The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

[JohnStOnge]

Does any rational person really think that Hillary didn't know? IMO she verbally authorized the server knowing full well that she shouldn't have.

Exactly. And yes, there are millions of people that think she didn't know. Idiots.


JSO is one of them.

I think Hillary went to a private e mail server for the purpose of being able to control and hide information. However, I also think she thought she could control the situation so that nothing classified was handled on her private server and that no laws would be broken. I also know that all of that happened during a time when Federal laws and rules on such things were evolving/changing.

And, again: This entire discussion is in the context of a situation in which someone who is a whole lot more qualified to determine whether she broke the law or not than any of us are determined that she did not break the law.

Note also that nobody has tried to go after her since then. There is absolutely nothing to stop the Trump Justice Department from going after her. Why is that? Do you buy Trump's line about it just being because he's being kind about it?

I think it's possible that they are not going after her because they think it likely that Comey was right and that they would be wasting their time.

[JohnStOnge]

Now back to that Investors Business Daily editorial at https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... -optimism/ that BDKJMU linked. THAT is a classic example of "lying with statistics." This for example:

Incomes then flatlined again, posting no overall gain between August 2015 and December 2016.

What the authors did there was cherry pick to points from a situation where there was up and down variation. It's like what I'm about to describe based on this graph:



The graph clearly shows an upward trend as indicated by the line of best fit. What the authors did was do something like I would do if I note that the first and last point in the graph are at the same value (5) and say there was a "flatline." It would be a lie. And that's what the authors did.

This is a problem. For years I railed against Liberals being intellectually dishonest. Objectivity requires calling out my own "side" when they do it. And they are doing it big time now in order to justify supporting Trump.

[JohnStOnge]

Why do you Trump guys continue to suck up misinformation as you do? Like that Investors Business Daily editorial I just commented on. This is something I've wondered about since the beginning of the Trump candidacy. It's like when Trump became a candidate a bunch of people on the "right" decided to just suspend their critical thinking skills in order to justify supporting him. Why do you do that?

Look, I will be the first to say that many on the left have been suspending their critical thinking skills for many decades. But why are YOU doing it?

Says the guy who voted for a person who allowed American citizens to be killed in Benghazi, then had her lackeys lie about it for weeks until the elections were over, then went in front of congress and asked “What difference, at this point, does it make?” A person who lied about landing in Bosnia “under fire”. A person who claims to be a champion of women’s rights, but stayed with her rapist husband and bashed all 30-40 of his victims because she knew riding his coattails was the best path to power. A bitch who knowingly violated law by having a separate server for her email, and then when discovered accidentally “lost” 30,000 emails. Yeah, nothing suspicious about that.

She could have run against Satan himself after that and there’s no **** WAY she would have ever gotten my vote. EVER.

If you can’t see that YOU have abandoned YOUR critical thinking skills in your tireless defense of that bitch, then there’s really no helping you at this point.

It's not a matter of defending Clinton. If you'd have asked me two years before the 2016 Presidential Election if there was ANY way I'd want her to be President I'd have been very emphatic in saying "No."

But that was before I knew that the Republicans were going to come up with an alternative that is worse. For all of Clinton's faults, she was never the threat to corrupt our system that Trump is. And, as dishonest as she is, she was never as dishonest as Trump is.

He's worse.

Otherwise: You say she "...knowingly violated the law by having a separate server for her e mails." Someone way more qualified than either you or I to comment on whether or not she violated the law decided that she did not violate the law. And, as I wrote earlier, there is nothing to stop the current Justice Department from charging her with violating the law if they think she did.

That's not some desire to defend her. If she was charged, tried, and convicted of violating the law I'd say she violated the law. But, after a long investigation, she wasn't even charged. And I haven't heard anything about her being charged after the Administration changed. Why is that the case if it was just Comey being way off target and it's SO clear that she violated the law?

