2016 Democratic Thread

[Balta1701]

I just think the family is elitist and Chelsea will be groomed by Hillary the final five years to be ready to run and win in a landslide. I expect Chelsea to get some big-time government job in either the third to fifth year, or maybe run for governor somewhere and win that first. I just don't like the Clinton's getting 24 full years of the Oval Office during a relatively short period of time in our country's history. There's no reason for Chelsea to not start being groomed for President.

[DrunkBomber]

Wall Street Journal better?

 

In 1995, the White House and the Democratic National Committee produced a 331-page report entitled "Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce" that attacked magazines, think tanks and other entities and individuals who had criticized President Clinton. In the subsequent years, many organizations mentioned in the White House report were hit by IRS audits. More than 20 conservative organizations—including the Heritage Foundation and the American Spectator magazine—and almost a dozen individual high-profile Clinton accusers, such as Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers, were audited.

[bmags]

Wall Street Journal better?

 

I responded to you in earnest. Fact is almost every presidential admin after Nixon has been accused of this (not surprising). But, there is no actual link to the Clintons and that. There was no link from Obama to the IRS. And there was no link from the Bush's to the IRS. So basically, whomever are the outside groups every time, if you audit them, it will be a "did the administration order an IRS audit?"

[DrunkBomber]

I responded to you in earnest. Fact is almost every presidential admin after Nixon has been accused of this (not surprising). But, there is no actual link to the Clintons and that. There was no link from Obama to the IRS. And there was no link from the Bush's to the IRS. So basically, whomever are the outside groups every time, if you audit them, it will be a "did the administration order an IRS audit?"

Fair enough. I also dont want to make it sound like I think Trump wouldnt try this s***, Im sure he would. I just think its very one sided to just make it sound like Trump is the only candidate in this election who is capable of doing something like that. It might never be able to be completely proven but the women who made accusations getting audited right after is pretty damning imo and is fair game in this election.

[southsider2k5]

Fair enough. I also dont want to make it sound like I think Trump wouldnt try this s***, Im sure he would. I just think its very one sided to just make it sound like Trump is the only candidate in this election who is capable of doing something like that. It might never be able to be completely proven but the women who made accusations getting audited right after is pretty damning imo and is fair game in this election.

 

The important part is to not be honest and to maintain plausible deniability.

[Jenksismyhero]

I responded to you in earnest. Fact is almost every presidential admin after Nixon has been accused of this (not surprising). But, there is no actual link to the Clintons and that. There was no link from Obama to the IRS. And there was no link from the Bush's to the IRS. So basically, whomever are the outside groups every time, if you audit them, it will be a "did the administration order an IRS audit?"

 

Absent a smoking gun document like an email from the WH to the IRS saying "go f*** with these guys," you're never going to have actual proof. However, much like we do with racial discrimination, we can look at the disparate treatment of one group versus another and infer there was some bulls*** going on, which WAS the case in the IRS scandal.

[Texsox]

We would also have to look at the overall audit rates for that industry. It would be nice if being critical of the government insulated you from an audit. But I can see folks in the IRS abusing their positions. I just don't believe it would be limited to political affiliation.

[illinilaw08]

Absent a smoking gun document like an email from the WH to the IRS saying "go f*** with these guys," you're never going to have actual proof. However, much like we do with racial discrimination, we can look at the disparate treatment of one group versus another and infer there was some bulls*** going on, which WAS the case in the IRS scandal.

 

Trump's actual quote today was "Russia, if you are listening, I hope you are able to find the 33,000 emails that are missing — I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

 

Arguing over what administration used what clout to have the IRS investigate its political enemies is a far cry from a Presidential candidate asking a foreign country to hack their Presidential opponent. That's degrees worse than the stuff with the IRS - even the implication of foreign governments influencing our Presidential election should be chilling.

[bmags]

Absent a smoking gun document like an email from the WH to the IRS saying "go f*** with these guys," you're never going to have actual proof. However, much like we do with racial discrimination, we can look at the disparate treatment of one group versus another and infer there was some bulls*** going on, which WAS the case in the IRS scandal.

 

The problem is there are also reasons why groups suddenly in the spotlight with lots of funding may deserve more scrutiny. But, the reason why Nixon was brought up, was, again, "Absent a smoking gun document like an email from the WH to the IRS saying "go f*** with these guys,"" that is the Nixon tapes.

 

 

[Texsox]

Because the US would never try to influence a foreign election.

 

What is fascinating to me is how well this plays for Trump. Clearly people are thumbing their noses at conventional thought. Perhaps looking at Britain we see that this isn't confined to out shores. We've been doing what is right for so long and look what it has gotten us. So it's opposite time.

[bmags]

Fair enough. I also dont want to make it sound like I think Trump wouldnt try this s***, Im sure he would. I just think its very one sided to just make it sound like Trump is the only candidate in this election who is capable of doing something like that. It might never be able to be completely proven but the women who made accusations getting audited right after is pretty damning imo and is fair game in this election.

 

No, certainly those in power are all capable of it. I think my point is that Trump has shown himself to be especially vindictive, both from his pre-political life (constant frivelous lawsuits against anyone who writes something he doesn't like just to hurt them financially), to his post-convention hit pieces on Kasich/Cruz, to now this.

 

Clinton is certainly capable of this, but the fact is the Federal criminal and regulatory wings have been used vindictively in the past, and to an astonishing degree under a president Nixon who showed signs of being vindictive prior to presidency.

 

I don't think we disagree that Nixon was far more wide-reaching than any other. So...yes, it is terrifying that Trump, with all of these signals could get access to groups that could abuse their power.

[Jenksismyhero]

Trump's actual quote today was "Russia, if you are listening, I hope you are able to find the 33,000 emails that are missing — I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

 

Arguing over what administration used what clout to have the IRS investigate its political enemies is a far cry from a Presidential candidate asking a foreign country to hack their Presidential opponent. That's degrees worse than the stuff with the IRS - even the implication of foreign governments influencing our Presidential election should be chilling.

 

I disagree there. Using the executive to financial hurt/trample political enemies is an affront to our entire system of government.

 

[bmags]

Because the US would never try to influence a foreign election.

 

What is fascinating to me is how well this plays for Trump. Clearly people are thumbing their noses at conventional thought. Perhaps looking at Britain we see that this isn't confined to out shores. We've been doing what is right for so long and look what it has gotten us. So it's opposite time.

 

Because we have meddled in foreign elections mean we should let Russia meddle in ours?

[Steve9347]

I thought Bernie had unbelievable momentum heading into California, win after win after win and the media ignored it, proclaimed him buried and it affected Cali. Had he gotten the proper love he deserved at that point, with so many recent victories, I believe he may have snatched the nomination. Add that to the DNC plotting for ways to burn Bernie ... I don't like it. I love Bernie.

The DNC is not the media?

 

I repeat, turn on your brain, please.

[StrangeSox]

I think anyone who tries to rank one of these two above or below the other in honesty and character looks foolish. These two are cut from the same cloth. All you can look at are the positions and argue those. But to compare one against the other on any character scale is just scary.

It's actually pretty easy to rank the racist orange clown man narcissist below Hillary Clinton in terms of character

[Steve9347]

I want to remind everybody the final count was 2800 delagates Clinton to 1800 Bernie. In the face of unmistakeable odds, Bernie Sanders did not get blown out. Had he been given a fair shake by the press and by the DNC, you think it wasn't gonna be a draw?? This baby was up for grabs.

Bernie Sanders could have been an amazing story. From NOWHERE to president of the United States.

2800 to 1800 ... what do the Hillary apologists say about Bernie's effort? Again, you can't deny the DNC was scheming and everybody in power had to have Hillary as the candidate and STILL Bernie was right there.

From nowhere to President. How is that a good thing? The dude sat on the sidelines, did dick all for years, and then popped up with a bunch of propaganda and empty promises. Hillary has an incredible history of involvement and accomplishment. Bernie had nothing. What a story!

[bmags]

I disagree there. Using the executive to financial hurt/trample political enemies is an affront to our entire system of government.

 

Sure, but to the point that it is hidden shows some acknowledgment in our democracy that it is wrong.

 

You have a candidate who, I really don't know if he thinks it is wrong to ask a foreign hacker group to hack his political opponent. What do you think he does with that power as President?

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

No, certainly those in power are all capable of it. I think my point is that Trump has shown himself to be especially vindictive, both from his pre-political life (constant frivelous lawsuits against anyone who writes something he doesn't like just to hurt them financially), to his post-convention hit pieces on Kasich/Cruz, to now this.

 

Clinton is certainly capable of this, but the fact is the Federal criminal and regulatory wings have been used vindictively in the past, and to an astonishing degree under a president Nixon who showed signs of being vindictive prior to presidency.

 

I don't think we disagree that Nixon was far more wide-reaching than any other. So...yes, it is terrifying that Trump, with all of these signals could get access to groups that could abuse their power.

 

True, though Nixon's vindictiveness came from fear and paranoia. Not sure Trump's the same there.

[StrangeSox]

Note that with the fake IRS scandal stuff with Obama, it was some two bit groups and not the major conservative pacs who actually mattered. It'd be weird to deliberately target irrelevant groups only.

[Steve9347]

So Trump just in a press conference asked russia to hack and release the rest of Clinton's emails. He asked a foreign government to hack his political rival.

I honestly feel like this should be quite punishable.

[GoSox05]

From nowhere to President. How is that a good thing? The dude sat on the sidelines, did dick all for years, and then popped up with a bunch of propaganda and empty promises. Hillary has an incredible history of involvement and accomplishment. Bernie had nothing. What a story!

 

Lmao.

[Texsox]

I take that as seriously as I took Perry saying Texas may secede.

[Jenksismyhero]

Note that with the fake IRS scandal stuff with Obama, it was some two bit groups and not the major conservative pacs who actually mattered. It'd be weird to deliberately target irrelevant groups only.

 

"Two bit groups" meaning they were just too small to matter on a national scale. They were still legitimate conservative groups and there were a number of them suddenly audited because of their names.

 

You know if this happened under W you wouldn't be justifying it. But, #itsdifferent, as usual.

[Jenksismyhero]

I take that as seriously as I took Perry saying Texas may secede.

 

Agreed. Stupid to say/joke about given Russia IS trying to hack us daily and probably has succeeded, but ultimately I think this is more on the side of Trump being Trump and trying to land a joke about Hillary and her emails, more so than evidence of what Trump will actually do with authority under the executive.

[bmags]

He followed it up with a tweet asking the same thing.