• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shanghai Ex

Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

Praxas said:
/yawn, this is nothing more than sour grapes form those that play armchair quarterback to the legal system and declare someone doing something illegal. So please continue spewing your BS.
Click to expand...

Yup, just as I thought.
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

Fenton said:
Speaking of illegal activities....

Internal Audit of Clinton Foundation reveals illegal activities and a " charity " being run as a Political Organization
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-non-msm/269436-wiki-auditor-reports-clinton-foundation-engaging-illegal-activities.html
Click to expand...
Why is it you guys will believe ANONYMOUS sources and sources not verified like they were gospel. If that is all true, which most has been proven false or heavily mis-intrpreted, then she will see her day in court.

Until then, you guys can take wikileaks as gospel all you want I'll wait for VERIFIED sources to come out.
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

American said:
Yup, just as I thought.
Click to expand...

Yep, I don't buy into your BS all right. Go sell it to a Trump voter, they might believe you since they are gullible enough.
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

Praxas said:
Finish off? Nope, that is a sophomoric train of thought. Do you think the GOP was finished off in 2008? , 2012? etc?
Click to expand...

Actually no it isn't. Sophomoric is pretending that the consequences of a corrupt above the law elitist who's under a active FBI investigation stop when she takes the oath of office.

Sophomoric is ignoring the results of the last 2 midterms..
The Republican Wave Sweeps the Midterm Elections - The Atlantic

Nothing grows the Conservative base faster than the consequences of progressive initinitiatives and now, you people are about to elect one of the most damaged Presidential candidates in our Nations history
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

Fenton said:
Actually no it isn't. Sophomoric is pretending that the consequences of a corrupt above the law elitist who's under a active FBI investigation stop when she takes the oath of office.

Sophomoric is ignoring the results of the last 2 midterms..
The Republican Wave Sweeps the Midterm Elections - The Atlantic

Nothing grows the Conservative base faster than the consequences of progressive initinitiatives and now, you people are about to elect one of the most damaged Presidential candidates in our Nations history
Click to expand...

Oh yes, we know conservatives as a whole fought against gay rights, abortion, and other liberal initiatives. Howd that go for you? Looks like it was YOU who lost those. So go ahead and think the Dems are finished, the same was thought of the GOP in 2008. It's called cyclical, do you not understand that?
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

Praxas said:
Why is it you guys will believe ANONYMOUS sources and sources not verified like they were gospel. If that is all true, which most has been proven false or heavily mis-intrpreted, then she will see her day in court.

Until then, you guys can take wikileaks as gospel all you want I'll wait for VERIFIED sources to come out.
Click to expand...



:lamo

Its not a anonymous source, its from a recent Wikileaks dump.

Have fun with your new highly corrupt highly damaged President, because emails like that are going to keep coming.
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

Fenton said:
:lamo

Its not a anonymous source, its from a recent Wikileaks dump.

Have fun with your new highly corrupt highly damaged President, because emails like that are going to keep coming.
Click to expand...

and that WIKILEAKS dump has NOT been verified as factual or true. Have fun with Hillary being president for 4 years with a possible Dem controlled congress.
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

Praxas said:
and that WIKILEAKS dump has NOT been verified as factual or true. Have fun with Hillary being president for 4 years with a possible Dem controlled congress.
Click to expand...


Heres the link...
https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/795124414182555652

Love it ! Great strategy, now all the Wikileaks are fake....:roll:

Is this fake ?

Clinton foundation admits it did not report 1 million dollar gift
https://www.google.com/search?q=bill+clinton+1+milloon&oq=bill+clinton+1+milloon&aqs=chrome..69i57.5871j0j4&client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Is this fake ? 6 months after that internal audit the Clinton Foundation did this....
Clinton Foundation refiles three years of tax forms | Washington Examiner
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

Praxas said:
It's called a comparison. the right asks how someone like Hillary can be tolerated, well when Republicans decided to nominate and support Trump as their nominee than they made that happen. Trump is nothing but a misogynist crook who is politically incompetent. The Republicans who nominated Trump have ENABLED someone like Hillary to be an acceptable choice when compared with Trump. The Republicans were more interested in burning their party to the ground rather than nominating someone that could beat hillary like (almost any other Republican candidate could). Well, they got what they wanted.
Click to expand...

