They're cracking down on private prisons; these for-profit "universities" should be next.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Trump University was one of these by the way, so on this point it's a wash between the candidates.
Printable View
They're cracking down on private prisons; these for-profit "universities" should be next.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Trump University was one of these by the way, so on this point it's a wash between the candidates.
From the article Druff posted...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintjewlips
"Despite the lack of evidence of any legal or administrative violations involving the Clintons"
...year old rehashed shit about nothing. At least it's slightly more relevant than something Huma Abedins mother said 15 years ago.
How the hell does anyone defend Trump University and then cry about this is beyond me.
My view on Hillary is that it's likely she doesn't eat babies and even if she does it's in moderation as a part of her invigoration treatment. On the other hand if it did come to light that she had acquired a taste for baby flesh in her 50s and considered babies a delicacy then i would only consider her a slightly better option for president.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hongkonger
The absolute very first thing President Trump does is flag this as an Obama initiative ("Soft on crime! Soft on criminals! Sad!") and roll out a thousand new private prisons, which he will need once the civil unrest begins in earnest.
I'm waiting with bated breath to hear some rightwing nutjob claim that the "babies" Hillary prefers using are aborted late-term fetuses of Jews. And as their logic might dictate, that would explain her supportive stance on abortion and "duplicitious" stated support of Israel despite revealing her "true anti-Semitic beliefs" by calling for moderation by Israel towards the Palestinians early in her Senate career.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickFrom the article Druff posted...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintjewlips
"Despite the lack of evidence of any legal or administrative violations involving the Clintons"
...year old rehashed shit about nothing. At least it's slightly more relevant than something Huma Abedins mother said 15 years ago.
How the hell does anyone defend Trump University and then cry about this is beyond me.
My view on Hillary is that it's likely she doesn't eat babies and even if she does it's in moderation as a part of her invigoration treatment. On the other hand if it did come to light that she had acquired a taste for baby flesh in her 50s and considered babies a delicacy then i would only consider her a slightly better option for president.
(Extra points if you can google up a link to a wackjob website actually spouting any portions of this clearly absurd narrative.)
guess you missed the blacks selling merchQuote:
Originally Posted by blakeat first glance, no blacks or hispanics so it does indeed look like a trump rally. story checks outQuote:
Originally Posted by Mintjewlips
Uh he didn't cancel his austin appearance
Still 2 hours before it begins and the lines are long.
Nice try tho
nita how could youQuote:
Originally Posted by GambleBotsSatireguess you missed the blacks selling merchQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakenita how could youQuote:
Originally Posted by GambleBotsSatire
Theres 1 black guy behind trump supporting him, im sure he's giving nita the mule
No one is defending trump university.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickFrom the article Druff posted...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintjewlips
"Despite the lack of evidence of any legal or administrative violations involving the Clintons"
...year old rehashed shit about nothing. At least it's slightly more relevant than something Huma Abedins mother said 15 years ago.
How the hell does anyone defend Trump University and then cry about this is beyond me.
My view on Hillary is that it's likely she doesn't eat babies and even if she does it's in moderation as a part of her invigoration treatment. On the other hand if it did come to light that she had acquired a taste for baby flesh in her 50s and considered babies a delicacy then i would only consider her a slightly better option for president.
Trump University was a private entity funded by private investors and wasn't getting millions of tax payer funds funneled in by the state department. This was the epitome of conflict of interest and the fact that you decided to totally gloss over that pretty much proves that you are blinded by your bias.
Can you honestly give me examples of how Bill Clinton could have possibly academically contributed to Laureate? Other then how to get no billed for rape charges.
How do you justify a 3 million plus salary a year, when the chancellor spends his time delivering speeches for most of the year?
Are really delusional? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Ha. I just realized why trump did the campaign event in Texas. It's literally the only place he could find more than two persons of color willing to be on a stage with him.
It's no ones job to prove he's innocent to whatever. You're supposed to prove he's guilty, not the other way around dumbass. There is nothing that proves Clinton's have done anything illegal or even immoral in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by MintjewlipsNo one is defending trump university.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
Trump University was a private entity funded by private investors and wasn't getting millions of tax payer funds funneled in by the state department. This was the epitome of conflict of interest and the fact that you decided to totally gloss over that pretty much proves that you are blinded by your bias.
Can you honestly give me examples of how Bill Clinton could have possibly academically contributed to Laureate? Other then how to get no billed for rape charges.