[AZGrizFan]

Says the guy who voted for a person who allowed American citizens to be killed in Benghazi, then had her lackeys lie about it for weeks until the elections were over, then went in front of congress and asked “What difference, at this point, does it make?” A person who lied about landing in Bosnia “under fire”. A person who claims to be a champion of women’s rights, but stayed with her rapist husband and bashed all 30-40 of his victims because she knew riding his coattails was the best path to power. A bitch who knowingly violated law by having a separate server for her email, and then when discovered accidentally “lost” 30,000 emails. Yeah, nothing suspicious about that.

She could have run against Satan himself after that and there’s no **** WAY she would have ever gotten my vote. EVER.

If you can’t see that YOU have abandoned YOUR critical thinking skills in your tireless defense of that bitch, then there’s really no helping you at this point.

It's not a matter of defending Clinton. If you'd have asked me two years before the 2016 Presidential Election if there was ANY way I'd want her to be President I'd have been very emphatic in saying "No."

But that was before I knew that the Republicans were going to come up with an alternative that is worse. For all of Clinton's faults, she was never the threat to corrupt our system that Trump is. And, as dishonest as she is, she was never as dishonest as Trump is.

He's worse.

Otherwise: You say she "...knowingly violated the law by having a separate server for her e mails." Someone way more qualified than either you or I to comment on whether or not she violated the law decided that she did not violate the law. And, as I wrote earlier, there is nothing to stop the current Justice Department from charging her with violating the law if they think she did.

That's not some desire to defend her. If she was charged, tried, and convicted of violating the law I'd say she violated the law. But, after a long investigation, she wasn't even charged. And I haven't heard anything about her being charged after the Administration changed. Why is that the case if it was just Comey being way off target and it's SO clear that she violated the law?

25 years in the public eye....she never did ONE thing that didn’t further HER career. Trump is not worse, he’s just more obvious. Personally I prefer that to the backbiting, lying, underhanded closed door deals that POS made during her political career.

And again, if you don’t think she’s a true threat to our system, you really aren’t Paying attention.

[CID1990]

Exactly. And yes, there are millions of people that think she didn't know. Idiots.


JSO is one of them.

I think Hillary went to a private e mail server for the purpose of being able to control and hide information.

Crime.

[CID1990]

HAH HAH HAH you just can’t make this sh1t up

So many deleted tweets


https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05/28/ ... dren-2014/

[JohnStOnge]

I think Hillary went to a private e mail server for the purpose of being able to control and hide information.

Crime.

Again, someone way more qualified than either you or I to render an opinion on that subject said "No."

And, again, no one has made any effort to charge her since Trump became President.

[JohnStOnge]

It's not a matter of defending Clinton. If you'd have asked me two years before the 2016 Presidential Election if there was ANY way I'd want her to be President I'd have been very emphatic in saying "No."

But that was before I knew that the Republicans were going to come up with an alternative that is worse. For all of Clinton's faults, she was never the threat to corrupt our system that Trump is. And, as dishonest as she is, she was never as dishonest as Trump is.

He's worse.

Otherwise: You say she "...knowingly violated the law by having a separate server for her e mails." Someone way more qualified than either you or I to comment on whether or not she violated the law decided that she did not violate the law. And, as I wrote earlier, there is nothing to stop the current Justice Department from charging her with violating the law if they think she did.

That's not some desire to defend her. If she was charged, tried, and convicted of violating the law I'd say she violated the law. But, after a long investigation, she wasn't even charged. And I haven't heard anything about her being charged after the Administration changed. Why is that the case if it was just Comey being way off target and it's SO clear that she violated the law?

25 years in the public eye....she never did ONE thing that didn’t further HER career. Trump is not worse, he’s just more obvious. Personally I prefer that to the backbiting, lying, underhanded closed door deals that POS made during her political career.

And again, if you don’t think she’s a true threat to our system, you really aren’t Paying attention.