And maybe if the Hillary's camp hadn't told their goons in the media to take Trump seriously and give him generous amounts of coverage, in a deliberate and calculated (and successful) attempt to damage the republican field, he wouldn't have made it this far. But both that and your post have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

shagg said:
And maybe if the Hillary's camp hadn't told their goons in the media to take Trump seriously and give him generous amounts of coverage, in a deliberate and calculated (and successful) attempt to damage the republican field, he wouldn't have made it this far. But both that and your post have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense whatsoever. So the media is at fault for pointing out Trump's faults and words? What were they supposed to do, not cover him at all?
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

Praxas said:
That makes no sense whatsoever. So the media is at fault for pointing out Trump's faults and words? What were they supposed to do, not cover him at all?
Click to expand...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you misunderstood. Many have puzzled over the media's fixation on Trump for the last 18 months, and some pretty oddball theories have been floated at water coolers everywhere.

Force all Republican Candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election…

The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream Republican Party. Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:

Ted Cruz

Donald Trump

Ben Carson

We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously.
Click to expand...

Elevating Trump
WikiLeaks: Clinton Campaign Sought to Promote Carson, Trump, Cruz
WikiLeaks Reveals DNC Elevated Trump to Help Clinton | Observer

more if you care to google

Without the DNC and the medias help, there probably wouldn't be a Trump nominee. Both have shown themselves to be an extension of Clinton's campaign. We're way off topic here though, start a thread if you care to.
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

Praxas said:
It's called a comparison. the right asks how someone like Hillary can be tolerated, well when Republicans decided to nominate and support Trump as their nominee than they made that happen. Trump is nothing but a misogynist crook who is politically incompetent. The Republicans who nominated Trump have ENABLED someone like Hillary to be an acceptable choice when compared with Trump. The Republicans were more interested in burning their party to the ground rather than nominating someone that could beat hillary like (almost any other Republican candidate could). Well, they got what they wanted.
Click to expand...

No, its not a comparison because your proposed question/statement is not being asked/said in this thread. This was nothing more than a deflection. One that you're perpetuating.
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

Kal'Stang said:
No, its not a comparison because your proposed question/statement is not being asked/said in this thread. This was nothing more than a deflection. One that you're perpetuating.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sorry, did I mess up the circle jerk against Clinton? Tough luck. It was a VALID comparison and your opinion matters as much as dust bunnies.
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

shagg said:
And maybe if the Hillary's camp hadn't told their goons in the media to take Trump seriously and give him generous amounts of coverage, in a deliberate and calculated (and successful) attempt to damage the republican field, he wouldn't have made it this far. But both that and your post have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

Trump's OWN WORDS were used. Nothing more. If covering someone's words makes them lose an election, guess what? They should shut up them instead of opening their mouth like Trump did.
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

JumpinJack said:
Trump University - a "switch and bait scheme" that Trump is being sued for fraud over, since in the opinion of many, it existed solely for the purpose of preying on the uneducated for the purpose of separating them from their money to purchase seminar and package programs from "Trump University." Trump U was not an educational business at all. The instructors represented to be picked by Trump, had in fact never even met Trump, and Trump hadn't picked them. The "instructors" were salesmen, some of whom had no experience in real estate at all.

Not a single person who paid Trump U and went to the "U" ever made a successful real estate deal.

Trump has several class action lawsuits against him in several states, including one by the Attorney General in New York. In 2005 the NY AG notified Trump U that it was breaking the law by calling itself a university, since it was not.

3-day seminars were sold (about $1,500 each), the bait being the attendees would get to hear Trump's words of advice on real estate. Trump never attended any of those seminars.

Free classes were given. The purpose of the free classes was really to get people to sign up for the $1,500 seminars. The purpose of the $1,500 seminars was to get them to buy the $35,000 Trump Package. And throughout it all, the attendees were pushed to buy the expensive books and materials, some of which were plagiarized verbatim from basic textbooks. It was a hard-sell scheme, preying on the uneducated, some of whom had little money. The Trump instructors would tell the seminar attendees to increase their credit card allowances to prepare for real estate deals, then Trump U would push for those who did that to use their increased credit to buy MORE Trump U packages and materials.

