Rick Santorum, the former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, will announce today that he will seek the GOP nomination for president in 2016, ABC News has learned.
I have NEVER defended her there. Where I defend her is this idea that is implied throughout every commentary regarding her emails is that something nefarious is hiding in them.
She shouldn't have deleted them, especially if she knew she was going to run for president. She should have stayed away from the Clinton Foundation, which has done a lot of good in the world regardless of their recent controversies.
She's not perfect. But she's not a criminal either.
Even though Christopher Stevens refused extra security in August of '12 & it was the Republican House starting in January 2011 that cut funding for embassy security.
But don't let those facts get in your way.
Don't want to rehash this, but even State Department Personnel testified that budget cuts were not a factor.
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
Thank you sfgf, your cheerleading has near perfectly outlined the problems posed by the average voter. Despite all the unanswered questions, shady business dealings, and complete and utter lack of transparency you're waving your pom poms with more vigor than a 12 year old who just discovered his dick. How can you be confident in this woman when she basically tells any press with the balls to ask about Benghazi or the shady dealings of the Foundation to f*ck off? Not only are you confident in her, you mock those who do question her. There's so much we don't know, and that she refuses to talk about, that the fact she's the front runner would be a joke if we weren't talking about making her the leader of the free world.
That's blind partisanship at its finest. Hell, it's pushing Cult of Personality. And before you claim I'm a tinfoil wearing right wing loon, know that my voting record, with a few exceptions, leans heavily Democrat.
What crimes did she commit? If you can tell me, I will step aside. I'm just waiting to hear, because people are implying she's a criminal and yet cannot say what laws she broke.
I'm a Democrat. I don't hide that. I'm not a holier than thou, float above the fray type of guy. She's going to be the nominee. I'm going to vote for her. If that bothers you, so be it.
I never said she's a criminal. But simply not being a criminal doesn't make you fit to be the CiC. Can you honestly tell me the thousands of deleted emails, donor scandals, the conflicts of interest regarding the Foundation...none of it makes you raise an eyebrow? It doesn't make your Impropriety Meter jump the slightest bit? She's dishonest and evasive regarding a plethora of issues. Is that in itself criminal? No. But it sure as he'll isn't the qualities I'd want in a president.
I'm sorry, but if you can just ignore all of that and say "yup, she got my vote" then you're a sheep.
RE: RE: Oh, so now HRC turned down request for help?
Even though Christopher Stevens refused extra security in August of '12 & it was the Republican House starting in January 2011 that cut funding for embassy security.
But don't let those facts get in your way.
Don't want to rehash this, but even State Department Personnel testified that budget cuts were not a factor.
Investigation after investigation after investigation has found no smoking gun. So why is Trey Gowdy continuing to investigate this?
Come on. In the last couple months she's had an email scandal, a donor scandal, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and umpteen tempests that would have escaped a teapot had the subject been someone other than a Clinton. Is there a smoking gun for criminal conduct? Nope. But when you want to be President the standard should be higher than "I didn't do anything criminal."
Give me a break, there are examples on any candidate regarding smoking guns (Bush AWOL for example). Show me any ohter politician that has had the gun pointed at them remotely close to what they have been subjected to. then tell me ANY other candidate out there that there would not be any "smoking guns" if they had a multiple investigations and 100M spent to get them.
I don't agree how she handled the emails or her involvement with the Clinton Foundation. Her comment about being 'dead broke' after leaving the WH was LOL worthy. She's not a good politician; she doesn't have Bill's charisma, Obama's coolness, etc.
But I agree with her on the issues. I'm electing a president, not a pope. Her husband fell into a scandal, fake or not, everyday between 1/20/93-1/20/01 & his presidency was a complete success.
RE: RE: RE: Oh, so now HRC turned down request for help?
Even though Christopher Stevens refused extra security in August of '12 & it was the Republican House starting in January 2011 that cut funding for embassy security.
But don't let those facts get in your way.
Don't want to rehash this, but even State Department Personnel testified that budget cuts were not a factor.
Investigation after investigation after investigation has found no smoking gun. So why is Trey Gowdy continuing to investigate this?
You are laughable. There was never a full investigation. Documents have not been handed over. Obviously any emails Clinton had have not been. This is the MO, Say 'nothing has been found' while nothing has been handed over.
Again, if you are satisfied with this, then you are the problem, not the Clinton's of the world.
RE: I don't agree with how she handled the emails buford
I have NEVER defended her there. Where I defend her is this idea that is implied throughout every commentary regarding her emails is that something nefarious is hiding in them.
If there's nothing to hide why delete them? If anything it was a golden opportunity to take her opponents to task and say "hey, I have nothing to hide, have at it". Instead she's done the exact opposite. I mean really, this is common sense unless you're blinded by partisanship. And it's only one of the serious issues she's been as evasive as possible about.
RE: RE: RE: Oh, so now HRC turned down request for help?
Even though Christopher Stevens refused extra security in August of '12 & it was the Republican House starting in January 2011 that cut funding for embassy security.
But don't let those facts get in your way.
Don't want to rehash this, but even State Department Personnel testified that budget cuts were not a factor.
Investigation after investigation after investigation has found no smoking gun. So why is Trey Gowdy continuing to investigate this?
I don't know what there, but to be fair it's coming out that part of the reason there may have been no smoking gun found..,not saying one exists...and why there is still need to investigate...is precisely because the correspondence was kept off govt servers and kept hidden and then selectively and grudgingly parsed out..I find it hard to complain that it's all been investigated and why does it continue when the information gets withheld from the investigative body. That's like saying the police should all go home if the suspect says "I didn't do it".
In comment 12303203 sphinx said:Quote:but Jeb Bush's emails don't seem to phase anyone.
I don't like Bush and will not vote for him. But really, it's not nearly equivalent.
Why not?
Is Jeb Bush under investigation for anything? Were his emails subpoenaed? At the time he was Governor, was there rules about how government officials kept emails?
& I don't agree with the premise the media is pro-Clinton
In '08, they were totally in the tank for Obama. Even I admit that. She gets a lot of heat from the press. And if she didn't, don't you think she'd be fond of the media? Hillary hates the media.
George Stephanopoulos is a former Clinton aide. To his fault, he should have disclosed during that interview with the author of 'Clinton Cash' that he gave $ to the Clinton Foundation. He messed up there. But in the days after, I heard few mentions of the fact that that author had to make 8 or 9 significant revisions to his book because they were inaccurate.
RE: RE: I don't agree with how she handled the emails buford
I have NEVER defended her there. Where I defend her is this idea that is implied throughout every commentary regarding her emails is that something nefarious is hiding in them.
If there's nothing to hide why delete them? If anything it was a golden opportunity to take her opponents to task and say "hey, I have nothing to hide, have at it". Instead she's done the exact opposite. I mean really, this is common sense unless you're blinded by partisanship. And it's only one of the serious issues she's been as evasive as possible about.
I don't know why she deleted them. You'd have to ask her. I'm not defending her there; I'm defending her in this implication that because she deleted emails she must be hiding some criminal activity. I just don't buy that. And she has called for the emails to be released as soon as possible. These drips of them every 30 days hurts more than helps.
Come on. In the last couple months she's had an email scandal, a donor scandal, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and umpteen tempests that would have escaped a teapot had the subject been someone other than a Clinton. Is there a smoking gun for criminal conduct? Nope. But when you want to be President the standard should be higher than "I didn't do anything criminal."
Give me a break, there are examples on any candidate regarding smoking guns (Bush AWOL for example). Show me any ohter politician that has had the gun pointed at them remotely close to what they have been subjected to. then tell me ANY other candidate out there that there would not be any "smoking guns" if they had a multiple investigations and 100M spent to get them.
There's a minimizing or deflecting defense to everything. "Jeb used a Gmail account too!" "No smoking gun on those donations!" At the end of the day they've been "subjected to" scrutiny that, since Bill left office, has been nowhere near that which their conduct actually warranted. There is so much scrutiny - again, not nearly as much as is warranted - because they continually toe the gray area between legal and illegal, ethical and unethical. Do we really think that two very savvy politicians who were lawyers first, with even savvier legal and political advisers, are going to be directly tied to something that is illegal? But the fact that they continue to tread in these gray areas with utter impunity is something that should upset all of us, but some of us would sooner cheer on our team than cast a critical eye at our frumpy, post-menopausal Tom Brady.
Would disagree that bills presidency was a complete success. I took classes that broke down a lot of his mistakes and how it affected the nation. I can agree he was a good president, but he did a lot of wrong too.
For her to ask for State to release them quickly when the emails that State has are the ones that she gave them in the first place *after* picking through them and removing ones she didn't want to have released or in State's possession. I would want those emails released too if I were her.
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
so...even if that's the extent of it, you'd have to say if she's not (smoking gun) criminal, she's at least unethical and dishonest. So, is that someone who makes you comfortable as your President, just because she's not a Republican?
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
The thing is their is reason to believe they have crossed it. Nothing has been found as of yet, but as people said earlier, the Clintons and Stephnopolous have friends in the right places.
It wouldnt shock me in 20-25 years something is unraveled that would cost either of them the presidency.
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
so...even if that's the extent of it, you'd have to say if she's not (smoking gun) criminal, she's at least unethical and dishonest. So, is that someone who makes you comfortable as your President, just because she's not a Republican?
Yes. Because I think the Republicans & their policies are infinitely worse. I thought Bill was shady too, but compared to the alternative, he was it.
this notion that Clinton's presidency was a smashing success
I have NEVER defended her there. Where I defend her is this idea that is implied throughout every commentary regarding her emails is that something nefarious is hiding in them.
If there's nothing to hide why delete them? If anything it was a golden opportunity to take her opponents to task and say "hey, I have nothing to hide, have at it". Instead she's done the exact opposite. I mean really, this is common sense unless you're blinded by partisanship. And it's only one of the serious issues she's been as evasive as possible about.
I don't know why she deleted them. You'd have to ask her. I'm not defending her there; I'm defending her in this implication that because she deleted emails she must be hiding some criminal activity. I just don't buy that. And she has called for the emails to be released as soon as possible. These drips of them every 30 days hurts more than helps.
She deleted them because she is hiding things about the Foundation and possibly Benghazi. Does anyone honestly believe that there were no emails on this? She and her staff used that server. And her staff were paid by the foundation as well. It's probably as bad or worse than the FIFA scandal, but that gets more press.
