These polls were conducted by Bloomberg and the Des Moines Register. The Republican poll shows Trump leading at 23% followed by a surprising showing by Carson at 18%. All the rest have single digits.
In the Democratic poll, Hillary still leads with 37% with Sanders getting close with 30% and the unannounced Biden at 14%.
Link - (
New Window )
Headhunter, she sold influence for money, including to countries/companies in countries who are not our friends.
I can't believe that party loyalty has so badly blinded people here to how serious this situation is.
Why the heck do you think she had the private server in the first place?
Even if you want to bury your head in the sand with the influence pedaling, her criminal (yes CRIMINAL) incompetence in handling our nations top secrets has most likely cost the country billions of dollars and put lives at risk. For what?
She is broken so many laws with this server scandal it's outrageous she hasn't be indicted yet. Worse, the USG officials at State covering it up should have been indicted too.
Romney might have been okay for a Republican. He was level headed. No idea whether he would have moved left or right as president, since I could never tell what he believed in beyond his attitude toward business. I fear he would have been terrified of his own base.
Speaking of shit stirrers
Quote:
I get his rags to riches great inspiring story. Who is he? What is he all about?
He's not a career politician similar to Trump. He's drawing most of his support from the Religious Right; his position on abortion and also believes homosexuality is a choice.
But I think it's deeper than that. I think he hits the Trump/Sanders group but those who like the outsiderness but with a better, less strident, less a-hole of a messenger.
Romney might have been okay for a Republican. He was level headed. No idea whether he would have moved left or right as president, since I could never tell what he believed in beyond his attitude toward business. I fear he would have been terrified of his own base.
You didn't know what his attitude towards Russia was? The media sure did, and those condescending assholes sure turned out to be wrong.
Get behind Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders or someone else. She ought to be under indictment.
Let's say you don't care if government officials are held to a different standard...that the rules and laws shouldn't apply to them. Let's say you don't care if she was criminally careless about national security or if she influence pedaled...
Let's say you don't care about that.
What is there to like about her as a candidate? She's demonstrated a horrible lack of judgement. She accomplished very little as Secretary of State (and she won't even admit to the things she WAS involved in like TPP). She has pulled way to the left this year simply because the party has pulled to the left, begging the question what her real beliefs really are. She seems to have intimate ties to Wall Street. And she's a horrible campaigner (she's nothing like Bill...her press conferences are cringe-worthy). Is her only appeal is that she is a woman?
Did he know that she only used one device (her Blackberry-Iphone-Ipad-Galaxy)? Did he know that she never had or used a .gov email? Did he know that he said don't use your own server and she said fu? or that he said keep Blumenthal away from gov't business and she said fu?
I would think he would be pissed. He is such an autocrat that having a subordinate flaunt his orders would have to cut deeply.
I think he is going to have an awkward decision to make and it will probably be revealed by what Biden does. If justice comes to him and says "there's substance for an indictment, especially since look what we did to Petraeus et al" he either has to say yea or nay. There's a political versus a value judgment to be made and if he goes for the political and gets found out, then there is also a legacy issue he will have to weigh. I do feel it's going to come to his doorstep eventually.
Let's say you don't care if government officials are held to a different standard...that the rules and laws shouldn't apply to them. Let's say you don't care if she was criminally careless about national security or if she influence pedaled...
Let's say you don't care about that.
What is there to like about her as a candidate? She's demonstrated a horrible lack of judgement. She accomplished very little as Secretary of State (and she won't even admit to the things she WAS involved in like TPP). She has pulled way to the left this year simply because the party has pulled to the left, begging the question what her real beliefs really are. She seems to have intimate ties to Wall Street. And she's a horrible campaigner (she's nothing like Bill...her press conferences are cringe-worthy). Is her only appeal is that she is a woman?
And while he claimed vindication post-Crimea, I actually think it's much more of a mixed bag. I've said before that Russia is flexing its muscles as a purely regional power and not the #1 geopolitical foe Romney tagged them as. Ukraine, Crimea. Regional shit. Just like Iran with Iraq and Syria and Yemen. Regional. Russia's economy is collapsing because it's a petrostate suffering from low oil prices and sanctions and I see no signs of their influence in South America, Cuba, South East Asia, Africa etc.
And made up legal standards. For example, there was no legal prohibition on using private email for government work. Eric has said this a half dozen time and I've shown him the precise language proving that he's wrong each time. It is tiresome. He refuses to listen because he was told something else during training.
Now a server become the property of the government because she used it for her SOS duties? Where is that source of law? I've never seen that so it's new to me.
Manh George. She broke the law in the first place simply by having the private server/e-mail system. And the moment it was revealed that there were top secret documents on the system it went to a whole new level. (that was going to be automatic anyway...there is NO WAY a Secretary of State can even do her job without access to marked and non-marked top secret, secret, and confidential documents). She already broke the law...the only question now is whether the Justice Department does anything about it. She also destroyed the server and her staff destroyed their blackberries...another law broken.
Quote:
he's one of the least hard-core Republicans on the panel and that's part of why he's having his problem. You actually have to look beyond his last name.
I look at the fact that Jeb Bush was a signed founding member of the Plan For the New American Century - nearly the entire Bush43 Administration was represented there, as well as Jeb. This was the group that lobbied the Clinton Administration to take military action against Saddam Hussein.
We know what that line of thinking brought us.
I'll pass on handing another one of those assholes the keys.
Bush is establishment to his core and is only slightly right of the Dem party.
That's why I always thought political threads were banned, can't help himself.
On this thread, you called njm a "fucking angel" and Eric a "hyperbolic shit-stirrer".
Personally, I would take both as compliments, but I am weird that way and someone else might not.
Quote:
I'm so glad the site owner is not a hyperbolic shit stirrer
That's why I always thought political threads were banned, can't help himself.
Sorry but that's either a complete distortion or fogginess in your head or you just weren't here reading the forum at the point political threads were originally banned.
Quote:
In comment 12446312 Headhunter said:
Quote:
I'm so glad the site owner is not a hyperbolic shit stirrer
That's why I always thought political threads were banned, can't help himself.
Sorry but that's either a complete distortion or fogginess in your head or you just weren't here reading the forum at the point political threads were originally banned.
I probably wasn't here for the original banning, it was just a theory.
One of the first ones I remember was one he started and was off the rails. Much like the treason claim above.
Link - ( New Window )
I suspect that most Democrats that really follow the news know that this is true at this point. It's a question now of how much it really bothers them.
I suspect Bernie Sanders is doing so well not because of Bernie Sanders, but because of a negative reaction to Hilliary among loyal Democrats. That's my guess.
And as I've told you a half-dozen times, that is the rule now. The rule became effective post-HRC. I've previously showed you the State manual that talks about how the government has an obligation to preserve materials on a private email server, a rule which necessarily permits private email servers. All you ever say in response is that someone told you otherwise, as if that someone trumps written protocols. So instead I'll just quote State employees:
Marie Harf, Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, at official briefing 3/3/2015: "There was no prohibition on using a non-State.gov account for official business as long as it’s preserved.
John Kirby, State spokesman, on CNN 8/24/2015: "at the time she was not violating policy. I can tell you that there was no prohibition for her use of this, and we’ve since changed the policy to discourage that greatly, and in fact, the policy is that you have to use your government account for business."
Cant wait for you to tell me that you heard otherwise though.
If you don't think that, of course you would think it is over the top.
I couldn't take more than 45 seconds of that. And while I'm no supporter of Trump, I have to say that an equivalent (at least a 45 second equivalent) could be produced against just about anyone over some issue.
Clinton charity run by Bill taking donations for charitable purposes from foreign governments (many of them allies): obviously a bribe quid pro quo from a traitorous bitch.
Eric: what is your evidence of quid pro quo? Why was this selling influence, but actual political donations to campaigns or PACs doesnt have you shitting your pants? Oh wait, I know, it's because she was SOS so this is special. Special rules for a special lady.
Marie Harf, Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, at official briefing 3/3/2015: "There was no prohibition on using a non-State.gov account for official business as long as it’s preserved.
Am I wrong, or were more than 30,000 communications NOT preserved? Beyond that, were the determiners of what were NOT preserved any sort of official State Dept. vetting group?
Quote:
It is according to Xmead or, more to the point, that's the only reason you would not vote for her.
xmead has been critical of her handling of the e-mail scandal.
xmead has claimed that many dislike her because she is too Liberal.
xmead has pointed out that many dislike her because she strongly represents the ties to big money and politics.
There are many reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton.
I'm simply pointing out that America chose to completely ignore Colin Powell's use of personal e-mail during his term as SOS, America barely cared about the millions of deleted e-mails of the Bush43 Administration...
...but - this is different, because it's Hillary Clinton.
And it's nothing new. Hell, she was even vilified while suffering the public humiliation of the Lewinski scandal.
I'm not defending Hillary Clinton's actions. Just pointing out the double standard of America and of the people posting here.
Every year, every GS-13 or above has to fill out a form listing possible financial conflicts of interest. I even had to put BBI on mine and explain that the ad networks were general ad companies and not direct payments from specific companies.
I wasnt talking the classified issue (and again, the stuff is being classified after the fact). You are conflating issues.
Eric from BBI : Admin : 10:43 am : link : reply
and citing Harf's comment above, she didn't preserve it. (It being non-classified info I assume because you can't put classified info on a non-secure system...that's not even a question).
The Records Act requires preservation of certain information. What did she not preserve? She turned over 30k+ emails. What precisely are you saying she did not preserve and produce, without rampant speculation please.
More broadly, she is more of the same - anyone who rails against the influence of corporations and pulls a lever for her simply isn't paying attention.
More of the same from both sides no doubt explains the current status of wholly unpalatable candidates such as Trump and Carson.
Part of it is anti-establishment, part of it is nobody has really cared enough to put the effort into opposition research and publicity on the guy.
Quote:
In comment 12446212 Headhunter said:
Quote:
I get his rags to riches great inspiring story. Who is he? What is he all about?
He's not a career politician similar to Trump. He's drawing most of his support from the Religious Right; his position on abortion and also believes homosexuality is a choice.
Maybe.
But I think it's deeper than that. I think he hits the Trump/Sanders group but those who like the outsiderness but with a better, less strident, less a-hole of a messenger.
Bill, do agree. He comes across as a nice guy; religious beliefs sincere which would appeal to many voters not just evangelicals. In the first debate received criticism by pundits that he did not make a case for himself. However, he did make several humble comments. If that's how he's coming across on the stump, I can see the appeal.
Conversely, it was thought that Cruz would be the "champion" of the evangelicals. Regardless of your opinion of Cruz, he doesn't come across as nice or humble but more often than not the opposite.
1) nothing
2) fine
3) loss of ex USG priveldges
4) probaation
5) jail
You may say I'm conflating the two, but almost everything she did by e-mail was classified, whether marked or not.
It is a fact that there was classified material on her system. She broke the law...it was impossible for her not to break the law given her job and the information she had to access.
Then she had the server wiped. She's not allowed to do that.
Every year, every GS-13 or above has to fill out a form listing possible financial conflicts of interest. I even had to put BBI on mine and explain that the ad networks were general ad companies and not direct payments from specific companies.
You speak in sweeping generalities. There are ethics rules, so she must have violated them? Why dont you identify the specific rule you think was violated. And specifically how that ethics rule relates not to gifts to the government employee, but to a charity run by that employee's spouse. In fact, I think there was a specific ethics agreement with the administration and the charity. The agreement and charity predated her confirmation, where she was confirmed 94-2.
The charity identified a single breach of that agreement -- an unsolicited $500k donation from Algeria immediately following the Haiti quake. The charity disclosed the donation but mistakenly did not inform State. If you think that the charity's error makes her unethical, that's your right. Good on you.
Clinton private email violated 'clear-cut' State Dept. rules Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/state-department-email-rule-hillary-clinton-115804#ixzz3kV1xIfYJ - ( New Window )
That's not all you can tell me. You can also tell me that the no rule actually said prohibited the use of private email for State business. You simply refuse to do so, and instead keep posting incorrectly that conducting USG business on a private server is breaking the law. I wish you would stop saying that because it is demonstrably wrong no matter what you were told.
Recall she made a $99,000.00 profit on a $1,000.00 investment in one day, when her husband was a governer, and it was found to be legal.
What did she not preserve? Apparently about 30,000 e-mails, although some may yet be recovered. Was there an official State Department vetting of what was erased? Not that I've heard about. So what did she, and the folks who serve HER and not State decide to delete? I don't know. What I do know is that there were substantial possibilities of conflict of interest with respect to the Clinton Foundation. I don't recall a similar Powell Foundation back in the day. She was communication with Sidney Blumenthal, someone who the WH deemed a persona non grata. We've seen some e-mails. What haven't we seen? Hopefully the FBI and the various IGs can give us a clue.