-02 which is a purplish district.)

I assume this is straight from the GOP talking points.  He's doesn't typically wade into this shit if he can avoid it.  I think Trump is gearing up to fire Mueller and I think the GOP is looking to back him on it. 

Fuck. Them. All.

They’ve been doing that since Mueller was appointed.

[Satchel 6908]

3 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Yes, more humility would have helped, but that's not her strong suit and part of what makes her a poor elective candidate. I think she said that the server had been checked or set up by the Secret Service.

"The server was set up by the Secret Service so I, wrongly, assumed it was secure to the standards of the State Department. That was a mistake on my part which will be corrected going forward. Frankly, I'm glad the mistake was discovered and I thank the security people who did so."

 

Then why is it nearly half of the nation swoons over Trump precisely because of his lack of humility?

[bolverk 29399]

On 6/14/2018 at 10:47 AM, Johnny Sack said:

The debt is a major problem.  I don't see a way out. 

 

I do. Tax rich assholes a lot more. As a matter of fact, I'd go back to Eisenhower era rates.

[burntorangebongos 10681]

15 hours ago, slorch said:

Don't be a fucking cunt.

 

The lefties on here are cunts about rep.

 

You like to neg and act like it's nothing,,,until someone answers back.

 

You motherfuckers love your echo-chamber, and nobody should dare interrupt it.

 

You dumbasses are so intent on hearing what you want to hear, that posts where I said I disliked Trump still get negged.  It's become quite the circle jerk around here.

 

Don't start no shit.  Won't be no shit.  It's that fucking simple.  have an opinion and post it.  Don't neg shit just because...only to cry about it later.  And y'all cry like bitches that you are... just like in real life.

wow. so angry and ugly. I don't deny that I negged what you said and got in a small neg war with you but got bored since I was trying not to neg your baseball posts and had to dig too far back. I like you, Slorch for the most part, but you are a dick about neg. It is weird because I'm negging what you say and not name calling. So fuck it, I won't neg you but will just call you a fucking piece of shit loser jerkoff fuckwad in posts  I disagree with and will leave your precious points alone. And don't call me a cunt again, trailer trash.

[Anastasis 23394]

Just now, bolverk said:

I do. Tax rich assholes a lot more. As a matter of fact, I'd go back to Eisenhower era rates.

This is one of the dumbest arguments going. Read up about about the total tax scheme and effective tax rates under eisenhower. 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

This is one of the dumbest arguments going. Read up about about the total tax scheme and effective tax rates under eisenhower. 

That wasn't an argument. It was an opinion. Lets pretend it was an argument, do you have a rationale for why it would be "one of the dumbest arguments going?"

[Anastasis 23394]

Because the suggestion that we should go back to eisenhower rates without considering the total tax policy context that those rates were deployed in is the dumbest thing going. 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Because the suggestion that we should go back to eisenhower rates without considering the total tax policy context that those rates were deployed in is the dumbest thing going. 

And how do you know that he did not consider that when he formulated his opinion, uh argument? 

[EMAWesome 101]

Right wing lunatic=anyone who doesn't agree with me.   Every political profile test I've ever taken on the internet puts me one notch right of dead center in the political spectrum and several notches towards libertarianism and away from authoritarianism.  Christ I voted for Kathleen Sebelious for governor twice.  The lunatics aren't on the right.

[Bozo_Casanova 26279]

Because the suggestion that we should go back to eisenhower rates without considering the total tax policy context that those rates were deployed in is the dumbest thing going. 

Eh, it’s kinda dumb. I mean,the tax policy of the last 20 years is the literal dumbest in history.

 

But here’s the deal, man: the Ike code was a sort of cultural prohibition on the strangling of the middle and debt financing of idiocy that we’ve seen over the last 36 years, and most especially the last 17.

 

You would obviously counter with discussion of loopholes, etc. but do you really want to argue with me about this?

 

Bottom line: The Eisenhower code was appropriate for its time. Something like it may be appropriate to fix the social and economic problems caused what you and others have supported, but I hope not. A return to the pre-2001 code would probably fix a lot in my opinion, combined with a restructuring of entitlements.

 

[HenryJames 65889]

If Eisenhower was so smart, how come he's dead?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Just now, HenryJames said:

If Eisenhower was so smart, how come he's dead?

Military Industrial Complex got him.

[Anastasis 23394]

 

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Something like it may be appropriate to fix the social and economic problems caused what you and others have supported, but I hope not. 

 

Meh, I support massive reductions in military spending. My thoughts on SS, Medicare, and Medicaid reform have been laid out numerous times here. I think that spending need to be addressed in a meaningful way before we go back to an Eisenhower tax policy with 20 some odd brackets and massive deductions reducing the effective tax rates to basically the same they are today. But keep blaming the policy positions I support for our problems. 

[Anastasis 23394]

6 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

And how do you know that he did not consider that when he formulated his opinion, uh argument? 

I am sure that Bolverk thought through all the nuances of 1950's tax policy when he arrived at his conclusion to "tax rich assholes more". 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

wow. so angry and ugly. I don't deny that I negged what you said and got in a small neg war with you but got bored since I was trying not to neg your baseball posts and had to dig too far back. I like you, Slorch for the most part, but you are a dick about neg. It is weird because I'm negging what you say and not name calling. So fuck it, I won't neg you but will just call you a fucking piece of shit loser jerkoff fuckwad in posts  I disagree with and will leave your precious points alone. And don't call me a cunt again, trailer trash.