& I'm not running around telling everyone to vote for Hillary
I don't have that type of enthusiasm for her that I did in '08 for Obama. Again, barring a complete collapse, she's going to be the nominee & I will vote for her, even if I have to hold my nose.
Come on. In the last couple months she's had an email scandal, a donor scandal, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and umpteen tempests that would have escaped a teapot had the subject been someone other than a Clinton. Is there a smoking gun for criminal conduct? Nope. But when you want to be President the standard should be higher than "I didn't do anything criminal."
Give me a break, there are examples on any candidate regarding smoking guns (Bush AWOL for example). Show me any ohter politician that has had the gun pointed at them remotely close to what they have been subjected to. then tell me ANY other candidate out there that there would not be any "smoking guns" if they had a multiple investigations and 100M spent to get them.
There's a minimizing or deflecting defense to everything. "Jeb used a Gmail account too!" "No smoking gun on those donations!" At the end of the day they've been "subjected to" scrutiny that, since Bill left office, has been nowhere near that which their conduct actually warranted. There is so much scrutiny - again, not nearly as much as is warranted - because they continually toe the gray area between legal and illegal, ethical and unethical. Do we really think that two very savvy politicians who were lawyers first, with even savvier legal and political advisers, are going to be directly tied to something that is illegal? But the fact that they continue to tread in these gray areas with utter impunity is something that should upset all of us, but some of us would sooner cheer on our team than cast a critical eye at our frumpy, post-menopausal Tom Brady.
Can you honestly tell me of any candidate out there who could go through what they have had to endure and tyhem not find anything? You have had virtually every single investigative entity in our country look into them, you have had millions on top of millions spent for this. you have had investigations change course multiple times when they can't get them on something. Any person in this country would have some shit come out on them with that kind of scrutiny. So to say she is un-electable because we should hold someone to a higher level (seriously, have you seen who the fuck is in the Senate and the House?) I challenge you to tell me who that could be if they were put through the same test.
Now with that said i will agree that she seems to sure bring a boatload of it on herself. To not be 100% above board with regards to some of her actions AFTER all the investigations is stupid on her part. That would be the aspect that makes me hestitate
and you wonder why you'll never win a National Election in your lifetime's. I love it, keep dunking the Hilary scandal kool-aid until you start puking over all each other
I said Clinton wins based on demographics and electoral college advantage.
And she's running circles around GOP on immigration. If Republicans don't boost their Hispanic share of the vote significantly, it's President Hillary.
Wrong. Big surprise. If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in the last election, he still would have lost. If he got 5% more of the white vote, he would have won. That's the facts. The Hispanic vote is not as important as you wish. Reagan won two landslides with 5% of the minority vote.
.
You have had some truly horrific posts, but this might take the cake. Let's go...
1) If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, he'd be President Romney right now, Obama would be in Chicago, & all would be right in your world.
2) The electorate is rapidly changing. The share of the white vote is probably going to drop two or three points in '16 from the '12 election makeup.
3) In 1980 & 1984, the percentage of the electorate that was white was like 80, 85%.
Saying the GOP doesn't need to expand their base is truly LOL worthy. Keep thinking like that & Democrats will be in the White House until the end of time.
You're just awful
Quote:
ut what if Romney had been able to reach a mind-blowing 70 percent of the Hispanic vote? Surely that would have meant victory, right? No, it wouldn't. Romney still would have lost, although by the narrowest of electoral margins, 270 to 268. (Under that scenario, Romney would have won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College; he could have racked up huge numbers of Hispanic votes in California, New York and Texas, for example, and not changed the results in those states.)
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
The thing is their is reason to believe they have crossed it. Nothing has been found as of yet, but as people said earlier, the Clintons and Stephnopolous have friends in the right places.
It wouldnt shock me in 20-25 years something is unraveled that would cost either of them the presidency.
The thing that gets me is that there's enough to be at least wary, and what there is is likely enough to have investigations going into her presidency. So that's controversial and angst and causes huge national friction..like during Bill's time. Or, it looks like there's something there but dems win the Senate and quash asking, which looks political which creates angst and causes huge national friction. And you know all those *before* you make the choice to have her be President. If I'm running the democrats, why would I put us in that position in the first place? I'm begging people to present themselves as alternatives.
You speak with such certainty that she's hiding things.
In comment 12303223 sphinx said:Quote:In comment 12303215 buford said:Quote:Is Jeb Bush under investigation for anything? Were his emails subpoenaed? At the time he was Governor, was there rules about how government officials kept emails?
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
so...even if that's the extent of it, you'd have to say if she's not (smoking gun) criminal, she's at least unethical and dishonest. So, is that someone who makes you comfortable as your President, just because she's not a Republican?
Yes. Because I think the Republicans & their policies are infinitely worse. I thought Bill was shady too, but compared to the alternative, he was it.
so out of curiosity, is there anyone alive or dead in history so notorious or infamous that you wouldn't vote for if he or she was running against a republican? Do you have a line?
How do you know? Did you read these emails? For all I know, they could have been email chains about Mad Men or if Eli was going to the HOF.
