watching Christie explain away why he deleted his emails and never bothered to give his cell phone over authorities for the Bridgegate investigation(despite saying he didn't and did) is going to be prime popcorn material the next couple of months. especially after all the idiotic conservative talking points he parroted w/r/t Hillary's e-mails.

SK790 wrote:

pacino wrote:that is a good point, depending how much the balances are, what would save the most dollars, etc.

Thanks for the advice guys, but I took vector calculus and differential equations in college, I think I can figure out interest.

I had to take Math 5 twice just to pass it. But I never took out a loan and graduated debt free from Penn State. I was also outraged when tuition went up to more than $1,000 for the year in 1979.

Math 5 rules!!!

jerseyhoya wrote:I had a class with Eric and he seemed very nice.

When it comes to telling stretchers, he's a chip off the old block

I'm sorry - the whole drumpf gene pool needs draining, like a lanced boil

Lol at Boris Johnson

Because it has been going so well for the Britons...

Czech President Milos Zeman called for a referendum on the country’s membership in the European Union and NATO, saying a vote should be taken even as he supports staying in both blocs.

The Czech Republic benefits as an EU member because it receives more funds than it contributes, while NATO provides security guarantees in fighting international terrorism, Zeman said on public Czech Radio.

“I don’t agree with those in favor of leaving the EU,” said Zeman, whose largely ceremonial powers don’t include the ability to call plebiscites. “But I will do everything I can to have a referendum, so people can express themselves.”

To me, seems like the breathless analysis of Tarmac conversationgate misses that the direct & indirect participants may be thinking a few moves further on than they're being given credit for.

One scenario that comes to this innocent mind is that Lynch (& others) would not want not to have the FBI's plan to not further pursue the whole stupid thing called into question by having it look like the FBI decision had been 'influenced' by furtive admin/AG action. Now she's out of the way, so to speak. So the FBI is "free" to do whatever it wishes.

Wouldn't be the 1st time reactionary pantswetters wet themselves in the premature belief that they'd finally bagged the Clintons

also, I feel like "it's a tough hibbie-jobbie, but somebody's gotta do it" would be a fine title for a politics thread

pacino wrote:Lol at Boris Johnson

Freaking insane. He was a pawn all along it seems. Machiavellian.

Its all rigged. Just like Donnie said/says/yells.

It was dumb for Big Bill to snake his way onto that plane. Just careless for people who are overly paranoid about appearances.

"Why aren't we putting our retiree, our military retirees on that border or in TSA, get rid of all these 'hibby-jobbies' they wear at TSA -- I've seen them myself?" Cathy Chevalier of Hudson, New Hampshire asked Trump, referring to the head coverings worn by some Muslim women.

Trump did not provide a definitive answer, responding, "Okay, you know, and we are looking at that, and we are looking at that, we're looking at a lot of things." It was unclear if Trump's answer was referring to hiring more military retirees or getting rid of TSA Muslim employees who wear the hijab.

He then went on to tout his endorsement by the union representing 16,500 Border Patrol agents.

hibby-jobbies

Austria presidential poll result overturned

So you don't see that every day

oh jesus christ

pacino wrote:

"Why aren't we putting our retiree, our military retirees on that border or in TSA, get rid of all these 'hibby-jobbies' they wear at TSA -- I've seen them myself?" Cathy Chevalier of Hudson, New Hampshire asked Trump, referring to the head coverings worn by some Muslim women.

Trump did not provide a definitive answer, responding, "Okay, you know, and we are looking at that, and we are looking at that, we're looking at a lot of things." It was unclear if Trump's answer was referring to hiring more military retirees or getting rid of TSA Muslim employees who wear the hijab.

He then went on to tout his endorsement by the union representing 16,500 Border Patrol agents.

hibby-jobbies

I heard that... insane... both the woman and the candidate.

Someone keeps hoping that there will be some magic egg cracking where some form of new Trump emerges from withing the crusty cocoon.

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I would guess they just bought a bad list that includes people from other countries. One imagines they are not actively targeting members of Parliament for fundraising.

It was sent to their official government email accounts. It included the Canadian Prime Minister, members of Australian Parliament, members of British Parliament, members of Icelandic Parliament. And amazingly, it included some very liberal groups such as the MP contingent from the Scottish National Party.

At best, it's incredibly sloppy. Someone is getting prosecuted for this, albeit probably not someone very high up in the campaign.

What is the explanation for worse than "at best"? They are intentionally targeting people in foreign governments to give them money because...? No one is getting prosecuted for this, come on.

They have literally no idea what they're doing. I would guess they just blasted the email out to every list they had without any attempt to make sure it was targeted. They just started Internet fundraising this week or last week. I'm sure foreign nationals get fundraising appeals from Hillary all the time, though probably not ones with foreign domains, because her campaign is competent and one imagines it filters those.

