US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Bill Clinton meet privately in Phoenix before Benghazi report - Polidicks

[QUOTE=archangel125;50620629]Dude, wait. You think Trump's honest? You think the guy has more integrity than Hillary? Ahahahah. My god, that's amazing. [url]http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/[/url] Politifact doesn't get all of those right, but it gets most spot on. [/QUOTE] Please show me where I said either of those things cause I think you're just putting words in my mouth. I said Hitlary's ability to casually lie and brush anything she's confronted about off like it's nothing would fuck us over just as much as Trump's racism and complete lack of common sense would.

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;50624026]Please show me where I said either of those things cause I think you're just putting words in my mouth. I said Hitlary's ability to casually lie and brush anything she's confronted about off like it's nothing would fuck us over just as much as Trump's racism and complete lack of common sense would.[/QUOTE] I know this isn't a popular opinion but the ability to lie and get away with it is pretty valuable in a leader when it comes to international relations.

[QUOTE=Monkah;50620658]I won't bother with the rest for now-- but can you really say Clinton is trying to make for less corrupt politics when things like what's detailed in the OP happen?[/QUOTE] And where exactly did I state anything about her personally trying to make politics less corrupt? The supreme court justice is the one that can shoot down money in politics, not her. A majority of liberal justices she'd nominate would do exactly that.

I reckon a Watergate level crime would be completely overlooked today in the United States. The presidential privy are nearly invincible on both sides of the coin - completely protected by external influence and confidence.

This isn't nearly as suspicious as people make it out to be considering Clinton herself was a member of this administrations cabinet as Secretary of State in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't discuss the ongoing investigation but at the same time I don't know what it's significant about this "news". [QUOTE=Monkah;50620639] No, it doesn't really get 'most spot on'. As I observed last time someone brought up Politifact, [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1523453&p=50545132#post50545132"]it's pretty biased.[/URL] They're far more critical of the right than they are the left, which isn't surprising, given that they're owned by the Tampa Bay Times-- a left-wing newspaper.[/QUOTE] Again, I proved you [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1523453&p=50545425&viewfull=1#post50545425"]wrong [/URL]a few posts below that one. It's getting tiring following up your post with mine. Stop linking it please. [QUOTE=rilez;50620789]PolitiFact is owned by the Tampa Bay Times, which has openly endorsed Clinton for President. I'm not denying that Trump is a liar... but using PolitiFact as a source makes it easier for people to dismiss those claims.[/QUOTE] Of course it's easy to dismiss those claims because they come from a paper that endorses Clinton because all you have to say is "Well they endorse Clinton!" instead of, you know, doing the legwork and research and proving the claims wrong yourself. Spoiler alert: [sp]none of their claims are wrong and people on this very board have proven that[/sp] [editline]30th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TestECull;50620910]I would prefer an empty Oval Office to having either candidate in it, but boil it down: One of them is a wild, crazy, uninformed baffoon [I]and one of them is under investigation by the FBI on serious federal felonies[/I]. Do you want a potential Leavenworth resident in control of a couple thousand nukes? The congressional cockblock will severely limit the damage Trump could do, anyway. So, as much as I don't want him in the office, he's the better choice of the two we got this year. [/QUOTE] I'd feel way more comfortable with Clinton in charge of nuclear weapons (and defense, and foreign policy at large) than Trump for reasons that should be abundantly clear if you have followed this election cycle even a little bit. [editline]30th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TestECull;50620910] You've got to factor in the congressional cockblock that's made it so hard for the last 8 years to see any significant progress. Hilary will be better at breakign through it. Congress will defy Trump's every move, effectively minimizing the damage he can do. Clinton...not so much. She's being investigated for crimes that you or I would be locked up and forgotten about by now, she'd love nothing more than to gut the second amendment, and she can work with Congress in a way that gets the bad things she wants done done. I'd rather have an empty office than have either Trump or Hilary in it, but if I had to choose, it'd be Trump.[/QUOTE] Yeah your right. After trying 60 times to repeal Obamacare the Republican congress will block Trump from doing it purely out of spite. No wait that is ridiculous Why is this meme still alive? Why do people think that just because establishment GOP didn't want him doesn't mean they will work with what they get and achieve the things they want to achieve, a great number of which are part of Trumps platform?

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;50620563]I can't wait until trump wins so you'll all quit deluding yourselves into [B]thinking it's okay to vote for a corporate jizzrag[/B].[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://archive.fortune.com/assets/i2.cdn.turner.com/money/galleries/2008/fortune/0805/gallery.private_companies.fortune/images/trump_organization.jpg[/IMG] The man has towers with his name plastered all over them all across America. Hillary may be corporate-sponsored, but Trump IS the the corporation.

I had to read his post twice because I saw "corporate jizzrag" and immediately thought of Trump. I don't understand why people think someone who ran a corporation and was the source of the "corruption" for many years is drastically better than someone who receives "corrupting" money. Just seems like you are skipping the middleman.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50624486]I had to read his post twice because I saw "corporate jizzrag" and immediately thought of Trump. I don't understand why people think someone who ran a corporation and was the source of the "corruption" for many years is drastically better than someone who receives "corrupting" money. Just seems like you are skipping the middleman.[/QUOTE] Trump was a businessman, he got along with Clinton, he got along with everybody. That was his job. Now he wants to give back to his country by giving them a real leader who has the American people's interests at heart.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50624531]Trump was a businessman, he got along with Clinton, he got along with everybody. That was his job. Now he wants to give back to his country by giving them a real leader who has the American people's interests at heart.[/QUOTE] You should get an American accent and apply to be his new press secretary/manager.

Right. His job was to succeed financially, and greasing the wheels of politics by sending some cash to the Democrats is a part of that. I don't blame him for playing the game (as long as it's within the rules), but I will call out the people who are blatantly hypocritical money in politics.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50624576]Right. His job was to succeed financially, and greasing the wheels of politics by sending some cash to the Democrats is a part of that. I don't blame him for playing the game (as long as it's within the rules), but I will call out the people who are blatantly hypocritical money in politics.[/QUOTE] But he openly talks about this stuff in his speeches. He knows the entire system and wants to use that knowledge to fight on behalf of the American people.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50624605]But he openly talks about this stuff in his speeches. He knows the entire system and wants to use that knowledge to fight on behalf of the American people.[/QUOTE] According to him. Why should I trust a tax dodging guy who thinks the unemployment rate is 35%? Trump's plan to loosen defamation laws so he can sue newspapers he dislikes isn't "on behalf of the American people." His tax plan isn't "on behalf of the American people" when every economic group in the country guarantees it would significantly worsen socioeconomic mobility and send even more money to the top (to Trump!) You're a troll and should've been perma'd months ago. I don't know why I ever pay attention to you.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50624638]According to him. Why should I trust a tax dodging guy who thinks the unemployment rate is 35%? Trump's plan to loosen defamation laws so he can sue newspapers he dislikes isn't "on behalf of the American people." His tax plan isn't "on behalf of the American people" when every economic group in the country guarantees it would significantly worsen socioeconomic mobility and send even more money to the top (to Trump!)[/QUOTE] Trump will lower taxes but there will also be more wealth in the country so the government (and the people) will be richer. [QUOTE]You're a troll and should've been perma'd months ago. I don't know why I ever pay attention to you.[/QUOTE] Sounds like you're the one who wants to silence the opposition.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50624713]Trump will lower taxes but there will also be more wealth in the country so the government (and the people) will be richer. Sounds like you're the one who wants to silence the opposition.[/QUOTE] You're not opposition. Opposition argues policies. You don't argue. You spout the Truth of the Holy Gospel of Our Lord And Savior God Emperor Trump. You're religious, not political.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50624713]Trump will lower taxes but there will also be more wealth in the country so the government (and the people) will be richer. [/QUOTE] Economists on both sides of the aisle disagree.