Once again, the fact is that we don't know because she deleted them. No one, besides you apparently, believes that she only deleted emails about yoga and Chelsea's wedding. The fact is that she was supposed to hand over ALL of her emails. Since she choose to do government business on a personal computer, she is the one that compromised her 'private' emails by commingling them with her work emails. AND she was asked by the Benghazi Investigation to hand over ALL of her emails on the subject. According to Gowdy there are glaring lapses in emails, no emails for weeks or months, around that time. Gee, was yoga really that big back then?
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
so...even if that's the extent of it, you'd have to say if she's not (smoking gun) criminal, she's at least unethical and dishonest. So, is that someone who makes you comfortable as your President, just because she's not a Republican?
Yes. Because I think the Republicans & their policies are infinitely worse. I thought Bill was shady too, but compared to the alternative, he was it.
so out of curiosity, is there anyone alive or dead in history so notorious or infamous that you wouldn't vote for if he or she was running against a republican? Do you have a line?
Yes, as long as they haven't done something criminally. In that case, obviously I could not support them. I'd probably just sit the election out.
I said Clinton wins based on demographics and electoral college advantage.
And she's running circles around GOP on immigration. If Republicans don't boost their Hispanic share of the vote significantly, it's President Hillary.
Wrong. Big surprise. If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in the last election, he still would have lost. If he got 5% more of the white vote, he would have won. That's the facts. The Hispanic vote is not as important as you wish. Reagan won two landslides with 5% of the minority vote.
.
You have had some truly horrific posts, but this might take the cake. Let's go...
1) If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, he'd be President Romney right now, Obama would be in Chicago, & all would be right in your world.
2) The electorate is rapidly changing. The share of the white vote is probably going to drop two or three points in '16 from the '12 election makeup.
3) In 1980 & 1984, the percentage of the electorate that was white was like 80, 85%.
Saying the GOP doesn't need to expand their base is truly LOL worthy. Keep thinking like that & Democrats will be in the White House until the end of time.
You're just awful
Quote:
ut what if Romney had been able to reach a mind-blowing 70 percent of the Hispanic vote? Surely that would have meant victory, right? No, it wouldn't. Romney still would have lost, although by the narrowest of electoral margins, 270 to 268. (Under that scenario, Romney would have won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College; he could have racked up huge numbers of Hispanic votes in California, New York and Texas, for example, and not changed the results in those states.)
Winning Hispanic vote would not be enough for GOP - ( New Window )
Gene 1, me 0. I look forward to evening the score in the months ahead.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: HRC's emails seem to be a big item
In comment 12303223 sphinx said:Quote:In comment 12303215 buford said:Quote:Is Jeb Bush under investigation for anything? Were his emails subpoenaed? At the time he was Governor, was there rules about how government officials kept emails?
The 'rules' were Florida law. Link - ( New Window )
Fine, Bush should be disqualified from being President. Thanks, I would love for him to go away anyway.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: HRC hate out in full force. Love it.
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
That is what an investigation is needed to determine. DOJ investigations have been started on far less suspicious looking stuff.
Well what do you suspect? Or are we just going to start another fucking permanent prosecution of the Clintons. Maybe we can drop $50 million to find out that she also likes to get her dick sucked.
And that is why the Clintons can get away with stuff. Her followers will always yell victim by the vast right wing conspiracy. As just mentioned, forget the crazies and their charges and look at some of the lies constantly being discovered and the ever changing spin as more suspicious stuff is uncovered.
So you call for an "investigation", and I ask what into, and your answer is to say that my question is why the Clintons get away with "stuff".
Amazing.
I was offline for a while but reading through this since I left, i think Bill L has done a good job in responding to why I believe an investigation is needed.
And I have a pair thanks. Maybe you ought to learn some maturity? Self control? The ability to contribute to a conversation like an adult?
Na, instead let's compare politics to war, tell people to grow a pair, and mock the other side relentlessly because you're a cheerleader for your side....
pathetic
RE: RE: You speak with such certainty that she's hiding things.
How do you know? Did you read these emails? For all I know, they could have been email chains about Mad Men or if Eli was going to the HOF.
Once again, the fact is that we don't know because she deleted them. No one, besides you apparently, believes that she only deleted emails about yoga and Chelsea's wedding. The fact is that she was supposed to hand over ALL of her emails. Since she choose to do government business on a personal computer, she is the one that compromised her 'private' emails by commingling them with her work emails. AND she was asked by the Benghazi Investigation to hand over ALL of her emails on the subject. According to Gowdy there are glaring lapses in emails, no emails for weeks or months, around that time. Gee, was yoga really that big back then?
Where have I defended her handling of the email/server? I haven't. My contention is that people continue to imply she did something criminal & the emails are the smoking gun. I don't think they are. 1) I don't think she's stupid enough to do that on a computer; as the old saying goes, never write it down. 2) So Gowdy is investigating something that has been investigated time & again? Why? Why is this going to stretch into 2016? It's politics, plain & simple.
How do you know? Did you read these emails? For all I know, they could have been email chains about Mad Men or if Eli was going to the HOF.
Once again, the fact is that we don't know because she deleted them. No one, besides you apparently, believes that she only deleted emails about yoga and Chelsea's wedding. The fact is that she was supposed to hand over ALL of her emails. Since she choose to do government business on a personal computer, she is the one that compromised her 'private' emails by commingling them with her work emails. AND she was asked by the Benghazi Investigation to hand over ALL of her emails on the subject. According to Gowdy there are glaring lapses in emails, no emails for weeks or months, around that time. Gee, was yoga really that big back then?