How do you justify a 3 million plus salary a year, when the chancellor spends his time delivering speeches for most of the year?
Are really delusional? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
In most first world countries it would be a clear cut case, but not in the US. You've made it so hard to prove bribery that at a certain level it's practically legal. You don't need brown envelopes when you can do almost everything out in the open.
Regarding paper trails illegal behavior mimics legal to a degree where stuff you pull off tax returns combined with public records is at best mildly suspicious. That is assuming the accused is even somewhat competent.
Oh and regarding Trump University it's not better that you directly scam tax payers instead of using the government as the middleman. It doesn't add a favorable personal touch that you directly lose 30k instead of 30k people losing a dollar they didn't know they lost.
And then something fun that was mentioned earlier in this thread...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGDkUA_fezE
...i mean who doesn't raise their own rent 5x when someone else is paying for it. That's just good business.
No. 408 not browning the meat is the WOAT. Then this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicide King
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
You gotta love the "vast right wing conspiracy" that's dedicated to taking hillary down. It's such a convenient defense to everything. And in this day and age it's utter bullshit. If Kasich, Christie, Jeb, Cruz or Rubio were the GOP candidate they'd be destroying hillary for even saying it. Also, Clinton's emails would absolutely be the dominant newstory day in day out. Instead here we are talking about Missouri, Georgia and Utah being in play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rum dickQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
You gotta love the "vast right wing conspiracy" that's dedicated to taking hillary down. It's such a convenient defense to everything. And in this day and age it's utter bullshit. If Kasich, Christie, Jeb, Cruz or Rubio were the GOP candidate they'd be destroying hillary for even saying it. Also, Clinton's emails would absolutely be the dominant newstory day in day out. Instead here we are talking about Missouri, Georgia and Utah being in play.
Another delusional retard.
If you think that either of the other candidates in the gop wouldn't have had their own "scandals" uncovered by the media, then you're utterly retarded.
The MSM narrative is, look how bad Donald Trump is, but notice how they never praise hillary that much, i guess that would just be too obvious.
Keep thinking that either of those limp wristed RINO Republicans had any chance, it just continues to perpetuate your delusional prospective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickIt's no ones job to prove he's innocent to whatever. You're supposed to prove he's guilty, not the other way around dumbass. There is nothing that proves Clinton's have done anything illegal or even immoral in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintjewlips
In most first world countries it would be a clear cut case, but not in the US. You've made it so hard to prove bribery that at a certain level it's practically legal. You don't need brown envelopes when you can do almost everything out in the open.
Regarding paper trails illegal behavior mimics legal to a degree where stuff you pull off tax returns combined with public records is at best mildly suspicious. That is assuming the accused is even somewhat competent.
Oh and regarding Trump University it's not better that you directly scam tax payers instead of using the government as the middleman. It doesn't add a favorable personal touch that you directly lose 30k instead of 30k people losing a dollar they didn't know they lost.
And then something fun that was mentioned earlier in this thread...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGDkUA_fezE
...i mean who doesn't raise their own rent 5x when someone else is paying for it. That's just good business.
It's not just the Clinton's, it's the entire system, the Clinton's are the head of the snake and we should chop it off.
The corruption runs on both sides of the political duopoly. Trump even said the system is corrupt and he has partaken in the corrupt system by "buying politicians". So why isn't Donald being investigated for that? Oh yeah because the very same people who would investigate him were likely appointed by someone that benefited from that style of corruption.
Another thing no one talks about is how progressive Donald Trump's dad was. He was very involved in developing single family homes in the lower socioeconomic areas of new york. Sure Fred Trump took full advantage of the public contracts by over charging the government for public housing, but he put thousands of low income families in homes!. Lol i hope i captured the essence of gimmick's delusional hubrus in this paragraph.
Sure you captured my hubrus in it's entirety. All of the hubrusses were caught.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintjewlips
UH OH
http://www.nationalreview.com/happen...sociated-press
Quote:
Clinton State Department Stonewalled AP for Three Years
Today’s blockbuster report from the Associated Press about Hillary Clinton’s meetings with Clinton Foundation donors during her time as Secretary of State contained the following nugget: “The AP sought Clinton’s calendar and schedules three years ago, but delays led the AP to sue the State Department last year in federal court for those materials and other records.”
The long wait was in keeping with a practice of slow-walking such requests for information. In April, the State Department explained the fact that Clinton ignored 237 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by saying that she was sitting Secretary of State at the time the requests were filed.