If you guys truly do hate both Trump (confirmed liar, suspicious, inconsistent stance on policies, known friend of the Clintons) and Hillary (confirmed liar, under investigation for serious federal crimes, known friend of Trump) then I suggest all of you consider voting third party this election. There seems to be a lot of people saying "well I hate them both" but few people are actually saying they'll [I]do[/I] something about it.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50624763]If you guys truly do hate both Trump (confirmed liar, suspicious, inconsistent stance on policies, known friend of the Clintons) and Hillary (confirmed liar, under investigation for serious federal crimes, known friend of Trump) then I suggest all of you consider voting third party this election. There seems to be a lot of people saying "well I hate them both" but few people are actually saying they'll [I]do[/I] something about it.[/QUOTE] I'm planning on writing in Bernie come election time. I also plan on getting everyone I know to do the same and I hope everyone else here who's a Bernie supporter will write him in as well.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50624763]If you guys truly do hate both Trump (confirmed liar, suspicious, inconsistent stance on policies, known friend of the Clintons) and Hillary (confirmed liar, under investigation for serious federal crimes, known friend of Trump) then I suggest all of you consider voting third party this election. There seems to be a lot of people saying "well I hate them both" but few people are actually saying they'll [I]do[/I] something about it.[/QUOTE] If I can't get my preferred candidate (Sanders) then my next objective when voting is to pick the person who I think will do the least amount of damage to the United States while president for 4 to 8 years. That may well be Jill Stein. Everything about Trumps campaign has shown me that he is unfit to be president in almost any way. About the only things I can positively say about his campaign is that he seems strong on guns (though he has wobbled on this before) and publicly rejects the TPP. Everything else, domestic policy, spending, foreign policy, defense is just a mess in ways I've and others better than me have demonstrated. I can't imagine a scenario where I would vote Trump when my objective is the health of the nation at large. Gary Johnson is a Libertarian and I have my beefs with Libertarianism. He seems like a great guy and libertarians always come across as more genuine than lifelong Republicans and Democrats, and I do think certain aspects of the government could use some auditing or downsizing but I find libertarian policy to just go way too far, revoking federal oversight where we really need it and simply moving supposed federal tyranny down to state tyranny, as well as a foreign policy stance that I find frankly incompatible with the world we live in. I'm in this weird spot where I can admire libertarians and Gary Johnson more than Republicans and their candidates, but I'd probably vote GOP if the gun was put to my head. So then the decision is down to Jill Stein and Hillary Clinton. Stein is certainly closer to Bernie (my ideal) than Clinton is, but they both share a couple of issues that I disagree with (nuclear power and defense). Still I think Stein is a lot more genuine than Clinton and I'd trust her to push progressive policy over Clinton for sure. The problem is that she is unelectable. Not in the meme way that cody and co like to say Clinton is unelectable, wherein she is actually well ahead of Trump in current polls and her campaign is in a far better state than Trumps, but genuinely, actually, realistically unelectable. 87% of voters don't even know what the Green party [I]is[/I]. She can't win. Voting for her would be voting for an ideal and, as frustrating as it can be, I'd rather vote for the practical: A candidate who probably won't push progressive policy as much as my ideal candidate would, but someone who by all accounts will maintain or maybe even improve things in 4 to 8 years, by which time discontent with this election cycle may provide a needed boost to third parties, or atleast a push away from "third-way" Democratic policy.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50620663]Politifact is incredibly biased against Trump to make it seem like he lies most of the time and oh my god I can't believe you're seriously using a John Oliver as video as argument.[/QUOTE] Using a comedian for an argument base is never a good starting point

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50624889]Using a comedian for an argument base is never a good starting point[/QUOTE] ala dismissing politifact out of hand due to being owned by the Tampa Bay Times, it's a lot easier to to dismiss a person for alleged bias rather than proving out that bias led to inaccurate statements. I think the Drumpf segment of Oliver's tirade was dumb, but the parts before that are perfectly legitimate.

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;50620563]I can't wait until trump wins so you'll all quit deluding yourselves into thinking it's okay to vote for a corporate jizzrag.[/QUOTE] Hes got a lot of work to do to get to that point. Forecasts show him losing by a wide margin, his lackluster campaign funding and his non serious attitude and rhetoric aren't helping ontop of having no ad time in the swing states.

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;50624794]I'm planning on writing in Bernie come election time. I also plan on getting everyone I know to do the same and I hope everyone else here who's a Bernie supporter will write him in as well.[/QUOTE]I'd suggest actually voting for somebody actually running, as Raidyr said below there's Jill Stein if you're more left-leaning but I haven't been following her enough to comment fully on all her policies. I know that the anti-nuclear stance of the party and her comments about defense and foreign policy are something I can't get behind so I'm almost a hundred percent sure I'll be voting for Johnson. [QUOTE=Raidyr;50624864]Gary Johnson is a Libertarian and I have my beefs with Libertarianism. He seems like a great guy and libertarians always come across as more genuine than lifelong Republicans and Democrats, and I do think certain aspects of the government could use some auditing or downsizing but I find libertarian policy to just go way too far, revoking federal oversight where we really need it and simply moving supposed federal tyranny down to state tyranny, as well as a foreign policy stance that I find frankly incompatible with the world we live in. I'm in this weird spot where I can admire libertarians and Gary Johnson more than Republicans and their candidates, but I'd probably vote GOP if the gun was put to my head.[/QUOTE]I'll address this since it's something I can adequately comment on. (I don't know too much about Stein, as I said) One of the things that has bothered a lot of libertarians this election is how Gary Johnson is not so tightly conforming to the party platform, he's a bit more traditionally progressive than they'd like so your comments about the libertarian policy and how far it goes makes me wonder if you've been keeping up with Johnson. I'm not a complete and total "big L Libertarian" by a long shot, but I do lean more toward libertarian principles and I think Johnson is about as perfect of a candidate for me as it gets. Some of the more lofty goals he's talked about are simply not going to happen, like with Trump most of the things he'd like to get done wouldn't get done simply because nobody in the senate would agree with him.