Clinton would not be attacking the systems for maintaining accountability as Trump is right now. I think that you are so blinded by your hatred of Clinton that you can't see that you are supporting and promoting something that is much worse.

[CID1990]

Crime.

Again, someone way more qualified than either you or I to render an opinion on that subject said "No."

And, again, no one has made any effort to charge her since Trump became President.

You just said yourself that you believe she committed a crime.

What color is the sky in your world?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Exactly. And yes, there are millions of people that think she didn't know. Idiots.


JSO is one of them.

I think Hillary went to a private e mail server for the purpose of being able to control and hide information. However, I also think she thought she could control the situation so that nothing classified was handled on her private server and that no laws would be broken. I also know that all of that happened during a time when Federal laws and rules on such things were evolving/changing.

And, again: This entire discussion is in the context of a situation in which someone who is a whole lot more qualified to determine whether she broke the law or not than any of us are determined that she did not break the law.

Note also that nobody has tried to go after her since then. There is absolutely nothing to stop the Trump Justice Department from going after her. Why is that? Do you buy Trump's line about it just being because he's being kind about it?

I think it's possible that they are not going after her because they think it likely that Comey was right and that they would be wasting their time.

Wrong. I had a security clearance the same as she did. I knew the rules. Same as she did.

Use what little common sense you have, Jon, and logically review it. She willfully skirted the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Baldy]

Crime.

Again, someone way more qualified than either you or I to render an opinion on that subject said "No."

And, again, no one has made any effort to charge her since Trump became President.

Wrong.

"Someone way more qualified" acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted by The Hilabeast's server. A crime according to the statute, but the DOJ chose not to prosecute. Nobody has never said, "No".

[UNI88]

25 years in the public eye....she never did ONE thing that didn’t further HER career. Trump is not worse, he’s just more obvious. Personally I prefer that to the backbiting, lying, underhanded closed door deals that POS made during her political career.

And again, if you don’t think she’s a true threat to our system, you really aren’t Paying attention.

Clinton would not be attacking the systems for maintaining accountability as Trump is right now. I think that you are so blinded by your hatred of Clinton that you can't see that you are supporting and promoting something that is much worse.

John, you clearly have a bias when it comes to anything related to Trump which interferes with your ability to rationally evaluate the differences and many similarities of Hillary and Donald.

Hillary wouldn't be attacking the systems, she would be subverting them. I'm not sure which is worse in the long run.

[kalm]

Clinton would not be attacking the systems for maintaining accountability as Trump is right now. I think that you are so blinded by your hatred of Clinton that you can't see that you are supporting and promoting something that is much worse.

John, you clearly have a bias when it comes to anything related to Trump which interferes with your ability to rationally evaluate the differences and many similarities of Hillary and Donald.

Hillary wouldn't be attacking the systems, she would be subverting them. I'm not sure which is worse in the long run.

Interesting point.

The one thing that keeps me wondering if Trump isn’t secretly smart is the notion that he’s pretending to attack the systems while working to subvert them. The ultimate crony capitalist disguised (or manipulated) as a populist. Either way, and in the end, as long as he gets his, it doesn’t matter.

[BDKJMU]

Exactly. And yes, there are millions of people that think she didn't know. Idiots.


JSO is one of them.

I think Hillary went to a private e mail server for the purpose of being able to control and hide information. However, I also think she thought she could control the situation so that nothing classified was handled on her private server and that no laws would be broken. I also know that all of that happened during a time when Federal laws and rules on such things were evolving/changing.

And, again: This entire discussion is in the context of a situation in which someone who is a whole lot more qualified to determine whether she broke the law or not than any of us are determined that she did not break the law.

Note also that nobody has tried to go after her since then. There is absolutely nothing to stop the Trump Justice Department from going after her. Why is that? Do you buy Trump's line about it just being because he's being kind about it?

I think it's possible that they are not going after her because they think it likely that Comey was right and that they would be wasting their time.