What campaign fundraising email list would you be buying that would have foreign leaders' official email addresses on it? Because if they're buying any other type of list, they'll have to show due diligence in vetting it before utilizing the data.

I agree that they have no idea what they're doing. But gross negligence is more than sufficient to trigger a violation of campaign finance law. You aren't allowed to buy a list and blindly send it--that still violates the "knowingly and willfully" standard. If they can't prove due diligence, then they're in trouble.

That being said, if the FEC doesn't bother to open an investigation, then nevermind.

Mike Lee went on this huge rant about Trump...but in the end it's a pile of crap. Many media outlets aren't playing or showing the entire quote and showing the entire thing puts it in better context. I'll highlight where:

Well, we can get into that if you want. I mean we can get into the fact that he accused my best friend’s father of conspiring to kill JFK. We can go through the fact that he has made some statements that some have identified correctly as religiously intolerance. We can get into the fact that he is so unpopular because my sate consists of members who were a religious minority church — a people who were ordered exterminated by the governor of Missouri in 1839 and statements like that make them nervous. Now look, these things are not something that I couldn’t get over if I heard the right things out of him. But if you want to go to why I have concerns, I can go on if you like. I hope I can get over these concerns. I hope Mr. Trump can help me identify them. But don’t sit here and tell me Steve that I have no reason to be concerned about Donald Trump.

all his statements and ideas are terrible but if Trump says 'whoops, nevermind all that!' then it'll be water under the bridge.

how spineless. either be for Trump or not.

maybe he's related to McCain

To be fair, McCain hasn't been captured again for a pretty long time, so maybe he's back in Trump's good graces.

Mike Lee is the Clarence Thomas to Ted Cruz' Antonin Scalia. He's a patsy.

pacino wrote:Mike Lee went on this huge rant about Trump...but in the end it's a pile of crap. Many media outlets aren't playing or showing the entire quote and showing the entire thing puts it in better context. I'll highlight where:

Well, we can get into that if you want. I mean we can get into the fact that he accused my best friend’s father of conspiring to kill JFK. We can go through the fact that he has made some statements that some have identified correctly as religiously intolerance. We can get into the fact that he is so unpopular because my sate consists of members who were a religious minority church — a people who were ordered exterminated by the governor of Missouri in 1839 and statements like that make them nervous. Now look, these things are not something that I couldn’t get over if I heard the right things out of him. But if you want to go to why I have concerns, I can go on if you like. I hope I can get over these concerns. I hope Mr. Trump can help me identify them. But don’t sit here and tell me Steve that I have no reason to be concerned about Donald Trump.

all his statements and ideas are terrible but if Trump says 'whoops, nevermind all that!' then it'll be water under the bridge.

how spineless. either be for Trump or not.

Not to mention that most of what he finds disturbing are things that are personally offensive to his friends and acquaintances, not the clear race-baiting or misogynistic statements.

Someone on Keepin It 1600 this week (maybe the guest--can't remember who) correctly compared Trump to the boyfriend that your friend thinks is going to reform his dickish ways but never will because he's not 25.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I would guess they just bought a bad list that includes people from other countries. One imagines they are not actively targeting members of Parliament for fundraising.

It was sent to their official government email accounts. It included the Canadian Prime Minister, members of Australian Parliament, members of British Parliament, members of Icelandic Parliament. And amazingly, it included some very liberal groups such as the MP contingent from the Scottish National Party.

At best, it's incredibly sloppy. Someone is getting prosecuted for this, albeit probably not someone very high up in the campaign.

What is the explanation for worse than "at best"? They are intentionally targeting people in foreign governments to give them money because...? No one is getting prosecuted for this, come on.

They have literally no idea what they're doing. I would guess they just blasted the email out to every list they had without any attempt to make sure it was targeted. They just started Internet fundraising this week or last week. I'm sure foreign nationals get fundraising appeals from Hillary all the time, though probably not ones with foreign domains, because her campaign is competent and one imagines it filters those.

What campaign fundraising email list would you be buying that would have foreign leaders' official email addresses on it? Because if they're buying any other type of list, they'll have to show due diligence in vetting it before utilizing the data.

I agree that they have no idea what they're doing. But gross negligence is more than sufficient to trigger a violation of campaign finance law. You aren't allowed to buy a list and blindly send it--that still violates the "knowingly and willfully" standard. If they can't prove due diligence, then they're in trouble.

That being said, if the FEC doesn't bother to open an investigation, then nevermind.

I get all sorts of emails from political people, and I've never given money before. I don't really know how the lists get cycled around, but I'm sure they all have their fair share of nonsense addresses. Competent campaigns probably filter for foreign email domains, and I imagine the Trump people will going forward. It could also be that someone outside the campaign thought it was funny to sign up a bunch of elected officials to the Trump newsletter/whatnot list. No one is going to get prosecuted for this.