Polls are one thing; enthusiasm and turnout are another. Wide as the gap may seem right now, those on the left would be wise not to underestimate the situation. Democrats have a history of losing because they can't inspire their base to action. Trump has generated the highest Republican turnout in decades, and he's paired with the most unfavorable Democrat in history. This election is practically begging for an upset. Regardless of the outcome, let's all knock it off with the gloating. It's obnoxious, and it's letting us forget that we're brothers and we're all in this together. Trump, Clinton, who gives a shit? It's the two-party system that's our enemy. They're the symptoms, not the cause.

[QUOTE=mcharest;50625058] Trump, Clinton, who gives a shit?.[/QUOTE] I feel like a broken record but when two politicians have radically different views, people are going to give a shit and pick sides.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50624531]Trump was a businessman, he got along with Clinton, he got along with everybody. That was his job. Now he wants to give back to his country by giving them a real leader who has the American people's interests at heart.[/QUOTE] Starting to think this guy is just an experimental chat bot.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50625895]I feel like a broken record but when two politicians have radically different views, people are going to give a shit and pick sides.[/QUOTE] The problem though is that people find themselves supporting a candidate with whom they agree on a handful of core positions, but disagree with on practically everything else. Both Democrats and Republicans have discovered that if you appeal heavily to your voters' belief systems, they'll vote against their own interests. For example: as a voter, what does it say about [I]you[/I] if you support women's rights but oppose free trade? Which part of you gets subordinated at the ballot box? The trick is to find out just how much cognitive dissonance voters can withstand without rejecting the system. Nevermind the fact that personal positions don't necessarily translate into action, especially with a deadlocked legislature. For all the apocalyptic predictions being hurled around by Democrats and Republicans, things haven't changed much—at least, not in the way we've been [I]conditioned to expect them to[/I]. People are so focused on preventing a sudden and imminent downfall that they've become blind to the slow, steady downfall taking place just under the surface. We can follow Clinton on a slow descent, or we can race to the bottom with Trump. At least Clinton has expressed [I]some[/I] desire to overturn Citizens United, but forgive me for doubting the resolve of a candidate whose top campaign donors are CitiGroup and Goldmann-Sachs. I guess my point is that when the system itself is corrupt, the policy window-dressing should take a backseat to restoring the integrity of the system.

Funny how everyone claiming Hilary is a criminal are Trump supporters. Maybe stay on /r/The_Donald?

[QUOTE=orgornot;50624531]Trump was a businessman, he got along with Clinton, he got along with everybody. That was his job. Now he wants to give back to his country by giving them a real leader who has the American people's interests at heart.[/QUOTE] You spout this in almost every thread. Its like you have a spreadsheet of slogans to spout off or something, jesus. Its actually kinda scary that trump supporters would rather spout of slogans and "Trump will make America great again!!!" then actually justify their beliefs. Its also really telling of the sort of person who would support such a candidate.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50624531]Trump was a businessman, he got along with Clinton, he got along with everybody. That was his job. Now he wants to give back to his country by giving them a real leader who has the American people's interests at heart.[/QUOTE] Oh for god sakes do you seriously think Trump cares at all for America and its people? A real leader doesn't possess the traits and qualities Trump has, if you see how he acts on Twitter and in the debates a long time ago you'd have realized that he is far from leadership potential. If he even gave a damn about Americas problems, he wouldn't be focused so heavily on immigration problems, and instead would be worrying about our terrible healthcare or our education, especially when it comes to students going into debt to get a decent college education. Please quit coming into threads preaching from a script thinking you know what's right and wrong because it clearly looks like it.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html?ref=topics&_r=0[/url] As a bit of an update to this story. Lynch is going to accept whatever the FBI's decision is.(Whether to indict or not)