According to the Washington Free Beacon, Clinton received 240 FOIA requests from 2009 to 2013 but only responded to three of them within the legally required timeframe. Among the organizations that filed unanswered requests were the AP, Gawker, Judicial Watch, Citizens United, and Vice News. Some of these groups subsequently sued the State Department for failing to respond to their requests for information from Clinton’s records. The State Department attempted to justify its delays by claiming that the number and complexity of records requests continued to increase until it was impossible to process them. Of course, the effect of the slow processing was to make it impossible for the A.P. to do the report that rocked the political world this afternoon.
Why are we wasting our time arguing about the election?
It's been settled, Clinton is going to be the president.Get over it ladies, and move on with your life.
In 2014, the Obama administration made it much harder for for-profit school students to get federal loans. I doubt Hillary would reverse that, but who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by hongkonger
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmar.../#43bf3796396b
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (2 members and 3 guests)
rum dick, GambleBotsSatire
Never mind Clinton v trump, how about aj styles beating cena at summerslam? Legit did not see that one coming.
How can you justify the salary of anyone at a think tank, lobbying firm, bloated academic administrations, consultants, foundation administrators, trustees, boards of directors, etc? It's all about the country club atmosphere and networking and living off the fat while the suckers work at actual jobs. If you're a member you're golden and there will always be a 6+ figure salary for you somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by MintjewlipsNo one is defending trump university.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
Trump University was a private entity funded by private investors and wasn't getting millions of tax payer funds funneled in by the state department. This was the epitome of conflict of interest and the fact that you decided to totally gloss over that pretty much proves that you are blinded by your bias.
Can you honestly give me examples of how Bill Clinton could have possibly academically contributed to Laureate? Other then how to get no billed for rape charges.
How do you justify a 3 million plus salary a year, when the chancellor spends his time delivering speeches for most of the year?
Are really delusional? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Yea about that A.P. report that rocked the political world...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintjewlips
"The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009."
...it really makes it easy to value these pieces when they add these lines to avoid getting sued. It's a convenient way to say they have nothing but it could possibly maybe be something.
I don't understand why you seem to jump to the defense of Hillary every time I post something like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickYea that's more than a year old "news".Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...-federal-taxes
"Since 2010, Bill Clinton brought in just short of $16.5 million for his role as honorary chancellor of Laureate Education, a for-profit college company. He left the position earlier this year weeks after his wife launched her campaign."
Compared to Trump University Laureate actually has accredited universities, grants degrees and bothers to grade their students. They don't just use the word University because it sounds fancy.
It's funny how much crap you can find from peoples tax returns and it really is nice that all candidates hand in theirs. That way the balance information isn't skewed in favor of one candidate over the other.
Yeah, yeah, I get it... you still think she's a way better choice than Trump, blah blah blah.
I can understand that line of reasoning.
What I can't understand is how you and other lefties seem hesitant to simply come forward, call a spade a spade, admit that the Clintons are extremely shady, and concede that it's pretty awful that they're going back to the White House, but that Trump would be even more awful.
Instead I am seeing lots of rationalizing on Hillary's behalf.
"This is old news" (so what?)
"She hasn't been convicted of anything" (OJ wasn't convicted of murdering his ex-wife, either)
"What Trump is doing is just as bad, or even worse" (which doesn't make Hillary's actions any better)
I just want an admission that Hillary is really, really shady, and that most of these reports are likely true (and indicative of malfeasance), and not just right wing hysteria.
That's all I'm looking for here.
If one cannot admit that there are some serious problems with the Clintons' ethics, that person cannot be taken seriously with any of their political opinions.
In the case of Laureate, it fits the mold of so many other scammy for-profit universities, and Bill Clinton's highly paid role there seems incredibly suspect. Once again with the Clintons, you just have to see that there's enough smoke to safely conclude there's a fire.
The Clintons feel like the rules don't apply to them. Who doesn't admit that? No one that is voting for her (in this thread) is particularly excited about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffI don't understand why you seem to jump to the defense of Hillary every time I post something like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
Yeah, yeah, I get it... you still think she's a way better choice than Trump, blah blah blah.
I can understand that line of reasoning.
What I can't understand is how you and other lefties seem hesitant to simply come forward, call a spade a spade, admit that the Clintons are extremely shady, and concede that it's pretty awful that they're going back to the White House, but that Trump would be even more awful.