So...several class action lawsuits. This is a big deal. Was there media bias in not focusing on these problems of Trump? These are serious claims. These are lawsuits not by a Democratic committee requiring an "investigation" for political reasons.

This is who Trump is. Trump's sole concern is for Trump. The fools who have fallen for his circus barking are just that: fools. They've been snookered, just like the Trump University purchasers.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton's for-profit university problem - Aug. 23, 2016
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

Praxas said:
Oh I'm sorry, did I mess up the circle jerk against Clinton? Tough luck. It was a VALID comparison and your opinion matters as much as dust bunnies.
Click to expand...

If my opinion doesn't matter then why respond to it?

And it was about as valid in this thread it would be for someone to bring up Hillary in a thread about Trump. See, that is why partisan hacks are called "partisan hacks". They just can't help but try and use the "but he/she did X!!!!!" in any thread that says something even slightly negative about their candidate. It's pathetic. Stupid. Immature. And shows that that partisan hack can't actually address what is being talked about.
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

I find it entertaining (and sad) that whenever we're talking about two criminal candidates and I bring up Gary Johnson, some jackass says, "But Gary didn't know about Aleppo!"

Ok. You guys apparently have some higher standards for your vote for US president than I.
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

Praxas said:
So in other words, no proven connection. We got it. All you have are accusations and nothing more.
Click to expand...

There's no proof that Mr. Trump violated any laws, either.
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

Kal'Stang said:
If my opinion doesn't matter then why respond to it?

And it was about as valid in this thread it would be for someone to bring up Hillary in a thread about Trump. See, that is why partisan hacks are called "partisan hacks". They just can't help but try and use the "but he/she did X!!!!!" in any thread that says something even slightly negative about their candidate. It's pathetic. Stupid. Immature. And shows that that partisan hack can't actually address what is being talked about.
Click to expand...

And yet everything I said was correct. You have three choices, report me, ignore me, or deal with it. Again, if you want a Anti-Clinton circle jerk, go to a trump site. Until then, I will make valid comparisons whether YOU like it or not.
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

Praxas said:
And yet everything I said was correct. You have three choices, report me, ignore me, or deal with it. Again, if you want a Anti-Clinton circle jerk, go to a trump site. Until then, I will make valid comparisons whether YOU like it or not.
Click to expand...

1: There would be no need to report you for making deflection's. That's not against the rules.

2: Whether you like it or not I will continue to call out such partisan hackery. Deal with it.
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

Kal'Stang said:
1: There would be no need to report you for making deflection's. That's not against the rules.

2: Whether you like it or not I will continue to call out such partisan hackery. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

The hackery is yours when you choose to ignore a candidate's ethics problems over another.
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

Praxas said:
Trump's OWN WORDS were used. Nothing more. If covering someone's words makes them lose an election, guess what? They should shut up them instead of opening their mouth like Trump did.
Click to expand...

Without being propped up by the media, Trump would have fizzled out in the primaries and Hillary would have ended up losing to .... pretty much anyone else. Any publicity is good publicity, ring a bell? It also kept him relevant on the cheap until he could get his hands on republican funding. Honestly, without her help, it's likely that Trump would be just a memory and we'd be looking at president Rubio most likely.
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

shagg said:
Without being propped up by the media, Trump would have fizzled out in the primaries and Hillary would have ended up losing to .... pretty much anyone else. Any publicity is good publicity, ring a bell? It also kept him relevant on the cheap until he could get his hands on republican funding. Honestly, without her help, it's likely that Trump would be just a memory and we'd be looking at president Rubio most likely.
Click to expand...

think about what you are saying. Trump's OWN nasty words rallied the Republicans to nominate him. That means that a good solid chuck (40%) of Republicans LIKE that sort of talk. The likes of Sean Hannity are the ones that propelled him. No amount of media could have stopped Trump's own words from being said.
 
Re: 'Disregarded ethics guidelines': Clinton document raised issues with 2010 Shangha

Praxas said:
The hackery is yours when you choose to ignore a candidate's ethics problems over another.
Click to expand...

Except of course I haven't. In case you didn't know, I'm not voting for Trump. That is another problem with Partisan hackery. Those that do it always think that everyone that isn't toeing their line is toeing the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom