Which of these is most likely?
The FBI conducts a thorough review of Ms.Clinton's computer and thumb drive and clears her of destroying or hiding public documents.
The FBI finds evidence of destruction or hiding public documents
This is a sham investigation to allow the justice department to take the email question out of the campaign
Think how crazy it is, she got a private company to wipe their own servers!
On the other side, the GOP sees red meat here but if they latch onto this and the eventual nominee is still riding this horse next year they are just as stupid. No one will except the talk radio mouth breathers will care about email scandal as a main talking point in the general.
FYI, John Kasich is surging in New Hampshire. If he gets the GOP nomination, HRC is cooked.
In pride our error lies.
We already know for a fact she deleted 15 work emails with Blumenthal. This is a complete sham, but an individual who does not think she can play by any other rules other than her own.
BTW - Nixon was very bright as well, but his paranoia got the best of him. HRC shares some of that paranoia.
And the Blumenthal e-mails is one of a number interesting questions. One which I'm sure the Obama Administration is none too pleased about and might not provide protection for.
Can't but help to think this is more distracting bullshit to not talk about stuff that matters. They did it with Clinton, Obama, etc. We hate to say "conspiracy" yet if more than one person has the idea to plot against something/someone, by definition it is.
That said, this e-mail thing is not going away and while her national polling numbers are extremely strong (still polling like an incumbent nationally for the Democratic nod) - there are some concerns popping up (favorability polling is tanking, Bernie Sanders is attracting large crowds - albeit large crowds of young, white, liberal men in liberal strongholds, etc.).
Polling in Iowa and New Hampshire also looks to be getting tighter between Clinton and Sanders, which again can be contributed to demographics (ultra liberal, ultra white areas love them some Bernie), but Bernie Sanders has no business being talked about seriously as a presidential candidate. If the Democrats have to run him, its not going to be pretty.
National polling this early may be useless, but the primary polling has been quite accurate. Nate Silver and group still have this as a no-brainer for Clinton getting at least the Democratic nod, but I think whatever happens with Biden is going to be a pretty loud statement on how people with power view her. I don't think Biden will run unless he knows he has a shot to win so as to not damage the legacy he's strung together as a VP, so if he throws his hat in - I think there's smoke.
That may be a bit of a tinfoil hat approach to looking at this, but I don't think the Democrats can march out a "plug your nose" candidate once the Republicans clean up their mess.
I think the part where David Kendall is running around with it all (including the top secret stuff) is worrisome, but nobody else seems bothered.
Fixed that for you. And for the vast majority: Don't Care.
His support, IMO, is dependent on two things. The main one is Biden's decision. The other one is whether or not they had a deal during his first campaign about her withdrawing or supporting him. There have been a couple stories that suggested this but I cannot vouch for their credibility.
Quote:
depends on which side of the aisle you are on. To talk radio junkies, this shows how sneaky and underhanded she is. Liberals are like meh, not an issue that affects me
Fixed that for you. And for the vast majority: Don't Care.
Quote:
depends on which side of the aisle you are on. To talk radio junkies, this shows how sneaky and underhanded she is. Liberals are like meh, not an issue that affects me
Fixed that for you. And for the vast majority: Don't Care.
I don't think that is true (based on how her numbers have fallen since this has come out). But it is sad that so many don't care.
And the Trump Circus has a real potential to damage the Republican presidential brand in a variety of ways that far outweigh the e-mails, ex demonstrable illegality.
Quote:
In comment 12413743 fivehead said:
Quote:
depends on which side of the aisle you are on. To talk radio junkies, this shows how sneaky and underhanded she is. Liberals are like meh, not an issue that affects me
Fixed that for you. And for the vast majority: Don't Care.
It still comes down to whether honesty is a virtue or at least where it fits on the priority list of virtues. Personally, I sort of agree with you to the extent that I don't think it is valued as much nowadays. Not sure it's milleniials or evolution or selfishness or weariness.
Like I said, for any candidate I'd want to hear the reasoning for doing it differently and then to be accountable as everyone else would be. But this jumping to a "Look, she's lying again!" mantra is silly.
As an example, many, many, many moderate and independent voters won't vote for a Rubio who insists that that abortion be illegal in the case of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. Without social issues, he appears to be a strong choice against a flawed Hillary. With them, probably not.
Polls that show Republican candidates much stronger right now against Hillary don't mean much. They are the ones in the spotlight, while she struggles to retain attention.
Btw, neat article from 538/Silver on what will drive The Donald downward over time. He gives The Donald a 2% chance of winning the nomination. Of course, his chances of winning the election are much lower than that, because independents will flee from him in horror.
Donald Trump's six stages of doom. - ( New Window )
As an example, many, many, many moderate and independent voters won't vote for a Rubio who insists that that abortion be illegal in the case of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. Without social issues, he appears to be a strong choice against a flawed Hillary. With them, probably not.
Polls that show Republican candidates much stronger right now against Hillary don't mean much. They are the ones in the spotlight, while she struggles to retain attention.
Btw, neat article from 538/Silver on what will drive The Donald downward over time. He gives The Donald a 2% chance of winning the nomination. Of course, his chances of winning the election are much lower than that, because independents will flee from him in horror. Donald Trump's six stages of doom. - ( New Window )
The problem with Trump of course, isn't his winning the nomination (statistically nearly impossible) - it's how long he drags out the process - could be well into next year - and... will he run 3rd party? THAT would grease the skids for Hillary big time, or... dare I dream... Bernie? :)
Poll: Bernie Sanders surges ahead of Hillary Clinton in N.H., 44-37 - ( New Window )
What should happen: she should be arrested if / when there is clear evidence she had classified information on her server, ending her presidential bid (I hope this doesn't happen, because she appears to be a horrible candidate).
What will happen: somehow an "underling" will be made out to be the fall guy/gal, most of the sheep in the electorate won't grasp the seriousness of her behavior. Hopefully, she'll end up 0-2 in her presidential campaigns. The 10% of the electorate that are independents in a handful of swing states will decide the election.
Quote:
In comment 12413757 Ben in Tampa said:
Quote:
In comment 12413743 fivehead said:
Quote:
depends on which side of the aisle you are on. To talk radio junkies, this shows how sneaky and underhanded she is. Liberals are like meh, not an issue that affects me
Fixed that for you. And for the vast majority: Don't Care.
It still comes down to whether honesty is a virtue or at least where it fits on the priority list of virtues. Personally, I sort of agree with you to the extent that I don't think it is valued as much nowadays. Not sure it's milleniials or evolution or selfishness or weariness.
No, it comes down to whether or not you include these emails in a debate about honesty, or if it was more procedural mistakes and screw ups. I can see the right side leaning towards the harsher judgment and the opposite from the left.
Like I said, for any candidate I'd want to hear the reasoning for doing it differently and then to be accountable as everyone else would be. But this jumping to a "Look, she's lying again!" mantra is silly.
A mistake made over and over again is a decision.
This was a conscious decision to avoid scrutiny by hiding her emails. Her explanations so far have been unsatisfactory. And yes, she's been caught it some outright lies (I never had classifed emails).
Question, if your ONLY email is that address, and you are SoS, doesn't it make sense that in the course of normal business, you would receive some classifed emails? Unless she had her spam filter on 'classified'. This is like the IRS saying they couldn't find the emails because the hard drive crashed. It's beyond belief and people are not buying it. We all have email, we all work and know that emails and everything else is backed up somewhere. They are just treating people like idiots because they think they can.
This. If Obama wants Biden, Hillary could have problems
But she ONLY used a personal email account.
Second, she has a history of lying--travelgate records, the Brian Williams type lie of sniper fire in Bosnia, etc.
Third, this just doesn't make sense. Nobody deletes emails, especially personal ones. It is one thing not to turn over personal emails, it is quite another to wipe them off your hard drive.
Fourth, she cannot explain how Blumenthal's 15 emails, which were work related ended up deleted.
Five, unless the Republicans nominate someone crazy like Cruz or trump, she will have a hard time. Rubio, Kasich, and Walker all come from states where you need to appeal to independents to win. They are conservative but know how to talk about it in acceptable ways.
As William Safire once said, she is an extraordinarily accomplished and competent person, but she is a congenital liar and she most likely will not win a general election, if the Republicans nominate the three men I mentioned.
On the other side, the GOP sees red meat here but if they latch onto this and the eventual nominee is still riding this horse next year they are just as stupid. No one will except the talk radio mouth breathers will care about email scandal as a main talking point in the general.
FYI, John Kasich is surging in New Hampshire. If he gets the GOP nomination, HRC is cooked.
Actually this is not the first time they have been caught offloading, hiding, destroying emails. It happened during the Clinton administration and their are "ethics" case stuides about it in university programs. The level of corruption in our government is astounding and hopefully their is an outcry for jail time via prosecution.
Apply the same rules that they apply to others that they throw in jail for the same offenses, that is when you begin to realize their are two systems, one for the privileged and one for the rest.
used a private email for correspondence
Condi Rice claims she barely used email
HRC didn't do this illegally -- She received approval from Obama Administration (it doesn't matter if they were against the setup - in the end they approved it )
It is amazing how Republicans media machine can create a scandal where there is none
After the millions of tax payer money , Republicans have spend on investigating I am still waiting for Bengazi to bring down HRC and Obama
used a private email for correspondence
Condi Rice claims she barely used email
HRC didn't do this illegally -- She received approval from Obama Administration (it doesn't matter if they were against the setup - in the end they approved it )
It is amazing how Republicans media machine can create a scandal where there is none
After the millions of tax payer money , Republicans have spend on investigating I am still waiting for Bengazi to bring down HRC and Obama
Hillary (or her lawyer) can tell all that to the FBI.
-----Bill Clinton.
Quote:
Colin Powell did the exact same thing as SOS
used a private email for correspondence
Condi Rice claims she barely used email
HRC didn't do this illegally -- She received approval from Obama Administration (it doesn't matter if they were against the setup - in the end they approved it )
It is amazing how Republicans media machine can create a scandal where there is none
After the millions of tax payer money , Republicans have spend on investigating I am still waiting for Bengazi to bring down HRC and Obama
Hillary (or her lawyer) can tell all that to the FBI.
Quote:
In comment 12413936 giantfan2000 said:
Quote:
Colin Powell did the exact same thing as SOS
used a private email for correspondence
Condi Rice claims she barely used email
HRC didn't do this illegally -- She received approval from Obama Administration (it doesn't matter if they were against the setup - in the end they approved it )
It is amazing how Republicans media machine can create a scandal where there is none
After the millions of tax payer money , Republicans have spend on investigating I am still waiting for Bengazi to bring down HRC and Obama
Hillary (or her lawyer) can tell all that to the FBI.
Blah Blah Blah I don't want to hear any facts that go against my hating the left!!
The Republicans will win the day if they can just be smart enough to nominate someone with the politics and give-them-shit attitude of Ted Cruz. Except not Ted Cruz, because he is unelectable. But someone EXACTLY like Ted Cruz. Except electable.
Quote:
In comment 12413963 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12413936 giantfan2000 said:
Quote:
Colin Powell did the exact same thing as SOS
used a private email for correspondence
Condi Rice claims she barely used email
HRC didn't do this illegally -- She received approval from Obama Administration (it doesn't matter if they were against the setup - in the end they approved it )
It is amazing how Republicans media machine can create a scandal where there is none
After the millions of tax payer money , Republicans have spend on investigating I am still waiting for Bengazi to bring down HRC and Obama
Hillary (or her lawyer) can tell all that to the FBI.
Blah Blah Blah I don't want to hear any facts that go against my hating the left!!
Can't we say "right back atcha"?
Punch drunk we are not.
But she's Teflon against this crap. This isn't going to change anyone's opinion one iota.
That doesn't mean she won't shit the bed before election day. I know she has it in her. :)
In all likelihood, it's Jeb vs. Hill.
The x-factors of course are Sanders and Trump. Not that Trump can statistically take the Republican nomination - far too many Republican voters are polling that they would NEVER vote for him - BUT if he runs 3rd party? :)
She may have to get elected president so she can pardon herself.
Facts like Bigfoot or aliens?
Punch drunk we are not.
1. Why did she lie she only wanted to carry one device when she has been pictured with more devices in her hand than an Apple Store?
2. How do you explain the Blumenthal emails with her statement she gave over all work related emails.
3. If you noticed in her affidavit to the court, she didn't say she turned over all the emails, only that she directed her staff to do that.
4. If you compare this to people's wild theories about Vince Foster, I don't know what to tell you. To my knowledge, she never lied about Foster and there is not one shred of evidence of wrong doing in that matter. Here, however, she had lied at every step and been as deceitful as possible by wiping her servers clean. This is more akin to the Rose Law Firm documents just magically appearing years after they were subpoenaed and missing tons of stuff.
5. I voted for Bill and Obama (the first time) and could vote for a Democrat, I do care though that our leaders are somewhat honest and trustworthy; she has proven time and time again she isn't.
6. The people who defend her honesty (you can vote on grounds of ideology) are as nuts as the people who say she killed vince foster, just as every piece of available evidence shows that conspiracy theory to be untrue, every piece of available evidence shows that she, as William Safire coined the term for her, is a congenital liar
If any Government employee below Secretarial level (including Under or Assistant Secretary) had done this, they would have been fired and facing criminal charges.
This isn't "Confidential" or even "Secret" documents; it's "Top Secret". Do you know how serious this is? Anyone who has worked for the Federal Government with a security clearance knows.
vowing to say "no" to everything he proposed. It works both ways, unfortunately
I had "Secret" clearance (not "Top Secret").
When I received a "Secret" document, I had to sign for it, record it, and ultimately document it's final disposal (i.e., if I shredded it, passed it to another employee).
Not only are confidential and above documents clearly labeled, but each paragraph within the document is designated a classified level.
Rule #1 and this is drilled into us constantly: don't put the info on a non-approved thumb drive. NEVER use private e-mail or non-USG protected system.
Not only have all of these practices been violated, but she's given Top Secret material to her attorneys and staff (who don't have Top Secret clearance) to review.
I can't tell you how much trouble anyone else would be in.
Exactly what criminal act is she suspected to have committed?
Exactly what criminal act is she suspected to have committed?
WRT the emails, Clinton categorically stated that she never possessed or transmitted classified material from her email account. Subsequently, the many of the emails that she transmitted to State we classified as being classified. After this, her surrogates said that she neither possessed nor transmitted material that was classified *at the time*. Subsequently, Inspector Generals (again I don't know which ones) reviewed a representative sample of 40 (out of 55,000) emails and found 4 that had classified material in them that were actually classified at their inception. Meaning, that they were *not* retroactively classified. This was also re-stted by the heads of 5 different intelligence agencies. After this the Clinton people said that she neither possessed nor transmitted material that had classified *markings* on them. Subsequently (yesterday) some agency or other stated that some of that material went beyond "classified" and was actually in the "Top Secret" category.
That's pretty much where we stand today.
I'm not sure if she had permission or not to use her own address or server. As pointed out earlier, prior SoS had used personal email addresses (not sure if this was instead of or in conjunction with gov't email addresses). Regardless, the Obama administration had to be aware, even if they didn't give explicit permission, for her to have her own set up. Interestingly, when the story first broke, the Obama administration said that they actually were *not aware that she used her own server. That contradiction is for those two parties to sort out.
Hilliary broke the law simply by having the material on a private server and also transmitting classified material by private e-mail.
Now whether the Justice Department wants to charge her or not is a different matter. But the Inspector General for the national security agencies said she had top secret documents on the server.
What part of 'transparency' do these people not understand? For me, my biggest beef is that she knew damned well that she would be running for President, and did it anyway.
I personally will be surprised if she actually takes any real damage from all of this.
Ironically, if she does go down in e-mail flames, Republicans will be facing a FAR more liberal candidate in Sanders - one who is turning out to be much more serious than anyone could have expected.
Keep in mind, this is the first time ANY candidate has led Hillary in head-to-head polling. Go Bernie!
Exactly what criminal act is she suspected to have committed?
I don't think there's anything legal involved, more of a question of trustworthiness. I believe the classified material being referred to wasn't classified at the time, that only came later.
Hillary fatigue cuts both ways
Quote:
I admit I haven't followed this all that closely but I thought somebody investigated not long ago and said Hillary never received any emails that were classified at the time she received them. The investigators said maybe some of the documents should have been classified but were not. Was the investigation afaked? Also I thought I'd read she got permission to do this email thing. Did that turn out to be a lie?
Exactly what criminal act is she suspected to have committed?
I don't think there's anything legal involved, more of a question of trustworthiness. I believe the classified material being referred to wasn't classified at the time, that only came later.
I would not assume that the most problematic things have already come to light. I also wouldn't assume that they ever will, if they do or once existed, lol
I don't think there's anything legal involved, more of a question of trustworthiness. I believe the classified material being referred to wasn't classified at the time, that only came later.
The legal issue all depends on when things were classified. A single classified document on her server would (should) spell legal trouble for her.
But it all depends on what the investigation finds. I certainly wouldn't take the word of HRC's camp at this point when they've already stated she never solicited advise from Blumenthal (proven false), turned over all State related emails (proven false), etc.
Quote:
I admit I haven't followed this all that closely but I thought somebody investigated not long ago and said Hillary never received any emails that were classified at the time she received them. The investigators said maybe some of the documents should have been classified but were not. Was the investigation afaked? Also I thought I'd read she got permission to do this email thing. Did that turn out to be a lie?
Exactly what criminal act is she suspected to have committed?
I don't think there's anything legal involved, more of a question of trustworthiness. I believe the classified material being referred to wasn't classified at the time, that only came later.
You don't believe anything illega is involved?
You might want to read what Eric just wrote
Exactly what criminal act is she suspected to have committed?
Hillary said there were no classifed emails. Now that other people have them, they are finding classified emails.
The reason people bash her is because she pulls shit like this. She's earned 99% of it.
Quote:
In comment 12414148 TJ said:
Quote:
I admit I haven't followed this all that closely but I thought somebody investigated not long ago and said Hillary never received any emails that were classified at the time she received them. The investigators said maybe some of the documents should have been classified but were not. Was the investigation afaked? Also I thought I'd read she got permission to do this email thing. Did that turn out to be a lie?
Exactly what criminal act is she suspected to have committed?
I don't think there's anything legal involved, more of a question of trustworthiness. I believe the classified material being referred to wasn't classified at the time, that only came later.
You don't believe anything illega is involved?
You might want to read what Eric just wrote
I read it. Did you read the part about them not being classified at the time? Seems an odd thing to skip.
"However, the two inspectors general said the material in Clinton's email was not marked as classified at the time."
First, never had classified material
Second, wasn't classified at the time (retroactively classified)
Third, was classified at the time but wasn't *marked* classified.
Quote:
that, if this investigation cashes out anything unfavorable, she could lose a lot of support. It's somewhat unfortunate, because a lot of the Hillary fatigue just comes from years (and years) (and years) of Republicans bashing her at every opportunity, for things both real and imagined. There have been something like six Benghazi investigations - none of which have found her to have acted improperly (not even the Republican one). But it has an effect, all the same.
The reason people bash her is because she pulls shit like this. She's earned 99% of it.
I disagree. She's earned her fair share, and you could certainly argue that's enough to end all practical consideration for her as President. But frankly, her political opponents try to make mountains out of every molehill, and if you wonder why any significant portion of Americans don't care when stuff like Server-gate happens, that's the reason. When you burn everyone out on Benghazi, nobody wants to listen when legitimate complaints arise.
I say this with the caveat that I find it monstrous to deny a raped woman the right to an abortion... but if you're of the opinion that it's a form of murder to allow abortion in the case of mothers who consensually conceived a child, why all of a sudden is it less murderous now that the child would be the result of a rape? That kid was a sperm penetrating an egg like any other.
I get that adhering strictly to the original pro-life idea in these cases defies common sense, but we are talking about (what pro-life people characterize as) murder. By the logic and respect for that term, there should be no exceptions.
And again.. I am definitively pro-choice.
Quote:
In comment 12414290 BlackLight said:
Quote:
that, if this investigation cashes out anything unfavorable, she could lose a lot of support. It's somewhat unfortunate, because a lot of the Hillary fatigue just comes from years (and years) (and years) of Republicans bashing her at every opportunity, for things both real and imagined. There have been something like six Benghazi investigations - none of which have found her to have acted improperly (not even the Republican one). But it has an effect, all the same.
The reason people bash her is because she pulls shit like this. She's earned 99% of it.
I disagree. She's earned her fair share, and you could certainly argue that's enough to end all practical consideration for her as President. But frankly, her political opponents try to make mountains out of every molehill, and if you wonder why any significant portion of Americans don't care when stuff like Server-gate happens, that's the reason. When you burn everyone out on Benghazi, nobody wants to listen when legitimate complaints arise.
I don't think Benghazi is a mole hill. And one of the reasons we don't know the entire truth is because of her secretive email server. All of her scandals go together.
Right: a political issue, not legal.
Quote:
In comment 12414290 BlackLight said:
Quote:
that, if this investigation cashes out anything unfavorable, she could lose a lot of support. It's somewhat unfortunate, because a lot of the Hillary fatigue just comes from years (and years) (and years) of Republicans bashing her at every opportunity, for things both real and imagined. There have been something like six Benghazi investigations - none of which have found her to have acted improperly (not even the Republican one). But it has an effect, all the same.
The reason people bash her is because she pulls shit like this. She's earned 99% of it.
I disagree. She's earned her fair share, and you could certainly argue that's enough to end all practical consideration for her as President. But frankly, her political opponents try to make mountains out of every molehill, and if you wonder why any significant portion of Americans don't care when stuff like Server-gate happens, that's the reason. When you burn everyone out on Benghazi, nobody wants to listen when legitimate complaints arise.
Exactly. And as I said, when you are SoS, you have to expect that at some point, a classifed email will cross your computer. Then what do you do (if you don't use the required .gov email account). Like I said, the whole thing is ridiculously unbelievable. Like the IRS saying they can't find emails.....
Quote:
In comment 12414294 schabadoo said:
I read it. Did you read the part about them not being classified at the time? Seems an odd thing to skip.
"However, the two inspectors general said the material in Clinton's email was not marked as classified at the time."
False. The IGs released a statement addressing this:
So far, virtually everything she's asserted regarding the emails has been proven false.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
As an example, many, many, many moderate and independent voters won't vote for a Rubio who insists that that abortion be illegal in the case of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. Without social issues, he appears to be a strong choice against a flawed Hillary. With them, probably not.
I say this with the caveat that I find it monstrous to deny a raped woman the right to an abortion... but if you're of the opinion that it's a form of murder to allow abortion in the case of mothers who consensually conceived a child, why all of a sudden is it less murderous now that the child would be the result of a rape? That kid was a sperm penetrating an egg like any other.
I get that adhering strictly to the original pro-life idea in these cases defies common sense, but we are talking about (what pro-life people characterize as) murder. By the logic and respect for that term, there should be no exceptions.
And again.. I am definitively pro-choice.
Quote:
is that if you buy into her excuse that the material didn't have a CLASSIFIED sticker on them, then you might wonder about her competence as SoS in not being able to recognize Top Secret material as it came across her desktop. Apparently some of this stuff (a random sampling suggesting that 10% of all the emails (5,500, that is) were classified at their generation. Should she not have been able to recognize that there is a whole lot of stuff that she shouldn't be handing out, regardless of whether or not they were marked?
Right: a political issue, not legal.
We're not talking about a cable here that relays what the Japanese Prime Minister said - for example - privately over dinner about the domestic political situation in Japan.
We're talking about what U.S. policy options/decisions for dealing with Putin in the Ukraine. Or perhaps our current intelligence infrastructure in Iran. We're talking about the most serious classified information.
What part of 'transparency' do these people not understand? For me, my biggest beef is that she knew damned well that she would be running for President, and did it anyway.
I personally will be surprised if she actually takes any real damage from all of this.
Ironically, if she does go down in e-mail flames, Republicans will be facing a FAR more liberal candidate in Sanders - one who is turning out to be much more serious than anyone could have expected.
Keep in mind, this is the first time ANY candidate has led Hillary in head-to-head polling. Go Bernie!
Quote:
In comment 12414367 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12414290 BlackLight said:
Quote:
that, if this investigation cashes out anything unfavorable, she could lose a lot of support. It's somewhat unfortunate, because a lot of the Hillary fatigue just comes from years (and years) (and years) of Republicans bashing her at every opportunity, for things both real and imagined. There have been something like six Benghazi investigations - none of which have found her to have acted improperly (not even the Republican one). But it has an effect, all the same.
The reason people bash her is because she pulls shit like this. She's earned 99% of it.
I disagree. She's earned her fair share, and you could certainly argue that's enough to end all practical consideration for her as President. But frankly, her political opponents try to make mountains out of every molehill, and if you wonder why any significant portion of Americans don't care when stuff like Server-gate happens, that's the reason. When you burn everyone out on Benghazi, nobody wants to listen when legitimate complaints arise.
I don't think Benghazi is a mole hill. And one of the reasons we don't know the entire truth is because of her secretive email server. All of her scandals go together.
Buford being Buford. And you wonder why you're the joke of BBI.
SI and TK are specific subsets of information. I believe SI is signal intelligence (things such as phone/radio intercepts) and TK is satellite intelligence, but I'm no expert. Others like Ronnie or Reb would be the ones to ask. My point is that this stuff was highly, highly classified information. Even if it wasn't specifically marked as such in the emails, the idea that the Secretary of State wouldn't have a notion as to what material likely is TS/SCI is preposterous.
Punch drunk we are not.
No it is the HRC supporters who are in complete denial that the Clinton's could ever be wrong.
She is Teflon. Nothing she ever does comes back to her.
Unfortunately for the Dems, she is all they have, ALL. The repubs have a few And some buttons, but HRC is all they have. Unless the Pres gets his third term.
Then I don't know why they keep reporting things like this:
“Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011 and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton,” the statement continued, but added this important caveat. “They were not marked as classified.”
It's very strange reporting.
Probably hoping that their forensics team is better than whoever she hired to wipe it.
Quote:
The information in the emails in the sample examined by the IGs were classified from the very beginning. To continue to speak of retroactive classifications is a red herring at best and deliberate obfuscation at worst.
Then I don't know why they keep reporting things like this:
“Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011 and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton,” the statement continued, but added this important caveat. “They were not marked as classified.”
It's very strange reporting.
That would mean whoever wrote the initial email with the classified info effed up big time. Not only is it illegal to send the emails on unclassified systems, but they are also responsible for marking the info as classified.
But anyone that received or forwarded the info also has an obligation to report the initial screw up.
How much you want to bet there is something about Obama on there, maybe even regarding Benghazi (Trey Gowdy said there were no emails for that time period included in the ones Clinton turned over) and he will squash it at the DOJ.
At the very least, everything should have been given to State as soon as this came out simply to protect the data.
This could be life and death stuff. What if one cable - for example - had information on Iranian domestic opposition.
If the server has indeed been hacked by the Chinese and Russians - as has been speculated - and they give that info to the Iranians, those people are dead.
Quote:
likely that Justice Department won't proceed on this. They allowed the server and thumb drives to remain in her/her attorney's possession for months. (The e-mails are USG property, not hers). It's unbelievable they weren't seized as soon as it was disclosed (not to get her in trouble, but simply to protect the data).
How much you want to bet there is something about Obama on there, maybe even regarding Benghazi (Trey Gowdy said there were no emails for that time period included in the ones Clinton turned over) and he will squash it at the DOJ.
Well she's already ok'ed the sale of uranium to the Russians (after receiving donations for the Clinton Foundation, of course). I think there are many people who could blackmail her. And the Chinese are probably reading everyone's email.
Just for shits and giggles?
b)It's also amusing that you decided this out of nowehere, based on absolutely nothing. I guess you just like the sound of it?
Aside from the interesting points in the piece itself, I could almost see a scenario where the following can be said of the Republicans for nominating a non-serious nominee to face Hillary or Hillary dropping out and the Democrats being left with Bernie freaking Sanders to go up against a Republican candidate.
Link - ( New Window )
þ@rickklein
Jimmy Carter statement: "Recent liver surgery revealed that I have cancer that now is in other parts of my body."
þ@rickklein
Jimmy Carter statement: "Recent liver surgery revealed that I have cancer that now is in other parts of my body."
That is sad.
They'd probably steamroll, unless the Republicans nominated someone truly frightening. Bernie would be the most left of center nominee since Henry Wallace was Veep, no?
I wasn't joking, if Trump is the Republican nominee I will start looking for real estate elsewhere. I love this country, but we would be done.
Someone has to. I don't think Biden is the guy to do it. He has a gag reel a mile long. But there has to be a purple state governor or senator eyeing his moment, no?
That party is literally off the walls, with the exception of Kasich.
Just for shits and giggles?
I always heard that nothing is really erased from a hard drive, that's why they sometimes get physically destroyed.
Beyond the "Secret" and "Top Secret" issue that was discussed I'm looking at the name Sidney Blumenthal. It's been a couple of decades since I read US v. Nixon and it's progeny, but I'm not at all certain executive privilege can be applied to communications between HRC and him.
I like Webb more than you do, but he's not particularly charismatic from the stump and he seems only moderately interested in actually holding the office.
That party is literally off the walls, with the exception of Kasich.
Versus a woman who may or may not have scrubbed a private server that contained at the very least subsequently classified information before turning it over to the government for investigation and a socialist who honeymooned in the USSR and who conducted his own foreign policy as mayor of a small US city.
That party is literally off the walls, with the exception of Kasich.
And if you want to base things on a one off like you have, we have a candidate on the other side with Brian Williams syndrome, claiming to have dodged non-existent sniper fire in the Balkans.
I actually like quite a bit about Webb. I suppose you can say that my negative view of him reflects disappointment more than anything else. I thought that he might be the kind of heterodox Democrat he claimed to be, but that proved to be a fleeting hope.
Joe Biden's life history was much more interesting when he was cribbing it from Neil Kinnock.
If you look hard enough, your party says and does plenty of outrageous things. You want the Republicans to nominate who only looks conservative in relation to your politics, which are significantly left of center.
Oh for fuck's sake. He's a plagiarist who has put his foot in his mouth for decades. He is deserving of a great deal of sympathy for what he endured the last several months, but let's hold off on the canonization for now.
What is your problem? You seem like a very weird and angry man all the time. Best of luck to you. I'm going to stop engaging you from now on.
Selective data. I love it. It's like the actuary who's asked how much 1+1 is. His reponse: "How much do you want it to be?"
In sheer national popular elections with high turnouts, Democrats have an advantage, and it's growing. In state and local elections Republicans have a substantial advantage, and it may even be stable for now although eventually demographics may turn it, very very slowly. Districting dramatically favors Republicans in Congressional races. At the state and local level, tax/spending issues favor Republicans, and will for the foreseeable future.
If Hillary were a strong candidate, this would be virtually over already. And, she would be sweeping a Senatorial majority back in with her. As it is, it isn't a done deal, but Democrats start with a big advantage in major national elections. The Senate is starting off very close, but the Democrats are likely to win it back if Hillary wins and their candidates end up strong enough. Otherwise, not.
The House could take 20 years or more.
What makes Biden such a virtuous man?
This e-mail "scandal" is following the same pattern. A lot of wild accusations are flying around. There's a lot of bad/lazy reporting by the press. The usual suspecta are ginning up outrage and demanding investigations/prosecutions/firing squads and then it turns it it was nothing after all and then it all goes away until the next time.
I'm not particularly interested in going over the details of the current imbroglio any more than I'm interested in chatting with anti-vaxxers or young-earth creationists because I know there's literally nothing I could say or do that would have any effect on their opinion.
There are a lot of people out there who really really hate the Clintons and who have been looking for something to bring them down for over two decades. It amuses me to think that what they've done, at this point, is essentially inoculate them against pretty much any accusation of wrongdoing. HRC could shoot a man dead in the Rose Garden, in full view of the press, and a lot of people would still think it was some kind of right-wing scam to bring her down.
I'm not a big Hillary fan myself. I'm not all that excited about the prospect of her and all the Clinton drama moving into the White House. But it does give me a little satisfaction to know that, if she takes the oath of office on Jan 20, 2017, a lot of people's heads are just going to explode.
He wasn't 100% correct, he was full of shit. There were Communists, past and present, in government but he never had a list of them and his treatment of Marshall was indecent.
Not sure if that's a typo or your math is poor. GOP has lost 4 of last six, won 5 of last 9
And btw, HRC owes the NYTimes an apology.
If you're even remotely interested in the "McCarthy era," there is a fantastic book by Whittaker Chambers, "Witness." It was vilified as a book of lies. When the Venona Project and the Venona Papers were released in the mid-90's, it validated all of the major points in Chambers book...
This e-mail "scandal" is following the same pattern. A lot of wild accusations are flying around. There's a lot of bad/lazy reporting by the press. The usual suspecta are ginning up outrage and demanding investigations/prosecutions/firing squads and then it turns it it was nothing after all and then it all goes away until the next time.
I'm not particularly interested in going over the details of the current imbroglio any more than I'm interested in chatting with anti-vaxxers or young-earth creationists because I know there's literally nothing I could say or do that would have any effect on their opinion.
There are a lot of people out there who really really hate the Clintons and who have been looking for something to bring them down for over two decades. It amuses me to think that what they've done, at this point, is essentially inoculate them against pretty much any accusation of wrongdoing. HRC could shoot a man dead in the Rose Garden, in full view of the press, and a lot of people would still think it was some kind of right-wing scam to bring her down.
I'm not a big Hillary fan myself. I'm not all that excited about the prospect of her and all the Clinton drama moving into the White House. But it does give me a little satisfaction to know that, if she takes the oath of office on Jan 20, 2017, a lot of people's heads are just going to explode.
While the right has handled her umpteen scandals in idiotic fashion, her greatest asset remains sycophants who dismiss any criticism of her as analogous to Vince Foster and death lists. She is being roundly criticized for this because even if the most charitable interpretation is accepted she still exercised terrible judgment and hubris.
I've gotta go with the Trumpster
Quote:
The country is moving left. Adapt or wither away. The Dems had their come to Jesus moment after Mondale. I think you guys will next November.
Not sure if that's a typo or your math is poor. GOP has lost 4 of last six, won 5 of last 9
They've received less votes in five of the last six, I think that's what he meant.
Quote:
In comment 12414680 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
The country is moving left. Adapt or wither away. The Dems had their come to Jesus moment after Mondale. I think you guys will next November.
Not sure if that's a typo or your math is poor. GOP has lost 4 of last six, won 5 of last 9
They've received less votes in five of the last six, I think that's what he meant.
ok, but I don't think that makes Algore feel and better
Quote:
I haven't followed this real closely because I'm weary of chasing Hillary if there's no substance there. But this is my take from what I've seen. For a period of time, at least several years, Hillary got ALL State Dept. emails sent to her server. Hillary says she saw nothing during that time that she believed to be classified. So the inference for me is that Hillary is saying that during that several year period the State Dept. sent nothing to her that was classified. Is it normal or even reasonable that the Dept. would send nothing to the Secretary over that long a time frame that's classified? I thought the State Dept. deals with lots of classified stuff. Maybe she can say she doesn't know about individual items, but does it stretch credulity for her to assume she got no classified documents?
no, it's definitive that they sent her things that were classified and fen top secret. But as far as we know now, they weren't labeled classified and she was unable to discern if the material was secret or sensitive or not.
So if they wanted her to see a classified document, how did they get it to her?
Seeing that she was almost never in the country, it must have been a chore getting hard copies to her in a timely manner without faxing them. ok, whatever
This e-mail "scandal" is following the same pattern. A lot of wild accusations are flying around. There's a lot of bad/lazy reporting by the press. The usual suspecta are ginning up outrage and demanding investigations/prosecutions/firing squads and then it turns it it was nothing after all and then it all goes away until the next time.
I'm not particularly interested in going over the details of the current imbroglio any more than I'm interested in chatting with anti-vaxxers or young-earth creationists because I know there's literally nothing I could say or do that would have any effect on their opinion.
There are a lot of people out there who really really hate the Clintons and who have been looking for something to bring them down for over two decades. It amuses me to think that what they've done, at this point, is essentially inoculate them against pretty much any accusation of wrongdoing. HRC could shoot a man dead in the Rose Garden, in full view of the press, and a lot of people would still think it was some kind of right-wing scam to bring her down.
I'm not a big Hillary fan myself. I'm not all that excited about the prospect of her and all the Clinton drama moving into the White House. But it does give me a little satisfaction to know that, if she takes the oath of office on Jan 20, 2017, a lot of people's heads are just going to explode.
So, if I get this right, you have two people who have time and time again made questionable personal judgments, but because their opponents have taken it too far sometimes, their supporters let her get away with anything. I don't know, that sounds kind of weak to me. Shouldn't her supporters have a moral compass? At what point is enough enough with these two. Lying to grand juries and depositions under oath, the mark rich stuff, Hillary did exactly what Brian Williams did. You don't have to be a wingnut and believe Vince Foster conspiracy theories or bogus rape allegations against Bill to believe to know these are not honest people. At bottom, these two think they are not subject to the law; they think the rules that apply to us do not apply to everyone. Nixon felt that way, too. i am not saying Hillary will operate a political espionage scheme, like Nixon did, but it is really dangerous to have leaders who do not believe the law applies to them.
Not one Hillary supporter on this thread has explained the indisputable lies she has said in her defense.
I would issue arrest warrants for the State Department officials who have covered this up as well. But we know that won't happen.
BTW, it these were already TOP SECRET classified documents, which the inspector general's report says, then there is absolutely no way she did not know these were not top secret documents. As I said above, not only are all classified documents clearly marked, but each paragraph within the document is usually marked (i.e., if a paragraph contains SECRET information, the paragraph will start off with [S] before the text.
Quote:
Dana Perino was talking about this on the 5 earlier. She said that she had top secret clearance and for that type of material she was not allowed for it to ever be on her computer. She had to physically go into a secure room next log into a specific computer where the material was housed. She said it was a PIA so she always had hard copies delivered to her instead. It is possible that the same happened with Clinton.
Seeing that she was almost never in the country, it must have been a chore getting hard copies to her in a timely manner without faxing them. ok, whatever
I don't pretend to understand exactly how things were done, but one would assume the vast majority of the classified material she received WAS given to her in person, in hard copy and/or through briefings. So it's not an implication that there were hundreds upon hundreds of classified documents sent to her private server, rather that a handful were, and/or that a good deal more sensitive material, some of it subsequently classified, was sent as well. And that even if it's just the latter it is very problematic because SHE made it happen by insisting on having a private server located in her house. And her explanations for doing so - not wanting to carry multiple devices - are just silly, something that none of you would accept (nor should you accept) from someone you didn't like.
Why Bill Clinton lied under oath and surrendered his law license rather than face prosecution. Why would I think this will end her career when that, the rich pardon, the racist comments after the sc primary have not.
But I think we're getting caught up in the weeds on all of this.
The real problem is she conducted Cabinet-level USG business on a private server and through private e-mail, not a secured USG system/account. There is no way for her to do her job without using this system to read and produced classified material. It's the nature of her position as the nation's top diplomat.
Her e-mails had to contain the most sensitive foreign policy material we had, and she chose not to protect it properly despite all of the rules and regulations put into place to do so. She had to sign her name and swear she would not do these types of things as part of her security clearance. And she did it anyways.
That's the real issue.
off top of head ... Prez Bush with Harken. Christie getting his bro to get away scot free when rest of company indicted. rubio mixing campaign money and personal debts. cruz willing to default on us debt to advance his personal agenda.
they are all terrible. i'll just vote for the unethical scum who is closer to stuff i believe in than the other side. i hate hilary. she is just better to me than the alternatives.
But I think we're getting caught up in the weeds on all of this.
The real problem is she conducted Cabinet-level USG business on a private server and through private e-mail, not a secured USG system/account. There is no way for her to do her job without using this system to read and produced classified material. It's the nature of her position as the nation's top diplomat.
Her e-mails had to contain the most sensitive foreign policy material we had, and she chose not to protect it properly despite all of the rules and regulations put into place to do so. She had to sign her name and swear she would not do these types of things as part of her security clearance. And she did it anyways.
That's the real issue.
I am surprised more people aren't appalled at this and it isn't a bigger story in the news.
But then this is probably the outcome of years of endless bashing and going after the Clintons for anything and everything by so many; the country has become desensitized to it so when there is something to genuinely be aghast about we get little reaction from much of the nation.
This should be a big deal and not because it's Hilary but because of the position she held.
But I think we're getting caught up in the weeds on all of this.
The real problem is she conducted Cabinet-level USG business on a private server and through private e-mail, not a secured USG system/account. There is no way for her to do her job without using this system to read and produced classified material. It's the nature of her position as the nation's top diplomat.
Her e-mails had to contain the most sensitive foreign policy material we had, and she chose not to protect it properly despite all of the rules and regulations put into place to do so. She had to sign her name and swear she would not do these types of things as part of her security clearance. And she did it anyways.
That's the real issue.
Plainly, you're right. It is a brazen breech of security. However, in some ways, I think the opposite is true--ie, that the classified Information is the weeds. I am no Republican, and have voted for more Democrats than Republicans, but what I see as the big picture is their long history of deceiving the American people and their belief that they could do it anytime. To me, that is the undeniable lesson of Watergate. If we don't hold our leaders to some standards, we get these brazen breaches, not out of malice, but out of hubris that the rules somehow don't apply to them. To me that is the big picture in this whole thing.
If you go through all that like the never ending Benghazi hearings that proved a great rally cry but no breaking of the law. She beats this, what is your next move after making her a sympathetic figure being picked on by a party with a fail agenda?
If you go through all that like the never ending Benghazi hearings that proved a great rally cry but no breaking of the law. She beats this, what is your next move after making her a sympathetic figure being picked on by a party with a fail agenda?
Nobody knows what's on the hard drive, if anything. And frankly, nobody knows what the DOJ would do with evidence of minor wrongdoing. Petraeus was charged for what may (or may not, IDK) have been a lesser breach, but there were certainly aggravating circumstances about how and why he did that.
I would issue arrest warrants for the State Department officials who have covered this up as well. But we know that won't happen.
BTW, it these were already TOP SECRET classified documents, which the inspector general's report says, then there is absolutely no way she did not know these were not top secret documents. As I said above, not only are all classified documents clearly marked, but each paragraph within the document is usually marked (i.e., if a paragraph contains SECRET information, the paragraph will start off with [S] before the text.
Eric If she knowingly mis-handled secret documents you have ever right to be outraged. However, when you take into context what Dana Perino is saying and what the State Department is saying as reported by the Washington Post:
A State Department spokesman late Tuesday described the top-secret designation as a recommendation and said they had not been marked classified at the time, but said staffers “circulated these e-mails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011 and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton.”
As such HRC may not have had expectation she would have truly received secret info via e-mail. As SOS I'm sure she received sensitive info. regularly. Reports coming out are that this secret info was satellite photos. Just my opinion, but maybe we should wait before we get the pitchforks out.
It's a moot point. If the documents were deemed TOP SECRET either before or after, it means that anyone with a half a brain could tell that there were classified-type material. It is her responsibility (and the responsibility of any USG employee with access to sensitive information to protect it).
TOP SECRET is the most sensitive information in the USG.
Beyond all that, what was her purpose to have her own server/e-mail system to conduct USG business on? Clearly, to prevent prying eyes from other USG officials and Freedom of Information requests.
She had (and still may have) a great than 50/50 shot to win the election. The way the Presidential elections have gone in recent years is that they come down to a handful of states (and counties) that the Democrats have been successfully been able to carry the last couple of elections.
Why risk all of that on stupid stuff like this and the stuff going on in the Clinton Foundation (which even the Obama Administration recommended that she cool it)?
It's just stupid. This is a completely self-inflicted wound. Will she get past it? History says yes. But why take the risk in the first place?
The only thing I can say, when it comes to truly secret info. do we really want it going via e-amail regardless of gov.org or private. It appears as I mentioned before per Dana Periono apparently there are provisions.
The only thing I'm suggesting is that we get all the facts before we jump to the gun.
Hilliary's problem here is even if she is completely innocent, she looks guilty as sin. But she isn't innocent because simply by having a private server and using her private e-mail, she violated USG policy. The question now is one of criminality - and that comes into play if she compromised national security.
Quote:
sure why Elizabeth Warren isn't jumping into the race either. She'd kill Hilliary at this point.
warren can't raise the money.
Warren's set is still the generally more affluent white liberals, and she alienates plenty of them by railing against Wall Street. Ironically of the folks who have been talked about Biden is probably the one who might come closest to maintaining most of the Obama coalition because he appeals to blue collar (mostly white) voters in a way that Clinton, Warren and Sanders do not.
That would mean she thinks that there would never be an investigation where people who can recognize classified docs (even without markings) would be going through her emails. And it means that she and her staff deliberately tried to bypass the rules.
Not smart Mrs. Clinton, not smart at all.
The problem with Biden, aside from the fact that his record on a number of issues is quite inconsistent, is that his verbal gaffes are legion. The television ads would almost write themselves. He is popular right now because America is (appropriately) quite sympathetic, but a sober appraisal still identifies a lot of negatives. Is that white working class vote still as excited about Biden after eight years working hand in hand with Obama?
Clinton has not said why she requested the book, but it includes some advice that is particularly interesting in light of the controversy over her unconventional email arrangement at the State Department and her decision to delete tens of thousands of emails she deemed to be purely personal.
The copy that ABC downloaded for $9.99 had some interesting revelations.
Take, for example, Chapter Six: “The Email That Can Land You In Jail.” The chapter includes a section entitled “How to Delete Something So It Stays Deleted.”
Link - ( New Window )
granted, this is pretty much standard quo for politicians regarding campaign finance comments vs actions.
Here's why it's selective. The poster just as easily could have said that it was 5 out of the last 9 elections as opposed to 5 out of the last 6, but consciously chose the most favorable time frame from his point of view.
In sheer national popular elections with high turnouts, Democrats have an advantage, and it's growing. In state and local elections Republicans have a substantial advantage, and it may even be stable for now although eventually demographics may turn it, very very slowly. Districting dramatically favors Republicans in Congressional races. At the state and local level, tax/spending issues favor Republicans, and will for the foreseeable future.
Beyond districting, which favors Republicans in Congressional because the districts are required to be skewed to elect minority candidates in super safe districts, Republicans benefit in state and local races for one simple reasons. That is the fact that virtually all state and local jurisdictions have to balance their budget annually. When a spendthrift budget produces instantly higher taxes, people tend to look more closely at spending. HOWEVER, as on might expect, politicians of both parties have tried to an end run around this issue through entitlements and deferred comp for state and local workers. That's why the biggest fiscal issue for many states and municipalities is pension and health care costs.
If Hillary were a strong candidate, this would be virtually over already. And, she would be sweeping a Senatorial majority back in with her. As it is, it isn't a done deal, but Democrats start with a big advantage in major national elections. The Senate is starting off very close, but the Democrats are likely to win it back if Hillary wins and their candidates end up strong enough. Otherwise, not.
But Hillary is not a strong candidate, and many of her wounds are self inflicted.
The House could take 20 years or more.
That would mean she thinks that there would never be an investigation where people who can recognize classified docs (even without markings) would be going through her emails. And it means that she and her staff deliberately tried to bypass the rules.
Not smart Mrs. Clinton, not smart at all.
I doubt they intentionally schemed to remove the classified markings from the documents. More likely HRC asked a staffer for these docs and without thinking through the consequences the staffer just attached the photos (and other docs) to an email and forwarded it along without putting the proper classification markings on the emails (which would also need to be encrypted at a minimum).
That said, HRC also should've realized as soon as she got these satellite photos (if thats what they were), that the photos were *classified* and at that point had an obligation (as someone with a clearance herself) to take the steps necessary to rectify the situation.
granted, this is pretty much standard quo for politicians regarding campaign finance comments vs actions.
We need to get rid of it AFTER I am elected. I need to get elected so I can get rid of it and therefore another Republican will never get elected again!....HRC
Sorry Bama, but that's just plain wrong. McCarthy was 100% correct that there were Communists in the government, but when it came to specific individuals he was the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Alger Hiss was uncovered by HUAC in the late 40's. And while HUAC batted 50% at best with identifying individuals, it was Navy Seal sniper like accurate compared to McCarthy's Senate committee. Venona is a thorough refutation of the popular meme for the last half century that there was little to no Communist conspiracy in government right after WWII, but it also showed that McCarthy was an ignorant demagogue who seized on a valid issue and took it where it should not have gone.
I'm very interested in this particular period of history and enjoy the discussions about it. There seem to be others who also share that interest. It's a subject that would be good to disuss in it's own thread... I was commenting here because of the analogy of Ted Cruz to Joe McCarthy. I think that analogy is absent knowledge of history and plays on the 'icon' of McCarthyism.
I've read the book. Chambers has a bit of a mixed legacy himself, though his treatment by the Left was an abomination and Venona substantially confirmed what he said. But he is not Tailgunner Joe.
I have not read the book. But I reiterate that Whitaker Chambers and Alger Hiss were the products of HUAC and not Joe McCarthy. The late 40's and not the early/mid 50's. "Tail Gunner Joe", as Dune states, points to one serious problem. Let me add that the single, widest application of executive privilege ever made was done by Eisenhower to shut down McCarthy's fishing expeditions with respect to the DOD. I never have heard Ike called a Communist sympathizer.
Not familiar with the Birchers of the late '50s/early '60s, I assume?
Anyway, regarding McCarthy - at the most simplistic level, you can say he was correct. There were indeed high-level officials who spied for the Soviets, such as Hiss or Harry Dexter White or Lawrence Duggan. However, if someone is right for the wrong reasons, then you really can't say "Joe McCarthy was right". His lists were bogus - he wouldn't provide anyone with the list, and its number kept changing. He did a great deal of damage to the noble cause of anticommunism with his reckless disregard for the truth.
Quote:
I never have heard Ike called a Communist sympathizer.
Not familiar with the Birchers of the late '50s/early '60s, I assume?
Probably true, but they probably called McCarthy a Communist as well. Never paid much attention to them.
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton had no authority to disseminate intelligence-community information on her own, neither could she make it less highly classified (a process termed “downgrading” in the spy trade) without asking permission first.
It is a very big deal and less-connected people who do this sort of thing ruin their lives, as any IC counterintelligence official can attest. During my NSA time, I saw junior personnel terminated for relatively minor infractions of security regulations. While the U.S. government unquestionably does over-classify items on the policy side, where almost everything in the Defense and State Departments gets some sort of classification stamp, not usually at a high level, intelligence reporting by its very nature is classified. If you don’t want the responsibility of a high-level government position, which inevitably brings with it TOP SECRET//SI access, then don’t accept that burden.
Link - ( New Window )
How would they find everyone that she corresponded with? That's like finding a needle in a haystack.
At this point that's only one part. What is on them? The others include why did she have them; were they known to be classified at the time and, if not, how come she doesn't have the acumen to recognize top secret stuff. The major questions while also including what was deleted concerns both her motivation for deleting them and why she publicly said she didn't have material and why she refused to turn her server over in the first place. There are probably other pertinent questions but you can see that they include both the substantive topic of the email and the personal character stuff.
Some of them, like Sid Blumenthal, were not government employees. There is not necessarily backup or storage, nor a requirement to retain them. Her server might have been (or is) the only hope to retrieve them.
Then why didn't she turn it over 3 months ago? The only 2 answers I can see are a) political ineptness due to paranoia or b) she indeed had something to hide.
Quote:
Clintons no longer using this server. FBI wished to check the security.
Then why didn't she turn it over 3 months ago? The only 2 answers I can see are a) political ineptness due to paranoia or b) she indeed had something to hide.
Same reason Brady didn't turn his phone over...
dick pics!
-The material was therefore generated with the appropriate labeling (TS/SI, for example).
-The material in the emails had no classification label on them, which means someone deliberately removed it.
-Why would someone remove the classification? Well.....
-It is illegal to view or disseminate classified information on an unsecured email network.
-Hillary wanted to use a private, unsecure email server for her work as SoS.
-As SoS, she routinely accessed classified information for her work.
Quote:
In comment 12416397 Watson said:
Quote:
Clintons no longer using this server. FBI wished to check the security.
Then why didn't she turn it over 3 months ago? The only 2 answers I can see are a) political ineptness due to paranoia or b) she indeed had something to hide.
Same reason Brady didn't turn his phone over...
dick pics!
Hers or Bills?
The second she saw the classified data on an unclass network, she had an obligation to take steps to rectify the situation and is as responsible as the individual(s) who initially sent the data.
Hers or Bills?
Both?
Everyone involved, including the State Department employees who are covering this up need to be arrested.
If not, it's more evidence (which we already know) of a legal double-standard in this country.
And people wonder why Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are surging in the polls.
Quote:
Clintons no longer using this server. FBI wished to check the security.
Then why didn't she turn it over 3 months ago? The only 2 answers I can see are a) political ineptness due to paranoia or b) she indeed had something to hide.
Don't wish to mis-inform but as I understand it what was turned over was the old server. The one that was in use while she was SOS. Sometime in 2013 after she resigned, Clintons changed over to a new server. After transfer, disk on old was scrubbed.
Work related emails were already sent to state in Dec 2014. Was part of a request to several past SOS because of new guidelines. For example, Colin Powell could not send; had deleted. No back up electronically or hard paper copy kept.
Because in reviewing emails, some may or should have been secret (apparently CIA & State in dispute), concern about possible breach. ( What the NYT story the other week was about;the one they originally reported incorrectly as a possible criminal investigation.) Therefore old server turned over. Never should have been secret stuff transmitted this way via email. Secret stuff different protocol.
Everyone involved, including the State Department employees who are covering this up need to be arrested.
If not, it's more evidence (which we already know) of a legal double-standard in this country.
And people wonder why Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are surging in the polls.
Give it about three days, David Brock and Paul Begala will have circulated HRC's preferred narrative and it'll be read back to us repeatedly and insistently here. Then key in on the demon right.
But it really doesn't matter. There were Top Secret information found on what she turned over. That's more than enough for some serious charges.
If Gore ran and won vs. Jeb, it'd be sweet justice for 2000. I'd love that.
Gore would be fucking awful. He's an insufferable bore and he became quite wealthy selling peddling his eco-wares to a network funded by petrodollars.
Link - ( New Window )
Yeah. You ran a horrible 00 campaign. Didn't embrace the Big Dog. Big mistake. I hope you learned your lesson.
Run. I'd be in your corner.
If Gore ran and won vs. Jeb, it'd be sweet justice for 2000. I'd love that.
Yeah. You ran a horrible 00 campaign. Didn't embrace the Big Dog. Big mistake. I hope you learned your lesson.
Run. I'd be in your corner.
Yeah, running against the Big Dog's wife (and forcing him to spend more time with her, which is probably a terrifying prospect for him) is the way to get him on your side. Pray tell, how does Gore and his eco-warrior message appeal to blue collar voters? In 2000 he had some credibility with African American voters who loved Bill. He wouldn't expect that now.
I was commenting on his 00 campaign. He's obviously not getting Bill's support.
Most ridiculous allegation ever. Of course in the right wing echo chamber in which you live, this is Watergate time 30.
Quote:
runs.
Most ridiculous allegation ever. Of course in the right wing echo chamber in which you live, this is Watergate time 30.
Is this the unhappy ending story? It ran in the Enquirer, that should tell you everything you need to know.
Quote:
runs.
Most ridiculous allegation ever. Of course in the right wing echo chamber in which you live, this is Watergate time 30.
Log. Eye. Mirror.
It's not plausible because any TS document is clearly classified to the reader.
And again, while the criminal issue is the classified material, that does not get around the total and utter disregard to accepted protocol about not having a private server and doing official USG business on private e-mail.
But I think it's clear that the Justice Department won't pursue this as the law states. If they were going to, they would have seized the server and thumb drives months ago for no other reason than to simply protect the data and ascertain how much national security damage had already been done.
This is why it's important. She's already beholden to foreign donors for their contributions to the Foundation and now this. She's not fit to be President.
But something that is not tin foil hat material is that the top,secret stuff is likely valuable and usable to Putin or the Chinese. Satellite info or names of agents, etc.
I would think Warren is having long talks with her advisors this morning, as it is reported Gore is as well. Biden has been always planning on assessing the race.
I just can't see how she survives it, but with that said, the Clinton survive everything.
But Warren is not RFK. Warren has limited constituency outside the college towns and the Upper West Side. She's not the one to seize the mantle and win. At best a Goldwater-esque candidacy.
Quote:
with no cell phone or internet access? She's in an interesting dilemma. If HRC drops out there is a credible basis for her to reverse her no run decision. In essence she would be RFK piggy-backing off of Bernie Sanders' Gene McCarthy impossible dream effort (but please, no assassination). However, if she waits for the actual announcement from Hillary, she risks getting preempted by Biden, Kerry or Gore.
But Warren is not RFK. Warren has limited constituency outside the college towns and the Upper West Side. She's not the one to seize the mantle and win. At best a Goldwater-esque candidacy.
Not sure about that. I'd be interested to see how the unions react. I could see the SEIU going all in behind her while the Teamsters look for someone, anyone else.
In any event, it would be fun to see what happens, especially with respect to the media, when Trump refers to her as Pocahontas
Quote:
with no cell phone or internet access? She's in an interesting dilemma. If HRC drops out there is a credible basis for her to reverse her no run decision. In essence she would be RFK piggy-backing off of Bernie Sanders' Gene McCarthy impossible dream effort (but please, no assassination). However, if she waits for the actual announcement from Hillary, she risks getting preempted by Biden, Kerry or Gore.
But Warren is not RFK. Warren has limited constituency outside the college towns and the Upper West Side. She's not the one to seize the mantle and win. At best a Goldwater-esque candidacy.
The Russians have a long, long history of using stuff like this to blackmail officials.
Klintonerdämmerung (You Tube Video) - ( New Window )
She's arrogant and doesn't think rules apply to her. She though her server was ultra secure because it was in her house which is guarded by the Secret Service (DOH). She put her personal desire for secrecy (to hide what she does) before the security of the United States. She is not fit to lead the country.
You say that, but this whole issue only exists because of actions HRC took.
Agree with that, which is what makes this entire thing so puzzling. She probably wanted her own server because she figured the Rs in Congress would somehow find a way to subpoena her public emails (or the press via FOIA requests). But then that begs the question, "what the heck is she hiding? (aside from Blumenthal)"
She's also a control freak and paranoid, and doesn't take a piss without thinking about any loss of control. A private server, while a potential political liability, makes perfect sense given the above.
I never understood people who said if Nixon fessed up he would have survived. He ran a political espionage operation, the American people would not have stood for that and rightly so. but HRC would have been forgiven for the classified materials if she fessed up. While a huge deal, the people would not recognize the gravity of it and probably just let it go, even though most people are prosecuted for it. When she did something that reinforced her image as a deceitful, lying, out for herself politician, that is when she ruined her candidacy. People who lived through the first administration, Democrat or republican, are sick and tired of their psychological dramas and their belief that they are above the law. That is why this scandal has her numbers plummeting and why, if it continues down this path, she will not be a viable general election candidate. With all of that said, betting against the Clintons surviving scandal is like betting against Rhonda Rousey in a UFC fight, not a good bet. I never thought they would survive the Rich pardon, that was a clear bribe--money for his library in exchange for a pardon for a guy who was a fugitive. But they came back stronger than ever. So, you never know, but if this was anyone else I would say their candidacy was over.
People simply won't care about "the Russians or chinese MIGHT have stuff!" If it could be shone that they do, then that's different.
People simply won't care about "the Russians or chinese MIGHT have stuff!" If it could be shone that they do, then that's different.
The main point though is that whether or not people care, there may be a substantive potential security breach.
The 'give a shit' factor is irrelevant if she gets indicted. There is enough there now to do that. Other people have been prosecuted for less of an offense.
You're sort of left with two arguments against her from a political pov...
Either she is willfully lied when she said that she didn't have classified material (changed to classified at the time...changed to marked classified) and you're left with a presidential candidate who is dishonest and unconcerned about national security information and safety protocols,
or she is telling the truth (in her last iteration of the truth). According to the Inspector Generals, 10% of her email contained classified, top secret information. That's somewhere in the range of 5000-6000 classified emails that should have been marked classified. That means that someone in intelligence, whose job it is to collect, categorize and *label* classified material failed at their job at least 5000-6000 times. These are the types of people protecting us. Probably their main function is to keep secure information safe and they failed. That in and of itself should be both scary and outrageous in the highest magnitude. But then you have a SoS, one who wants to be president and be in charge of our security who has that material come across her desk and 5000 times failed to recognize that it was classified material. Failed to treat it any differently than a Dilbert cartoon.
No matter which way is what really happened, it doesn't look good for government and it doesn't look good for her.
I think it's more likely that someone in State, who rightfully had access to the classified intel, decided to forward it along with the appropriate markings.
I mentioned before, but I really feel that this could be a legacy issue for Obama. Obviously it depends on if she really did anything wrong or not, but as it stands, if it comes out at any point in the future, even decades down the road, that she did what people say she did, then he will be looked upon as using gov't to protect her. But if he allows an actual investigation and that results in her being ousted from the race, then...think about it. The presumptive next president being taken down due to something of this nature. Either way, Obama will figure prominently in how the story eventually gets told.
Of course if she is completely innocent, it fades away for everyone.
I think it's more likely that someone in State, who rightfully had access to the classified intel, decided to forward it along with the appropriate markings.
You're sort of left with two arguments against her from a political pov...
Either she is willfully lied when she said that she didn't have classified material (changed to classified at the time...changed to marked classified) and you're left with a presidential candidate who is dishonest and unconcerned about national security information and safety protocols,
or she is telling the truth (in her last iteration of the truth). According to the Inspector Generals, 10% of her email contained classified, top secret information. That's somewhere in the range of 5000-6000 classified emails that should have been marked classified. That means that someone in intelligence, whose job it is to collect, categorize and *label* classified material failed at their job at least 5000-6000 times. These are the types of people protecting us. Probably their main function is to keep secure information safe and they failed. That in and of itself should be both scary and outrageous in the highest magnitude. But then you have a SoS, one who wants to be president and be in charge of our security who has that material come across her desk and 5000 times failed to recognize that it was classified material. Failed to treat it any differently than a Dilbert cartoon.
No matter which way is what really happened, it doesn't look good for government and it doesn't look good for her.
Quote:
to see what the personal threshhold for this type of stuff is.
You're sort of left with two arguments against her from a political pov...
Either she is willfully lied when she said that she didn't have classified material (changed to classified at the time...changed to marked classified) and you're left with a presidential candidate who is dishonest and unconcerned about national security information and safety protocols,
or she is telling the truth (in her last iteration of the truth). According to the Inspector Generals, 10% of her email contained classified, top secret information. That's somewhere in the range of 5000-6000 classified emails that should have been marked classified. That means that someone in intelligence, whose job it is to collect, categorize and *label* classified material failed at their job at least 5000-6000 times. These are the types of people protecting us. Probably their main function is to keep secure information safe and they failed. That in and of itself should be both scary and outrageous in the highest magnitude. But then you have a SoS, one who wants to be president and be in charge of our security who has that material come across her desk and 5000 times failed to recognize that it was classified material. Failed to treat it any differently than a Dilbert cartoon.
No matter which way is what really happened, it doesn't look good for government and it doesn't look good for her.
True but a substantial portion of our population is too dumb to understand your post and another large chunk don't care because of lack of interest or partisan politics. She is still in this which I'm consider disgraceful. Come on Joe.jump and give some a real choice. You might even get my vote.
I agree with all of this. There is a valid concern and I'm guessing any swing voter nods off half way thru a nuanced discussion. If she gets indicted, that's it. And I am all in on drafting Joe. I like him much better than Hillary.
You keep saying this, but ignore the fact that there is still an investigation going on, Clinton has obstructed that investigation by not turning over all the evidence asked for and that the DOJ is very political.
It's like knowing the game is fixed and then saying 'I bet you can't beat me'.
Quote:
indict her and formally charge her. If you say that isn't going to happen because Loretta Lynch was appointed by Obama, then you are making excuses. Lynch has proved in NY and her brief stay in DC she is not going to be bought off.
You keep saying this, but ignore the fact that there is still an investigation going on, Clinton has obstructed that investigation by not turning over all the evidence asked for and that the DOJ is very political.
It's like knowing the game is fixed and then saying 'I bet you can't beat me'.
She "obstructed"?
While partisans on the right are drooling over this, this is as bad as it gets. She and her staff are guilty of exposing the countries top secrets, secrets that affect the military, foreign policy, economic security, and most likely putting people's lives at risk. And for what?
I sometimes wonder if some people would make excuses for HRC even if they had her on tape murdering someone.
It's not just the documents that may or may not been designated top secret, her e-mail by its very nature would often be classified-type information. Yet it was completely exposed to foreign intelligence services.
I sometimes wonder if some people would make excuses for HRC even if they had her on tape murdering someone.
Seems like allegations of emails being improperly classified when sent to her, and concern of timeliness in turning over a wiped server.
Yeah, I'd like to see the video.
While partisans on the right are drooling over this, this is as bad as it gets. She and her staff are guilty of exposing the countries top secrets, secrets that affect the military, foreign policy, economic security, and most likely putting people's lives at risk. And for what?
I sometimes wonder if some people would make excuses for HRC even if they had her on tape murdering someone.
Well, the investigation is ongoing and it's not clear at all what she's done. It's not "as bad as it gets" at all. Snowden/Manning is a lot closer to "as bad as it gets", that's some impressive hyperbole though.
Quote:
I sometimes wonder if some people would make excuses for HRC even if they had her on tape murdering someone.
Seems like allegations of emails being improperly classified when sent to her, and concern of timeliness in turning over a wiped server.
Yeah, I'd like to see the video.
As soon as she received the emails with classified intel, she had an obligation to take action to fix the issue. Not sure if this violates any criminal statutes, but "normal" folks who simply "ignore" the classified emails, are likely to be hit with fines, loss of clearance, and (likely) loss of job.
And satellite photos are about as easy to recognize as "classified intel" as it gets.
Too early to tell what will happen to HRC, but at least one of her "friends" will be doing some jail time for sending her the classified data without proper markings/precaution. Considering they have (some of) the emails, it should be fairly straightforward to determine who originated the email with the classified data.
The investigation should be able to settle that point pretty easily.
It's not just the documents that may or may not been designated top secret, her e-mail by its very nature would often be classified-type information. Yet it was completely exposed to foreign intelligence services.
Thank you. This is what I have been saying since day one.
Quote:
with all due respect, there are people rotting in prison right now who have done a fraction of what she and her staff have done.
While partisans on the right are drooling over this, this is as bad as it gets. She and her staff are guilty of exposing the countries top secrets, secrets that affect the military, foreign policy, economic security, and most likely putting people's lives at risk. And for what?
I sometimes wonder if some people would make excuses for HRC even if they had her on tape murdering someone.
Well, the investigation is ongoing and it's not clear at all what she's done. It's not "as bad as it gets" at all. Snowden/Manning is a lot closer to "as bad as it gets", that's some impressive hyperbole though.
It's clear she had top secret documents on an unsecured server. That's enough.
The investigation should be able to settle that point pretty easily.
From what I've seen, they found multiple emails with classified data.
Some had info that should've been classified and were classified after the fact.
But others contained top secret sigint (such as sat photos from the NSA) that was classified at the time. I guess its *possible* that the NSA (experts in handling this type of data) somehow left the classified markings off a handful of docs which subsequently made their way to HRC's inbox, but I think its more likely one of her staffers removed the markings and forwarded the data as a matter of convenience.
Quote:
In comment 12417212 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
with all due respect, there are people rotting in prison right now who have done a fraction of what she and her staff have done.
While partisans on the right are drooling over this, this is as bad as it gets. She and her staff are guilty of exposing the countries top secrets, secrets that affect the military, foreign policy, economic security, and most likely putting people's lives at risk. And for what?
I sometimes wonder if some people would make excuses for HRC even if they had her on tape murdering someone.
Well, the investigation is ongoing and it's not clear at all what she's done. It's not "as bad as it gets" at all. Snowden/Manning is a lot closer to "as bad as it gets", that's some impressive hyperbole though.
It's clear she had top secret documents on an unsecured server. That's enough.
Quote:
from emails to cover tracks but also that the info is classified after the fact.
The investigation should be able to settle that point pretty easily.
From what I've seen, they found multiple emails with classified data.
Some had info that should've been classified and were classified after the fact.
But others contained top secret sigint (such as sat photos from the NSA) that was classified at the time. I guess its *possible* that the NSA (experts in handling this type of data) somehow left the classified markings off a handful of docs which subsequently made their way to HRC's inbox, but I think its more likely one of her staffers removed the markings and forwarded the data as a matter of convenience.
If it's a handful, someone must have magnetized or magic hands. They took 40 emails at random and found 4 that were classified at their inception (not after the fact) and of those 4, 2 of them were top secret. So, 4/40 and they have 30K emails with another 30K that were deleted.
I disagree. I think a lot of swing voters will follow this closely just because of the fact they are swing voters and the story has now become relevant. They just haven't made up their minds yet. Obviously an indictment is dispositive. However, gross negligence, nothing indictable but the FBI discovers the server was hacked by the Russians or Chinese and there were unmarked documents that were clearly Top Secret (and read by someone with the power to classify them as Top Secret) would be fatal as well.
Quote:
In comment 12417212 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
with all due respect, there are people rotting in prison right now who have done a fraction of what she and her staff have done.
While partisans on the right are drooling over this, this is as bad as it gets. She and her staff are guilty of exposing the countries top secrets, secrets that affect the military, foreign policy, economic security, and most likely putting people's lives at risk. And for what?
I sometimes wonder if some people would make excuses for HRC even if they had her on tape murdering someone.
Well, the investigation is ongoing and it's not clear at all what she's done. It's not "as bad as it gets" at all. Snowden/Manning is a lot closer to "as bad as it gets", that's some impressive hyperbole though.
It's clear she had top secret documents on an unsecured server. That's enough.
I don't think it is clear yet at all. It will be eventually. I haven't seen anything about "Documents" just emails discussing classified information. that's quite a bit different.
Quote:
There is a valid concern and I'm guessing any swing voter nods off half way thru a nuanced discussion.
I disagree. I think a lot of swing voters will follow this closely just because of the fact they are swing voters and the story has now become relevant. They just haven't made up their minds yet. Obviously an indictment is dispositive. However, gross negligence, nothing indictable but the FBI discovers the server was hacked by the Russians or Chinese and there were unmarked documents that were clearly Top Secret (and read by someone with the power to classify them as Top Secret) would be fatal as well.
My personal opinion is that most swing voters don't follow politics closely at all.
Quote:
In comment 12417255 BeerFridge said:
Quote:
from emails to cover tracks but also that the info is classified after the fact.
The investigation should be able to settle that point pretty easily.
From what I've seen, they found multiple emails with classified data.
Some had info that should've been classified and were classified after the fact.
But others contained top secret sigint (such as sat photos from the NSA) that was classified at the time. I guess its *possible* that the NSA (experts in handling this type of data) somehow left the classified markings off a handful of docs which subsequently made their way to HRC's inbox, but I think its more likely one of her staffers removed the markings and forwarded the data as a matter of convenience.
If it's a handful, someone must have magnetized or magic hands. They took 40 emails at random and found 4 that were classified at their inception (not after the fact) and of those 4, 2 of them were top secret. So, 4/40 and they have 30K emails with another 30K that were deleted.
I don't think that's actually what the Inspector general said.
Link - ( New Window )
It's an issue of whether or not they think she's a lying sack of shit. Email security is not a hot-button issue, whether she's a serial liar is.
Someone got his talking points, congratulations! And fuck Jeb Bush.
Ah, the old "he did it too" defense. Really grasping at straws now.
1. Governors don't have say over national policy and typically aren't privy to classified data
2. Depends what "discussing nuclear plant security" means. Did his emails highlight what the security flaws specifically are, thereby enabling someone who hacked his email to then breach a plant? Or were they emails discussing the need to address security holes (without detailing the specific flaws)?
But in general, yes, I'd have the same indignation for any candidate's mishandling of classified intel. In fact, I wish all the politicians (on both sides) that leak classified info to the press would actually be held responsible.
Quote:
In comment 12417180 BeerFridge said:
Quote:
There is a valid concern and I'm guessing any swing voter nods off half way thru a nuanced discussion.
I disagree. I think a lot of swing voters will follow this closely just because of the fact they are swing voters and the story has now become relevant. They just haven't made up their minds yet. Obviously an indictment is dispositive. However, gross negligence, nothing indictable but the FBI discovers the server was hacked by the Russians or Chinese and there were unmarked documents that were clearly Top Secret (and read by someone with the power to classify them as Top Secret) would be fatal as well.
My personal opinion is that most swing voters don't follow politics closely at all.
If this is not cleared up and she gets grilled in the debate, what will happen with swing voters when she, whose most visible characteristic will be that 57% of the electorate view her as "untrustworthy" get a string of 4 pinnochios from the Washington Post? Swing voters may not get into the nitty gritty of issues, but they can relate to child-like symbols. And that's not even counting the milllenials who can *only* relate to emoticons.
And I don't defend what she did. It was a WTF decision.
Quote:
In comment 12417283 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 12417180 BeerFridge said:
Quote:
There is a valid concern and I'm guessing any swing voter nods off half way thru a nuanced discussion.
I disagree. I think a lot of swing voters will follow this closely just because of the fact they are swing voters and the story has now become relevant. They just haven't made up their minds yet. Obviously an indictment is dispositive. However, gross negligence, nothing indictable but the FBI discovers the server was hacked by the Russians or Chinese and there were unmarked documents that were clearly Top Secret (and read by someone with the power to classify them as Top Secret) would be fatal as well.
My personal opinion is that most swing voters don't follow politics closely at all.
If this is not cleared up and she gets grilled in the debate, what will happen with swing voters when she, whose most visible characteristic will be that 57% of the electorate view her as "untrustworthy" get a string of 4 pinnochios from the Washington Post? Swing voters may not get into the nitty gritty of issues, but they can relate to child-like symbols. And that's not even counting the milllenials who can *only* relate to emoticons.
That's fair. Like I said, indicted on some charge and she has some trouble. I just wonder how much it will move the needle in the absence of something like that.
And I don't defend what she did. It was a WTF decision.
This is the classic Clinton play, and it started with Paul Begala. I don't want Jeb Bush to be President either, but there is no comparison between what a Governor says on gmail and a Secretary of State receiving classified material on a private server set up in her house for her own "convenience," that her minions subsequently scrubbed prior to investigation. None.
There's some way to automatically label the content of an email top secret?
2)If he was illegally disseminating classified information when he was governor, then absolutely send his ass to jail.
You'll get your answer in the next six weeks. If prominent Democrats enter the race, the party is at least concerned about the possibility.
With the media, if they seriously smell blood in the water, it's game over. the media has a major, major impact on deciding what the unwashed masses see and think. Surprisingly, my local rag, which is usually fairly balanced, has been on the attack (not a rabid mad dog attack, but still mostly negative) on her for quite a while.
With the media, if they seriously smell blood in the water, it's game over. the media has a major, major impact on deciding what the unwashed masses see and think. Surprisingly, my local rag, which is usually fairly balanced, has been on the attack (not a rabid mad dog attack, but still mostly negative) on her for quite a while.
Thems big city folk. My rag is for us guyses who wear gingham
Quote:
all that matters is whether the establishment (both gov't and media) abandons her or ignores it. Politicians lie, cheat, and steal on a regular basis. It's only when the political establishment abandons them that something comes of it. Otherwise, it's a look the other way thing.
With the media, if they seriously smell blood in the water, it's game over. the media has a major, major impact on deciding what the unwashed masses see and think. Surprisingly, my local rag, which is usually fairly balanced, has been on the attack (not a rabid mad dog attack, but still mostly negative) on her for quite a while.
Isn't your rag my rag? I've seen nary a word on Clinton. And their big thing right now is ethics in (state gov't). Or whether Pharoah is coming to town.
Times Union?
I don't think I am being obtuse at all. If someone sends HRC an email with top secret info in it, what's her obligation upon receiving it? As far as I know, we aren't talking about anyone removing a TS desigation. Just HRC being part of improperly handled information.
Quote:
When the material is generated by whatever agency produces it, it is marked with whatever classification it has been given. Whoever initiated these emails either removed the designation when they sent the information, or they reproduced the info in an email without labeling it with its classification. Now, if you want to be exceedingly charitable and naïve, you can assume that someone just forgot to do so. That's laughable unbelievable, but just for the sake of argument let's say that's what happened. Practically, it makes no difference. The absence of classification notification was either intentional or unintentional, but either way it's illegal. There's no "oops, my bad!" clause in the law. When you take a job handling the most sensitive classified information, you are agreeing to handle it properly by the terms of federal law. If you don't want that responsibility, then don't take the position. In any case, the notion that anyone working in a high-level position with State wouldn't recognize signal or satellite intelligence as highly classified data in the absence of a label or notification is patently absurd. If they were incapable of recognizing it as TS material, then they were too goddamned stupid to be capable of doing their jobs.
I don't think I am being obtuse at all. If someone sends HRC an email with top secret info in it, what's her obligation upon receiving it? As far as I know, we aren't talking about anyone removing a TS desigation. Just HRC being part of improperly handled information.
If she knows it to be classified and she receives it where she should not receive classified information she is responsible for taking affirmative steps to mitigate the unauthorized dissemination. As I understand it.
Quote:
When the material is generated by whatever agency produces it, it is marked with whatever classification it has been given. Whoever initiated these emails either removed the designation when they sent the information, or they reproduced the info in an email without labeling it with its classification. Now, if you want to be exceedingly charitable and naïve, you can assume that someone just forgot to do so. That's laughable unbelievable, but just for the sake of argument let's say that's what happened. Practically, it makes no difference. The absence of classification notification was either intentional or unintentional, but either way it's illegal. There's no "oops, my bad!" clause in the law. When you take a job handling the most sensitive classified information, you are agreeing to handle it properly by the terms of federal law. If you don't want that responsibility, then don't take the position. In any case, the notion that anyone working in a high-level position with State wouldn't recognize signal or satellite intelligence as highly classified data in the absence of a label or notification is patently absurd. If they were incapable of recognizing it as TS material, then they were too goddamned stupid to be capable of doing their jobs.
I don't think I am being obtuse at all. If someone sends HRC an email with top secret info in it, what's her obligation upon receiving it? As far as I know, we aren't talking about anyone removing a TS desigation. Just HRC being part of improperly handled information.
Two points on that.
I think that she would have to make sure that person who sent it is reported and punished.
From a personal standpoint and a political standpoint, she would have to refrain from saying "I never received classified material".
I feel your pain. The Record has become so obsessed with slinging mud at Christie they have very little space left for the server story.
The Rs aren't doing anything. This is the FBI investigating.
It's already killing her in the polls so I'm not sure why people don't think anyone cares.
Because this scandal has actual weight and merit, but the American public has been beaten with the Benghazi bat for so long, this one isn't even gonna show up on their radar.
E-mail scandal? Sheesh - Representatives have been doing this unethical shit ever since e-mail was invented.
I have a major problem with anyone with a Security Clearance fucking around with secret correspondence in this manner. Wrong server, deletions, scrubbing - it's all the same bullshit - no transparency, lots of outrage but in the end, she'll walk away from it just like they all do.
Quote:
they would not make HRC the victim here by overkill. Instead of saying nothing and let it play out, They will be be Benghazing her all over again and her supporters are going to rally around to her defense because of the past, If they'd shut up, she would be history, but they wont shut up, they'll double down and she will be President IMO
The Rs aren't doing anything. This is the FBI investigating.
It's already killing her in the polls so I'm not sure why people don't think anyone cares.
Shit, she's pulling away like she just kicked in the fucking nitrous, Sanders/NH be damned.
2016 Presidential Race - Latest Polls RealClearPolitics - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12417355 Headhunter said:
Quote:
they would not make HRC the victim here by overkill. Instead of saying nothing and let it play out, They will be be Benghazing her all over again and her supporters are going to rally around to her defense because of the past, If they'd shut up, she would be history, but they wont shut up, they'll double down and she will be President IMO
The Rs aren't doing anything. This is the FBI investigating.
It's already killing her in the polls so I'm not sure why people don't think anyone cares.
Yeah, killing her in the polls.
Shit, she's pulling away like she just kicked in the fucking nitrous, Sanders/NH be damned.
2016 Presidential Race - Latest Polls RealClearPolitics - ( New Window )
Haven't looked at all of them, but H2H vs Bush and Rubio she's lost considerable ground in the polls over the last few months. How much of that is because of this story? Your guess is as good as mine.
(1) She broke the rules by doing USG business on a private server and with private e-mail. That's not open to debate.
(2) She and her staff violated federal law by having classified material on a private, non-secure server and transmitting that info on private, non-secure e-mail. That's a violation of Federal law. That's not open to debate.
(3) Upon being discovered, the Feds did not automatically seize the server, thumb drives, etc. but allowed her staff (who I didn't have TOP SECRET security clearance) to cull through her e-mail/documents. That's a violation of Federal law.
(4) She had the server wiped clean. Since that server contained records of her doing business as Secretary of State, she had no authority to do that and again broke rules in place.
My guess is the Justice Department won't pursue this or will simply give it a white wash. They are already complicit because they didn't seize the hardware and electronic communications months ago. Had this been an Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary or some other USG employee, they'd be already in jail.
You can say all you want that nothing has been proven, but no one can deny she broke laws and regulations in the first place by having the server, compromising the highest level of national security information, and then wiped the server.
And some of you need more evidence of what a colossal mess up this is? Those raising the alarm bells now are not just Republicans, but the entire national security apparatus.
My only wish for the winner in 2016 is that it's one and done.
Quote:
In comment 12417355 Headhunter said:
Quote:
they would not make HRC the victim here by overkill. Instead of saying nothing and let it play out, They will be be Benghazing her all over again and her supporters are going to rally around to her defense because of the past, If they'd shut up, she would be history, but they wont shut up, they'll double down and she will be President IMO
The Rs aren't doing anything. This is the FBI investigating.
It's already killing her in the polls so I'm not sure why people don't think anyone cares.
Yeah, killing her in the polls.
Shit, she's pulling away like she just kicked in the fucking nitrous, Sanders/NH be damned.
2016 Presidential Race - Latest Polls RealClearPolitics - ( New Window )
Of course all those polls are at least 2 weeks old.
It's unheard of.
Friday, August 14
President Obama Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 47, Disapprove 52 Disapprove +5
Thursday, August 13
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
President Obama Job Approval Gallup Approve 46, Disapprove 49 Disapprove +3
Wednesday, August 12
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus CNN/ORC Trump 22, Carson 14, Walker 9, Fiorina 7, Cruz 8, Rubio 5, Bush 5, Huckabee 7, Paul 5, Kasich 2, Christie 3, Jindal 2, Perry 1, Santorum 1, Graham 2 Trump +8
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus CNN/ORC Clinton 50, Sanders 31, Biden 12, O'Malley 1, Webb 1, Chafee 0 Clinton +19
New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary Boston Herald/FPU Clinton 37, Sanders 44, Biden 9, O'Malley 0, Webb 1, Chafee 0 Sanders +7
Michigan Republican Presidential Primary FOX 2/Mitchell Trump 20, Bush 12, Carson 12, Rubio 10, Walker 4, Fiorina 15, Cruz 8, Huckabee 4, Kasich 8, Christie 4, Paul 2, Santorum, Perry, Graham Trump +5
Congressional Job Approval Gallup Approve 14, Disapprove 82 Disapprove +68
Tuesday, August 11
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2016 Republican Presidential Nomination Rasmussen Trump 17, Bush 10, Walker 9, Rubio 10, Carson 8, Cruz 7, Huckabee 3, Paul 4, Christie 4, Fiorina 9, Kasich 4, Perry 1, Santorum 1, Jindal 1, Graham 1 Trump +7
New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary Boston Herald/FPU Trump 18, Bush 13, Kasich 12, Walker 4, Christie 3, Paul 6, Carson 4, Cruz 10, Rubio 4, Fiorina 9, Huckabee 3, Jindal 1, Pataki 1, Perry 1, Graham 1 Trump +5
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus Suffolk Trump 17, Carson 9, Walker 12, Fiorina 7, Cruz 7, Rubio 10, Bush 5, Huckabee 2, Paul 2, Kasich 3, Christie 2, Jindal 1, Perry 1, Santorum 1, Graham 0 Trump +5
Monday, August 10
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus PPP (D) Trump 19, Carson 12, Walker 12, Fiorina 10, Cruz 9, Rubio 6, Bush 11, Huckabee 6, Paul 3, Kasich 3, Christie 1, Jindal 2, Perry 2, Santorum 2, Graham 0 Trump +7
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus PPP (D) Clinton 52, Sanders 25, Biden, O'Malley 7, Webb 3, Chafee 1 Clinton +27
Iowa: Bush vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 44, Bush 40 Clinton +4
Iowa: Walker vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 43, Walker 44 Walker +1
Iowa: Trump vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 43, Trump 40 Clinton +3
Iowa: Rubio vs. Clinton PPP (D) Rubio 43, Clinton 42 Rubio +1
Iowa: Fiorina vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 42, Fiorina 40 Clinton +2
Iowa: Kasich vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 41, Kasich 39 Clinton +2
Iowa: Huckabee vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 43, Huckabee 44 Huckabee +1
Iowa: Paul vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 43, Paul 40 Clinton +3
Iowa: Carson vs. Clinton PPP (D) Carson 44, Clinton 40 Carson +4
Iowa: Cruz vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 44, Cruz 42 Clinton +2
Iowa: Christie vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 41, Christie 39 Clinton +2
Direction of Country Rasmussen Reports Right Direction 29, Wrong Track 64 Wrong Track +35
Friday, August 7
Link - ( New Window )
(1) Let's assume she never intended to break the law or lie. If true, why did she not turn over her server and e-mail immediately? Why erase the data? (Again, the server isn't hers if she conducted USG business on it; it belongs to the government). Moreover, if her defense is that the TOP SECRET information wasn't labelled, she is admitting she is too stupid to be able to recognize the nation's most sensitive secrets as being sensitive information.
or
(2) Let's assume she knew exactly what she was doing, but simply didn't think she'd get caught. Why take the risk? She was the prohibitive favorite to be the next President. It openly calls into question her judgment and/or level of arrogance.
Either way, she looks bad.
Make stuff up my ass.
I don't think you understand how the bureaucracy works. The senior leadership in most (if not all) federal agencies are political appointees. Secretaries...Under Secretaries...Assistant Secretaries...and sometimes even Deputy Assistant Secretaries.
The only question is whether she gets away with it or not.
(1) Let's assume she never intended to break the law or lie. If true, why did she not turn over her server and e-mail immediately? Why erase the data? (Again, the server isn't hers if she conducted USG business on it; it belongs to the government). Moreover, if her defense is that the TOP SECRET information wasn't labelled, she is admitting she is too stupid to be able to recognize the nation's most sensitive secrets as being sensitive information.
or
(2) Let's assume she knew exactly what she was doing, but simply didn't think she'd get caught. Why take the risk? She was the prohibitive favorite to be the next President. It openly calls into question her judgment and/or level of arrogance.
Either way, she looks bad.
It's the Clinton way. Don't give your adversaries anything. Whitewater, Vincent Foster, Ken Starr. They have learned to manage public information as it is, rationalizing however they want so long as they don't provide more fuel to the fire (unless they are forced to)
With regard to strategy. She did the calculations and determined she can take this hit.
I'd be positively shocked if Warren or Biden don't jump into this soon.
But if she got rid of most of the evidence and/or someone else takes the fall for her (i.e., one of her staff members falls on the sword), she may get away with this. This country doesn't tend to prosecute our elites.
It's really very simple. Go to X's 1:10 and click on the link. As I was responding to that link those are the only set of polls from RCP I was commenting on. Read the dates the polls covered. Imagine that! They were all June or July polls.
Benghazi has more media appeal. They'll go back to that, dollars-to-donuts.
Maybe I'm not cautious enough but does anyone here send their emails to the trash bin and then also wave a big electromagnet over their computer?
So - I was wr...wr....wrong... :(
Benghazi has more media appeal. They'll go back to that, dollars-to-donuts.
As I said earlier, I don't think there will be specifics that drive most people. It will be getting people to look past the 2/3 untrustworthy number and a batch of 4 pinocchios when she gets questioned about the email in the debates.
The opponent has to be better, not less worse. Old fashioned concept, I know.
So I run the FBI??? Interesting. There's a few people here I would like investigated.
It's a horrible field. There's not a single great candidate in the lot. I love Sanders, but it will take a miracle for someone to win who looks like that, slurring and stammering - a self-avowed Vermont Socialist? (I know, Socialist-Democrat, but American's won't know the difference)
Since the first Televised debate in 1960, when has the uglier guy won? Maybe a primary, but never the Presidency.
2) He didn't have them go after mortgage bankers/brokers who created hundreds of billions of liar loans.
3) He didn't push to force banks to give more latitude to homeowners with underwater homes.
3) He didn't get involved in sentencing reform--retroactively and prospectively--until it became a hot topic elsewhere. (His record with pardons and commutations had been awful.)
So - I was wr...wr....wrong... :(
Hey - You missed the updates. No big deal. At least you're honest enough not to accuse someone of fabricating data when it was pointed out, and pointed out ACCURATELY.
2) He didn't have them go after mortgage bankers/brokers who created hundreds of billions of liar loans.
3) He didn't push to force banks to give more latitude to homeowners with underwater homes.
3) He didn't get involved in sentencing reform--retroactively and prospectively--until it became a hot topic elsewhere. (His record with pardons and commutations had been awful.)
I agree on your first three. I was looking forward to that as a highlight of his first part in office and other than a few settlements it was really lacking.
Don't forget Sandy Burgler.
Quote:
We typically just prosecute their underlings. Ask Scooter Libby. Or we prosecute no one. Ask all of Wall Street.
Don't forget Sandy Burgler.
Freudian slip or pun?
The types who tend to contribute to Democrats wouldn't be hit by such prosecutions, including a large number of hedge fund and private equity fund managers and venture capital ists.
What you are calling Wall Street is far from homogeneous in its political affiliations or behavior.
Too bad Bill Bradley is pushing 73. I might not agree with him on some of the issues, but at least I think he's be competent.
Let's have a Bradley - Mitch Daniels race. The slogan for the election:
"They're Honest and Competent - Hey! It's a Start"
Quote:
In comment 12417606 BeerFridge said:
Quote:
We typically just prosecute their underlings. Ask Scooter Libby. Or we prosecute no one. Ask all of Wall Street.
Don't forget Sandy Burgler.
Freudian slip or pun?
Pun
The types who tend to contribute to Democrats wouldn't be hit by such prosecutions, including a large number of hedge fund and private equity fund managers and venture capital ists.
What you are calling Wall Street is far from homogeneous in its political affiliations or behavior.
Got it, bad Wall Streeters, Republicans. Good Wall Streeters, Democrats.
Quote:
The Wall Street types who would be prosecuted have already turned aggressively Republican.
The types who tend to contribute to Democrats wouldn't be hit by such prosecutions, including a large number of hedge fund and private equity fund managers and venture capital ists.
What you are calling Wall Street is far from homogeneous in its political affiliations or behavior.
Got it, bad Wall Streeters, Republicans. Good Wall Streeters, Democrats.
That wasn't his point. He was saying that a particular subset of the FIRE sector is tending to vote Republican (particularly the bankers) while another (most notably the hedge fund managers, venture capitalists and anything involving blazers and denim worn in concert) tends to be more liberal.
. . . but any kind of reasonable discussion and shared concern between both sides gets thrown out the window when these tin foil hat conspiracies get brought up about what is in the emails. People like Buford cling on to these notions that there is somehow incriminating evidence regarding Benghazi that were hidden and deleted . . . and that's probably the mildest of the crazy theories I've heard.
Yes, it will be a long time before a republican takes over the White House simply because the GOP can't seem to get out of their own way and show a willingness to pitch policies over forks in order to appeal to voters.
. . . but any kind of reasonable discussion and shared concern between both sides gets thrown out the window when these tin foil hat conspiracies get brought up about what is in the emails. People like Buford cling on to these notions that there is somehow incriminating evidence regarding Benghazi that were hidden and deleted . . . and that's probably the mildest of the crazy theories I've heard.
Yes, it will be a long time before a republican takes over the White House simply because the GOP can't seem to get out of their own way and show a willingness to pitch policies over forks in order to appeal to voters.
The former have turned Republican. Period. Full stop. The latter include some who have been involved in some questionable behavior, but not systemicatilly. A lot of the big money from Wall Street contributors to campaigns is from investors, the vast majority of whom were not as close to creating the mess as bankers were. Take Goldman Sachs, for example. They used to be full-blown Democratic. As the table in the article shows, in 2014 the top four recipients by Goldie and affiliates were three Republican organizations and a conservative political organization.
Google now contributes more, but they didn;t blow up any economies. See the difference? I doubt it.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Clinton's attorney, David Kendall, was permitted to retain a thumb drive that held all of the emails Clinton deemed work-related until the Justice Department this week, despite the fact that the drive was known to contain classified material for more than a year.
In fact, rather than confiscate the emails, the State Department delivered a safe to Kendall's office in order to protect the thumb drive.
. . . but any kind of reasonable discussion and shared concern between both sides gets thrown out the window when these tin foil hat conspiracies get brought up about what is in the emails. People like Buford cling on to these notions that there is somehow incriminating evidence regarding Benghazi that were hidden and deleted . . . and that's probably the mildest of the crazy theories I've heard.
Yes, it will be a long time before a republican takes over the White House simply because the GOP can't seem to get out of their own way and show a willingness to pitch policies over forks in order to appeal to voters.
A party is supposed to have it's policies and those policies should attract voters. It's not a popularity contest, or it shouldn't be. If you want a chameleon, then by all means, vote for Hillary.
I don't love HRC, but I think she's the best of the lot currently running on the Democrats side that can win. I'm more aligned with Bernie policy wise, but he's got no shot.
Link - ( New Window )
I heard someone yesterday say that the reason HRC did not turn over the server and supplied printed copies of emails is so the classified markings could be removed (or perhaps the emails were printed as text only and the markings are not text?). If that is true, she's in really deep do do.
Link - ( New Window )
Hillary Clinton Loves Snapchat - ( New Window )
I don't love HRC, but I think she's the best of the lot currently running on the Democrats side that can win. I'm more aligned with Bernie policy wise, but he's got no shot.
Rubio is a better candidate than Jeb? Is that wishful thinking from a Democratic POV? Jeb was a very good governor, Rubio an awkward Senator.
Yes Marco is the more vibrant candidate - Jeb is pretty laid back and lacks "fire." But if you really had to choose somebody to lead the country would you really choose Rubio over Jeb?
Quote:
Unless something really damaging comes out. The map and demographics are in her favor. I really hope Jebby is the GOP nominee. Most of her weaknesses cancel our if going against her. Rubio would be the toughest candidate.
I don't love HRC, but I think she's the best of the lot currently running on the Democrats side that can win. I'm more aligned with Bernie policy wise, but he's got no shot.
Rubio is a better candidate than Jeb? Is that wishful thinking from a Democratic POV? Jeb was a very good governor, Rubio an awkward Senator.
Yes Marco is the more vibrant candidate - Jeb is pretty laid back and lacks "fire." But if you really had to choose somebody to lead the country would you really choose Rubio over Jeb?
Jeb is uninspiring and like it or not his last name is a black mark for a lot of folks, including many Republican voters who wish we could go more than one election cycle without a Clinton or a Bush on the ballot.
Quote:
If I'm a liberal Democrat, this whole mess illustrates an amazing lack of judgement on her part.
(1) Let's assume she never intended to break the law or lie. If true, why did she not turn over her server and e-mail immediately? Why erase the data? (Again, the server isn't hers if she conducted USG business on it; it belongs to the government). Moreover, if her defense is that the TOP SECRET information wasn't labelled, she is admitting she is too stupid to be able to recognize the nation's most sensitive secrets as being sensitive information.
or
(2) Let's assume she knew exactly what she was doing, but simply didn't think she'd get caught. Why take the risk? She was the prohibitive favorite to be the next President. It openly calls into question her judgment and/or level of arrogance.
Either way, she looks bad.
It's the Clinton way. Don't give your adversaries anything. Whitewater, Vincent Foster, Ken Starr. They have learned to manage public information as it is, rationalizing however they want so long as they don't provide more fuel to the fire (unless they are forced to)
With regard to strategy. She did the calculations and determined she can take this hit.
Let me start by saying that I can't stand HRC, and I hope she doesn't end up as the nominee.
That said, it isn't the "Clinton way" to not give anything but what's legally required when you're accused of something. That's the American legal system way. If you don't think so, you've never been involved with the legal system as either a plaintiff or defendant.
Fuck, even in a divorce you never, ever provide information to the other side unless you absolutely have to- even if you've done nothing wrong- hell, sometimes especially if you've done nothing wrong- it can be made to look like you did.
The Clinton's certainly didn't invent it, nor is it remotely out of the ordinary. It is SOP in our legal system.
Back to HRC specifically- what the hell is the advantage of keeping any of this stuff on a private server? I guess I don't get it. Just mind numbingly stupid.
Quote:
In comment 12418109 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
Unless something really damaging comes out. The map and demographics are in her favor. I really hope Jebby is the GOP nominee. Most of her weaknesses cancel our if going against her. Rubio would be the toughest candidate.
I don't love HRC, but I think she's the best of the lot currently running on the Democrats side that can win. I'm more aligned with Bernie policy wise, but he's got no shot.
Rubio is a better candidate than Jeb? Is that wishful thinking from a Democratic POV? Jeb was a very good governor, Rubio an awkward Senator.
Yes Marco is the more vibrant candidate - Jeb is pretty laid back and lacks "fire." But if you really had to choose somebody to lead the country would you really choose Rubio over Jeb?
Jeb is uninspiring and like it or not his last name is a black mark for a lot of folks, including many Republican voters who wish we could go more than one election cycle without a Clinton or a Bush on the ballot.
Yep I know that, but Jeb is more like his old man. But, IMHO, he is still the best Republican candidate, despite the name. And I am looking at who can run the country and be effective, not the popularity contest.
Kasich is interesting and pretty qualified.
I won't vote for Walker because unilaterally voiding contracts is just wrong.
Cruz is a creep as is Perry.
Rubio is actually pretty decent, true, but do you really think he can be President (although he has 10xs the experience the current President had before he was elected.)
Christie, although unelectable, could actually do the job. I really like him.
Carson is brilliant but nothing stands out.
The rest?????
In the end I'm presently favoring a Bush/Kasich ticket and Kasich/Rubio isn't bad. Bush/Christie would be interesting - talk about opposites.
What viewpoint? - a moderate Republican that is not divisive? Haven't we had too many far off center candidates (on both sides)? The dumba$$ Repubs sold their soul to a group called "Evangelicals" - what ever the heck that is - and the Dems are stuck with Hillary who has more dirty laundry than a 70 yr old woman should have.
We don't have a Ghandi or Mandela out there on either side. I just want somebody that can run the country effectively. (that may entail getting rid of about 500 of the 535 Reps and Sens)
Quote:
Unless something really damaging comes out. The map and demographics are in her favor. I really hope Jebby is the GOP nominee. Most of her weaknesses cancel our if going against her. Rubio would be the toughest candidate.
I don't love HRC, but I think she's the best of the lot currently running on the Democrats side that can win. I'm more aligned with Bernie policy wise, but he's got no shot.
Rubio is a better candidate than Jeb? Is that wishful thinking from a Democratic POV? Jeb was a very good governor, Rubio an awkward Senator.
Yes Marco is the more vibrant candidate - Jeb is pretty laid back and lacks "fire." But if you really had to choose somebody to lead the country would you really choose Rubio over Jeb?
Yes.
Quote:
that Republicans who read the Atlantic or the NYT wish the party would nominate, but it never will, because that viewpoint - like it or not - remains a minority one within the Republican Party. I like Rubio and I am fine with Walker, I would be pleased if someone would take on the federal government employee unions with the same gusto with which he addressed those in Wisconsin (especially after the politics surrounding the VA personnel decisions). But I would prefer to see one or two more candidates come to the fore because everyone has at least a few clear negatives.
What viewpoint? - a moderate Republican that is not divisive? Haven't we had too many far off center candidates (on both sides)? The dumba$$ Repubs sold their soul to a group called "Evangelicals" - what ever the heck that is - and the Dems are stuck with Hillary who has more dirty laundry than a 70 yr old woman should have.
We don't have a Ghandi or Mandela out there on either side. I just want somebody that can run the country effectively. (that may entail getting rid of about 500 of the 535 Reps and Sens)
Liberals love him, that should tell you something. He's a Moderate, neither R or Dem (IMO). If you want the same old tax and spend, then he's for you. I don't like Establishment politicians.
Quote:
that Republicans who read the Atlantic or the NYT wish the party would nominate, but it never will, because that viewpoint - like it or not - remains a minority one within the Republican Party. I like Rubio and I am fine with Walker, I would be pleased if someone would take on the federal government employee unions with the same gusto with which he addressed those in Wisconsin (especially after the politics surrounding the VA personnel decisions). But I would prefer to see one or two more candidates come to the fore because everyone has at least a few clear negatives.
What viewpoint? - a moderate Republican that is not divisive? Haven't we had too many far off center candidates (on both sides)? The dumba$$ Repubs sold their soul to a group called "Evangelicals" - what ever the heck that is - and the Dems are stuck with Hillary who has more dirty laundry than a 70 yr old woman should have.
We don't have a Ghandi or Mandela out there on either side. I just want somebody that can run the country effectively. (that may entail getting rid of about 500 of the 535 Reps and Sens)
What is far too many? The last candidates have been Romney, McCain, and GW Bush. If those are your view of off-center Republicans, we might as well merge with the Democrats and be done with it.
Thats Jeb has to be considered the favorite. He's got his money and is angling towards the moderates. He will look like he "can win" and that in the end is what the GOP wants to spend to the big dance.
Thats Jeb has to be considered the favorite. He's got his money and is angling towards the moderates. He will look like he "can win" and that in the end is what the GOP wants to spend to the big dance.
You still need a measure of personal magnetism and Jeb has none. And if the Trump appeal is really about disgust with Establishment candidates, you have a man with a very familiar last name, carefully positioning himself for the general election, very scripted, who already has a bunch of big-dollar donors behind him. Jeb could end up being the real casualty of Trump.
Quote:
Candidates play to their base. Thats where their money is. Later on they play towards the center. Thats where the majority is.
Thats Jeb has to be considered the favorite. He's got his money and is angling towards the moderates. He will look like he "can win" and that in the end is what the GOP wants to spend to the big dance.
You still need a measure of personal magnetism and Jeb has none. And if the Trump appeal is really about disgust with Establishment candidates, you have a man with a very familiar last name, carefully positioning himself for the general election, very scripted, who already has a bunch of big-dollar donors behind him. Jeb could end up being the real casualty of Trump.
It's kind of unfair. Jeb has always been regarded as the most qualified and ablest of at least the brothers and perhaps even dad. Maybe he should do a Prince and see if his poll numbers go up?
Yeah, he's too darned liberal for your buddies on some issues, but tax and spend? Nonsense.
Link - ( New Window )
Yeah, he's too darned liberal for your buddies on some issues, but tax and spend? Nonsense. Link - ( New Window )
I haven't looked at his record in a while, but I think the rap (one of them anyway) on Huck in his first attempt was that when you went beneath the rhetoric, he wasn't' very conservative as governor. I think that might be Christie's reputation now too. Not sure about Kasich.
I think one of the good things about electing a governor as opposed to a Senator is that you get to see that they have to be pragmatic at times.
That won't work in a huge field. Or even against Hillary.
That won't work in a huge field. Or even against Hillary.
You're probably right. It's kind of sad though if the qualities and skills you need to get the job are not the same as those you need to do the job. Worse still that they prevent you from using the latter qualities.
Quote:
In comment 12421631 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
that Republicans who read the Atlantic or the NYT wish the party would nominate, but it never will, because that viewpoint - like it or not - remains a minority one within the Republican Party. I like Rubio and I am fine with Walker, I would be pleased if someone would take on the federal government employee unions with the same gusto with which he addressed those in Wisconsin (especially after the politics surrounding the VA personnel decisions). But I would prefer to see one or two more candidates come to the fore because everyone has at least a few clear negatives.
What viewpoint? - a moderate Republican that is not divisive? Haven't we had too many far off center candidates (on both sides)? The dumba$$ Repubs sold their soul to a group called "Evangelicals" - what ever the heck that is - and the Dems are stuck with Hillary who has more dirty laundry than a 70 yr old woman should have.
We don't have a Ghandi or Mandela out there on either side. I just want somebody that can run the country effectively. (that may entail getting rid of about 500 of the 535 Reps and Sens)
What is far too many? The last candidates have been Romney, McCain, and GW Bush. If those are your view of off-center Republicans, we might as well merge with the Democrats and be done with it.
This.
Quote:
In comment 12421833 WideRight said:
Quote:
Candidates play to their base. Thats where their money is. Later on they play towards the center. Thats where the majority is.
Thats Jeb has to be considered the favorite. He's got his money and is angling towards the moderates. He will look like he "can win" and that in the end is what the GOP wants to spend to the big dance.
You still need a measure of personal magnetism and Jeb has none. And if the Trump appeal is really about disgust with Establishment candidates, you have a man with a very familiar last name, carefully positioning himself for the general election, very scripted, who already has a bunch of big-dollar donors behind him. Jeb could end up being the real casualty of Trump.
Would you vote for the same person if his name was different?
It's kind of unfair. Jeb has always been regarded as the most qualified and ablest of at least the brothers and perhaps even dad. Maybe he should do a Prince and see if his poll numbers go up?
I don't think anyone is entitled to be President, so should he be excluded by virtue of his name I don't find it particularly unfair. We should be moving away from political dynasties, and if that requires us spurning a reasonably qualified, reasonably triangulated Jeb Bush so be it.
Quote:
Candidates play to their base. Thats where their money is. Later on they play towards the center. Thats where the majority is.
Thats Jeb has to be considered the favorite. He's got his money and is angling towards the moderates. He will look like he "can win" and that in the end is what the GOP wants to spend to the big dance.
You still need a measure of personal magnetism and Jeb has none. And if the Trump appeal is really about disgust with Establishment candidates, you have a man with a very familiar last name, carefully positioning himself for the general election, very scripted, who already has a bunch of big-dollar donors behind him. Jeb could end up being the real casualty of Trump.
And this.
Yeah, he's too darned liberal for your buddies on some issues, but tax and spend? Nonsense. Link - ( New Window )
Yes, Medicare expansion is huge. Kasich loves to talk about how he balanced the budget while in Congress (you know, during the dot.com boom) but as governor he has accepted billions in Federal aid for the Medicare expansion which is contributing to the national debt. Of course he refers to it as charity. That is tax and spend. Also on the non-conservative side, he refused to make Ohio a right to work state, Failed to implement Voter ID, champions Common Core, favors pathway to Citizenship, So I really don't see him as anything but a moderate. Plus, while some find him charming, he seems very excitable to me.I can take boring (Walker), or energetic, but he's frantic. Gives me a headache.
Quote:
Relatives or not, talented or not, Bush is just an awful campaigner. Under pressure from even a medium-difficult question that he should be prepared for, he tends to fold.
That won't work in a huge field. Or even against Hillary.
You're probably right. It's kind of sad though if the qualities and skills you need to get the job are not the same as those you need to do the job. Worse still that they prevent you from using the latter qualities.
This is 100% correct and Jeb said he would not alter his views just to get the nomination.
Yes he is an awful campaigner and bland. I am disappointed by his lack of fire - at least attempt to ignite the base.
Eisenhower and Truman were pretty bland too and pretty decent presidents, no?
Jeb's biggest liability is his name. Period. And I can see this.
Why is it a good word?
Also, I think the whole 41, 43, and potential 45 thing is really weird. At least HRC would only be the second Clinton.
Jeb really has put his foot in his mouth recently regarding women's health. And his speech where he blamed Iraq on Obama and Hillary was LOL worthy. Memo to Jeb: don't talk about Iraq.
Right so you want some lunatic righty or lefty?
Quote:
.
Why is it a good word?
Actually, it's a word used by the hard left base and hard right base to attack any candidate who's more to the center. It's also used to attack anyone who's willing to compromise in even the most minute way.
And believe it or not, compromise SOMETIMES works. And I'll cite 3 examples:
* The 1983 compromise on Social Security. The fact that Congress hasn't done jack shit to further bolster the system in the last 30 years doesn't detract from that.
* The Tax Reform Act of 1986. Imperfect but a huge improvement on what we have had before or since.
* The 1996 welfare reforms.
Quote:
borderline economic disaster. We need a change. We need some new blood, new thoughts. The same old, same old isn't going to help us.
I don't think you could consider the current guy to be a moderate.
No, but let's face it, the economy was in shambles when he took office. Not that he did anything to help it.
Quote:
borderline economic disaster. We need a change. We need some new blood, new thoughts. The same old, same old isn't going to help us.
Right so you want some lunatic righty or lefty?
Doing the same thing that hasn't worked before is pretty looney.
Economy is in decent shape today by most measures. Not 'Bordereline Disaster'. Unless you're speaking of demographic issues affecting the lower class (STILL a disaster), you aren't making sense.
Quote:
In comment 12421944 buford said:
Quote:
borderline economic disaster. We need a change. We need some new blood, new thoughts. The same old, same old isn't going to help us.
Right so you want some lunatic righty or lefty?
Doing the same thing that hasn't worked before is pretty looney.
Quote:
borderline economic disaster. We need a change. We need some new blood, new thoughts. The same old, same old isn't going to help us.
What 'borderline economic disaster' are you speaking of? 08'? THAT wasn't 'borderline' - THAT was 'full blown' and yeah, it came from what was considered 'moderate' policy for about 30 years, but was based on Conservative theology of deregulation and Financial Sector freedom.
Economy is in decent shape today by most measures. Not 'Bordereline Disaster'. Unless you're speaking of demographic issues affecting the lower class (STILL a disaster), you aren't making sense.
The fallout was from more than 30 years, and it's based in entitlement programs and debt, not so much the ups and downs of the stock market. And no, the economy (if you look at debt and the future of entitlement programs) is not in good shape at all.
That won't work in a huge field. Or even against Hillary.
Yup. He continues to fall all over himself when it comes to Iraq. That's an answer he needed to have down cold. Instead, he bungles the facts and makes ridiculous allegations.
Quote:
In comment 12421944 buford said:
Quote:
borderline economic disaster. We need a change. We need some new blood, new thoughts. The same old, same old isn't going to help us.
Right so you want some lunatic righty or lefty?
Doing the same thing that hasn't worked before is pretty looney.
Seemed to have worked for 200 yrs before we started funding every program known to man without the mechanism for funding (wars included) - which has accelerated in the past 15 years.
Quote:
Relatives or not, talented or not, Bush is just an awful campaigner. Under pressure from even a medium-difficult question that he should be prepared for, he tends to fold.
That won't work in a huge field. Or even against Hillary.
Yup. He continues to fall all over himself when it comes to Iraq. That's an answer he needed to have down cold. Instead, he bungles the facts and makes ridiculous allegations.
The decisions Obama made have certainly led in part to the chaos now, nobody serious seriously disputes that, but a Bush does not want to say controversial things about that war.
His old man was fine with Iraq. His sons? Uh, no.
His old man was fine with Iraq. His sons? Uh, no.
Would Maliki have budged? Did they actually try to make him budge or were they simply grateful for the way out? The decision looks bad in hindsight, that doesn't mean it looked (or even was) a bad decision at the time, but something of this type - contagious chaos - was certainly a possible permutation of our exit.
Economy is in decent shape today by most measures. Not 'Bordereline Disaster'. Unless you're speaking of demographic issues affecting the lower class (STILL a disaster), you aren't making sense.
The fallout was from more than 30 years, and it's based in entitlement programs and debt, not so much the ups and downs of the stock market. And no, the economy (if you look at debt and the future of entitlement programs) is not in good shape at all.
On a per-capita basis - current Federal Debt per capita is lower than it was from 1941 to 1961, deficits have been shrinking since Obama took office. That's 'near catastrophe'?
And the future of entitlement programs - well, we have a future that will see declines in employment thanks to automation and process improvements - that equates to a LARGER 'entitlement' base, so guess what? Future tax increases. 'GASP!'
Neither point equates to imminent doom.
ADVERTISEMENT
That’s slightly lower than the nonpartisan CBO’s projection from a year ago, something attributable to lower interest rates the government is paying on its debt.
The CBO projects interest rates on 10-year Treasury notes to be 2.3 percent in the long term, compared to its previous projection of 2.5 percent.
Still, it highlights how quickly budget deficits are accumulating. In 25 years, debt as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to balloon to levels only previously seen during World War II.
By 2040, the CBO estimates the debt will equal 107 percent of GDP, due mostly to rising healthcare costs and an aging population.
Debt now stands at 74 percent of GDP. In last year’s projection, the budget office estimated that debt would hit 106 percent of GDP in 2039.
Federal spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and ObamaCare's insurance subsidies is expected to skyrocket by 2040 to a level more than twice the average over the last 50 years, the CBO warned.
“The harmful effects that such large debt would have on the economy would worsen the budget outlook,” the report said. “At some point, investors would begin to doubt the government’s willingness or ability to meet its debt obligations, requiring it to pay much higher interest costs in order to continue borrowing money.”
If you are not concerned, you should be.
Link - ( New Window )
Employment shift to service will continue as manufacturing techniques and global trade continue to water down the US job base.
It's going to be a different country. You're gonna Haaaaate it. :)
Shorter workweeks, more time off, earlier retirement, much higher taxes.
There's simply no avoiding that fact.
But it's fun to watch the right go down kicking and screaming as this new 'white minority' world evolves. :)
And we will see what happens to the status quo when the financial ramifications of sponsoring (via SS and Medicare etc) tens of millions of retirees who live for twenty-five or more years after retirement become apparent.
Less painful than to listen to economic fantasy coming out of the mouths of policy makers, and in particular congressmen.
I am serious when I say this, I think if you gave a monthly or quarterly analysis of how the economy is doing or some of the decisions being made on the economy, BBI would become more aware and educated on the subject. I thoroughly enjoy reading when you gave your insights, even at times I do not quite get the context of it.
On August 13, lawyers for the U.S. Attorney General submitted a court-ordered status report to the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia in which it disclosed that State employees had somehow discovered “5.5 gigabytes of data containing 81,159 emails of varying length” that were sent or received by Reines during his government tenure. Of those emails, the attorneys added, “an estimated 17,855” were likely responsive to Gawker’s request
Link - ( New Window )
The GOP has a strong record of failing to explain why they want to fight for people, especially in a way that inspires and motivates the electorate. Kasich’s biggest strength, in the eyes of those pushing him, is a continuation of that failure. For many Republicans, victory has become nothing more than winning at the ballot box and then maintaining the status quo, albeit with the accelerator not pressed fully to the floorboard. That’s not a cause, not an optimistic vision of the future. It’s not a fight for people. It’s politics as usual. The Grand Old Party has become very comfortable with politics as usual, but if they don’t get excited about offering a bold new direction, and soon, they will lose—again—handily and deservedly.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
economic analysis on here...
I am serious when I say this, I think if you gave a monthly or quarterly analysis of how the economy is doing or some of the decisions being made on the economy, BBI would become more aware and educated on the subject. I thoroughly enjoy reading when you gave your insights, even at times I do not quite get the context of it.
I appreciate it, and I already do something of the sort for one of the larger areas in CA, but I think it would be silly a waste of my time here.
It's closer to YouTube than anything.
I'd much rather continue my blog, as at least I can filter some of the stuff and have the same enlightened back and forth.
If you don't know my e-mail, Eric will give it to you.
If you don't know my e-mail, Eric will give it to you.
Actually, probably easiest to email me at
Rsgearh@g.clemson.edu
Then I can send you my permanent one.
Kicker, I would love if I can have it too. I am teaching Econ for the first time this year, and I fully admit its probably my weakest area as far as the social sciences are concerned. it was dropped on me a few days ago, and I just dont want to humiliate myself. I am just hoping to give them the basics.
Quote:
Sure. It may be until the end of the week (on a slight vacation), but can at least send the most recent articles on the minimum wage, oil on education, and impact of tech on health.
Kicker, I would love if I can have it too. I am teaching Econ for the first time this year, and I fully admit its probably my weakest area as far as the social sciences are concerned. it was dropped on me a few days ago, and I just dont want to humiliate myself. I am just hoping to give them the basics.
Email me at the above.
Like Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State Colin
“He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State,” the statement says. “He sent emails to his staff generally via their State Department email addresses. These emails should be on the State Department computers. He might have occasionally used personal email addresses, as he did when emailing to family and friends.”
So yes, he sent the e-mail TO their State Department computers, but FROM his personal e-mail account. Remind me quickly: how is that different from Hillary?
The Right will push hard on this, and Hillary is her own worst enemy in how she handles it. But this, in and of itself, won't sink her. Neither will Bernie Sanders, who like Trump has a natural ceiling well below a plurality. As far as how she handles the e-mail stuff, I'm not even sure she's fighting all that hard. It probably keeps the right away from more important vulnerabilities.
I wish I could make bets on this stuff. I could earn a few entrance fees to poker tournaments, and I am not very good at poker.
Link - ( New Window )
Like Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State Colin
Quote:
Powell also used a personal email account during his tenure at the State Department, an aide confirmed in a statement.
“He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State,” the statement says. “He sent emails to his staff generally via their State Department email addresses. These emails should be on the State Department computers. He might have occasionally used personal email addresses, as he did when emailing to family and friends.”
So yes, he sent the e-mail TO their State Department computers, but FROM his personal e-mail account. Remind me quickly: how is that different from Hillary?
The Right will push hard on this, and Hillary is her own worst enemy in how she handles it. But this, in and of itself, won't sink her. Neither will Bernie Sanders, who like Trump has a natural ceiling well below a plurality. As far as how she handles the e-mail stuff, I'm not even sure she's fighting all that hard. It probably keeps the right away from more important vulnerabilities.
I wish I could make bets on this stuff. I could earn a few entrance fees to poker tournaments, and I am not very good at poker.
Link - ( New Window )
George, IIRC, the law changed in 2009 or so making the private emails/servers illegal for use.
So, legal when Powells was Sec State, illegal when Hillary was Sec State.
Link - ( New Window )
This has gotten well beyond petty politics and only HRC and her acolytes fail to see that.
This has gotten well beyond petty politics and only HRC and her acolytes fail to see that.
Daily Mail Online tracked down ex-employees of Platte River Networks in Denver, Colorado, who revealed the outfit's strong links to the Democratic Party but expressed shock that the 2016 presidential candidate chose the small private company for such a sensitive job.
One, Tera Dadiotis, called it 'a mom and pop shop' which was an excellent place to work, but hardly seemed likely to be used to secure state secrets. And Tom Welch, who helped found the company, confirmed the servers were in a bathroom closet.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3201367/Hillary-s-email-firm-run-loft-apartment-servers-BATHROOM-raising-new-questions-security-sensitive-messages-held.html#ixzz3jCIlB2RC
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Link - ( New Window )
Other question is, when Hillary was senator, she was on some foreign affairs committee wasn't she? Was she exposed to classified material then and how did she handle it? Wouldn't she have had a .gov email at that point (pre-server)?
HRC is not the best for the country. Not a Dem, but good Lord it is incident after incident. I know that nobody is clean but, She's got more baggage than a 747 between New York and Bombay.
Unfortunately there are no statesman on either side of the aisle.
We haven't had a statesman since Bush 41. Bill was decent. I think a bad thing for the Dems was tagging along with Pelosi and Reid, two of the worst kind of shills the Congress has seen. I'm not a fan of Chuck Schumer, but I think he'll be better, much better, than Harry Reid whom I dispise. On the other side of the aisle, I cannot see one "leader" out of 250+ people, which is sad.
If I could do one thing it would be to get rid of the DNC and RNC. We cannot have Party bosses telling individual congressman how to vote and threaten withholding campaign money. This kind of bullying stymies any kind of growth. Congressmen don't represent their districts any longer, they represent the party, which should be secondary.
Similar impact on their careers too I would expect.
Link - ( New Window )
But Eric brings up a good point. Again, the mantra is that HRC is the first women president, great for women, yada yada... When asked yesterday if she 'wiped the server', she said 'what, with a cloth?'. Now maybe it was a joke, but damn if that doesn't make her look like she's hiding behind her skirt (or pantsuit..), who me? A little old woman? I don't know nutting about no servers!!! It's too technician for a girl!!!
Fuck you Hillary.
Other question is, when Hillary was senator, she was on some foreign affairs committee wasn't she? Was she exposed to classified material then and how did she handle it? Wouldn't she have had a .gov email at that point (pre-server)?
Bill, this is the point I've been raising since this started. Not only do they not have USG clearance, but neither do her lawyers. And her staff certainly don't have top secret clearance.
That alone would open her up to severe disciplinary procedures.
She can't have the server/e-mail.
She can't put classified info on it.
She can't ignore the fact that obviously classified documents have had their markings removed.
She can't wipe the server.
She can't allow people without the appropriate security clearance and a need to know basis see the material.
She can't allow them to cull through and delete material.
Also, the State Department certainly is not allowed to let her have this system, and not immediately confiscate the server, thumb drives. They certainly can't provide a safe for the lawyer to hold this.
A whole slew of people...Hilliary, her staff involved, and State Department officials should be under arrest.
A whole slew of people...Hilliary, her staff involved, and State Department officials should be under arrest.
Hey, careful, you're talking about the core of our next administration, lol
Lost in this HRC debate is the fact that a whole bunch of people besides HRC should be in DEEP trouble.
I truly cannot understand how someone would want her to be President. She has repeatedly shown herself to be a dishonest, potentially corrupt individual on several level, who seems to actually believe she can do whatever the heck she wants without repercussions.
Now some of that - sadly - just comes with being a politician these days, but she (and her hubby) take it to a whole new scary level.
Lost in this HRC debate is the fact that a whole bunch of people besides HRC should be in DEEP trouble.
Again, she wants to be CinC of a military that will punish, separate and even jail people for doing far less with classified information. See the linked piece for emphasis.
Link - ( New Window )
Lost in this HRC debate is the fact that a whole bunch of people besides HRC should be in DEEP trouble.
If only it were so. Likely outcome from historical precedent- a couple of lambs will be sacrificed, Hill will find someone to blame and turn herself into a victim.
I truly cannot understand how someone would want her to be President. She has repeatedly shown herself to be a dishonest, potentially corrupt individual on several level, who seems to actually believe she can do whatever the heck she wants without repercussions.
Now some of that - sadly - just comes with being a politician these days, but she (and her hubby) take it to a whole new scary level.
I have one question, under the statute Petraeus was prosecuted, doesn't HRC have to knowingly--and the key phrase is knowingly--pass information that she knew was classified to people who are not eligible to receive classified information. Doesn't that present two legal hurdles. The first you have to prove she knew the info was classified, which she is saying that she didn't know that. Second, doesn't she have to pass this info to people not cleared for it. In other words, as long as she was passing it to her staff, presumably they were cleared. Petraeus was a person who admitted knowingly passing classified material to his biographer, someone who plainly wasn't cleared to receive classified information. I know there are emails to Blumenthal who wasn't cleared, but those emails are public and the two of them seem to be working to benefit Blumenthal's clients, but nothing In those emails are classified.
Quote:
That will punish, discharge and even jail people for doing much, much less. There is no.getting around that. Everything about this is sleazy, dishonest and yes, illegal.
I have one question, under the statute Petraeus was prosecuted, doesn't HRC have to knowingly--and the key phrase is knowingly--pass information that she knew was classified to people who are not eligible to receive classified information. Doesn't that present two legal hurdles. The first you have to prove she knew the info was classified, which she is saying that she didn't know that. Second, doesn't she have to pass this info to people not cleared for it. In other words, as long as she was passing it to her staff, presumably they were cleared. Petraeus was a person who admitted knowingly passing classified material to his biographer, someone who plainly wasn't cleared to receive classified information. I know there are emails to Blumenthal who wasn't cleared, but those emails are public and the two of them seem to be working to benefit Blumenthal's clients, but nothing In those emails are classified.
No. As someone who had Secret clearance, she is responsible for safeguarding the documents in her possession. Period. And she certainly can't give access to those documents to people without clearance (a huge violation) or keep that data in a non-secured area (a huge violation). What she did is far worse than the general.
Worse, the Russians and Chinese probably have all of the data now.
Dep, because the State Department was complicit in this arrangement. It's not allowed. It doesn't matter if you are the Secretary of State. The Security Office at State can't allow this situation. Worse, once it was discovered, and they knew she had classified material (plus give me a break, everything the Secretary State does is pretty much classified), they didn't confiscate the data to protect it. Instead, they sent a safe to the lawyer to keep the thumbdrives and they allowed the server to remain with the IT company.
The staffers on Hilliary's staff - if they were USG employees - are also complicit. I don't know their relationship, but I do believe they have signed documents stating they haven't done things which they clearly have done. If they are on the USG payroll, they should be in deep shit.
Worse, the Russians and Chinese probably have all of the data now.
Thanks. Can't she claim attorney client privilege in passing it to her lawyer. The IT company might be a harder sell for her, I guess.
Hilliary server was in the bathroom closet.
And to us, a security violation could be not locking your door at night (even though the material was locked in your safe inside a secure building protected by security guards). Another security violation could be simply not signing/dating the "sign in/sign out" sheet when you opened your safe.
I can't tell you how egregious as violation it is to put any classified material, but especially TS material, in a private system.
If Powell had classified material on a private system, then yes.
But I don't know the details of what Powell did. I haven't heard that claim being made much.
1. If any of the folks from in charge during Powell's time are still there firings would be justified.
2. We know even less about the Powell private e-mails than we do about Clinton's. Depends what's on them. There's a rumor, currently unconfirmed, that Clinton got an e-mail with an image from a spy satellite on it. If either she or Powell received such an e-mail on a private server any denial that they were aware that it was Secret or Top Secret is simply disingenuous. I also believe there are further Blumenthal e-mails to be reviewed.
3. You probably have statute of limitations issues with respect to Powell's time as SOS even if prosecution would be warranted. It's been over 10 years.
But I don't know the details of what Powell did. I haven't heard that claim being made much.
Colin Powell was out of the office by 2005. It is entirely possible he received classified material by email in 2005, or even that he received it on a blackberry. But the sheer ubiquity of email as almost the sole means of communication was still on its way in even at the tail end of his tenure. And there is no insinuation that he installed a private server at his house to keep his communications private.
The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[6] for various communications of unknown content or purpose
I swear the Republican Party slogan should be .. For Me But Not for Thee
Bush White House email controversy - ( New Window )
Quote:
Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.[1] Over 5 million emails may have been lost or deleted.[2][3] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove lost emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been deleted.[5]
The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[6] for various communications of unknown content or purpose
I swear the Republican Party slogan should be .. For Me But Not for Thee Bush White House email controversy - ( New Window )
But that aside, what would be your solution for HRC, given very think no we know to date?
Hilliary server was in the bathroom closet.
Now the top government attorney is heading up another document project in the cross hairs of Congress: the State Department’s release of Hillary Clinton’s emails and Libya documents to the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
Politico: Double trouble? IRS lawyer now heads Clinton email production - ( New Window )
....
But now, with an IRS watchdog announcing last Thursday that tax agency employees under Duval’s watch had erased more than 400 backup tapes central to Congress’ IRS probe of the tea party targeting, Republicans are even more suspicious.
The election will come down to a few counties in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, maybe Pennsylvania.
The election will come down to a few counties in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, maybe Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania is a solid blue, especially after how our former governor, a republican, really fucked things up. Whats sad is that our current governor seems to be just as big of a moron, but he hasnt made a colossal mistake yet.
Dont count PA ever going red anytime soon.
Independents will care more about issues than a lot of Trump supporters think Republicans do. The Trump supporters are wrong, imo, but the longer he stays strong, the more damage he will do.
Rubio stepped in it big time during the first debate.
I still refuse to accept that a USG Federal agency that regularly backs up its computer system (like all federal agencies) irretrievably lost Lois Lerner's e-mails.
Now the IRS lawyer who was in charge of that fiasco is in charge of the e-mail situation at State for this scandal?
In our relatively short history of a country, we have had plenty of political corruption and scandal, but the arrogance of this one in the year 2015 is mind-boggling. At least get a new lawyer to cover it up.
I still refuse to accept that a USG Federal agency that regularly backs up its computer system (like all federal agencies) irretrievably lost Lois Lerner's e-mails.
Now the IRS lawyer who was in charge of that fiasco is in charge of the e-mail situation at State for this scandal?
In our relatively short history of a country, we have had plenty of political corruption and scandal, but the arrogance of this one in the year 2015 is mind-boggling. At least get a new lawyer to cover it up.
Nixon will look like a 3 card monte hustler in retrospect. If he was in the league of the Clintons or Obama, the White House tapes never would have turned up and John Dean would have been smeared and discredited. JMHO, of course
I still refuse to accept that a USG Federal agency that regularly backs up its computer system (like all federal agencies) irretrievably lost Lois Lerner's e-mails.
Now the IRS lawyer who was in charge of that fiasco is in charge of the e-mail situation at State for this scandal?
In our relatively short history of a country, we have had plenty of political corruption and scandal, but the arrogance of this one in the year 2015 is mind-boggling. At least get a new lawyer to cover it up.
You should take a deep breath, have a drink, & settle down for a few minutes.
Let this play out before we start jumping to pretty absurd conclusions.
The IRS e-mails are gone.
Hilliary's server has been professional wiped clean.
The State Department still is protecting HRC despite the fact she is no longer a member of the Administration. It was illegal for that agency to allow USG classified information to remain in the possession of her lawyers and IT company (Christ, they gave her lawyer a safe).
What more do you need?
The election will come down to a few counties in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, maybe Pennsylvania.
I'd say quite a bit higher than that. I'm not saying that as some huge Hillary supporter, either.
Look - she's a shoe-in for the Dem' nomination.
Remember - WOMEN WON BOTH OF OBAMA'S ELECTIONS. In 08' and 12', the male vote went to McCain and Romney. It was the margin of women's vote's that put Obama over the top in BOTH elections.
Knowing THAT as a baseline, and now with the first female Presidential Candidate in history - and don't kid yourself about her popularity - don't forget in some ways she is almost running as an incumbent...
...and add-in the bizarre right-wing attacks on women's rights, and the fact that virtually ALL of the serious Republican Candidates are taking a crazy hard right-line on abortion issues.
Her odds are far greater than 'a little over 50/50'.
The only Candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton at this point is Hillary Clinton - and if that happens, it will have to be something new - it's already clear that Benghazi and e-mail aren't taking her down.
A wedge issue is one that divides a group. The appeal of the PP attacks is to the social conservatives, who they already have.
Don't bet on it.
She is alienating the press every day. Carville was on Andrea Mitchell yesterday calling the press stupid.
Dems are questioning her.
She blew herself up last time and is on the way to doing it this time.
I was never going to vote for her but, more than republicans are getting tired of her show.
Find me polls that show Right to Choose/Planned Parenthood doesn't enjoy majority support, particularly among women.
Don't bet on it.
She is alienating the press every day. Carville was on Andrea Mitchell yesterday calling the press stupid.
Dems are questioning her.
She blew herself up last time and is on the way to doing it this time.
I was never going to vote for her but, more than republicans are getting tired of her show.
While surprising, the Obama win was not a shocker.
There isn’t an Edwards or Obama in EITHER field.
Rubio has the skills – really does, and he would be dangerous, but, you know, abortion.
The failure of the Republican candidates to pay attention to basic American perceptions is remarkable.
Sure – take that Planned Parenthood ball and run with it. See where it get you.
Quote:
harvested for their organs is not bizarre nor does it have anything to do with women's health. In a way, it's a great wedge issue for Republicans who can attack PP and their practices without actually saying get rid of abortion.
Regardless of the accuracy of your fetal harvesting statement, Planned Parenthood is hugely popular. This is a serious losers bet by these candidates.
Find me polls that show Right to Choose/Planned Parenthood doesn't enjoy majority support, particularly among women.
It's hugely popular because you are being told it is. Again, you can separate the health services from the other ghastly practices. If you haven't watched the latest video, then you may be in for a shock.
Bush tops Clinton 49 - 38 percent and Rubio leads 51 - 39 percent while Trump gets 43 percent to Clinton's 41 percent.
Bush leads Biden 51 - 38 percent, with Rubio up 48 - 42 percent. Biden gets 45 percent to Trump's 42 percent.
Sanders trails Bush 54 - 35 percent and loses 52 - 36 percent to Rubio and 45 - 41 percent to Trump.
Clinton gets a negative 37 - 55 percent favorability rating and voters say 64 - 32 percent she is not honest and trustworthy.
Ohio
In general election matchups:
Clinton gets 41 percent to 39 percent for Bush. Rubio has 42 percent to Clinton's 40 percent while Clinton tops Trump 43 - 38 percent.
Biden gets 42 percent to Bush's 39 percent and gets 42 percent to Rubio's 41 percent. Biden beats Trump 48 - 38 percent.
Sanders trails Bush 42 - 36 percent and loses 42 - 34 percent to Rubio. Sanders gets 42 percent to Trump's 40 percent.
Ohio voters give Clinton a negative 36 - 54 percent favorability rating and say 60 - 34 percent she is not honest and trustworthy.
Pennsylvania
Bush gets 43 percent to 40 percent for Clinton. Rubio tops Clinton 47 - 40 percent while Clinton beats Trump 45 - 40 percent.
Bush is at 43 percent to Biden's 42 percent. Rubio has 44 percent to Biden's 41 percent. Biden beats Trump 48 - 40 percent.
Sanders trails Bush 44 - 36 percent and loses 45 - 33 percent to Rubio. Sanders gets 44 percent to Trump's 41 percent.
Pennsylvania voters give Clinton a negative 38 - 55 percent favorability rating and say 63 - 32 percent she is not honest and trustworthy.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12427056 buford said:
Quote:
harvested for their organs is not bizarre nor does it have anything to do with women's health. In a way, it's a great wedge issue for Republicans who can attack PP and their practices without actually saying get rid of abortion.
Regardless of the accuracy of your fetal harvesting statement, Planned Parenthood is hugely popular. This is a serious losers bet by these candidates.
Find me polls that show Right to Choose/Planned Parenthood doesn't enjoy majority support, particularly among women.
It's hugely popular because you are being told it is. Again, you can separate the health services from the other ghastly practices. If you haven't watched the latest video, then you may be in for a shock.
Look - it's a carrot-on-a-stick issue. You had an Evangelical President with a Republican Congress and Senate, and a Right Leaning Supreme Court.
What abortion legislation got changed?
The same that will EVER get changed.
Because the Republican Party would immediately lose a fat chunk of those single-issue voters.
So they rile you up with bullshit propaganda like "OMIGOD! THEY'RE PAYING FOR ORGANS TO BE HARVESTED FROM FETUSES!" but they will never change a single law.
And this time around, they are preaching soley to the choir, and really doing Hillary Clinton a MASSIVE favor.
Think about it--that's what anti-choice people could bring to the discussion--they set up an unfeeling shithead to say what they wanted her to say and then released the video. Doesn't change the reality of the world we live in where we unfortunately have too many unwanted kids and too many folks who then demonize the poor and birth control. If there were less hypocrisy, we might have a better discussion about all this.
Very bizarre election with Trump, Sanders, all of the Republican candidates, HRC breaking laws left and right.
This election will be a pretty clear indicator if voting for Party trumps (no pun) candidate.
Quote:
"The only Candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton at this point is Hillary Clinton - and if that happens, it will have to be something new - it's already clear that Benghazi and e-mail aren't taking her down."
Don't bet on it.
She is alienating the press every day. Carville was on Andrea Mitchell yesterday calling the press stupid.
Dems are questioning her.
She blew herself up last time and is on the way to doing it this time.
I was never going to vote for her but, more than republicans are getting tired of her show.
Last time, she faced strong opponents in Edwards and Obama.
While surprising, the Obama win was not a shocker.
There isn’t an Edwards or Obama in EITHER field.
Rubio has the skills – really does, and he would be dangerous, but, you know, abortion.
The failure of the Republican candidates to pay attention to basic American perceptions is remarkable.
Sure – take that Planned Parenthood ball and run with it. See where it get you.
Who is talking about planned parenthood? Not me?
Me thinks you are responding to someone else. Abortion is an extremist issue for both sides. Been the law of the land for some 42 years. It ain't changing anyone's vote one way or another in the general election.
I'm talking about her getting the democratic nomination.
Nothing to do with the general election.
Unless Biden or Sanders has an anti abortion stance I am unaware of?
Which non-social conservative group are you going to splinter with this?
"Choice"
Btw, the worse the poll numbers get for Hillary, the more likely it is that Biden steps in. I have no idea where that ends up, except that an awful lot of Democrats seem to want an alternative to Hillary who isn't a life-long socialist. Sanders will cap out right quick.
Think about it--that's what anti-choice people could bring to the discussion--they set up an unfeeling shithead to say what they wanted her to say and then released the video. Doesn't change the reality of the world we live in where we unfortunately have too many unwanted kids and too many folks who then demonize the poor and birth control. If there were less hypocrisy, we might have a better discussion about all this.
She's an unfeeling shithead? What about the people who are still doing this?
As I said, you can separate this awful practice from keeping abortion legal. We shouldn't demonize the poor and we shouldn't remove human fetuses from the womb and then cut their brains out while their hearts are still beating. Is that really that hard? You want to defend that?
They did that yesterday. Pulled the chain and he repeated the same line from 23 years ago.
"You all stupid,ignorant people. Nothing to see here. Go look at the shinny ball over there."
It's hilarious.
Sorry, I have to disagree. My guess is that a "no exceptions" (rape, incest, life of the mother) candidate would lose 3-5% of the vote in a general just based on the campaign ads it would generate. It would be particularly devastating in Ohio, New Hampshire and Colorado. Whether that candidate could do anything about it when elected is irrelevant. On the other hand, I think the issue would barely move the needle for an "exceptions" candidate, less than 1% because the advertising couldn't be nearly as foreboding and we've had "exceptions" presidents who couldn't make major changes regarding the issue.
Quote:
is the tone in how it is being discussed. However, the truth is that is the procedure if being performed and then some good can come out of it, then that part is hard to argue with.
Think about it--that's what anti-choice people could bring to the discussion--they set up an unfeeling shithead to say what they wanted her to say and then released the video. Doesn't change the reality of the world we live in where we unfortunately have too many unwanted kids and too many folks who then demonize the poor and birth control. If there were less hypocrisy, we might have a better discussion about all this.
She's an unfeeling shithead? What about the people who are still doing this?
As I said, you can separate this awful practice from keeping abortion legal. We shouldn't demonize the poor and we shouldn't remove human fetuses from the womb and then cut their brains out while their hearts are still beating. Is that really that hard? You want to defend that?
Quote:
In comment 12427165 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
is the tone in how it is being discussed. However, the truth is that is the procedure if being performed and then some good can come out of it, then that part is hard to argue with.
Think about it--that's what anti-choice people could bring to the discussion--they set up an unfeeling shithead to say what they wanted her to say and then released the video. Doesn't change the reality of the world we live in where we unfortunately have too many unwanted kids and too many folks who then demonize the poor and birth control. If there were less hypocrisy, we might have a better discussion about all this.
She's an unfeeling shithead? What about the people who are still doing this?
As I said, you can separate this awful practice from keeping abortion legal. We shouldn't demonize the poor and we shouldn't remove human fetuses from the womb and then cut their brains out while their hearts are still beating. Is that really that hard? You want to defend that?
I find that your type is sort of dopey and you in particular are aggressively ignorant, so I prefer not discuss with you. No offense?
I would say no.
He describes himself as a socialist. Don't see much wiggle room there.
Btw, the worse the poll numbers get for Hillary, the more likely it is that Biden steps in. I have no idea where that ends up, except that an awful lot of Democrats seem to want an alternative to Hillary who isn't a life-long socialist. Sanders will cap out right quick.
Quote:
Me thinks you are responding to someone else. Abortion is an extremist issue for both sides. Been the law of the land for some 42 years. It ain't changing anyone's vote one way or another in the general election.
Sorry, I have to disagree. My guess is that a "no exceptions" (rape, incest, life of the mother) candidate would lose 3-5% of the vote in a general just based on the campaign ads it would generate. It would be particularly devastating in Ohio, New Hampshire and Colorado. Whether that candidate could do anything about it when elected is irrelevant. On the other hand, I think the issue would barely move the needle for an "exceptions" candidate, less than 1% because the advertising couldn't be nearly as foreboding and we've had "exceptions" presidents who couldn't make major changes regarding the issue.
No doubt.
Never say never.
Problem here is the conversation is all over the place.
Are we talking about HRC and her problems? Which are more looking like there is doubt if she is going to be the presumptive nominee.
Are we talking about how candidates for the republican nomination should lean in the individual state primaries?
Are we talking about eventual nominees' platform in the general election?
Depends on the time and situation.
The other side doesn't get a similar benefit from the Planned Parenthood tapes except from truly fuzzy thinkers who are currently marginally pro-choice, and there aren't that many of those (not going to mention anyone).
A big issue that isn't discussed enough is the dichotomy between Republican advantages at the state level (and in the House) and Democratic advantages in national elections. Choice plays out that way, because the factors that lead to legislative-level Republican advantages aren't about choice, but legislatures behave as if they are.
It happens all the time. people say stuff that reflexes badly on their organization all the time.
I happen to agree with you, but perception is reality.
Quote:
is the tone in how it is being discussed. However, the truth is that is the procedure if being performed and then some good can come out of it, then that part is hard to argue with.
Think about it--that's what anti-choice people could bring to the discussion--they set up an unfeeling shithead to say what they wanted her to say and then released the video. Doesn't change the reality of the world we live in where we unfortunately have too many unwanted kids and too many folks who then demonize the poor and birth control. If there were less hypocrisy, we might have a better discussion about all this.
She's an unfeeling shithead? What about the people who are still doing this?
As I said, you can separate this awful practice from keeping abortion legal. We shouldn't demonize the poor and we shouldn't remove human fetuses from the womb and then cut their brains out while their hearts are still beating. Is that really that hard? You want to defend that?
It's a matter of a level of comfort with abortion, period. If you're comfortable with the procedure, you're going to be comfortable with donating the remains to research.
Pretty balanced review here from someone who watched all 12 Hours of the Planned Parenthood 'sting' footage in question.
I watched all 12 Hours of the Planned Parenthood videos - ( New Window )
Quote:
making abortion a litmus test is not likely to help the Republicans. But if you can look at these videos and be unmoved, you're cut from a different cloth than I am. They are disgusting, they deserve to actually be addressed by the media (rather than simply parroting PP's talking points on the subject), and we should have to confront the reality of what this actually means. Whether that happens or whether every headline is more concerned with the identity of the videographer or the use to which the Republicans might put it than with what is actually taking place on the video, that remains to be seen.
Watch the video of an unfeeling person talk about her take on harvesting tissues? It doesn't speak to PP as a whole as she is one person and also PP does a SHIT TON more than conduct abortions. if that becomes the catalyst for this witch hunt against pro-choice, enjoy another 4 years of a Dem in office.
And something prevents a separate entity from dispensing birth control or conducting mammograms? They are linked for one reason - PR.
ask me nicely and I'll tell you
just saying that taking an "extreme" pro-life position doesn't necessarily disqualify you from being elected President. Dubya also had a strong pro-life position. So Rubio, or anyone else, can still win regardless of any abortion comments they've made.
(Yes, politically-biased Hannity, but Giuliani is accurate with the specifics).
Rudy Giuliani • Hillary Clinton Needs a Criminal Lawyer - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12427165 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
is the tone in how it is being discussed. However, the truth is that is the procedure if being performed and then some good can come out of it, then that part is hard to argue with.
Think about it--that's what anti-choice people could bring to the discussion--they set up an unfeeling shithead to say what they wanted her to say and then released the video. Doesn't change the reality of the world we live in where we unfortunately have too many unwanted kids and too many folks who then demonize the poor and birth control. If there were less hypocrisy, we might have a better discussion about all this.
She's an unfeeling shithead? What about the people who are still doing this?
As I said, you can separate this awful practice from keeping abortion legal. We shouldn't demonize the poor and we shouldn't remove human fetuses from the womb and then cut their brains out while their hearts are still beating. Is that really that hard? You want to defend that?
If they remove the practice and keep abortion legal, it won't make an ounce of difference in anyone's opinion politically.
It's a matter of a level of comfort with abortion, period. If you're comfortable with the procedure, you're going to be comfortable with donating the remains to research.
Pretty balanced review here from someone who watched all 12 Hours of the Planned Parenthood 'sting' footage in question. I watched all 12 Hours of the Planned Parenthood videos - ( New Window )
Vox is balanced? You can support legal abortion and still realize that this procedure is horrible, inhumane and must be stopped. You want to sanitize it, but these videos are exposing it.
Quote:
In comment 12427330 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
making abortion a litmus test is not likely to help the Republicans. But if you can look at these videos and be unmoved, you're cut from a different cloth than I am. They are disgusting, they deserve to actually be addressed by the media (rather than simply parroting PP's talking points on the subject), and we should have to confront the reality of what this actually means. Whether that happens or whether every headline is more concerned with the identity of the videographer or the use to which the Republicans might put it than with what is actually taking place on the video, that remains to be seen.
Watch the video of an unfeeling person talk about her take on harvesting tissues? It doesn't speak to PP as a whole as she is one person and also PP does a SHIT TON more than conduct abortions. if that becomes the catalyst for this witch hunt against pro-choice, enjoy another 4 years of a Dem in office.
And something prevents a separate entity from dispensing birth control or conducting mammograms? They are linked for one reason - PR.
Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms.
Link - ( New Window )
The outrage is because of the way the videos were edited to make it seem like PP was in this service without a sense of remorse or emotion towards this fragile topic.
Those outraged by abortions are going to be outraged by the "killing" no matter what PP said in a edited, unedited, intelllectually honest or dishonest conversation.
Casualties?
Quote:
that doctor did not cause the death of the casualties and then dissected them like frogs.
Casualties?
Read Paul's post just above her's.
Quote:
In comment 12427628 buford said:
Quote:
that doctor did not cause the death of the casualties and then dissected them like frogs.
Casualties?
Read Paul's post just above her's.
Ahh, thanks.
The outrage is because of the way the videos were edited to make it seem like PP was in this service without a sense of remorse or emotion towards this fragile topic.
Those outraged by abortions are going to be outraged by the "killing" no matter what PP said in a edited, unedited, intelllectually honest or dishonest conversation.
Some people would have been outraged regardless, to be sure, but others are outraged because these videos are outrageous, because these videos suggest that PP is treading into some dangerous legal territory and that even if they were all on the right side of the law pregnancies are being terminated at a gestational age in which the fetus is recognizable as a child.
And someone who describes his/her opponent as "anti-choice" should be as readily dismissed as someone who dismisses his/her opposite as "pro-abortion." It's a way of framing the debate that ignores that the opposing point of view has anything meaningful to bring to the conversation. If they didn't, it would be a much easier conversation than it is.
Quote:
In comment 12427249 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12427165 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
is the tone in how it is being discussed. However, the truth is that is the procedure if being performed and then some good can come out of it, then that part is hard to argue with.
Think about it--that's what anti-choice people could bring to the discussion--they set up an unfeeling shithead to say what they wanted her to say and then released the video. Doesn't change the reality of the world we live in where we unfortunately have too many unwanted kids and too many folks who then demonize the poor and birth control. If there were less hypocrisy, we might have a better discussion about all this.
She's an unfeeling shithead? What about the people who are still doing this?
As I said, you can separate this awful practice from keeping abortion legal. We shouldn't demonize the poor and we shouldn't remove human fetuses from the womb and then cut their brains out while their hearts are still beating. Is that really that hard? You want to defend that?
If they remove the practice and keep abortion legal, it won't make an ounce of difference in anyone's opinion politically.
It's a matter of a level of comfort with abortion, period. If you're comfortable with the procedure, you're going to be comfortable with donating the remains to research.
Pretty balanced review here from someone who watched all 12 Hours of the Planned Parenthood 'sting' footage in question. I watched all 12 Hours of the Planned Parenthood videos - ( New Window )
Vox is balanced? You can support legal abortion and still realize that this procedure is horrible, inhumane and must be stopped. You want to sanitize it, but these videos are exposing it.
Before you demonize the women and medical personnel, might be a good idea to understand the reason why women chose to donate. Their stories are heartbreaking. Most I've read were wannabe Moms. Organ development can not be fully determined until 18 to 20 weeks. No matter where you stand on the issue, I think we can all agree at this point potential for life is no longer an abstract. These women sought other medical advise and opinion before making a very painful decision with their partners. You may not agree with their ethical decision but the stories are hardly ones of monsters.
As to politicians weighing in, there is nothing wrong with them stating their personal beliefs. Unfortunately, the Republican Party as a whole has gone way beyond. If they say their the party of less Big Goverment, imo they come across as hypothetical when it comes to this issue. Or worse yet, women can't be trusted to make the right decision for themselves or their families.
I also heard a neo-natal nurse on the subject. She says even when they get a premie that is that early (20 weeks) they provide care because there can always be a miscalculation as to the actual maturity of the baby.
Many of these donations are late term abortions when the fetus is viable.
To clarify the last sentence refers to the late-term.
Let's be clear, these pregnancies were not going to result in a baby being born that had any chance of survival.
Again you may disagree personally with the ethics, but most spoke of maybe something good happening out of their tragic situation. Many also spoke of medical personnel helping them find a research center they were comfortable.
Let's be clear, these pregnancies were not going to result in a baby being born that had any chance of survival.
Again you may disagree personally with the ethics, but most spoke of maybe something good happening out of their tragic situation. Many also spoke of medical personnel helping them find a research center they were comfortable.
And for them I have all the sympathy in the world. But there are elective abortions that happen that late in term, and those aren't the mothers they're likely to put on a video designed to make you feel better about the practice.
What in the world does one have to do with the other? I could give a fuck what you think is real or not. It's not like your opinion matters to me at all.
The outrage is because of the way the videos were edited to make it seem like PP was in this service without a sense of remorse or emotion towards this fragile topic.
Those outraged by abortions are going to be outraged by the "killing" no matter what PP said in a edited, unedited, intelllectually honest or dishonest conversation.
No, it's not about the editing, but if that makes it easier for you, then fine. Just stop trying to spread that lie to everyone else.
I also heard a neo-natal nurse on the subject. She says even when they get a premie that is that early (20 weeks) they provide care because there can always be a miscalculation as to the actual maturity of the baby.
Many of these donations are late term abortions when the fetus is viable.
Buford - no my comments were not specically directed at you but just general discussion. But, what our you saying that women are so stupid that they don't know what their signing or don't care? That they have no clue what this about? This gets me back to my original point & one of the reasons why the Republican Party has trouble with women voters.
And please, stop with the 'oh those evil Republicans picking on women' it's so patronizing and ridiculous.
And please, stop with the 'oh those evil Republicans picking on women' it's so patronizing and ridiculous.
Didn't say Republicans are evil. Just if they wish to attract more women voters they need to stop coming across as patronizing and hypocritically. From my experience women are more than capable and don't need Big Government in this regard. But maybe I've only met women who couldn't be taken "advantage of" by organizations such as PP. So will have to disagree.
*smh*
3rd trimester abortions overwhelmingly occur when a very much wanted pregnancy has gone wrong. It is the trimester when complications present the greatest danger to the life and health of the mother.
It is in that time of medical and emotional crisis that the government needs to stay farthest away, when the decisions made need to be most geared towards preserving the life and health of the mother, and by "health" I mean the FERTILITY of the mother, as the overwhelming majority of women in that tragic and painful situation will be anxious to be able to try to have another baby in the future.
Faux News propagandists, Ted Cruz and Scott Walker should, frankly, fuck off.
*smh*
3rd trimester abortions overwhelmingly occur when a very much wanted pregnancy has gone wrong. It is the trimester when complications present the greatest danger to the life and health of the mother.
It is in that time of medical and emotional crisis that the government needs to stay farthest away, when the decisions made need to be most geared towards preserving the life and health of the mother, and by "health" I mean the FERTILITY of the mother, as the overwhelming majority of women in that tragic and painful situation will be anxious to be able to try to have another baby in the future.
Faux News propagandists, Ted Cruz and Scott Walker should, frankly, fuck off.
*smh*
3rd trimester abortions overwhelmingly occur when a very much wanted pregnancy has gone wrong. It is the trimester when complications present the greatest danger to the life and health of the mother.
It is in that time of medical and emotional crisis that the government needs to stay farthest away, when the decisions made need to be most geared towards preserving the life and health of the mother, and by "health" I mean the FERTILITY of the mother, as the overwhelming majority of women in that tragic and painful situation will be anxious to be able to try to have another baby in the future.
Faux News propagandists, Ted Cruz and Scott Walker should, frankly, fuck off.
We're not talking about third trimester abortions, we're largely talking about second trimester abortions in the 18-20 week range.
Quote:
They are told tissue, not organs. They are not told what the procedure is. And many of these women are likely in an emotional state when they are going to have an abortion. And from what I have read, some of them are asked to sign while they are medicated. I'm not blaming the women, I'm blaming Planned Parenthood.
And please, stop with the 'oh those evil Republicans picking on women' it's so patronizing and ridiculous.
Didn't say Republicans are evil. Just if they wish to attract more women voters they need to stop coming across as patronizing and hypocritically. From my experience women are more than capable and don't need Big Government in this regard. But maybe I've only met women who couldn't be taken "advantage of" by organizations such as PP. So will have to disagree.
And while saying that you come off as patronizing and hypocritical. Yes, women are capable and can make up their mind on this issue without anyone telling them how they must feel because they are women.
*smh*
3rd trimester abortions overwhelmingly occur when a very much wanted pregnancy has gone wrong. It is the trimester when complications present the greatest danger to the life and health of the mother.
It is in that time of medical and emotional crisis that the government needs to stay farthest away, when the decisions made need to be most geared towards preserving the life and health of the mother, and by "health" I mean the FERTILITY of the mother, as the overwhelming majority of women in that tragic and painful situation will be anxious to be able to try to have another baby in the future.
Faux News propagandists, Ted Cruz and Scott Walker should, frankly, fuck off.
schnitze, it's very common for anyone having a procedure to be given a valium or xanax to take before coming to the clinic. I had a procedure done and was given valium and an anti-nausea drug that I had to take that morning on an empty stomach. I was totally looped by the time I got to the Doctor's office.
Again, the issue is not with abortion, it's the harvesting of fetal organs.
*smh*
3rd trimester abortions overwhelmingly occur when a very much wanted pregnancy has gone wrong. It is the trimester when complications present the greatest danger to the life and health of the mother.
Uh. I'm no obstetrician, but I'm pretty sure that's not true.
Link - ( New Window )
To a partisan or even neutral observer this would seem pretty damning, but for a Clinton there appears to be ample wiggle room to lie her way out of it. I'll wait for an indictment, until then she's teflon, I'm afraid
The information appears to include privately shared comments by a prime minister, several foreign ministers and a foreign spy chief, unredacted bits of the emails show. Typically, Clinton and her staff first learned the information in private meetings, telephone calls or, less often, in email exchanges with the foreign officials.
In an email from November 2009, the principal private secretary to David Miliband, then the British foreign secretary, indicates that he is passing on information about Afghanistan from his boss in confidence. He writes to Huma Abedin, Clinton's most senior aide, that Miliband "very much wants the Secretary (only) to see this note."
Nearly five pages of entirely redacted information follow. Abedin forwarded it on to Clinton's private email account.
I can't believe she was allowed to get away with this while she was SoS.
Quote:
Defense that she never sent classified info--even if true so what? She set up a system for her cronies to email on unsecured channels classified info. It is like saying a mob boss is not guilty because he ordered the death of someone, but didn't pull the trigger. All of these staffers wouldn't have been sending her this information if she didn't set up the system
The mob boss was not guilty. It was part of a vast anti Italian conspiracy.
Why would you assume the mob boss was Italian, lol?
She also is not allowed to destroy or wipe the server. As soon as she started doing USG business on it, it ceased to belong to her. That's against the law.
Now it's come out she didn't use USG-approved blackberry and that her two top assistants destroyed their blackberries.
Trump 40%
If that's even close to accurate, that is not good news for Dems
Link - ( New Window )
On a more serious note, I saw someone on Fox (Fox!) who was talking about why polling has been so bad of late (US mid terms, Israel, UK). He said that at least for the US it was a combo of (1) restrictive rules governing how you can reach out to cell phone users who are now 50% of the electorate, and (2) a pitiful response rate of 8% meaning that the people who are willing to participate in polls are probably not decently representative of the country. You take polls and 40-50% of Republicans in Iowa say they are likely caucus goers, and then there is 2.5% turnout. So the thoughts of that 40-50% group are worthless.
Link - ( New Window )
The numbers are pretty meaningless, especially across party lines. I love these claims of error rates of +/- 3 1/2%. 3 1/2% of what, the number of atoms in the universe?
For Hillary, she has only one legitimate challenger right now and even he seems like a long shot. THere just isn't the same focus on her campaign just yet.
Thus, the current mood about Hilary relates primarily to the only thing being talked about with Hilary-- that being the right wing hammering her about this E-mail/server topic.
For Hillary, she has only one legitimate challenger right now and even he seems like a long shot. THere just isn't the same focus on her campaign just yet.
Thus, the current mood about Hilary relates primarily to the only thing being talked about with Hilary-- that being the right wing hammering her about this E-mail/server topic.
If Hillary wanted it, she could easily have face time well above any non-Trump Republican is getting. She is the second most recognizable face in the race. Her words are not being covered that much because she is not saying that much.
For Hillary, she has only one legitimate challenger right now and even he seems like a long shot. THere just isn't the same focus on her campaign just yet.
Thus, the current mood about Hilary relates primarily to the only thing being talked about with Hilary-- that being the right wing hammering her about this E-mail/server topic.
Even if nothing goes forward, nothing more that's new appears, beyond what we already know, she may win but it's only because as a country we have decided that we..not candidates but everyday people, do not put a premium on honesty. Integrity, honor, honesty are not virtues to us. That is the central question of this election, more than any other economic or social issue. Talk abortion, immigration, taxes, whatever all we like but really what we are voting on is whether we are re-prioritizing core social values.
For Hillary, she has only one legitimate challenger right now and even he seems like a long shot. THere just isn't the same focus on her campaign just yet.
Thus, the current mood about Hilary relates primarily to the only thing being talked about with Hilary-- that being the right wing hammering her about this E-mail/server topic.
1. Morning Joe, the Today Show, CNBC, O'Reilly, Maddow ANY of the Sunday Morning talk shows would KILL to get a live sit down with Hillary. In fact, at least with respect to Morning Joe, she could call in for an interview and get to choose the day and time slot. There's only 1 reason she isn't getting more air time, she doesn't want it.
2. I didn't realize that the FBI with a director nominated by Obama, DOS headed by John Kerry and a federal district court judge nominated by Bill Clinton are right wing.
I am not saying that the criticisms of Hilary are unfounded nor that the entire thing is just drummed up political theater by the right wing. I'm not saying that at all. But the right wing is hammering her for it as would fit their goal of trying to win the White House in 2016. Hilary is the presumptive favorite for the Democratic nominee and has most consistently been the favorite to win the White House, and so it makes sense for the right wing to attack her on this every day and keep this story front and center to discredit her.
I also agree that her lack of face time and silence is by her own choice. I think she is playing the long game and I have been critical of her for a long time for not saying much and for trying to just skate to the nomination. I don't like it, but I also didn't like how silent she seemed before this story became the main focus.
My entire point was that the reason she is slipping in polls right now is because she is remaining silent and so the only news on her is negative about this Email/server story. As there hasn't yet been a Democratic debate, and that there aren't 17 candidates like on the Republican side mean that her had has not yet been forced to get right in front of the camera and make sure her soundbites carry the day.
In other words, I don't put too much stock in her polling against the Republican candidates right now because I think her strategy is to take a short-term PR loss and not take off her gloves and make her push until as late as possible.
In her first national interview, more than six weeks ago, Clinton told CNN's Brianna Keilar: "Obviously I'll be doing a lot more press." The only reason she'd been waiting so long, she said, was because she had pledged to spent the first 90 days of her campaign listening to American voters. At the time, a Clinton aide also told the On Media blog that the candidate "looks forward to doing more" national interviews.
The Clinton listening tour officially ended on July 12, and since then the national media has been forced to endure 40 days and 40 nights with just one Univision interview, broadcast in Spanish. The fast has only contributed to longstanding press frustrations with Clinton's limited availability. Despite the occasional scrum or press conference, the candidate's refusal to answer questions from reporters has been a theme of her campaign.
Link - ( New Window )
Personally, I still haven't made up my mind on this issue because I can't tell how problematic it is. One problem is that there were issues with how Colin Powell handled personal information and there was the entire Bush E-mail "scandal" that didn't seem to draw any criticism from Republicans. Another problem is that our political environment is so toxic and zero-sum that the right wing has condemned every single thing Obama and Hilary have done and said as being so horrific, that it creates a "boy who cried wolf" effect and so it becomes hard to tell when there warrants actual outrage.
However, I also don't have military or clearance background to comment on the severity of her actions, nor do I think we have enough information to say Hilary did nothing wrong. I have long felt that she was distrustful and I hate how silent she has been on this issue instead of addressing it head on.
Or Keystone
I was then saying that when you take how much bad press she is getting now, and consider that she is choosing to remain silent and also hasn't yet had a chance in a debate to take center stage, that it make sense that her polling would be low right now.
But she will eventually be forced to face her critics and make her pitch in front of the world-- that's when I'll start paying attention to how she polls.
Quote:
any questions about Trump or her emails, she might turn up
Or Keystone
Or the TPP
Personally, I still haven't made up my mind on this issue because I can't tell how problematic it is. One problem is that there were issues with how Colin Powell handled personal information and there was the entire Bush E-mail "scandal" that didn't seem to draw any criticism from Republicans. Another problem is that our political environment is so toxic and zero-sum that the right wing has condemned every single thing Obama and Hilary have done and said as being so horrific, that it creates a "boy who cried wolf" effect and so it becomes hard to tell when there warrants actual outrage.
However, I also don't have military or clearance background to comment on the severity of her actions, nor do I think we have enough information to say Hilary did nothing wrong. I have long felt that she was distrustful and I hate how silent she has been on this issue instead of addressing it head on.
In other words it's not about the right wing but it really is about the right wing.
I'm sure the US District Court Judge that Clinton appointed would be amused.
Quote:
that I don't think it is only the right wing that is criticizing Hilary for this as there are outlets on all sides bringing attention to it. It's just that it makes sense for the right win to make this seem as outrageous as they can possibly sell it.
Personally, I still haven't made up my mind on this issue because I can't tell how problematic it is. One problem is that there were issues with how Colin Powell handled personal information and there was the entire Bush E-mail "scandal" that didn't seem to draw any criticism from Republicans. Another problem is that our political environment is so toxic and zero-sum that the right wing has condemned every single thing Obama and Hilary have done and said as being so horrific, that it creates a "boy who cried wolf" effect and so it becomes hard to tell when there warrants actual outrage.
However, I also don't have military or clearance background to comment on the severity of her actions, nor do I think we have enough information to say Hilary did nothing wrong. I have long felt that she was distrustful and I hate how silent she has been on this issue instead of addressing it head on.
In other words it's not about the right wing but it really is about the right wing.
I'm sure the US District Court Judge that Clinton appointed would be amused.
The whole "Powell did it too" is simply a canard. IF Powell sent/received classified emails on a personal server, then he should've been prosecuted for it too (not sure what SoL is), but it didn't become a huge deal in the media because he hasn't run for anything since then. If he was running for POTUS it would probably be an issue for him.
I do agree with the boy who cried wolf crap though. People like buford almost make me want to defend HRC on this issue.
Quote:
In comment 12429186 PaulBlakeTSU said:
Quote:
that I don't think it is only the right wing that is criticizing Hilary for this as there are outlets on all sides bringing attention to it. It's just that it makes sense for the right win to make this seem as outrageous as they can possibly sell it.
Personally, I still haven't made up my mind on this issue because I can't tell how problematic it is. One problem is that there were issues with how Colin Powell handled personal information and there was the entire Bush E-mail "scandal" that didn't seem to draw any criticism from Republicans. Another problem is that our political environment is so toxic and zero-sum that the right wing has condemned every single thing Obama and Hilary have done and said as being so horrific, that it creates a "boy who cried wolf" effect and so it becomes hard to tell when there warrants actual outrage.
However, I also don't have military or clearance background to comment on the severity of her actions, nor do I think we have enough information to say Hilary did nothing wrong. I have long felt that she was distrustful and I hate how silent she has been on this issue instead of addressing it head on.
In other words it's not about the right wing but it really is about the right wing.
I'm sure the US District Court Judge that Clinton appointed would be amused.
The whole "Powell did it too" is simply a canard. IF Powell sent/received classified emails on a personal server, then he should've been prosecuted for it too (not sure what SoL is), but it didn't become a huge deal in the media because he hasn't run for anything since then. If he was running for POTUS it would probably be an issue for him.
I do agree with the boy who cried wolf crap though. People like buford almost make me want to defend HRC on this issue.
It is coming up now because she's running for president and some are stating that it is being brought up due to politics. If she were right or wrong in this, I agree it is dirty pool as usual from parties that look for muck.
"So I wish Hillary Clinton would be respectful enough to say, “I’m sorry. I was wrong.” I wish she wouldn’t insult our intelligence by claiming she only did what other secretaries of state had done. None of her predecessors, after all, went to the trouble and expense of a private e-mail server."
"So I wish Hillary Clinton would be respectful enough to say, “I’m sorry. I was wrong.” "
If there are actually legal ramifications to this, she can't say that.
The more people see and hear her, the worse she does in the polls. I think it's strategy to keep her hidden.
Quote:
Hillary is working very, very hard at saying and doing very little, and has been for some time now.
The more people see and hear her, the worse she does in the polls. I think it's strategy to keep her hidden.
Exonerate? Clearly you have absolutely no understanding of what she is accused of doing. She will not be exonerated, the question will be the degree of culpability and what if anything is done about it.
Exonerate her? They have aleady pulled classified stuff off her server. The judge yesterday chastised her bs defense. She and her staff had unauthorized blackberries. She's likely not indicted, but she's clearly violated the law.
If the Democrats had anybody else, she'd be gone.
Quote:
At which point, she'll go on the attack, along with the Big Dog. The Big Dog...her secret weapon.
Exonerate? Clearly you have absolutely no understanding of what she is accused of doing. She will not be exonerated, the question will be the degree of culpability and what if anything is done about it.
LOL. Yeah. I'm sorry Dune that she won't be dragged off in chains.
Quote:
In comment 12429438 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
At which point, she'll go on the attack, along with the Big Dog. The Big Dog...her secret weapon.
Exonerate? Clearly you have absolutely no understanding of what she is accused of doing. She will not be exonerated, the question will be the degree of culpability and what if anything is done about it.
LOL. Yeah. I'm sorry Dune that she won't be dragged off in chains.
That depends on how the War on Women(TM) turns out.
Quote:
In comment 12429160 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Hillary is working very, very hard at saying and doing very little, and has been for some time now.
The more people see and hear her, the worse she does in the polls. I think it's strategy to keep her hidden.
I hope she wins so you vomit over it daily?
Quote:
In comment 12429438 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
At which point, she'll go on the attack, along with the Big Dog. The Big Dog...her secret weapon.
Exonerate? Clearly you have absolutely no understanding of what she is accused of doing. She will not be exonerated, the question will be the degree of culpability and what if anything is done about it.
LOL. Yeah. I'm sorry Dune that she won't be dragged off in chains.
Don't be so sure. That would make one great perp walk
Yeah, she pulled the Big Dog out in S.C. in 2008 and that's what got her the nomination.
She'll play it all successfully.
Quote:
In comment 12429446 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
In comment 12429438 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
At which point, she'll go on the attack, along with the Big Dog. The Big Dog...her secret weapon.
Exonerate? Clearly you have absolutely no understanding of what she is accused of doing. She will not be exonerated, the question will be the degree of culpability and what if anything is done about it.
LOL. Yeah. I'm sorry Dune that she won't be dragged off in chains.
Don't be so sure. That would make one great perp walk
She'll play it all successfully.
Of course. She'll say look it was all a conspiracy that I and my staffed used unauyhorizrd, unsecured servers and blacberries.
LOL. Yeah. I'm sorry Dune that she won't be dragged off in chains.
Don't be so sure. That would make one great perp walk
Now that would make some of her sycophants heads explode but not going to happen.
Ya never know. Didn't I see her in an orange pants suit this week?
Quote:
In comment 12429160 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Hillary is working very, very hard at saying and doing very little, and has been for some time now.
The more people see and hear her, the worse she does in the polls. I think it's strategy to keep her hidden.
I hope she wins so you vomit over it daily?
I thought you didn't want to engage with me Randy?
Quote:
LOL. Yeah. I'm sorry Dune that she won't be dragged off in chains.
Don't be so sure. That would make one great perp walk
Now that would make some of her sycophants heads explode but not going to happen.
Ya never know. Didn't I see her in an orange pants suit this week?
I am not saying she will be found guilty or even going to jail, but for goodness sake, just drop from the race. As soon as she drops, a mass flooding of people will join the presidential race.
And if people are still proclaiming her innocence and probably the same people who believe OJ was innocent too once the glove didnt fit.
Can Willie still do pardons? Cause if she ends up in jail it means Obama's not her friend.
I am not saying she will be found guilty or even going to jail, but for goodness sake, just drop from the race. As soon as she drops, a mass flooding of people will join the presidential race.
And if people are still proclaiming her innocence and probably the same people who believe OJ was innocent too once the glove didnt fit.
So you're not saying she did anything illegal necessarily, but if someone is proclaiming her innocent then they're like an OJ juror.
And what is "wrong" and "boarderline [sic] illegal"? What wishy washy terms are those? If she violated the law, so be it (and we'll have to see what laws those are -- criminal is a dealbreaker; otherwise, people in government are found to technically violate the law every day -- a cop who does a search with a shitty warrant "violates the law"). But if she didnt violate the law, there is some morality angle leading to wrongness? Or even borderline illegality? Is driving 54 in a 55 zone borderline illegal? What manner of new standard inventing is this?
Quote:
is that democrats across the nation still believe and trust in her to be President. It's obvious as of now that she did some things wrong and boarderline illegal. It's plain as day she is keeping quiet because the more she speaks, the worse it is for her. Yet, she is still polling strong.
I am not saying she will be found guilty or even going to jail, but for goodness sake, just drop from the race. As soon as she drops, a mass flooding of people will join the presidential race.
And if people are still proclaiming her innocence and probably the same people who believe OJ was innocent too once the glove didnt fit.
So you're not saying she did anything illegal necessarily, but if someone is proclaiming her innocent then they're like an OJ juror.
And what is "wrong" and "boarderline [sic] illegal"? What wishy washy terms are those? If she violated the law, so be it (and we'll have to see what laws those are -- criminal is a dealbreaker; otherwise, people in government are found to technically violate the law every day -- a cop who does a search with a shitty warrant "violates the law"). But if she didnt violate the law, there is some morality angle leading to wrongness? Or even borderline illegality? Is driving 54 in a 55 zone borderline illegal? What manner of new standard inventing is this?
Please don't be obtuse. The law says you cannot use private servers and comms devices. She did. It's not bordrrline. She lied about having classified and secret materials on the server. She tried to have the server wiped clean - called obstruction of justice. If it was you, you would have been arrested already.
Quote:
is that democrats across the nation still believe and trust in her to be President. It's obvious as of now that she did some things wrong and boarderline illegal. It's plain as day she is keeping quiet because the more she speaks, the worse it is for her. Yet, she is still polling strong.
I am not saying she will be found guilty or even going to jail, but for goodness sake, just drop from the race. As soon as she drops, a mass flooding of people will join the presidential race.
And if people are still proclaiming her innocence and probably the same people who believe OJ was innocent too once the glove didnt fit.
So you're not saying she did anything illegal necessarily, but if someone is proclaiming her innocent then they're like an OJ juror.
And what is "wrong" and "boarderline [sic] illegal"? What wishy washy terms are those? If she violated the law, so be it (and we'll have to see what laws those are -- criminal is a dealbreaker; otherwise, people in government are found to technically violate the law every day -- a cop who does a search with a shitty warrant "violates the law"). But if she didnt violate the law, there is some morality angle leading to wrongness? Or even borderline illegality? Is driving 54 in a 55 zone borderline illegal? What manner of new standard inventing is this?
I am not a lawyer, but wouldn't that depend on what your definition of 'is' is?
do you assume she wiped her server clean because she didn't want people to see the details of Chelsea's wedding? if this was any other person in america, they drop out and go into retirement.
it's sad in today's world name power is more important than credibility.
Please don't be obtuse. The law says you cannot use private servers and comms devices. She did. It's not bordrrline.
You're wrong. Period. The rules applicable when she was SOS did not say what you claim. In fact they said that if someone used a private server, the agency was required to make sure that records were retained per the records act. So the rule expressly embraced private servers as legal.
No, not really. All the stuff that was on her server that was classified was classified THIS YEAR after she turned the emails over for FOIA review. Not one email has been identified as having classified markings when she sent/received it.
Im reasonably sure that you have no idea what obstruction of justice is. Wildly inapplicable to this fact pattern. This isnt even worth discussing, it's just ignorant ranting.
Her obligation was to turn over emails under the records act. Records only, and therefore the "server wiped clean" hyperbole is just irrelevant. As is typical, those designations are made by the preserver, not the agency. Non-government work docs dont need to be turned over. So SOS's people did a review and found that one half of the emails needed to be turned over per the records act. Even if a mistake was made here or there (and I havent seen any suggestion as such), there is nothing criminal about it; it's a human process and it's taken for granted that records acts designations wont be perfect.
People get arrested when they violate criminal statutes. Please identify the criminal statute that Clinton purportedly violated and explain in detail how she violated it. Because I dont think you know what you're talking about.
That's a lot of ifs and maybes. I think we should let the facts fully develop before passing judgment. There are ongoing investigations, so lets see where those go. I dont trust the leaks that are almost certainly coming out of the Gowdy Committee to the NY Times. We've seen a lot of unreliable stuff coming out, articles that the Times has had to walk back a lot.
do you assume she wiped her server clean because she didn't want people to see the details of Chelsea's wedding? if this was any other person in america, they drop out and go into retirement.
it's sad in today's world name power is more important than credibility.
So at 9:30 you
say she did something "boarderline illegal" and "I am not saying she will be found guilty or even going to jail". But now a few hours later you've changed your mind and she definitely did something illegal, so much my suggestion that maybe she didnt do anything illegal -- A POSITION YOU TOOK JUST HOURS AGO -- is "disturbing".
Im not going to argue with you. We're not on the same level here.
Quote:
o they choose.... but his response is what I find disturbing. she did something illegal and covered it up. they are finding out more and more each day.
do you assume she wiped her server clean because she didn't want people to see the details of Chelsea's wedding? if this was any other person in america, they drop out and go into retirement.
it's sad in today's world name power is more important than credibility.
So at 9:30 you
say she did something "boarderline illegal" and "I am not saying she will be found guilty or even going to jail". But now a few hours later you've changed your mind and she definitely did something illegal, so much my suggestion that maybe she didnt do anything illegal -- A POSITION YOU TOOK JUST HOURS AGO -- is "disturbing".
Im not going to argue with you. We're not on the same level here.
Yup. Keep harping on a typo. That's really making your case.
Btw it's "I'm" not "Im".
Her top secret daughters wedding plans needed to be cleaned immediately.
Also, let's not forget that this is an election that will be, in all likelihood, Hillary vs. __________. It's a contest between two people. I think a majority of Americans will end up siding with HRC on the issues.
Her top secret daughters wedding plans needed to be cleaned immediately.
I dont think she has something to hide. Just like 300 million other Americans, I think she didnt want Congress and the media snooping around in her personal emails. So after they did the FOIA related review, she had her aides wipe the server. She didnt need the other emails or even want them. Makes sense to me since I never go back into old personal emails. And the risk was that some stupid judge or congressional committee would wrongfully make her turn over personal emails just because, which are nobody's business but her own.
So when are you making all of your personal emails public? How about the personal emails and records of every republican candidate.
scary times
make it past the first primaries. She should go back to making money with Bill and buy an island and make herself Queen
Quote:
and say I know all the legalities of server-gate. just what I read here and on the news. but if you don't think she crossed the line and is trying to hide something, well I have a bridge to sell to you.
Her top secret daughters wedding plans needed to be cleaned immediately.
I dont think she has something to hide. Just like 300 million other Americans, I think she didnt want Congress and the media snooping around in her personal emails. So after they did the FOIA related review, she had her aides wipe the server. She didnt need the other emails or even want them. Makes sense to me since I never go back into old personal emails. And the risk was that some stupid judge or congressional committee would wrongfully make her turn over personal emails just because, which are nobody's business but her own.
So when are you making all of your personal emails public? How about the personal emails and records of every republican candidate.
In regard to not wanting congress and media snooping around her emails, That does not explain why she rejected the Gowdy offer of having a neutral third party review the material. Now that she saw that the FBI was getting the server anyway, she is going through the charade of claiming she turned it over on her own initiative.
Quote:
and say I know all the legalities of server-gate. just what I read here and on the news. but if you don't think she crossed the line and is trying to hide something, well I have a bridge to sell to you.
Her top secret daughters wedding plans needed to be cleaned immediately.
I dont think she has something to hide. Just like 300 million other Americans, I think she didnt want Congress and the media snooping around in her personal emails. So after they did the FOIA related review, she had her aides wipe the server. She didnt need the other emails or even want them. Makes sense to me since I never go back into old personal emails. And the risk was that some stupid judge or congressional committee would wrongfully make her turn over personal emails just because, which are nobody's business but her own.
So when are you making all of your personal emails public? How about the personal emails and records of every republican candidate.
She could have avoided that by not mixing work and personal emails on the same account. As soon as she did that, all of those emails became our business.
make it past the first primaries. She should go back to making money with Bill and buy an island and make herself Queen
Unfortunately, with no prospect of power (being in the WH or SoS) no one will hire them for the big $$$.
Quote:
she issues statements that say nothing regarding what she did. If she is playing the long game that people are going to move on, she might
make it past the first primaries. She should go back to making money with Bill and buy an island and make herself Queen
Unfortunately, with no prospect of power (being in the WH or SoS) no one will hire them for the big $$$.
I don't think you are helping.
Washington Post - ( New Window )
One of the problems in politics are people getting wealthy while in office. I don't have a problem with books and speeches. But it's obvious that the Clintons were selling access. And others, like Harry Reid, who become multi-millionaires because of their positions are despicable.
I think this is an interesting point for discussion. I also don't think he wins the nomination, but am curious about his influence on the nomination process.
I think having him in serves as a distraction, which potentially could favor Repubs. Generally speaking, the nomination process seems to drive all candidates in either party away from the center. This isn't the case with the Dems as Hillary is the presumed nominee and can afford to stay in the center. But with the "19 and counting" or whatever number of Repubs are in the race one would expect to see a race to prove the "true conservatives". Bush tried that tactic with Trump this week.
I think Trump being in allows the candidates to continue campaigning without having to attack one another and move away from the center. They can focus on attacking Trump as the front runner and HRC. The field will eventually narrow without a consensus leader until Trump decides to bow out. Depending on how long he's willing to stay in the race, the prize will go to whoever has the staying power, meaning the most success raising funds. This has less to do with campaign rhetoric and more to do with campaign organizational strength and win-ability in a general vs. HRC.
Which I believe helps the eventual nominee in the long run.
Anyway, that's my amateur opinion of what might happen.
I don't know why you think the possibility is growing. I think that every day he spends as a Republican instead of setting up for an independent run in every State the possibility shrinks.
And I mam beginning to think that Trump might get the nomination, because his ceiling is rising, because he will pick up Carson/Cruz voters, and because all of the other candidates with a shot are showing much weaker than expected. Bush is a mess. I didn't expect that. Walker is a mness. I did expect that. Who else is there with a national backing? Kasich? I wish.
shut down the government and give us the big middle finger. They do everything for partisan reasons while we are drowning and looking for answers. Pay back is a bitch
Just in case you haven't heard Kramer on the subject of write-offs - ( New Window )
I agree that there is a lot of disgust with politicians, but I don't agree it's as broad or as deep as most people think. People will bitch, but still end up wanting to vote for someone with "experience", a proven track record in government, and that's who the career pols are.
As to Trump's intentions, I can't speak to them. Is he someone who wants to go down in history as a spoiler? If he waits to see who the nominees are (assuming he's not one) it becomes very difficult to get on the ballot in enough states to actually have a numerical chance to win. Anyone who wants to make a serious 3rd party run needs to be working in that direction now.
Hey, that is straight from your hero Trump's mouth. He buys politicians to get access.
Quote:
Trump has tapped into something. There's a lot of disgust for career politicians. So, if it's Bush vs. Clinton, I think he runs and he'll be a factor. He owes the GOP nothing.
I agree that there is a lot of disgust with politicians, but I don't agree it's as broad or as deep as most people think. People will bitch, but still end up wanting to vote for someone with "experience", a proven track record in government, and that's who the career pols are.
As to Trump's intentions, I can't speak to them. Is he someone who wants to go down in history as a spoiler? If he waits to see who the nominees are (assuming he's not one) it becomes very difficult to get on the ballot in enough states to actually have a numerical chance to win. Anyone who wants to make a serious 3rd party run needs to be working in that direction now.
Listening to him yesterday, he sounds like he really wants it. After all, it's the ultimate CEO job. He went on about how his kids could run his hotels etc while he was in office and he's already given up the Apprentice. Of course, he could change his mind.
Having the selling skills to get a majority of disaffected voters to vote for you and having the knowledge, skillset and temperament necessary to govern are two entirely different questions. Trump as commander in chief? Right. Trump being able to handle a hard-right-dominated House of Representatives? Never.
And does anyone really know what his governing philosophy would be? Can you really assume he will stay to the right once elected? Why would he?
Having the selling skills to get a majority of disaffected voters to vote for you and having the knowledge, skillset and temperament necessary to govern are two entirely different questions. Trump as commander in chief? Right. Trump being able to handle a hard-right-dominated House of Representatives? Never.
And does anyone really know what his governing philosophy would be? Can you really assume he will stay to the right once elected? Why would he?
George he has run multi-billion dollar corporations. He'd be ok. At leaSt he has actually done that.
Now of course I'm saying this all in jest, but you have to admit this wouldn't be a bad thing:)
He is dominating the convo. He is sticking around for awhile. He is not a summer fad.
Did you find it entertaining in '08 when Obama basically did the same thing?
Quote:
and say I know all the legalities of server-gate. just what I read here and on the news. but if you don't think she crossed the line and is trying to hide something, well I have a bridge to sell to you.
Her top secret daughters wedding plans needed to be cleaned immediately.
I dont think she has something to hide. Just like 300 million other Americans, I think she didnt want Congress and the media snooping around in her personal emails. So after they did the FOIA related review, she had her aides wipe the server. She didnt need the other emails or even want them. Makes sense to me since I never go back into old personal emails. And the risk was that some stupid judge or congressional committee would wrongfully make her turn over personal emails just because, which are nobody's business but her own.
So when are you making all of your personal emails public? How about the personal emails and records of every republican candidate.
You're better than this bullshit. If she didn't want her personal emails to be subject to FOIA, it would have been easy enough to do what every other fucking person in America does and route her personal email through a personal email account and a work email through a State Department email account. Might you accidentally send a work email through a personal account or a personal email through a work account? Sure, and it wouldn't be the end of the world. But that isn't what this is about. You're too smart to look seriously at this situation and think this was about keeping nosy Congressmen from seeing her email exchange with Chelsea about baby clothes. Don't become one of the other folks on this thread (and you know which ones), willing to bend every set of facts to suit a narrative. She did this to avoid scrutiny; the extent of her wrongdoing and what sort of sanction is reasonable remains to be seen.
But remember, she voluntarily took the Secretary of State job. Plenty of people have declined consequential political posts to preserve their privacy. She could have done so.
Quote:
In comment 12429738 dep026 said:
Quote:
and say I know all the legalities of server-gate. just what I read here and on the news. but if you don't think she crossed the line and is trying to hide something, well I have a bridge to sell to you.
Her top secret daughters wedding plans needed to be cleaned immediately.
I dont think she has something to hide. Just like 300 million other Americans, I think she didnt want Congress and the media snooping around in her personal emails. So after they did the FOIA related review, she had her aides wipe the server. She didnt need the other emails or even want them. Makes sense to me since I never go back into old personal emails. And the risk was that some stupid judge or congressional committee would wrongfully make her turn over personal emails just because, which are nobody's business but her own.
So when are you making all of your personal emails public? How about the personal emails and records of every republican candidate.
You're better than this bullshit. If she didn't want her personal emails to be subject to FOIA, it would have been easy enough to do what every other fucking person in America does and route her personal email through a personal email account and a work email through a State Department email account. Might you accidentally send a work email through a personal account or a personal email through a work account? Sure, and it wouldn't be the end of the world. But that isn't what this is about. You're too smart to look seriously at this situation and think this was about keeping nosy Congressmen from seeing her email exchange with Chelsea about baby clothes. Don't become one of the other folks on this thread (and you know which ones), willing to bend every set of facts to suit a narrative. She did this to avoid scrutiny; the extent of her wrongdoing and what sort of sanction is reasonable remains to be seen.
But remember, she voluntarily took the Secretary of State job. Plenty of people have declined consequential political posts to preserve their privacy. She could have done so.
You have to admit, it's really tough having two cell phones. Or finding a way to have your cell phone access two email accounts.
It may seem crazy to you, and not ideal to me, but politicians of both parties seem to do public work on private emails. Again, I assume it is in part to avoid scrutiny. So fucking what? If (and that's a big if) they comply with the rules for handling/preserving emails, and in HRC's case that is complicated by state secrecy issues, I dont really care.
Frankly, I think there is a decent argument to make that FOIA requests shouldnt cover emails, but only more formal authored documents (FOIA, like civil litigation discovery rules, was not written with email in mind). But even putting that aside, if I was in office I would strongly consider setting up a system to stymie overreaching, politicized investigations where my political opponents demand to see a whole server, regardless of relevance (as Gowdy is doing here in the perpetual Benghazi investigation).
Link - ( New Window )
Look, I take a lawyer's view of things because that's what I am. Rules are set up, and you abide by the rules you're ok. Speed limit is 55, then driving 54 is ok. No brownie points for driving 25 JUST TO BE SURE.
As for the HRC issue, my understanding is that none of the emails identified so far were marked confidential. I dont think you can get on someone much for receiving emails that 4 years later are deemed confidential. Now if there is a category of stuff that is confidential regardless of designation then that's different, and I'd have to think about it.
I do know that it's good that the Obama Admin banned these private servers post-HRC. It's a stupid thing to allow. For the rest, I'll wait to see how this sorts out. Public officials "break the law" all the time. On a practical level it happens, sometimes by accident and sometimes to test the contours of the law. It's part of the process. It's why we have court cases re gov't action. Once we know the facts (and given all the false ledes, I'll wait for something official), I can pass my own judgment on whether she has done something disqualifying her from my vote.
And Headhunter, as far as your list of Marco Rubio Martin O'Malley Scott Walker Bill Clinton, one stands out as actually having been a leader before going on to be president. Yup: Bill Clinton, who was the single most influential member of the Democratic Leadership Council, which kept the Democratic party from listing over too far to the left in the late 1980's/early 1990's.
Trumps biggest challenge, if he were to win, would be in finding real talent to fill the major governmental leadership roles. This is one of the things that sunk Jimmy Carter--all he had was the Georgia Mafia. And George W. was too beholden to neocons who helped drive him into the Iraqi war. Leadership and quality Washington relationships actually matter if you become president. Trump doesn;t have any, and he can;t buy them.,
-- gaffs not mattering so much if you run against Trump; and
--Hillary's e-mail troubles sapping a lot of her strength,
I would guess that the odds of Biden jumping in are getting over 50%. Washington Week this weekend made it sound as if the litany of e-mail stories is likely to go on almost daily for many months. They had no reason to exaggerate, and if she can't get ahead of that, the Dems need an alternative.
There is an awful lot of liberal/moderate super-PAC money sitting on the sidelines right now, which could give Biden a very quick start. That money isn't going to the current Democratic lightweights fighting Hillary. If Biden comes in and the e-mail barrage continues, I could even see her dropping out by early next year.
The NY Times would love to see this scenario, and they will keep pushing it, I suspect. (link)
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
-- gaffs not mattering so much if you run against Trump; and
--Hillary's e-mail troubles sapping a lot of her strength,
I would guess that the odds of Biden jumping in are getting over 50%. Washington Week this weekend made it sound as if the litany of e-mail stories is likely to go on almost daily for many months. They had no reason to exaggerate, and if she can't get ahead of that, the Dems need an alternative.
There is an awful lot of liberal/moderate super-PAC money sitting on the sidelines right now, which could give Biden a very quick start. That money isn't going to the current Democratic lightweights fighting Hillary. If Biden comes in and the e-mail barrage continues, I could even see her dropping out by early next year.
The NY Times would love to see this scenario, and they will keep pushing it, I suspect. (link) Link - ( New Window )
Biden is a walking gag reel. He's not Trump, but he won't be running against Trump. His opposition ads will write themselves. And this is not to say that the Republicans who might be up against him don't have huge negatives of their own, or that he won't acquit himself reasonably well in a debate, but do you really want to hang your hat on that?
That was pretty much my impression.
Who are some of these names? I think candidates like Warren have some of the same negatives as Bernie, enthusiasm but a lack of broad appeal. Who are some of the folks you think would shine if given the chance?
Just my opinion, but enjoy the popcorn while it lasts.
Link - ( New Window )
You have tunnel vision. Fauxcohontas appeals to bits and pieces of the Democratic constituency (educated white liberals in particular) but she will not raise money well and what in her perpetually angry demeanor is going to make her empathetic to everyone is in the Democrats' big tent? She might be a viable Veep candidate, especially for a guy like Biden who has less pull within the faculty lounges, but she is not the one to keep the Obama Coalition together.
Quote:
she'd be tied with, if not leading, HRC. I really hope Liz gets in, but it looks unlikely.
You have tunnel vision. Fauxcohontas appeals to bits and pieces of the Democratic constituency (educated white liberals in particular) but she will not raise money well and what in her perpetually angry demeanor is going to make her empathetic to everyone is in the Democrats' big tent? She might be a viable Veep candidate, especially for a guy like Biden who has less pull within the faculty lounges, but she is not the one to keep the Obama Coalition together.
Perhaps.
This is like the magazine Highlights from the dentist office. Who can spot the problem?
Link - ( New Window )
One of the few women who can be alone with him and not have to worry about being molested, lol.
The thing that sunk Jimmy Carter was that he had a Congress, particularly the House, that was so far to the left and so anti-military (both in terms of respect and funding) that being 1 helicopter short would have been normal operating status. Remember, they had enough helicopters on the carrier, it was just that enough of them were in a state of disrepair such that the mission had to be undertaken with no reserve copter.
I'm aware of that. He was right in what he said, but was gracious enough not to specify why he was 1 copter short.
I find handwashing to be a pain in the ass. Therefore I won't do it before surgery or between patients. There's no law.....
Quote:
and I found it to be a pain in the ass. I remember when my old job switched the policy and let people check work email on personal phones. Like half the lawyers had new smart phones within a month.
I find handwashing to be a pain in the ass. Therefore I won't do it before surgery or between patients. There's no law.....
Quote:
In comment 12430864 Deej said:
Quote:
and I found it to be a pain in the ass. I remember when my old job switched the policy and let people check work email on personal phones. Like half the lawyers had new smart phones within a month.
I find handwashing to be a pain in the ass. Therefore I won't do it before surgery or between patients. There's no law.....
My Obamacare benefits suck. Do you give a nonsterilization discount?
Eh. I still have to wash my hands after....
Link - ( New Window )
And although he will be dismissed by the likes of Dean and Carville as a partisan hack, their interview with Michael Mukasey was even more damning.
Quote:
People voting for a name or a party without looking at character at all. It's not like HRC doesn't have a track record that you can judge her from. The minions that they have propped up on these shows defending her are pathetic.
Great point--doesn't happen to other side. Thanks for all your insight!
Except that Democrats area always telling the world that they are so much smarter than Republicans. Republicans have accepted that they are not as smart.....
Quote:
In comment 12432591 buford said:
Quote:
People voting for a name or a party without looking at character at all. It's not like HRC doesn't have a track record that you can judge her from. The minions that they have propped up on these shows defending her are pathetic.
Great point--doesn't happen to other side. Thanks for all your insight!
Except that Democrats area always telling the world that they are so much smarter than Republicans. Republicans have accepted that they are not as smart.....
Quote:
In comment 12432591 buford said:
Quote:
People voting for a name or a party without looking at character at all. It's not like HRC doesn't have a track record that you can judge her from. The minions that they have propped up on these shows defending her are pathetic.
Great point--doesn't happen to other side. Thanks for all your insight!
Except that Democrats area always telling the world that they are so much smarter than Republicans. Republicans have accepted that they are not as smart.....
Ugh.
Ugh.
Just trying to avoid a Hitler reference- those never go over well
Ugh.
So now we have the Clintdashians going against the KarTrumpains and the ghost of Howard Beale is the most important historic figure in this election.
And it's a big point of advantage for her.
Because abortion providers are threatened, clinics are bombed, doctors have been murdered.
That's terrorism, folks.
It wasn't a matter of 'if', it was a matter of 'when' Hillary was going to pull the trigger and begin using this point of attack.
The usage of the term 'Terrorist' isn't some off-handed, Trump-esqe gaffe. That's VERY intentional and the first salvo fired in the REAL Presidential campaign for 2016.
Quote:
.
Yup.
And it's a big point of advantage for her.
Because abortion providers are threatened, clinics are bombed, doctors have been murdered.
That's terrorism, folks.
Quote:
In comment 12439509 njm said:
Quote:
.
Yup.
And it's a big point of advantage for her.
Because abortion providers are threatened, clinics are bombed, doctors have been murdered.
That's terrorism, folks.
And you're accusing a specific GOP candidate of this or the RNC in general?
But it's a fact. You're a hard-line, no exceptions Pro-Lifer who supports minimalizing access to what IS a Constitutional right - you are supporting and enabling people who actually DO partake in what equates to terrorist activities.
The quote: "Now, extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups, we expect that from people who don't want to live in the modern world, but it's a little hard to take from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States"
So - she's focusing on "Extreme views on women" - but the terrorist terminology has a literal place in the discussion that I've raised here. Hillary didn't go as far as I did, but that is EXACTLY what that language is referencing.
Quote:
.
Yup.
And it's a big point of advantage for her.
Because abortion providers are threatened, clinics are bombed, doctors have been murdered.
That's terrorism, folks.
But none of the Republican candidates have condoned or supported in any way the bombings and murder, none of which have taken place since the campaign season has begun.
So I guess Hillary has joined the gang that couldn't shoot straight. OMG, did I just accuse Hillary of being a gang member?
It wasn't a matter of 'if', it was a matter of 'when' Hillary was going to pull the trigger and begin using this point of attack.
The usage of the term 'Terrorist' isn't some off-handed, Trump-esqe gaffe. That's VERY intentional and the first salvo fired in the REAL Presidential campaign for 2016.
Of course if she too shrill and indiscriminate as far as who she accuses then it could backfire. And remember, what plays in the Northeast and the Left Coast does not always play in Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin and Colorado.
Not directly. But the implication is there, couched in the language.
She knows exactly what she is doing and the comment was an intentional draw away from the e-mail crap.
Again, do you think that 47% of people are like terrorists because they are pro-life?
Stupid bullshit, no more 'rooted in truth' than comparing Sanger to Himmler because they treated certain people as subhuman.
Again, do you think that 47% of people are like terrorists because they are pro-life?
That isn't the point.
The point is Hillary's usage of the word terrorist and what it suggests. What it implies.
Again, her quote: "Now, extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups, we expect that from people who don't want to live in the modern world, but it's a little hard to take from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States"
OK, so she's talking about 'extreme views' here.
The rest of it is pretty vanilla excepting one word.
"Terrorist".
So - no - she isn't implying that Pro Lifers are terrorists and neither am I.
But she IS smartly invoking the word to make people remember.
Oh yeah, they bomb abortion clinics here. They murder doctors.
She's linking the Pro-Life movement in general without a direct accusation or even talking directly about the issue.
Expect MUCH more of this in the next year. By November, you'll wish Roe and Wade were both aborted. :)
IMO, they are the extremists.
So again, being against abortion is equal to being a terrorist?
What R candidate has advocated enslaving women?
Which R candidate has advocated women not drive or vote?
Which R candidate has said that women must be covered from head to toe?
Which R candidate has advocated punishing women who they perceive as an adulterer by beheading?
Those are terrorist positions on women. Not being pro-life.
And yes, but saying that anyone who is pro-life, candidate or not, is equal to a terrorist, she is calling all pro-lifers terrorists.
IMO, they are the extremists.
Quote:
It was a planned comment and pretty fair, IMO. She's not saying pro-lifers are terrorists. Just that the republican candidates for Pres share some the same views of women as religious whacko terrorists. It's an obvious exaggeration but rooted in truth.
So again, being against abortion is equal to being a terrorist?
What R candidate has advocated enslaving women?
Which R candidate has advocated women not drive or vote?
Which R candidate has said that women must be covered from head to toe?
Which R candidate has advocated punishing women who they perceive as an adulterer by beheading?
Those are terrorist positions on women. Not being pro-life.
And yes, but saying that anyone who is pro-life, candidate or not, is equal to a terrorist, she is calling all pro-lifers terrorists.
And I will remind you, I am pro-choice. But I don't worship at the cult of abortion. Like some do.
And I will remind you, I am pro-choice. But I don't worship at the cult of abortion. Like some do.
Nobody here.
Also - there is no such thing as "pro-abortion".
You do realize you're simply flipping the exact complaint you're logging here.
Yes, what Hillary is doing is alluding to a straw man. Just like the pro-abortion strawman that has been paraded around by pro-lifers for decades.
What's good for the goose, I say.
Not privvy to the background - and don't really care - but I do not see anything on this thread (or most threads she participates on) that should garner some of the comment directed at her... other than the fact that the people directing them at her don't agree with her politically.
So terrorists don't let women go to school, don't let them vote, or go outside without their faces covered, or talk alone with a man, or drive. They believe in genital mutilation, stoning and killing family members who have "sinned". Which of these views is it that pro-lifers share?
But you can feel the way you feel. You rarely contribute here which is fine.
Quote:
It was a planned comment and pretty fair, IMO. She's not saying pro-lifers are terrorists. Just that the republican candidates for Pres share some the same views of women as religious whacko terrorists. It's an obvious exaggeration but rooted in truth.
So terrorists don't let women go to school, don't let them vote, or go outside without their faces covered, or talk alone with a man, or drive. They believe in genital mutilation, stoning and killing family members who have "sinned". Which of these views is it that pro-lifers share?
You forgot selling them as sex slaves.
Hey- Trump's already in the race and I believe Kim Kardashian will be old enough to run in 2016. Let's skip the preliminaries. 60% of the female electorate won't vote for Trump under any circumstances and Kardashian can get a majority of the male vote one voter at a time. Howard Beale would be pleased.
Quote:
47% of the people in the US are also like that? You may want to get out a bit more.
And I will remind you, I am pro-choice. But I don't worship at the cult of abortion. Like some do.
Who said 47% of Americans are like that?
Nobody here.
Also - there is no such thing as "pro-abortion".
You do realize you're simply flipping the exact complaint you're logging here.
Yes, what Hillary is doing is alluding to a straw man. Just like the pro-abortion strawman that has been paraded around by pro-lifers for decades.
What's good for the goose, I say.
See if you can follow the logic. Hillary says that candidates that are against abortion are like terrorists in their views on women. Well, 47% of people in the US, you know, the country that she is running to be President of, are against abortion. So she is also saying that they are like terrorists.
Of course, she ignores what the terrorists are really like, typical.
And of course there are people who are pro-abortion up to the last minute, including HRC and most of the DNC. I'd say that is an extreme view and not shared by the majority of Americans.
Quote:
It was a planned comment and pretty fair, IMO. She's not saying pro-lifers are terrorists. Just that the republican candidates for Pres share some the same views of women as religious whacko terrorists. It's an obvious exaggeration but rooted in truth.
So again, being against abortion is equal to being a terrorist?
What R candidate has advocated enslaving women?
Which R candidate has advocated women not drive or vote?
Which R candidate has said that women must be covered from head to toe?
Which R candidate has advocated punishing women who they perceive as an adulterer by beheading?
Those are terrorist positions on women. Not being pro-life.
And yes, but saying that anyone who is pro-life, candidate or not, is equal to a terrorist, she is calling all pro-lifers terrorists.
LOL. She didn't say that anyone that is pro life is equal to a terrorist. If you think she did then you suck at English.
I would say that the point of the comment is not that the beliefs are the same and the two groups are equal - although feel free to be offended by that, if you like. But more that both groups take patriarchal views that are rooted in religion and foist them upon others.
Not privvy to the background - and don't really care - but I do not see anything on this thread (or most threads she participates on) that should garner some of the comment directed at her... other than the fact that the people directing them at her don't agree with her politically.
Because they are assholes who think it makes them bigger people if they say these stupid things. They can't discuss any issue without resorting to it. Little minds.
Quote:
In comment 12439722 BeerFridge said:
Quote:
It was a planned comment and pretty fair, IMO. She's not saying pro-lifers are terrorists. Just that the republican candidates for Pres share some the same views of women as religious whacko terrorists. It's an obvious exaggeration but rooted in truth.
So again, being against abortion is equal to being a terrorist?
What R candidate has advocated enslaving women?
Which R candidate has advocated women not drive or vote?
Which R candidate has said that women must be covered from head to toe?
Which R candidate has advocated punishing women who they perceive as an adulterer by beheading?
Those are terrorist positions on women. Not being pro-life.
And yes, but saying that anyone who is pro-life, candidate or not, is equal to a terrorist, she is calling all pro-lifers terrorists.
LOL. She didn't say that anyone that is pro life is equal to a terrorist. If you think she did then you suck at English.
I would say that the point of the comment is not that the beliefs are the same and the two groups are equal - although feel free to be offended by that, if you like. But more that both groups take patriarchal views that are rooted in religion and foist them upon others.
So what in the R candidates views make them like terrorists? She's been harping on Rubio for his pro-life stance. Is there an R candidate advocating the things that I mentioned before that terrorists do?
It's a bullshit comment from a bullshit person.
I would say that the point of the comment is not that the beliefs are the same and the two groups are equal - although feel free to be offended by that, if you like. But more that both groups take patriarchal views that are rooted in religion and foist them upon others.
The point of the comment is to distract the masses from her mishandling of classified information. She clearly meant to imply exactly what buford is saying and knew the media would run with it. (first smart thing she's done in months!)
And not all views against abortion are rooted in religion. I imagine many of those against late term abortions have their views rooted in science which has shown high survival rates for those born at that particular point in time.
It's anyone's guess as to why HRC would willingly step into it unless she is concerned over some part of the D base.
So what in the R candidates views make them like terrorists? She's been harping on Rubio for his pro-life stance. Is there an R candidate advocating the things that I mentioned before that terrorists do?
It's a bullshit comment from a bullshit person.
A few of these candidates support ALL Abortions being illegal, even in cases of incest or rape, right?
THAT is what Hillary is alluding to. Not genital mutilation.
You guys are just proving to me that this is going to be a cakewalk for Hillary. WAY to easy to make right-wingers overreact on it.
I'd say it's vague, but also weasely and inflammatory. After re-reading it several times, I'm not sure it logically equates to stating Republicans are equivalent to terrorists. But in another sense, if you are listening to it once, maybe on TV, I'm sure many viewers would come away think she had accused certain GPO candidates & terrorist to be equivalent.
I wish there were some political scientists on this board that could break this down.
Quote:
I would say that the point of the comment is not that the beliefs are the same and the two groups are equal - although feel free to be offended by that, if you like. But more that both groups take patriarchal views that are rooted in religion and foist them upon others.
The point of the comment is to distract the masses from her mishandling of classified information. She clearly meant to imply exactly what buford is saying and knew the media would run with it. (first smart thing she's done in months!)
And not all views against abortion are rooted in religion. I imagine many of those against late term abortions have their views rooted in science which has shown high survival rates for those born at that particular point in time.
All the candidates' views on abortion are rooted in religion. Just ask 'em.
Quote:
In comment 12439883 BeerFridge said:
So what in the R candidates views make them like terrorists? She's been harping on Rubio for his pro-life stance. Is there an R candidate advocating the things that I mentioned before that terrorists do?
It's a bullshit comment from a bullshit person.
Oh, that's easy. Supporting an agenda that takes freedom from women being able to make their own decisions pertaining to what is their Constitutional right.
A few of these candidates support ALL Abortions being illegal, even in cases of incest or rape, right?
THAT is what Hillary is alluding to. Not genital mutilation.
You guys are just proving to me that this is going to be a cakewalk for Hillary. WAY to easy to make right-wingers overreact on it.
That is absurd. It's amazing how far some of you will go to defend her. Somehow, being against abortion is not something that terrorists go on about. Now your run of the mill Muslim, yes, would be against abortion. As would most practicing Catholics. So I guess they are terrorists too. And anyone who is pro-life.
I'd say it's vague, but also weasely and inflammatory. After re-reading it several times, I'm not sure it logically equates to stating Republicans are equivalent to terrorists. But in another sense, if you are listening to it once, maybe on TV, I'm sure many viewers would come away think she had accused certain GPO candidates & terrorist to be equivalent.
Sorry for that stream of consciousness post I am making
It follows her like stink on a skunk, but didn't stop her from becoming Senator, won't stop her from beating Bernie Sanders or Jeb. They're simply too weak. A good candidate could beat her.
Really, the best odds of her getting beat has nothing to do with her or her opponents. The best the right can hope for right now is for an economic slowdown. A tanking economy would change things dramatically.
e-mail scandal is already leveling off. She's still beating everyone head to head.
She's still money to make Bill Clinton the first male first-lady. Vegas loves her.
Head to Head - ( New Window )
Quote:
associate with Hillary is liar, so maybe she should worry about that.
Yes. Hillary Clinton is the first dishonest politician.
It follows her like stink on a skunk, but didn't stop her from becoming Senator, won't stop her from beating Bernie Sanders or Jeb. They're simply too weak. A good candidate could beat her.
Really, the best odds of her getting beat has nothing to do with her or her opponents. The best the right can hope for right now is for an economic slowdown. A tanking economy would change things dramatically.
e-mail scandal is already leveling off. She's still beating everyone head to head.
She's still money to make Bill Clinton the first male first-lady. Vegas loves her.
Head to Head - ( QaNew Window )
Yes. Hillary Clinton is the first dishonest politician.
It follows her like stink on a skunk, but didn't stop her from becoming Senator, won't stop her from beating Bernie Sanders or Jeb.
That says less about her than it does about us
She can't do that without revealing herself as the demagogue that she is
It's was a strategic comment made by a candidate who is as calculating and as much a career politician as any.
I'm not emotionally tied to the comment or the issue.
The Republicans do the same thing with it.
They use abortion as a carrot on a stick. They will never overturn the Federal Legislation. That's already clear and historically proven.
It's a talking point. They talk to their demographic, Hillary talks to hers.
And Hillary's demographic is bigger. As I've pointed out on this thread, women delivered the White House in 08' and 12'.
If you think LESS women are going to vote for Hillary than Obama, I've got this bridge to sell ya'.
Quote:
stuff is ridiculous. Not sure I see anything she said here is out of line but you will get this reaction from some no matter what she says.
All politicians need to lie. However more and more people are beginning to recognize the difference between the lies of an average polician and the lies of a pathological liar like Hillary. Recent polls show that.
Different than most other politicians in the sense that we know that this absence of character exists *before* making our choice to vote. It's not a coming test of her character, but of ours.
Like I said, it's split about 47/48% so I doubt it makes that much difference. And I see that today, Hillary has moved on to the equal pay canard. Maybe if she paid the women on her staff the same as men she wouldn't look like that much of a hypocrite.
Quote:
xmeadowlander - you are embarrassing yourself on this topic with the lengths you are going to defend HRC's dumb comment - especially since you claim not to be a fan of hers. And if you choose to be intellectually honest, you'd be front and center on the other side of this argument if a Repub said anything like this.
I'm not defending it.
It's was a strategic comment made by a candidate who is as calculating and as much a career politician as any.
I'm not emotionally tied to the comment or the issue.
The Republicans do the same thing with it.
They use abortion as a carrot on a stick. They will never overturn the Federal Legislation. That's already clear and historically proven.
It's a talking point. They talk to their demographic, Hillary talks to hers.
And Hillary's demographic is bigger. As I've pointed out on this thread, women delivered the White House in 08' and 12'.
If you think LESS women are going to vote for Hillary than Obama, I've got this bridge to sell ya'.
That's the problem. She really doesn't give a shit about womens rights (remember her laughing about getting a rapist off in a trial?) The only thing she is emotionally tied to is money and power.
Less people are going to vote for Hillary than Obama. Certainly less men. And the article I posted yesterday, she is losing white women in droves.
It drove her nuts.
Quote:
I know the topic gets out the social conservatives, but it seems a liability for the Rs. I can't see how it helps with women voters.
Like I said, it's split about 47/48% so I doubt it makes that much difference. And I see that today, Hillary has moved on to the equal pay canard. Maybe if she paid the women on her staff the same as men she wouldn't look like that much of a hypocrite.
The demographics are bad though. If they're courting older men, then it would make sense.
Quote:
In comment 12440108 LG in NYC said:
Quote:
xmeadowlander - you are embarrassing yourself on this topic with the lengths you are going to defend HRC's dumb comment - especially since you claim not to be a fan of hers. And if you choose to be intellectually honest, you'd be front and center on the other side of this argument if a Repub said anything like this.
I'm not defending it.
It's was a strategic comment made by a candidate who is as calculating and as much a career politician as any.
I'm not emotionally tied to the comment or the issue.
The Republicans do the same thing with it.
They use abortion as a carrot on a stick. They will never overturn the Federal Legislation. That's already clear and historically proven.
It's a talking point. They talk to their demographic, Hillary talks to hers.
And Hillary's demographic is bigger. As I've pointed out on this thread, women delivered the White House in 08' and 12'.
If you think LESS women are going to vote for Hillary than Obama, I've got this bridge to sell ya'.
That's the problem. She really doesn't give a shit about womens rights (remember her laughing about getting a rapist off in a trial?) The only thing she is emotionally tied to is money and power.
Less people are going to vote for Hillary than Obama. Certainly less men. And the article I posted yesterday, she is losing white women in droves.
It's gonna hard to find a person disinterested in money and power that also is willing to run for president on either side of the aisle.
2) HRC is going to be the nominee.
3) Biden is just a media driven story. I love Joe, but he's like 30 points down in the polls. If he announces, those #s will go down.
4) The media is bored with HRC. They thrive on drama, thus the sudden appeal for a challenger to HRC.
5) All I heard from the media yesterday was that HRC was in a free-fall, yet she was beating every GOP challenger.
2) HRC is going to be the nominee.
3) Biden is just a media driven story. I love Joe, but he's like 30 points down in the polls. If he announces, those #s will go down.
4) The media is bored with HRC. They thrive on drama, thus the sudden appeal for a challenger to HRC.
5) All I heard from the media yesterday was that HRC was in a free-fall, yet she was beating every GOP challenger.
i dont sit here and defend people and bash others. And I didnt bash here, I stated what SHE said. I didnt make shit up. Or defend anyone of anything.
Your act is old and tiresome. Its people like you who ruin political threads and will soon be deleted. And I am not the only one who has said your act is tiresome.
Grow up already.
But i am sure how we will hear about Jeb's menu choice for today and why it sucks and how he hopes he is the GOP candidate.
Quote:
1) So rich that a certain poster that's handle begins with D & ends with P criticizes me for forever bashing the son of 41 and brother of 43, yet attacks HRC all the time. 'Everyone knows how you feel.' Pretty comical, though I'm sure he'll respond with some BS response.
2) HRC is going to be the nominee.
3) Biden is just a media driven story. I love Joe, but he's like 30 points down in the polls. If he announces, those #s will go down.
4) The media is bored with HRC. They thrive on drama, thus the sudden appeal for a challenger to HRC.
5) All I heard from the media yesterday was that HRC was in a free-fall, yet she was beating every GOP challenger.
i dont sit here and defend people and bash others. And I didnt bash here, I stated what SHE said. I didnt make shit up. Or defend anyone of anything.
Your act is old and tiresome. Its people like you who ruin political threads and will soon be deleted. And I am not the only one who has said your act is tiresome.
Grow up already.
Dude, he's not talking about you. Your handle doesn't end in a 'P'.
But i am sure how we will hear about Jeb's menu choice for today and why it sucks and how he hopes he is the GOP candidate.
LOL. Just comical. I detest Jeb, just like you detest HRC. But you have the gall to attack me when I call you out for your constant 'Hillary sucks' posts. Pot meet kettle.
Quote:
when someone says something bad about Hillary. Her white knight comes to her defense.
But i am sure how we will hear about Jeb's menu choice for today and why it sucks and how he hopes he is the GOP candidate.
LOL. Just comical. I detest Jeb, just like you detest HRC. But you have the gall to attack me when I call you out for your constant 'Hillary sucks' posts. Pot meet kettle.
I like to see you post all my hillary sucks posts that u have made. yes I don't like HRC, but I don't go around starting threads like yoh did with Jeb bush because everyone was picking on HRC.
for as someone who is smart, I don't understand why you aren't getting the point. you constantly berate and attack Jeb and say how awful he is. has a single poster ever defended Jeb here? I don't think anyone here likes him. so why continue to say the same thing over and over and over and over again.
this is a hillary thread, and you defend here til the cows come home and don't understand why people attack here.... well she's the only democratic candidate. people here attack trump, cruz, jeb, walker and every GOP candidate who makes the news. you complain that HRC gets more shit than any other candidate.... well shoukd the media and public just let her slide in her actions judt because she is a shoe in to win? there are not enough democrats to spread the attention too.
5) All I heard from the media yesterday was that HRC was in a free-fall, yet she was beating every GOP challenger.
Of course she is. The poll votes on the GOP side are being split between over a dozen people. Meanwhile, on her side it is really just her and Bernie (and how crazy uncle Joe). Amazing that you don't factor that.
I think a closer view (and more realistic) is to just look at total votes on the left vs on the right.
BTW, there is no way that Obama is going to allow Hillary to be the next POTUS. Before this is over, he is going to throw her under the bus. Then, you will see Elizabeth Warren step up.
What difference does it make how the Republican votes are split? The polls are one against one.
And I will give you 100 to 1 that Warren doesn't run.