Dum Dee Dum Dum.......

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 10, 2016 21:05:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 10, 2016 18:13:30 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

The discussion was about what they took that did not belong to them!

i wish i could be as sure as you are.  from where i sit, it has to do almost entirely with stuff they took that belonged to them (gifts).

the problem is that gifts are not allowed.  that is where this all stems from (again, from how i read it).

Any reasonable, prudent public servant would have determined who the gifts belonged to before carting $200K out the White House door. You would have. I would have. It's a matter of common decency.

The Clinton's didn't. They presumed they were entitled to take everything, didn't bother to check if their presumption was correct (or did, and figured they could get away with it), and walked out the door with $140K in public property that didn't belong to them.

It's not "theft" per se, but it says something about their collective character. If they wrote into YMAM about the affair, they'd be soundly condemned for poor judgment and an unrealistic sense of entitlement.

Having said this, does it rank up there with the other scandals plaguing Ms. Clinton? No.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 11, 2016 4:26:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 10, 2016 21:05:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i wish i could be as sure as you are.  from where i sit, it has to do almost entirely with stuff they took that belonged to them (gifts).

the problem is that gifts are not allowed.  that is where this all stems from (again, from how i read it).

Any reasonable, prudent public servant would have determined who the gifts belonged to before carting $200K out the White House door. You would have. I would have. It's a matter of common decency.

The Clinton's didn't. They presumed they were entitled to take everything, didn't bother to check if their presumption was correct (or did, and figured they could get away with it), and walked out the door with $140K in public property that didn't belong to them.

It's not "theft" per se, but it says something about their collective character. If they wrote into YMAM about the affair, they'd be soundly condemned for poor judgment and an unrealistic sense of entitlement.

Having said this, does it rank up there with the other scandals plaguing Ms. Clinton? No.

and that's fine.  let's accuse her of being unreasonable and imprudent, then.  i have no issue with that.

edit: for the record, i am not at all sure that the $134k figure is accurate.  as i posed previously (in red), 2/3 of that $134k were gifts that the Clinton's BROUGHT WITH THEM in 2000.  there is no way that is "state property".

[Value Buy]

Jul 11, 2016 14:00:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 11, 2016 4:26:50 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Any reasonable, prudent public servant would have determined who the gifts belonged to before carting $200K out the White House door. You would have. I would have. It's a matter of common decency.

The Clinton's didn't. They presumed they were entitled to take everything, didn't bother to check if their presumption was correct (or did, and figured they could get away with it), and walked out the door with $140K in public property that didn't belong to them.

It's not "theft" per se, but it says something about their collective character. If they wrote into YMAM about the affair, they'd be soundly condemned for poor judgment and an unrealistic sense of entitlement.

Having said this, does it rank up there with the other scandals plaguing Ms. Clinton? No.

and that's fine.  let's accuse her of being unreasonable and imprudent, then.  i have no issue with that.

edit: for the record, i am not at all sure that the $134k figure is accurate.  as i posed previously (in red), 2/3 of that $134k were gifts that the Clinton's BROUGHT WITH THEM in 2000.  there is no way that is "state property".

I would think the Government clerks, i.e. WH staff, would categorize items brought in at the time of the Inauguration, would catalog all personal furniture and personal items (outside of maybe clothing) that the new First Family brought with them.

Any Prudent politician would be sure to list their items upon moving into the WH to prevent just such an episode.  
If nothing else, our Federal government loves lists.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 11, 2016 14:11:39 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jul 11, 2016 14:00:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

and that's fine.  let's accuse her of being unreasonable and imprudent, then.  i have no issue with that.

edit: for the record, i am not at all sure that the $134k figure is accurate.  as i posed previously (in red), 2/3 of that $134k were gifts that the Clinton's BROUGHT WITH THEM in 2000.  there is no way that is "state property".

I would think the Government clerks, i.e. WH staff, would categorize items brought in at the time of the Inauguration, would catalog all personal furniture and personal items (outside of maybe clothing) that the new First Family brought with them.

Any Prudent politician would be sure to list their items upon moving into the WH to prevent just such an episode.  
If nothing else, our Federal government loves lists.

we know she is sloppy.  that is one thing we can take from the last 20 years.  how much easier is it to assume "sloppy" than "criminal"?

[Value Buy]

Jul 11, 2016 14:30:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 11, 2016 14:11:39 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I would think the Government clerks, i.e. WH staff, would categorize items brought in at the time of the Inauguration, would catalog all personal furniture and personal items (outside of maybe clothing) that the new First Family brought with them.

Any Prudent politician would be sure to list their items upon moving into the WH to prevent just such an episode.  
If nothing else, our Federal government loves lists.

we know she is sloppy.  that is one thing we can take from the last 20 years.  how much easier is it to assume "sloppy" than "criminal"?

Is this question addressed to Republicans or Democrats?
Either one imo, makes her unqualified for the Presidency.
She has had 20 years to straighten out the problem.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 11, 2016 14:33:52 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jul 11, 2016 14:30:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

we know she is sloppy.  that is one thing we can take from the last 20 years.  how much easier is it to assume "sloppy" than "criminal"?

Is this question addressed to Republicans or Democrats?
Either one imo, makes her unqualified for the Presidency.
She has had 20 years to straighten out the problem.

i suspect you will vote that perception.  what else can you do?

[Value Buy]

Jul 11, 2016 14:48:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 11, 2016 14:33:52 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Is this question addressed to Republicans or Democrats?
Either one imo, makes her unqualified for the Presidency.
She has had 20 years to straighten out the problem.

i suspect you will vote that perception.  what else can you do?

My wife has been a life long Democrat
I have been a life long Republican.
We both came from strong Democratic families.
Both of us have split the ticket at Federal, state, and local level.

This year, we are both considering leaving the Presidency portion blank on the punch list.
Neither of us have ever thought of doing that, until now.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 12, 2016 18:42:56 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jul 11, 2016 14:48:25 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i suspect you will vote that perception.  what else can you do?

My wife has been a life long Democrat
I have been a life long Republican.
We both came from strong Democratic families.
Both of us have split the ticket at Federal, state, and local level.

This year, we are both considering leaving the Presidency portion blank on the punch list.
Neither of us have ever thought of doing that, until now.

try third party, VB.  seriously.  i have been voting 3rd party since 1996.  have not regretted a vote since.