Instead I am seeing lots of rationalizing on Hillary's behalf.
"This is old news" (so what?)
"She hasn't been convicted of anything" (OJ wasn't convicted of murdering his ex-wife, either)
"What Trump is doing is just as bad, or even worse" (which doesn't make Hillary's actions any better)
I just want an admission that Hillary is really, really shady, and that most of these reports are likely true (and indicative of malfeasance), and not just right wing hysteria.
That's all I'm looking for here.
If one cannot admit that there are some serious problems with the Clintons' ethics, that person cannot be taken seriously with any of their political opinions.
In the case of Laureate, it fits the mold of so many other scammy for-profit universities, and Bill Clinton's highly paid role there seems incredibly suspect. Once again with the Clintons, you just have to see that there's enough smoke to safely conclude there's a fire.
But you can't expect us to freak out like you guys do, can you? The email stuff, that's awful right? You guys had no issue with email shenanigans 4 years ago, though.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...KYM/story.html
So, sorry if I don't cry myself to sleep. Hillary is a politician, and I apply that term as harshly as possible.
Now, your turn Druff. I'm sure 90% of the Trump supporters in this thread believe that the Clintons have actually murdered people. So, is it really the reluctant Clinton voter that is operating with delusions?
Thank you for demonstrating so clearly why a guy like Trump is so close to taking the presidency.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOvenThe Clintons feel like the rules don't apply to them. Who doesn't admit that? No one that is voting for her (in this thread) is particularly excited about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
But you can't expect us to freak out like you guys do, can you? The email stuff, that's awful right? You guys had no issue with email shenanigans 4 years ago, though.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...KYM/story.html
So, sorry if I don't cry myself to sleep. Hillary is a politician, and I apply that term as harshly as possible.
Now, your turn Druff. I'm sure 90% of the Trump supporters in this thread believe that the Clintons have actually murdered people. So, is it really the reluctant Clinton voter that is operating with delusions?
"Feels like the rules don't apply to them", while true, is a nice way of saying that the Clintons repeatedly break laws, including some pretty serious ones. And they don't just break those laws in a well-meaning attempt to get their job done. They seem to do it out of self-interest and personal enrichment, which is especially worrisome.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOvenThe Clintons feel like the rules don't apply to them. Who doesn't admit that? No one that is voting for her (in this thread) is particularly excited about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
But you can't expect us to freak out like you guys do, can you? The email stuff, that's awful right? You guys had no issue with email shenanigans 4 years ago, though.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...KYM/story.html
So, sorry if I don't cry myself to sleep. Hillary is a politician, and I apply that term as harshly as possible.
Now, your turn Druff. I'm sure 90% of the Trump supporters in this thread believe that the Clintons have actually murdered people. So, is it really the reluctant Clinton voter that is operating with delusions?
Never have I seen major US politicians (at least in the modern age) who are embroiled in so much scandal. This goes way beyond standard political maneuvering, where one can just shrug their shoulders and proclaim, "Oh well! That's politics!"
I realize that no major politican has his hands completely clean, but the Clintons' hands are so filthy that you don't even want them touching the handle of the toilet.
I don't understand your comparison to Romney in that link. Yes, it's weird that those e-mails disappeared, but those e-mails were on the state level, not the national level. National security was not at stake, nor were government secrets. Also, Romney is not known for having a long history of shady and lawbreaking behavior. Even during the 2012 election, that accusation was rarely, if ever, levied at him (just as it wasn't levied against Obama).
The Clintons will always have a constant trail of scandal following them, both old and new. This will not change once they enter the White House again, much like one cannot marry an alcoholic and expect him/her to suddenly get sober.
It seems that many on the left are currently dismissing the concerns about Hillary's ethics as "lol every politician is shady", when in reality it should be a major concern. Instead, they are closing their eyes and covering their ears, trying to vote for her in good conscience while repeating to themselves that she's not Trump, and maybe she's actually not all that bad.
as a politics nerd, i kind of want trump to win, just for the must watch tv every night for the next 4 years
I'm guessing you are white and won't be in the crosshairs of Trump's racist supporters.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFZ-1EojoFM&feature=youtu.be
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff"Feels like the rules don't apply to them", while true, is a nice way of saying that the Clintons repeatedly break laws, including some pretty serious ones. And they don't just break those laws in a well-meaning attempt to get their job done. They seem to do it out of self-interest and personal enrichment, which is especially worrisome.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOven
Never have I seen major US politicians (at least in the modern age) who are embroiled in so much scandal. This goes way beyond standard political maneuvering, where one can just shrug their shoulders and proclaim, "Oh well! That's politics!"
I realize that no major politican has his hands completely clean, but the Clintons' hands are so filthy that you don't even want them touching the handle of the toilet.
I don't understand your comparison to Romney in that link. Yes, it's weird that those e-mails disappeared, but those e-mails were on the state level, not the national level. National security was not at stake, nor were government secrets. Also, Romney is not known for having a long history of shady and lawbreaking behavior. Even during the 2012 election, that accusation was rarely, if ever, levied at him (just as it wasn't levied against Obama).
The Clintons will always have a constant trail of scandal following them, both old and new. This will not change once they enter the White House again, much like one cannot marry an alcoholic and expect him/her to suddenly get sober.
It seems that many on the left are currently dismissing the concerns about Hillary's ethics as "lol every politician is shady", when in reality it should be a major concern. Instead, they are closing their eyes and covering their ears, trying to vote for her in good conscience while repeating to themselves that she's not Trump, and maybe she's actually not all that bad.
There's always an excuse why the Clintons are worse than other politicians that do the exact same thing.
You've got a mild case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Druff.
If pretty much any GOP politician had a spotlight on them half as bright as the one the dying, bitter, and borderline irrelevant GOP has had focused on the Clintons since like '91, we would have dead Republicans draped from trees like toilet paper on Halloween.
It doesn't matter it's old news unless you say it's the latest news. (is that somehow not clear?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I haven't even mentioned she hasn't been convicted. (maybe i should, so you wouldn't have to rely on cheap straw men)
Do you understand how comparing 2 candidates work?
Crying wolf every time wind moves the leaves isn't really helpful. It's good for writing propaganda but that's about it. Taking any stance when there are too many unknowns is just retarded. It's slightly better, if you're baited in to it, but not much.
There are going to be a lot of stories about future coin flips in the next 3 months that are used to paint a distorted picture based on guessing and assumptions. I don't really care if you think it's likely to turn up heads based on the previous flips or a collection of possibly maybes that make it likely it's going to turn up heads. To have an actual news story you have to flip the coin first and then report the results.
"[Hillary Clinton acted] with total premedication. Premeditation. Could be the first one is way better. Premedication. Premedication. I think I like it. Wow. Alright. Premedication. I love that."
Donald "PFA Fly-over State Spirit Animal" Trump
Now youre just being disingenuousQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamantiumNow youre just being disingenuousQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
bro please im the michael angelo of making sence.
that's why we put you on a pedal stool.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by adamantium
bro please im the michael angelo of making sence.
Im bemusedQuote:
Originally Posted by Crowe Diddlythat's why we put you on a pedal stool.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
She hasn't been convicted or even charged because the DOJ is a political arm of the Obama administration. Or maybe Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton were just talking about Yoga and wedding plans on that tarmac.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickIt doesn't matter it's old news unless you say it's the latest news. (is that somehow not clear?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I haven't even mentioned she hasn't been convicted. (maybe i should, so you wouldn't have to rely on cheap straw men)
Do you understand how comparing 2 candidates work?
Crying wolf every time wind moves the leaves isn't really helpful. It's good for writing propaganda but that's about it. Taking any stance when there are too many unknowns is just retarded. It's slightly better, if you're baited in to it, but not much.
There are going to be a lot of stories about future coin flips in the next 3 months that are used to paint a distorted picture based on guessing and assumptions. I don't really care if you think it's likely to turn up heads based on the previous flips or a collection of possibly maybes that make it likely it's going to turn up heads. To have an actual news story you have to flip the coin first and then report the results.
But according to you, this shouldn't even be reported on. What the fuck.
You decry propaganda but fail to acknowledge that the entire mainstream media is the Obama-Clinton propaganda machine.
Full Definition of decry
transitive verb
1: to depreciate (as a coin) officially or publicly
2: to express strong disapproval of <decry the emphasis on sex>
decrier play \-ˈkrī(-ə)r\ noun
Are you saying I used the word incorrectly?Quote:
Originally Posted by adamantium
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamantiumIm bemusedQuote:
Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly
I'm bemused that you have the audacity to show up to formuming today.
Lets see those hands MaryQuote:
Originally Posted by Brittney Griner's ClitQuote:
Originally Posted by adamantium
I'm bemused that you have the audacity to show up to formuming today.