Where have I defended her handling of the email/server? I haven't. My contention is that people continue to imply she did something criminal & the emails are the smoking gun. I don't think they are. 1) I don't think she's stupid enough to do that on a computer; as the old saying goes, never write it down. 2) So Gowdy is investigating something that has been investigated time & again? Why? Why is this going to stretch into 2016? It's politics, plain & simple.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say you aren't defending her and then say that she didn't do anything wrong. And yes, she is not stupid, which is exactly why she had the private server from day one and why she deleted any emails she didn't want anyone to find out. She's crafty and calculating. She knew exactly what she was doing.
And it really pisses me off when people cry 'politics'. The Clintons are political animals. They don't do anything without thinking of the political motive. Please stop insulting us by saying you like her on the issues because she doesn't car about the issues. They are just a means to get in power to pay back her 'donors'. You really just don't care if she is a corrupt person who has sold the future Presidency. It's all about the party and keeping it in power. They count on people like you.
She shouldn't have deleted them, especially if she knew she was going to run for president. She should have stayed away from the Clinton Foundation, which has done a lot of good in the world regardless of their recent controversies.
She's not perfect. But she's not a criminal either.
But don't let those facts get in your way.
Don't want to rehash this, but even State Department Personnel testified that budget cuts were not a factor.
Quote:
In comment 12303085 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
Thank you sfgf, your cheerleading has near perfectly outlined the problems posed by the average voter. Despite all the unanswered questions, shady business dealings, and complete and utter lack of transparency you're waving your pom poms with more vigor than a 12 year old who just discovered his dick. How can you be confident in this woman when she basically tells any press with the balls to ask about Benghazi or the shady dealings of the Foundation to f*ck off? Not only are you confident in her, you mock those who do question her. There's so much we don't know, and that she refuses to talk about, that the fact she's the front runner would be a joke if we weren't talking about making her the leader of the free world.
That's blind partisanship at its finest. Hell, it's pushing Cult of Personality. And before you claim I'm a tinfoil wearing right wing loon, know that my voting record, with a few exceptions, leans heavily Democrat.
What crimes did she commit? If you can tell me, I will step aside. I'm just waiting to hear, because people are implying she's a criminal and yet cannot say what laws she broke.
I'm a Democrat. I don't hide that. I'm not a holier than thou, float above the fray type of guy. She's going to be the nominee. I'm going to vote for her. If that bothers you, so be it.
I never said she's a criminal. But simply not being a criminal doesn't make you fit to be the CiC. Can you honestly tell me the thousands of deleted emails, donor scandals, the conflicts of interest regarding the Foundation...none of it makes you raise an eyebrow? It doesn't make your Impropriety Meter jump the slightest bit? She's dishonest and evasive regarding a plethora of issues. Is that in itself criminal? No. But it sure as he'll isn't the qualities I'd want in a president.
I'm sorry, but if you can just ignore all of that and say "yup, she got my vote" then you're a sheep.
Quote:
Even though Christopher Stevens refused extra security in August of '12 & it was the Republican House starting in January 2011 that cut funding for embassy security.
But don't let those facts get in your way.
Don't want to rehash this, but even State Department Personnel testified that budget cuts were not a factor.
Investigation after investigation after investigation has found no smoking gun. So why is Trey Gowdy continuing to investigate this?
I don't like Bush and will not vote for him. But really, it's not nearly equivalent.
Give me a break, there are examples on any candidate regarding smoking guns (Bush AWOL for example). Show me any ohter politician that has had the gun pointed at them remotely close to what they have been subjected to. then tell me ANY other candidate out there that there would not be any "smoking guns" if they had a multiple investigations and 100M spent to get them.
But I agree with her on the issues. I'm electing a president, not a pope. Her husband fell into a scandal, fake or not, everyday between 1/20/93-1/20/01 & his presidency was a complete success.
Quote:
In comment 12303211 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
Even though Christopher Stevens refused extra security in August of '12 & it was the Republican House starting in January 2011 that cut funding for embassy security.
But don't let those facts get in your way.
Don't want to rehash this, but even State Department Personnel testified that budget cuts were not a factor.
Investigation after investigation after investigation has found no smoking gun. So why is Trey Gowdy continuing to investigate this?
You are laughable. There was never a full investigation. Documents have not been handed over. Obviously any emails Clinton had have not been. This is the MO, Say 'nothing has been found' while nothing has been handed over.
Again, if you are satisfied with this, then you are the problem, not the Clinton's of the world.
If there's nothing to hide why delete them? If anything it was a golden opportunity to take her opponents to task and say "hey, I have nothing to hide, have at it". Instead she's done the exact opposite. I mean really, this is common sense unless you're blinded by partisanship. And it's only one of the serious issues she's been as evasive as possible about.
Quote:
In comment 12303211 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
Even though Christopher Stevens refused extra security in August of '12 & it was the Republican House starting in January 2011 that cut funding for embassy security.
But don't let those facts get in your way.
Don't want to rehash this, but even State Department Personnel testified that budget cuts were not a factor.
Investigation after investigation after investigation has found no smoking gun. So why is Trey Gowdy continuing to investigate this?
I don't know what there, but to be fair it's coming out that part of the reason there may have been no smoking gun found..,not saying one exists...and why there is still need to investigate...is precisely because the correspondence was kept off govt servers and kept hidden and then selectively and grudgingly parsed out..I find it hard to complain that it's all been investigated and why does it continue when the information gets withheld from the investigative body. That's like saying the police should all go home if the suspect says "I didn't do it".
Quote:
In comment 12303203 sphinx said:Quote:but Jeb Bush's emails don't seem to phase anyone.
I don't like Bush and will not vote for him. But really, it's not nearly equivalent.
Why not?
Is Jeb Bush under investigation for anything? Were his emails subpoenaed? At the time he was Governor, was there rules about how government officials kept emails?
George Stephanopoulos is a former Clinton aide. To his fault, he should have disclosed during that interview with the author of 'Clinton Cash' that he gave $ to the Clinton Foundation. He messed up there. But in the days after, I heard few mentions of the fact that that author had to make 8 or 9 significant revisions to his book because they were inaccurate.
Quote:
I have NEVER defended her there. Where I defend her is this idea that is implied throughout every commentary regarding her emails is that something nefarious is hiding in them.
If there's nothing to hide why delete them? If anything it was a golden opportunity to take her opponents to task and say "hey, I have nothing to hide, have at it". Instead she's done the exact opposite. I mean really, this is common sense unless you're blinded by partisanship. And it's only one of the serious issues she's been as evasive as possible about.
I don't know why she deleted them. You'd have to ask her. I'm not defending her there; I'm defending her in this implication that because she deleted emails she must be hiding some criminal activity. I just don't buy that. And she has called for the emails to be released as soon as possible. These drips of them every 30 days hurts more than helps.
Quote:
Come on. In the last couple months she's had an email scandal, a donor scandal, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and umpteen tempests that would have escaped a teapot had the subject been someone other than a Clinton. Is there a smoking gun for criminal conduct? Nope. But when you want to be President the standard should be higher than "I didn't do anything criminal."
Give me a break, there are examples on any candidate regarding smoking guns (Bush AWOL for example). Show me any ohter politician that has had the gun pointed at them remotely close to what they have been subjected to. then tell me ANY other candidate out there that there would not be any "smoking guns" if they had a multiple investigations and 100M spent to get them.
There's a minimizing or deflecting defense to everything. "Jeb used a Gmail account too!" "No smoking gun on those donations!" At the end of the day they've been "subjected to" scrutiny that, since Bill left office, has been nowhere near that which their conduct actually warranted. There is so much scrutiny - again, not nearly as much as is warranted - because they continually toe the gray area between legal and illegal, ethical and unethical. Do we really think that two very savvy politicians who were lawyers first, with even savvier legal and political advisers, are going to be directly tied to something that is illegal? But the fact that they continue to tread in these gray areas with utter impunity is something that should upset all of us, but some of us would sooner cheer on our team than cast a critical eye at our frumpy, post-menopausal Tom Brady.
The thing is their is reason to believe they have crossed it. Nothing has been found as of yet, but as people said earlier, the Clintons and Stephnopolous have friends in the right places.
It wouldnt shock me in 20-25 years something is unraveled that would cost either of them the presidency.
Quote:
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
so...even if that's the extent of it, you'd have to say if she's not (smoking gun) criminal, she's at least unethical and dishonest. So, is that someone who makes you comfortable as your President, just because she's not a Republican?
Yes. Because I think the Republicans & their policies are infinitely worse. I thought Bill was shady too, but compared to the alternative, he was it.
I won't call his tenure a disaster but it's quite convenient to gloss over the role he played in aiding wall street to fuck us all with no lube.
And no SFGF, jrud called out your cheerleading but he hardly claimed you're the only one. The cheerleaders on both sides suck a giant bag of dicks.
Quote:
In comment 12303216 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
I have NEVER defended her there. Where I defend her is this idea that is implied throughout every commentary regarding her emails is that something nefarious is hiding in them.
If there's nothing to hide why delete them? If anything it was a golden opportunity to take her opponents to task and say "hey, I have nothing to hide, have at it". Instead she's done the exact opposite. I mean really, this is common sense unless you're blinded by partisanship. And it's only one of the serious issues she's been as evasive as possible about.
I don't know why she deleted them. You'd have to ask her. I'm not defending her there; I'm defending her in this implication that because she deleted emails she must be hiding some criminal activity. I just don't buy that. And she has called for the emails to be released as soon as possible. These drips of them every 30 days hurts more than helps.
She deleted them because she is hiding things about the Foundation and possibly Benghazi. Does anyone honestly believe that there were no emails on this? She and her staff used that server. And her staff were paid by the foundation as well. It's probably as bad or worse than the FIFA scandal, but that gets more press.
Quote:
In comment 12303200 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Come on. In the last couple months she's had an email scandal, a donor scandal, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and umpteen tempests that would have escaped a teapot had the subject been someone other than a Clinton. Is there a smoking gun for criminal conduct? Nope. But when you want to be President the standard should be higher than "I didn't do anything criminal."
Give me a break, there are examples on any candidate regarding smoking guns (Bush AWOL for example). Show me any ohter politician that has had the gun pointed at them remotely close to what they have been subjected to. then tell me ANY other candidate out there that there would not be any "smoking guns" if they had a multiple investigations and 100M spent to get them.
There's a minimizing or deflecting defense to everything. "Jeb used a Gmail account too!" "No smoking gun on those donations!" At the end of the day they've been "subjected to" scrutiny that, since Bill left office, has been nowhere near that which their conduct actually warranted. There is so much scrutiny - again, not nearly as much as is warranted - because they continually toe the gray area between legal and illegal, ethical and unethical. Do we really think that two very savvy politicians who were lawyers first, with even savvier legal and political advisers, are going to be directly tied to something that is illegal? But the fact that they continue to tread in these gray areas with utter impunity is something that should upset all of us, but some of us would sooner cheer on our team than cast a critical eye at our frumpy, post-menopausal Tom Brady.
Can you honestly tell me of any candidate out there who could go through what they have had to endure and tyhem not find anything? You have had virtually every single investigative entity in our country look into them, you have had millions on top of millions spent for this. you have had investigations change course multiple times when they can't get them on something. Any person in this country would have some shit come out on them with that kind of scrutiny. So to say she is un-electable because we should hold someone to a higher level (seriously, have you seen who the fuck is in the Senate and the House?) I challenge you to tell me who that could be if they were put through the same test.
Now with that said i will agree that she seems to sure bring a boatload of it on herself. To not be 100% above board with regards to some of her actions AFTER all the investigations is stupid on her part. That would be the aspect that makes me hestitate
Quote:
In comment 12303071 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
I said Clinton wins based on demographics and electoral college advantage.
And she's running circles around GOP on immigration. If Republicans don't boost their Hispanic share of the vote significantly, it's President Hillary.
Wrong. Big surprise. If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in the last election, he still would have lost. If he got 5% more of the white vote, he would have won. That's the facts. The Hispanic vote is not as important as you wish. Reagan won two landslides with 5% of the minority vote.
.
You have had some truly horrific posts, but this might take the cake. Let's go...
1) If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, he'd be President Romney right now, Obama would be in Chicago, & all would be right in your world.
2) The electorate is rapidly changing. The share of the white vote is probably going to drop two or three points in '16 from the '12 election makeup.
3) In 1980 & 1984, the percentage of the electorate that was white was like 80, 85%.
Saying the GOP doesn't need to expand their base is truly LOL worthy. Keep thinking like that & Democrats will be in the White House until the end of time.
You're just awful
Winning Hispanic vote would not be enough for GOP - ( New Window )
Quote:
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
The thing is their is reason to believe they have crossed it. Nothing has been found as of yet, but as people said earlier, the Clintons and Stephnopolous have friends in the right places.
It wouldnt shock me in 20-25 years something is unraveled that would cost either of them the presidency.
The thing that gets me is that there's enough to be at least wary, and what there is is likely enough to have investigations going into her presidency. So that's controversial and angst and causes huge national friction..like during Bill's time. Or, it looks like there's something there but dems win the Senate and quash asking, which looks political which creates angst and causes huge national friction. And you know all those *before* you make the choice to have her be President. If I'm running the democrats, why would I put us in that position in the first place? I'm begging people to present themselves as alternatives.
The 'rules' were Florida law.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12303243 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
so...even if that's the extent of it, you'd have to say if she's not (smoking gun) criminal, she's at least unethical and dishonest. So, is that someone who makes you comfortable as your President, just because she's not a Republican?
Yes. Because I think the Republicans & their policies are infinitely worse. I thought Bill was shady too, but compared to the alternative, he was it.
I won't call his tenure a disaster but it's quite convenient to gloss over the role he played in aiding wall street to fuck us all with no lube.
And no SFGF, jrud called out your cheerleading but he hardly claimed you're the only one. The cheerleaders on both sides suck a giant bag of dicks.
Great point on his presidency.
The cheerleading is nauseating.
Once again, the fact is that we don't know because she deleted them. No one, besides you apparently, believes that she only deleted emails about yoga and Chelsea's wedding. The fact is that she was supposed to hand over ALL of her emails. Since she choose to do government business on a personal computer, she is the one that compromised her 'private' emails by commingling them with her work emails. AND she was asked by the Benghazi Investigation to hand over ALL of her emails on the subject. According to Gowdy there are glaring lapses in emails, no emails for weeks or months, around that time. Gee, was yoga really that big back then?
If you wanna contribute, please actually contribute like with your Kasich comment earlier.
But for fuck's sake if you're gonna keep making posts like the last couple, just grow the fuck up already and bite your tongue.
Quote:
In comment 12303248 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 12303243 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
so...even if that's the extent of it, you'd have to say if she's not (smoking gun) criminal, she's at least unethical and dishonest. So, is that someone who makes you comfortable as your President, just because she's not a Republican?
Yes. Because I think the Republicans & their policies are infinitely worse. I thought Bill was shady too, but compared to the alternative, he was it.
so out of curiosity, is there anyone alive or dead in history so notorious or infamous that you wouldn't vote for if he or she was running against a republican? Do you have a line?
Yes, as long as they haven't done something criminally. In that case, obviously I could not support them. I'd probably just sit the election out.
Quote:
In comment 12303168 GeneInCal said:
Quote:
In comment 12303071 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
I said Clinton wins based on demographics and electoral college advantage.
And she's running circles around GOP on immigration. If Republicans don't boost their Hispanic share of the vote significantly, it's President Hillary.
Wrong. Big surprise. If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in the last election, he still would have lost. If he got 5% more of the white vote, he would have won. That's the facts. The Hispanic vote is not as important as you wish. Reagan won two landslides with 5% of the minority vote.
.
You have had some truly horrific posts, but this might take the cake. Let's go...
1) If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, he'd be President Romney right now, Obama would be in Chicago, & all would be right in your world.
2) The electorate is rapidly changing. The share of the white vote is probably going to drop two or three points in '16 from the '12 election makeup.
3) In 1980 & 1984, the percentage of the electorate that was white was like 80, 85%.
Saying the GOP doesn't need to expand their base is truly LOL worthy. Keep thinking like that & Democrats will be in the White House until the end of time.
You're just awful
Quote:
ut what if Romney had been able to reach a mind-blowing 70 percent of the Hispanic vote? Surely that would have meant victory, right? No, it wouldn't. Romney still would have lost, although by the narrowest of electoral margins, 270 to 268. (Under that scenario, Romney would have won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College; he could have racked up huge numbers of Hispanic votes in California, New York and Texas, for example, and not changed the results in those states.)
Winning Hispanic vote would not be enough for GOP - ( New Window )
Gene 1, me 0. I look forward to evening the score in the months ahead.
Quote:
In comment 12303223 sphinx said:Quote:In comment 12303215 buford said:Quote:Is Jeb Bush under investigation for anything? Were his emails subpoenaed? At the time he was Governor, was there rules about how government officials kept emails?
The 'rules' were Florida law. Link - ( New Window )
Fine, Bush should be disqualified from being President. Thanks, I would love for him to go away anyway.
Quote:
In comment 12303157 Deej said:
Quote:
In comment 12303145 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12303085 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
That is what an investigation is needed to determine. DOJ investigations have been started on far less suspicious looking stuff.
Well what do you suspect? Or are we just going to start another fucking permanent prosecution of the Clintons. Maybe we can drop $50 million to find out that she also likes to get her dick sucked.
And that is why the Clintons can get away with stuff. Her followers will always yell victim by the vast right wing conspiracy. As just mentioned, forget the crazies and their charges and look at some of the lies constantly being discovered and the ever changing spin as more suspicious stuff is uncovered.
So you call for an "investigation", and I ask what into, and your answer is to say that my question is why the Clintons get away with "stuff".
Amazing.
And I have a pair thanks. Maybe you ought to learn some maturity? Self control? The ability to contribute to a conversation like an adult?
Na, instead let's compare politics to war, tell people to grow a pair, and mock the other side relentlessly because you're a cheerleader for your side....
pathetic
Quote:
How do you know? Did you read these emails? For all I know, they could have been email chains about Mad Men or if Eli was going to the HOF.
Once again, the fact is that we don't know because she deleted them. No one, besides you apparently, believes that she only deleted emails about yoga and Chelsea's wedding. The fact is that she was supposed to hand over ALL of her emails. Since she choose to do government business on a personal computer, she is the one that compromised her 'private' emails by commingling them with her work emails. AND she was asked by the Benghazi Investigation to hand over ALL of her emails on the subject. According to Gowdy there are glaring lapses in emails, no emails for weeks or months, around that time. Gee, was yoga really that big back then?
Where have I defended her handling of the email/server? I haven't. My contention is that people continue to imply she did something criminal & the emails are the smoking gun. I don't think they are. 1) I don't think she's stupid enough to do that on a computer; as the old saying goes, never write it down. 2) So Gowdy is investigating something that has been investigated time & again? Why? Why is this going to stretch into 2016? It's politics, plain & simple.
Quote:
In comment 12303263 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
How do you know? Did you read these emails? For all I know, they could have been email chains about Mad Men or if Eli was going to the HOF.
Once again, the fact is that we don't know because she deleted them. No one, besides you apparently, believes that she only deleted emails about yoga and Chelsea's wedding. The fact is that she was supposed to hand over ALL of her emails. Since she choose to do government business on a personal computer, she is the one that compromised her 'private' emails by commingling them with her work emails. AND she was asked by the Benghazi Investigation to hand over ALL of her emails on the subject. According to Gowdy there are glaring lapses in emails, no emails for weeks or months, around that time. Gee, was yoga really that big back then?
Where have I defended her handling of the email/server? I haven't. My contention is that people continue to imply she did something criminal & the emails are the smoking gun. I don't think they are. 1) I don't think she's stupid enough to do that on a computer; as the old saying goes, never write it down. 2) So Gowdy is investigating something that has been investigated time & again? Why? Why is this going to stretch into 2016? It's politics, plain & simple.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say you aren't defending her and then say that she didn't do anything wrong. And yes, she is not stupid, which is exactly why she had the private server from day one and why she deleted any emails she didn't want anyone to find out. She's crafty and calculating. She knew exactly what she was doing.
And it really pisses me off when people cry 'politics'. The Clintons are political animals. They don't do anything without thinking of the political motive. Please stop insulting us by saying you like her on the issues because she doesn't car about the issues. They are just a means to get in power to pay back her 'donors'. You really just don't care if she is a corrupt person who has sold the future Presidency. It's all about the party and keeping it in power. They count on people like you.