Wrong. Saying not going to prosecute isn’t saying someone didn’t break the law..

[Ibanez]

I think Hillary went to a private e mail server for the purpose of being able to control and hide information. However, I also think she thought she could control the situation so that nothing classified was handled on her private server and that no laws would be broken. I also know that all of that happened during a time when Federal laws and rules on such things were evolving/changing.

And, again: This entire discussion is in the context of a situation in which someone who is a whole lot more qualified to determine whether she broke the law or not than any of us are determined that she did not break the law.

Note also that nobody has tried to go after her since then. There is absolutely nothing to stop the Trump Justice Department from going after her. Why is that? Do you buy Trump's line about it just being because he's being kind about it?

I think it's possible that they are not going after her because they think it likely that Comey was right and that they would be wasting their time.

Wrong. Saying not going to prosecute isn’t saying someone didn’t break the law..

There's truth to this. How many times have we seen someone break the law then get off with a warning or nothing at all? It's another case of "affluenza."

JSO, you've become a caricature.

[UNI88]

John, you clearly have a bias when it comes to anything related to Trump which interferes with your ability to rationally evaluate the differences and many similarities of Hillary and Donald.

Hillary wouldn't be attacking the systems, she would be subverting them. I'm not sure which is worse in the long run.

Interesting point.

The one thing that keeps me wondering if Trump isn’t secretly smart is the notion that he’s pretending to attack the systems while working to subvert them. The ultimate crony capitalist disguised (or manipulated) as a populist. Either way, and in the end, as long as he gets his, it doesn’t matter.

I can agree that Trump's attacks are an overt attempt to subvert them. Hillary would have been much more covert in her subversion.

I do think Trump us much smarter than people give him credit for. The problem is that his egomania, narcissm and overall buffoonery frequently override his intelligence. He has had quite a few successes despite this though.

[houndawg]

Again, someone way more qualified than either you or I to render an opinion on that subject said "No."

And, again, no one has made any effort to charge her since Trump became President.

You just said yourself that you believe she committed a crime.

What color is the sky in your world?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trey Gowdy, ever the Clinton apologist, said there was nothing there.

I think the bitch is guilty but the Republicans are too stupid to catch her.

[houndawg]

John, you clearly have a bias when it comes to anything related to Trump which interferes with your ability to rationally evaluate the differences and many similarities of Hillary and Donald.

Hillary wouldn't be attacking the systems, she would be subverting them. I'm not sure which is worse in the long run.

Interesting point.

The one thing that keeps me wondering if Trump isn’t secretly smart is the notion that he’s pretending to attack the systems while working to subvert them. The ultimate crony capitalist disguised (or manipulated) as a populist. Either way, and in the end, as long as he gets his, it doesn’t matter.

He isn't but his handler is a master of his craft..

[JohnStOnge]

Here's a good chart from https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth:



See how it shows a dramatic change corresponding to Trump taking office?

No. You don't. And you don't because it's not there.

[Ibanez]

Says the guy who voted for a person who allowed American citizens to be killed in Benghazi, then had her lackeys lie about it for weeks until the elections were over, then went in front of congress and asked “What difference, at this point, does it make?” A person who lied about landing in Bosnia “under fire”. A person who claims to be a champion of women’s rights, but stayed with her rapist husband and bashed all 30-40 of his victims because she knew riding his coattails was the best path to power. A bitch who knowingly violated law by having a separate server for her email, and then when discovered accidentally “lost” 30,000 emails. Yeah, nothing suspicious about that.

She could have run against Satan himself after that and there’s no **** WAY she would have ever gotten my vote. EVER.

If you can’t see that YOU have abandoned YOUR critical thinking skills in your tireless defense of that bitch, then there’s really no helping you at this point.

It's not a matter of defending Clinton. If you'd have asked me two years before the 2016 Presidential Election if there was ANY way I'd want her to be President I'd have been very emphatic in saying "No."