Miscalculating cunt.

 

You counted on me to be passive. You counted wrong.

 

It’s typical.  “Slorch is overreacting by responding to our bullshittery.”  Meh, maybe you’re right, but I didn’t start it, cunt.  You did.

 

Motherfucking cunts like starting shit and then get all outraged when someone returns the favor.

 

WTF did you THINK was going to happen?

Edited June 15, 2018 by slorch

[GW Hayduke 1952]

14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am sure that Bolverk thought through all the nuances of 1950's tax policy when he arrived at his conclusion to "tax rich assholes more". 

LOL why would anyone ever need to think "through all the nuances of the 1950's tax policy" before developing the conclusion to the tax the rich more? Is it that there isn't a need and that you are just spouting shit? 

Also, try to stop spouting shit. It is lame.

Edited June 15, 2018 by GW Hayduke

[Anastasis 23394]

I think that you progressives should rally around a tax policy based on a 90% top tax rate with 20 tax brackets, seems like a winning formula. Most everybody else with more than half a brain knows that that is a stupid idea. 

Edited June 15, 2018 by Anastasis

[burntorangebongos 10681]

jeesus, get help. I never cried. I thought our neg war was funny. I just saw Subliminal's post and gave my two cents.  Look at you and your reaction right now, it is so over blown like a 13 year old boy. I have a right to state an opinion, ape. I am still not crying but you are. 

[SubliminalHorn 6674]

Slorch is seriously coming off as very disturbed. Over rep points. Let that sink in.  

[Guest]

Calmer than you, brah.

 

the tizzy is yours...

[SubliminalHorn 6674]

LOL ok man, go have a cold beer and calm down. It’s ok if people think your posts are moronic. Thought you’d be used to that by now. 

[bolverk 29399]

Jesus. Step away for an hour to text with an old friend because his dad just croaked.

Look, @Anastasis , I was being somewhat facetious about going back to 90% tax rates for the top whatever percent. My point stands that to get out of this debt hole, we're going to have to tax more. Simply cutting spending is not going to get us there.

From a moral perspective, the "rich" have benefitted the most from our economic and political system; therefore, they should pay more.

From a fiscal perspective, they've got the most money to tax; therefore, they are the ablest to pay and bring down the debt.

You tax me at 15%, and you'll get 11,000. You tax a poor at the same rate, and you'll get $4,500. That's not going to do squat for the debt. That is why we have a progressive tax policy - it's not about punishing the rich. It's a completely pragmatic mathematical calculation.

I don't know what the perfect tax rate should be, but I firmly insist that a flat tax doesn't work and that we need to increase rates - especially for the rich.

[Bozo_Casanova 26279]

 
Meh, I support massive reductions in military spending. My thoughts on SS, Medicare, and Medicaid reform have been laid out numerous times here. I think that spending need to be addressed in a meaningful way before we go back to an Eisenhower tax policy with 20 some odd brackets and massive deductions reducing the effective tax rates to basically the same they are today. But keep blaming the policy positions I support for our problems. 

Thats cute.
Do I recall correctly that you supported the 2001, 2003 and 2017 tax stimulus schemes?

[LongestHorn 759]

So Paul Manafort is in jail tonight on money laundering charges but HRC hasn't even been charged?  

What's stopping the AG?  Democrats?  Fake news?  Evidence?  

[Tom 2959]

42 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

LOL ok man, go have a cold beer and calm down. It’s ok if people think your posts are moronic. Thought you’d be used to that by now. 

 

Please don't encourage Slorch to have more alcohol.  He's clearly had more than enough.

[Anastasis 23394]

44 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 From a fiscal perspective, they've got the most money to tax; therefore, they are the ablest to pay and bring down the debt.

 

This isn't even true.  The middle class have the most money to tax. If you want to increase the revenue via taxation in a meaningful way, you have to crush the middle class and the upper middle class in particular with your tax scheme. 

 

47 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I don't know what the perfect tax rate should be, but I firmly insist that a flat tax doesn't work

How are you so firm in your position? We've never tried a flat tax. We have no data to inform. I'd be willing to try one, no deductions, no social engineering, no refundable tax credits. Everybody got skin in the game. Apparently that position is preposterous but Eisenhower rates! is totes progress, as the kids would say.   

[Anastasis 23394]

48 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Thats cute.
Do I recall correctly that you supported the 2001, 2003 and 2017 tax stimulus schemes?

I support anything that reduces tax burden to working americans. When anybody in DC gets serious about cutting spending, I will consider measures to increase revenue, but not until. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

This isn't even true.  The middle class have the most money to tax. If you want to increase the revenue via taxation in a meaningful way, you have to crush the middle class and the upper middle class in particular with your tax scheme. 

 

How are you so firm in your position? We've never tried a flat tax. We have no data to inform.   

I was less than half kidding on my mandatory public tax returns. It seems all kinds of jank to formulate tax policy on such opaque givens. 

[Anastasis 23394]

Just now, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

 I was less than half kidding on my mandatory public tax returns. It seems all kinds of jank to formulate tax policy on such opaque givens. 

Not conceptually opposed to the idea, but it so fantastical that we might as well be talking about cutting military spending.