• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
I'm not sure why you limit the "when" they went after Clinton to the Monica Lewinsky affair. They had been going after Bill a long time before then and for everything under the sun. That Bill was ever put in that position was the result of a non stop witch hunt. Ken Starr was supposed to investigate Whitewater, not Bill Clinton's sex life. They had no business issuing a subpoena to Monica Lewinsky forcing her to answer those questions. Neither did they of Bill. Whitewater was a real estate development in Arkansas and the investigation was about corruption while he was Governor.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending the Ken Starr investigation, nor criticizing it. To be honest, I didn't pay much attention to those investigations at the time, nevery really knew what Whitewater was all about, but I am satisfied that it matters little to me, since no charges resulted (aside from the perjury accusation).

Even if the ongoing Starr investigation went too far in asking about Clinton's sex life, I'm afraid that perjury is a serious offense for a sitting president in my eyes. That charge matters to me. I don't know that he should have been removed from office (or even that he should have been impeached), but I'm not willing to say, "Hey, not his fault, because they kept asking him questions which strayed further and further away from the original point of the investigation."

I can see others having different opinions, of course.
 
trustbutverify said:
He could order his minions to start breaking the windows of "globalists and international bankers" in the event they steal the election from him, and the RNC still wouldn't renounce him.
Click to expand...

He is no going to do that. Trump would be denounced by everyone. If his brand wasn't already destroyed, it would be then.Trump may be crazy, but he's not going to go that far.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm not sure why you limit the "when" they went after Clinton to the Monica Lewinsky affair. They had been going after Bill a long time before then and for everything under the sun. That Bill was ever put in that position was the result of a non stop witch hunt. Ken Starr was supposed to investigate Whitewater, not Bill Clinton's sex life. They had no business issuing a subpoena to Monica Lewinsky forcing her to answer those questions. Neither did they of Bill. Whitewater was a real estate development in Arkansas and the investigation was about corruption while he was Governor.
Click to expand...
It was noticeable in 1992 that the Clintons were to be painted as guilty of something, and it was only necessary to find something it could be. Hence Whitewater. It was a scam, there was a link with the Clintons - they were victims, like many others - and there it was. We didn't realise at the time what this odd story signified. Ridiculous on the face of it, it was bound to fade away. And indeed it went nowhere.

Then the murder accusations started and it was clear that something was up. And what was up was the ascendency of Carl Rove. The old gentlemanly idea that there were limits went out with the trauma of a one-term gentlemanly Republican president.

Since then we've had 24 years of the demonisation of the Clintons, and Democrats in general. You could be 40 years old and have been hearing it all your adult life. That's a hell of a lot of conditioning in a confined intellectual environment, and I think goes a long way towards explaning Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Which is, lets not forget, frickin' bizarre.
 
acbytesla said:
He is no going to do that. Trump would be denounced by everyone. If his brand wasn't already destroyed, it would be then.Trump may be crazy, but he's not going to go that far.
Click to expand...
He's too mealy-mouthed for that. This is the "you know who I mean" guy, whose surrogates go out to say he didn't mean what we all know he meant.

My worry is that somebody gets a ground-game going for Voter Patrol. Trump's people couldn't, but potentially the KKK or militias could. Not under their own banner, of course. Under a banner Trump will happily endorse, with offices he can be seen visiting and sitting at the head of a large desk in a commanding manner.

I worry a lot. I worry that Trump supporters in threes and fours arrange to vote together in their place and then go together to one of those other places, like Trump said they should, to verify voters. Those other people voters in those other people places.
 
CapelDodger said:
I worry that Trump supporters in threes and fours arrange to vote together in their place and then go together to one of those other places, like Trump said they should, to verify voters. Those other people voters in those other people places.
Click to expand...

Too many cowards for that. But I'm kind of thinking Trump will say "Hillary has to be stopped now" - before the election - and just one literal-minded loon will do his or her best to make it happen.
 
CapelDodger said:
Without a hook I won't bother to look. Gilbethorpe proved what a loon magnet Trump is.
Click to expand...