But that was before I knew that the Republicans were going to come up with an alternative that is worse. For all of Clinton's faults, she was never the threat to corrupt our system that Trump is. And, as dishonest as she is, she was never as dishonest as Trump is.

He's worse.

Otherwise: You say she "...knowingly violated the law by having a separate server for her e mails." Someone way more qualified than either you or I to comment on whether or not she violated the law decided that she did not violate the law. And, as I wrote earlier, there is nothing to stop the current Justice Department from charging her with violating the law if they think she did.

That's not some desire to defend her. If she was charged, tried, and convicted of violating the law I'd say she violated the law. But, after a long investigation, she wasn't even charged. And I haven't heard anything about her being charged after the Administration changed. Why is that the case if it was just Comey being way off target and it's SO clear that she violated the law?

They didn't say that. Comey said no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.


But that was after his initial drafts said she was "grossly negligent" - you know, like the law.

Remind me again - is ability to win a prosecution always the reason you don't charge some for a crime? Seems to me that a person gets charged, regardless, and it's up to the legal system to determine that.

[CID1990]

It's not a matter of defending Clinton. If you'd have asked me two years before the 2016 Presidential Election if there was ANY way I'd want her to be President I'd have been very emphatic in saying "No."

But that was before I knew that the Republicans were going to come up with an alternative that is worse. For all of Clinton's faults, she was never the threat to corrupt our system that Trump is. And, as dishonest as she is, she was never as dishonest as Trump is.

He's worse.

Otherwise: You say she "...knowingly violated the law by having a separate server for her e mails." Someone way more qualified than either you or I to comment on whether or not she violated the law decided that she did not violate the law. And, as I wrote earlier, there is nothing to stop the current Justice Department from charging her with violating the law if they think she did.

That's not some desire to defend her. If she was charged, tried, and convicted of violating the law I'd say she violated the law. But, after a long investigation, she wasn't even charged. And I haven't heard anything about her being charged after the Administration changed. Why is that the case if it was just Comey being way off target and it's SO clear that she violated the law?

They didn't say that. Comey said no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.


But that was after his initial drafts said she was "grossly negligent" - you know, like the law.

Remind me again - is ability to win a prosecution always the reason you don't charge some for a crime? Seems to me that a person gets charged, regardless, and it's up to the legal system to determine that.

Its really simple -

Everybody expected to be working for Hillary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

They didn't say that. Comey said no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.


But that was after his initial drafts said she was "grossly negligent" - you know, like the law.

Remind me again - is ability to win a prosecution always the reason you don't charge some for a crime? Seems to me that a person gets charged, regardless, and it's up to the legal system to determine that.

Its really simple -

Everybody expected to be working for Hillary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh..yeah. Right. Hillary's corruption is better for America than Trumps.

[AZGrizFan]

Its really simple -

Everybody expected to be working for Hillary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh..yeah. Right. Hillary's corruption is better for America than Trumps.

That's not even remotely what he's saying. He's saying that everyone was hedging their bets because they all thought she'd win and they'd end up working for her and they didn't want to torpedo their careers before she even took office.

At least that's what I took his post to mean....

[Ibanez]

Oh..yeah. Right. Hillary's corruption is better for America than Trumps.

That's not even remotely what he's saying. He's saying that everyone was hedging their bets because they all thought she'd win and they'd end up working for her and they didn't want to torpedo their careers before she even took office.

At least that's what I took his post to mean....

I was agreeing with CID and then trolling JSO.

FFS, Tom. Keep up.

[AZGrizFan]

That's not even remotely what he's saying. He's saying that everyone was hedging their bets because they all thought she'd win and they'd end up working for her and they didn't want to torpedo their careers before she even took office.

At least that's what I took his post to mean....

I was agreeing with CID and then trolling JSO.

FFS, Tom. Keep up.