It's Roger Stone peddling:

It turns out the entity with which I signed a non-disclosure agreement for the #Trump campaign was never legally constituted #invalid
Click to expand...

Seems like hiring an honest to goodness rat****er backfires when you become the rat it is most profitable to ****.
 
phiwum said:
I'm not defending the Ken Starr investigation, nor criticizing it. To be honest, I didn't pay much attention to those investigations at the time, nevery really knew what Whitewater was all about, but I am satisfied that it matters little to me, since no charges resulted (aside from the perjury accusation).

Even if the ongoing Starr investigation went too far in asking about Clinton's sex life, I'm afraid that perjury is a serious offense for a sitting president in my eyes. That charge matters to me. I don't know that he should have been removed from office (or even that he should have been impeached), but I'm not willing to say, "Hey, not his fault, because they kept asking him questions which strayed further and further away from the original point of the investigation."

I can see others having different opinions, of course.
Click to expand...

While I agree that perjury is a serious offense, so is the witch hunt. Nobody in a criminal case would be prosecuted for what Bill Clinton did as it was not germane to any criminal act. He wasn't lying to cover up a criminal act. No, he was protecting his family and his Presidency.

This was people deliberately trying to embarrass a man for no reasons other than for political gain. I thought that was much more shameful than his lying or the affair. Don't get me wrong, Clinton shouldn't have perjured himself and he shouldn't have had an affair. But Starr overstepped his position. His job was to investigate one thing and one thing only, but instead he spent four and a half years and 40 million dollars digging into anything and everything and he found nothing. No President will ever appoint a special prosecutor again because once he does, the man has cart Blanche.
 
Trebuchet said:
What can you expect from the failing, leftist Wall Street Journal, owned by the commie Rupert Murdoch?
Click to expand...
Rupert is playing a clever game. I've no idea what it is, but respect the guy : he does play a clever game.

If there really is a scheme for Trump TV Rupert knows all about it. What he'll be looking at is having Trump et al putting a lot of money into their venture then, at the appropriate moment, shafting it and picking up the good bits for peanuts

While this is going on so is a Republican civil war, which naturally forms along the lines of Trump TV v Murdoch. We can all see where that goes.
 
Stacko said:
It's Roger Stone peddling:



Seems like hiring an honest to goodness rat****er backfires when you become the rat it is most profitable to ****.
Click to expand...
It's the kind of relationship that takes careful management, and really not one for the casual amateur. Which, lets face it, Trump is.
 
CapelDodger said:
He's too mealy-mouthed for that. This is the "you know who I mean" guy, whose surrogates go out to say he didn't mean what we all know he meant.

My worry is that somebody gets a ground-game going for Voter Patrol. Trump's people couldn't, but potentially the KKK or militias could. Not under their own banner, of course. Under a banner Trump will happily endorse, with offices he can be seen visiting and sitting at the head of a large desk in a commanding manner.

I worry a lot. I worry that Trump supporters in threes and fours arrange to vote together in their place and then go together to one of those other places, like Trump said they should, to verify voters. Those other people voters in those other people places.
Click to expand...

I'm not really that worried because people hardly wait until election day to vote. There is early voting in more than half the states including the battleground states of Ohio and Florida. Pennsylvania might be of concern, but I really don't believe that will happen there. A bunch of White Rednecks trying to intimidate black voters in central Philadelphia. They would look incredibly out of place. Also, there are poll monitors. People would be calling the police. And given how connected the world is their would certainly be uploaded video of anyone attempting to intimidate voters. It's a Felony btw.
 
Minoosh said:
Too many cowards for that. But I'm kind of thinking Trump will say "Hillary has to be stopped now" - before the election - and just one literal-minded loon will do his or her best to make it happen.
Click to expand...
I can see that, but I can also see a King of the Hill scenario involving guys with guns, pickups, and beer.

We are looking at a lot of potential tragedies if this keeps building. All it takes is one fool, one gun, one bullet. And there could be thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of fools out there. On both sides. This is what Trump is playing with and he is an emotional infant.
 
CapelDodger said:
He's too mealy-mouthed for that. This is the "you know who I mean" guy, whose surrogates go out to say he didn't mean what we all know he meant.
Click to expand...

He's clearly not mealy-mouthed about things - this is the guy who took the "illegal immigrants" thing and turned it into "the Mexicans are rapists and criminals". He's also the one who went from "voter ID keeps down fraud" to "go and watch the polls very closely in certain areas". In other words, not subtle at all.

He's probably smart enough to know not to directly incite violence, though, since that one's outright illegal.

My worry is that somebody gets a ground-game going for Voter Patrol.
Click to expand...

That'd be True the Vote. Been around for years now, and Trump's too stupid to organize anything with them.

I worry a lot. I worry that Trump supporters in threes and fours arrange to vote together in their place and then go together to one of those other places, like Trump said they should, to verify voters. Those other people voters in those other people places.
Click to expand...

Most of those "other" places have poll watchers who know to report such people to the FBI for investigation - this is a really good way to end up in a federal prison.

The only real worry would be some fool deciding to just shoot up a bunch of people in line to vote, come up with a bomb, or some such, like those three terrorists did. Possibly some white teens or college students will riot when he loses. But all he's really doing is disgusting the people in "those areas" even further, which may only increase turnout against him.

The thing to remember is that folks have been playing this voter suppression game for decades now. He's less like the HS Varsity Team going to the NBA, and more like the Peewee kid who walks on court and throws a tantrum.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm not really that worried because people hardly wait until election day to vote. There is early voting in more than half the states including the battleground states of Ohio and Florida. Pennsylvania might be of concern, but I really don't believe that will happen there. A bunch of White Rednecks trying to intimidate black voters in central Philadelphia. They would look incredibly out of place. Also, there are poll monitors. People would be calling the police. And given how connected the world is their would certainly be uploaded video of anyone attempting to intimidate voters. It's a Felony btw.
Click to expand...
That's a very reasonable position to take. Lets hope reason prevails.

There is a question of what Trump does for the next three weeks. His rallies are dwindling. He's not doing interviews. He's already gone to 11 on everything. All that's left is the apocalyptic Defining Moment, personified in himself. Time to use your guns or lose them.
 
newyorkguy said:
First of all, stop sign cameras don't record the face of the person driving they record the license plate number. This does raise an interesting (if off-topic) issue, though.

Criminal defendants in the U.S. have 5th amendment rights not to self-incriminate. Doesn't that mean defendants have the right to plead Not Guilty and assert they are innocent of the charges? That the burden is on the state to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. What good would it be to have those rights if defendants who are convicted are then charged with perjury? If that was a common practice wouldn't it violate the Constitution?

I tried to find instances where that has happened -- for traffic violations -- but I couldn't really find any. I found one case from the UK where a repeat offender had been charged with perjury. And thirty years ago Florida apparently planned on charging drivers who lied with perjury but that not only involved habitual offenders, I think it also involved offenders who had been diverted to a special program and had agreed to testify truthfully in any future proceedings..
Click to expand...
To be charitable to Fast Eddie: I read his post with an implied "the accuser takes the stand and testifies". In that case, if the prosecution turns up with your photo, with you smiling and waving at the camera through the windshield, yes, it's perjury. But as long as you don't take the stand you may lie your ass off as accused.
 
Mumbles said:
He's probably smart enough to know not to directly incite violence, though, since that one's outright illegal.
Click to expand...
That's what I mean. Trump won't advocate "smashing windows". He'll have no problem with legally open-armed people staring through windows at people working for Clinton, totally not in an intimidatory manner at all, and entirely within the law.

That'd be True the Vote. Been around for years now, and Trump's too stupid to organize anything with them.
Click to expand...
It's not Trump's people I'm worried about, it's smart Nazis in the militia movement who already have a ground-game. Trump went for Gilbethorpe, remember. He could easily fall for smart Nazis. If I was a smart Nazi I'd be salivating over the prospect.

Most of those "other" places have poll watchers who know to report such people to the FBI for investigation - this is a really good way to end up in a federal prison.
Click to expand...
All very reasonable, and I hope reason prevails. I just don't have much confidence. As I say, tragedy only requires one fool, one gun, and one bullet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom