Like, mc mullen would probably be an even more dangerous candidate than trump, because i would assume trump lets someone else reign while he just keeps on clowning arround (while mc mullen is a mormon with some fairly radical views).
But for the big WTF moment alone, i would not even be bad if mc mullen wins.
If Mcmullen wins, then that would make things quite interesting. Don't know how he fares with the remnants of the Republican Party, but I'd say they'd rather have him than Trump.
Last time Romney according to 538 had around 9% chances of winning. And Romney is much fitter than Trump for that role.
At this rate it wouldn't be very surprising if Trump ends up winning
Damn, so now there are emails that make the point the clintons spent 3 million dollars on chelsea clinton's wedding.... At this point I do still think that clinton is a superior alternative not only to donald trump but also any republican alternative (their moderate members are still far right wingers who think the earth is 6000 years old) but I still can' help but think: Dammit democrats, what have you done to us!?
Answer: Most people don't give a shit. Only like 10 percent of the voting block are informed voters, the rest don't make decisions as nuanced as they details.
A quick look at mcmulling's policies suggests he is only marginally different from generic republicans. He knows climate change is an actual thing, disagrees with obamacare but mentions he agrees with a few of its provisions (rather than outright reject everything). Other than that he seems completely generic. Sort of like voting for marco rubio.
A quick look at mcmulling's policies suggests he is only marginally different from generic republicans. He knows climate change is an actual thing, disagrees with obamacare but mentions he agrees with a few of its provisions (rather than outright reject everything). Other than that he seems completely generic. Sort of like voting for marco rubio.
So he doesn't seem to be that bad. Or, at least sounds reasonable (I think).
Also, about Chelsea's wedding: Isn't it illegal for them to use the Foundation's money for personal gain (unless weddings aren't considered as one)? Or does that only apply for funding political campaigns like what the Trump Foundation did for Pam Bondi?
So he doesn't seem to be that bad. Or, at least sounds reasonable (I think).
Also, about Chelsea's wedding: Isn't it illegal for them to use the Foundation's money for personal gain (unless weddings aren't considered as one)? Or does that only apply for funding political campaigns like what the Trump Foundation did for Pam Bondi?
Well, my perspective is that people like marco rubio is as it is an insane right wing nutjob so at least for me it is kinda hard to make the point that mcmulling would be reasonable if he is only marginally better. Accepting scientific consensus is great.... for a republican. But that is like saying it is great that someone accepts 2 + 2 = 4. If he actually has an alternative to obamacare he would be a pretty different from most republicans though (most just want to repeal and stop there as far as I can tell).
As far as I can tell that would be pretty damn illegal. Now, the issue is that we only know of an email which says this. There is no more actual information or context regarding this. No mention of hillary and bill being directly involved in this either. It's just a guy on an email saying she used foundation money for her wedding. To the best of my knowledge there isn't any more information on the issue.
Well, my perspective is that people like marco rubio is as it is an insane right wing nutjob so at least for me it is kinda hard to make the point that mcmulling would be reasonable if he is only marginally better. Accepting scientific consensus is great.... for a republican. But that is like saying it is great that someone accepts 2 + 2 = 4. If he actually has an alternative to obamacare he would be a pretty different from most republicans though (most just want to repeal and stop there as far as I can tell).
As far as I can tell that would be pretty damn illegal. Now, the issue is that we only know of an email which says this. There is no more actual information or context regarding this. No mention of hillary and bill being directly involved in this either. It's just a guy on an email saying she used foundation money for her wedding. To the best of my knowledge there isn't any more information on the issue.
A quick look at mcmulling's policies suggests he is only marginally different from generic republicans. He knows climate change is an actual thing, disagrees with obamacare but mentions he agrees with a few of its provisions (rather than outright reject everything). Other than that he seems completely generic. Sort of like voting for marco rubio.
Voting for Marco Rubio or McMullin is better than voting for DJT. And with McMullin, you have a former CIA operative so he's better in foreign relations department.
The emails discussing it may not on itself be enough to prove it, but yes, funneling Foundation funds and spending it on weddings, travels, speeches etc would be illegal, but no one gives a crap about inappropriately handling nonprofit funds or the potential of it so nothing will come of it.
Can someone explain more of Evan McMullen? I've seen so little of him yet I only hear how he's crazy from both sides. From what I can find he doesn't seem too bad...
No, the point is she came into an office culture in which her behaviour was absolutely normal and shared by prior secretaries of state, and that she did not reveal any classified information.
At worst, she did not follow a safety measure while intend could not be shown by the numerous investigations.
That is a COMPLETELY different thing.
As i said, you are comparing a thief to someone who forgot to lock the door.
And in which way did clinton do it for personal gain and to 'avoid being caught on lies'?
She did it for the same reason the prior secretary of state did it: For convenience.
And it is actually a widespread problem in politician's circles. Basically every EU politician has a crypt phone but usually uses the normal one for convenience, which is not allowed but the modus operandi.
It seems to be the same in the US, at least in that office.
Acting like clinton did something outstanding here is absurd.
Acting like it is as bad as willfully revealing crucial information to the public is even more absurd.
Snowden might have had good intentions, i give him that, but this is still an actual willfull and planned risk of national safety and personal safety of many US officials.
What has wiki leaks become now? It enables the russians to meddle in your election so someone who can become a docile pet can become president. Great?
It wasn't "just a safety measure" she ignored, it was federal law. It doesn't matter if she didn't know about the law existing, or if she followed others' breaking the law (which is hilarious to defend really) or risking the nation's secrets and security. It doesn't matter. How can you sit there and say that her ignorance, or her willingness to follow others' stupidity and lack of concern for laws, isn't a bad thing?
That comparison is ridiculous. The only difference between Hillary and Snowden is one was public and the other was done under our noses. Both were illegal. Both put us at risk. Both had sensitive information, though only one was done by someone running for POTUS.
Why do you and so many others act like they care if Russia meddles in our election? You don't seem to care at all if Hillary, her campaign or the media does it (in fact, you even claim it doesn't exist), so why should you care if Russia does it? Is it because its believed to be pro-Republican/Trump?
No, what i am saying is that it is not farfetched that she did not know she was not allowed to use a private server.
And no, that is not a whole new discussion about why she is not fit for president.
Every politician has some blind spots and we know the former secretary of state and lots of other workers in that office did the same thing without any problems.
And you think someone should become president who does not know what aleppo is. I'd rather have someone who didnt follow a safety measure some years ago than someone who does not know anything about one of the most urgent crisis of our time.
Secondly: No, the link you sent did not say what you said it said.
They talk about general security and that they need to encrypt their information. By no word was it ever mentioned that it was illegal to use a private server.
Powell talked about security measures which annoyed him and which he tried to circumvent (seemingly thinking that, yes, they make too big of a fuss about it).
So she's ignorant and doesn't know the roles and guidelines of her own job and country? What incredible POTUS material.
And again you bring up the actions of others as if it justifies or makes what she did okay. I just...I don't even have words for it. Someone breaks a law and "oh, but that guy did it too, so its okay". Tell me how others doing it makes it okay that she did it? How does it make her fit to be POTUS? Explain it. Don't just repeat yourself again that she was just following the herd, explain why we the people should elect someone like that.
You sit there and fault Gary Johnson, Donald Trump and many others for every single mistake and action they made but constantly make excuses for and defend Hillary Clinton and her campaign. It's beyond obvious just how one sided you are...
There can not be votes for sanders because sanders lost the primary.
If i was from the US, i might have voted for him back then. But i am not even sure whether he'd be a better candidate than clinton. I think lots of his plans were not thought through. Fact is: Don't talk about sanders when he is out of the race.
You can decide between clinton and trump and that's it because of your system.
Even if there WAS a viable third candidate, he would not win (and there isnt).
It is not the voter's fault if they accept reality. You should do it, too.
Naturally, not everything she did paid off in the end perfectly, but let's dont forget that she started out in a rather rough patch with 9/11 in her state and a rep government above her.
You be the judge, but it's a pretty good run as senator for me.
You do realize saying "fact is" doesn't make it a fact, right?
And I can talk about Sanders all I want, because it is still viable to vote for him (if I wanted to) and he is a hell of a lot better than Clinton. It doesn't matter if he lost the primary. If enough people were intelligent or thoughtful (asking too much, I know), they could just as easily press his name on the ballot as they could Hillary. He's still on it. The only reason the other options are unlikely to help is because there are so many people, like you, that would rather hand over the position of POTUS to a scumbag because they don't want their party to lose to the opposing color's nominee.
The reality is that I live in a world of morons. I accept that, but it doesn't mean I can't try to change it or point it out in hopes that it'll change. It is a slim chance, but worth it in my opinion.
I never said she didn't do anything good. I said a lot of her foreign policies failed miserably. Though I do find it interesting that none of the accomplishments listed state anything about foreign policies or anything beyond social progress/medial care. She did a few good things for society, which many people have done before her. Should they be POTUS too?
I state it once again: Obama forgetting how many states there are is not even close to not knowing even the basic things about one of the biggest crisis in our time.
If Obama had not known what al kaida was, that would have been comparable.
You never said it before, not to me at least, but regardless: stupidity is stupidity. If he can't even remember or figure out how many states our country has and still be elected, not knowing specifically of the location of Aleppo (as he knew of the situation of Syria) shouldn't disqualify Gary Johnson from eligibility if many, including our current POTUS and our candidates, have had one or dozens more mistakes, errors or moments of idiocy.
NO, SHE, DID, NOT.
It is not the same whether you do something that is part of your office culture and never interested anyone due to convenience or willfully make lots of crucial and dangerous information public.
It is simply not the same.
Furthermore: Clinton did a good job in lybia and syria.
Let's don't forget that clinton is not the one controlling american troops. She did what she could, and at least in case of lybia, at least her urge for the US to go in somewhat paid off. We would look at a much worse situation in northafrica now if the US had not intercepted there.
And come on: Ruin your relationships with russia?
Russia just annexed parts of a country, meddles in your election and leads a propaganda war against europe.
If you think you still have 'thin relationships' with russia, you should think again.
Clinton would at least take on that matter (and no, she would not lead a war), while trump simply does not care.
Then you have the irony of history: Trump being your own US Jelzin.
This one is long...and please, no need for the caps.
No she did not what? Make emails of classified information and send it out, or no she did not do it willfully? Do you know what the definition of that word is? If she sat at a phone or computer, opened up her mail and started a discussion on her own, how isn't it willful? Several staffers told her the channels she was using was not safe and she ignored it. What you are trying to say is "it was ignorance (of what she was doing)", not "it wasn't willful".
Like I said, it doesn't matter if others before her did the same thing. It is still wrong, broke federal laws and put risk on the nation. It doesn't matter if her incompetence and negligence did not result in direct assaults on our nation, the act had been done (though if the Russia did it shit is real they got all of those secrets). It doesn't take damage happening for it to be wrong and if you think it does, you are part of the problem.
You call Syria and Libya a "good job"? What? Explain to me how any of that is good. She advised toppling governments by supporting "rebels" (terrorists later) that were replaced by something far more heinous (ISIL). This isn't the first time either. So tell me, what part of any of her policies were good? Explain it. You like to claim that it was, but what has happened in those countries speaks for itself.
"Did what she could" is not enough. U.S citizens don't need someone who's policies failed, shattered countries and put them further into a shit basket. We don't deserve "she did what she could", we deserve better. You are basically saying "at least it wasn't too bad".
I said "whatever thin relations we have with Russia" for a reason. They exist but are extremely fragile. We don't need Hillary Clinton throwing false accusations over and over again at Russia with no evidence to back her claims. We can't afford the potential outcome.
And Russia did not meddle in our election. Where is the proof, the evidence? I don't want to hear the wails of the DNC or their lackeys—I want proof. Assange won't reveal who leaked the emails, but he did say that Russia was not trying to rig the election (though I do find it funny it only matters if the election rigging is done by someone else and apparently "for the Republicans").
About the emails once again: Go to any given hospital. Let them give you a copy of their security and hygiene laws.
Chances are, this copy will at least contain a hundred pages.
Then take any given worker there and check whether he keeps all of those laws for just one hour.
He won't.
And that is not only true for hospitals but basically for any corporate or office.
And i can tell you why: Because if you'd follow all of those rules, it would sometimes compltely shut down any work.
Thus there is an office or workplace culture about which laws are absolutely crucial and which can be acceptably bend or broken sometimes.
And i assure you that no new worker, not even a boss, will read through all of those pages ever.
No single politician, either. If you think any given politician you respect followed all rules he formally has to keep, then you are wrong.
If someone comes to a new workplace and is completely busy already with working on several crisis at once, it is not farfetchted, and even very probably that he does not know all legal formalities.
Which they are. It simply does not make any sense to assume some random hackers could pull of something of that scope.
And it's not like russian cyber espionage is a new problem.
This is not finger pointing.
There is a clear intention for the russians to do it, they have the means (and are basically the only one who has the means and the intent).
I can't believe what I'm reading. So she did willfully ignore federal laws? Let's just forget the rules because it is "easier" to get the job done without them? And you honestly think someone who believes that way, that going through every piece of paper, remembering every law, security measure etc etc isn't important or what our government officials should be doing? You would support someone who cannot even be arsed to remember/know federal laws or even care for them to lead our nation?
If that person doesn't know the trade of his work, he shouldn't be there. You are basically saying a person's absolute ignorance of their own job and the system they would be ruling over doesn't matter and yet in the same instance condemn Gary Johnson for ignorance of his own on foreign affairs?
Wow.
It wasn't random hacks. It was done on purpose, sure, but the assumption that it was Russia without any evidence or past actions is ludicrous, especially after she repeatedly said her servers weren't hacked or that she didn't know of it. Anonymous is also working to hack her emails etc, so why not point a finger or two at them?
Which netted the clinton a very big percentage of the black vote in any election they have ever been in (even in clinton vs obama).
Why? Because while clinton had a poor wording there (tho she never, at no point, called black youth in general that way), most of the black voters agreed with a policy that brought criminals in urban areas to jail faster.
And come on: This is the video: starting at minute 2.
Clinton did not handle that well. But....laughing like an asshole? Wtf? The protestor was calmly brought out while clinton struggled to issue a good answer.
Look at what happens with protestors on trump rallys, then we talk. Because clinton didnt tell people to beat her up, ya know?
And yes, i WOULD call 25 million minor, because they are.
If You had a foundation which raised arround 150mio dollar per year, and one party did a one time donation of 10 mio and as HIGHEST estimation (since the foundation started) 25 mio on a WHOLE (not per year), would you say your foundation is funded by that party? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...7/fact-checking-donations-clinton-foundation/
That was beyond poor wording. She talks of black youth (Ice Cube discusses it pretty well) as if they were the scourge of the earth and you call it "poor wording"? This is just getting ridiculous what her supporters will say to defend her actions. If she misspoke, why won't she direct it when she is confronted? Why has she turned every person away that has asked about it?
Uh...that's not the video I was talking about. I have never seen that one before. I was talking about this one:
That young lady remains calm, respectable and kind the entire time and that's how she's treated? Even if the young woman wasn't respectable (hard to believe) reacting the way that Hillary does is disrespectful, rude and not right for someone running for POTUS.
This always happens "Trump/ers did this and that". Okay, so what? I'm not discussing Trump here. I don't deny shit happens at his rallies. I never have. That gets a shit ton of media coverage already. I don't need to fan the flames any further than every single news media has already done. We know of every little mistake he's made, every crazy action of a supporter...but we don't get coverage on Hillary. We're at the point where dangerous emails get ignored, that her past apparently doesn't matter, or that people can claim the violence her supporters start are almost entirely false or fabricated. It's insane.
A lot of people would not call $25 million a small sum/donation (like they did for Trump's comments). And you are wrong, they donated several times. It was not once or twice. The donations stopped at 2008 (though Qatar had given her $1m after) and then picked up again in 2014. Did you even read the link you gave, or the link that I gave?
....between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation started.
The Washington Post reported that Saudi Arabia gave about $10 million to build the library. (According to the Post, the Saudis gave a similar amount to the George H.W. Bush library.) After the library donation, the Saudis gave very little and stopped giving entirely during the time Clinton was secretary of state. She stepped down in early February 2013.
Saudi Arabia gave again in 2014, but it was a small fraction of what the Gulf State kingdom had given before. These details come from news reports, and when we brought the numbers to the foundation staff, they said they were accurate.
And that doesn't even name the officials that had donated to her (other wealthy SA officials), or the donations given to her in 2014 from Kuwait, Brunei etc etc.
No they are ripping him because he thinks the KKK endorsing him is absolutely fine. He got confronted about that and claimed he didnt know that guy, which is proveably false because he is on record while commenting on that guy before.
Saudi Arabia gave a substantial amount to the clinton foundation only in 2008, when ISIS did not even exist.
Furthermore, it is not that easy to say the saudis support terror. Private Saudi sources do, the government itself (which gave to clinton) cannot be proven to do so (unlike the iranian government in the past). In any case, the claim of clinton being funded by saudi arabia are completely baseless.
There are other things which clinton got calle dout for rightfully (kissing arafat's wife on the cheek back then when she just said israel poisons palestine children, for example), but most of those lie FAR in the past.
That's why people have to resort to stuff she said in the 90's, because there quite honestly is not a lot she did wrong lately.
I think people are so ready to twist his words or find double meanings that they don't stop for one minute to consider his true intent. A while ago, before the recent endorsement (which he disavowed immediately when he found out) he said this:
"The Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep."
He's never once favored this man's endorsement or acknowledgement. And yet he's being ripped a new one (like I said) and yet again the double standards reveal themselves. At least he disavows these donations and support, can't say the same about Hillary and her foundation accepting massive funds from countries that brutally murder women and gays.
Why do Hillary Clinton supporters talk about the past as if it doesn't matter yet readily use the past of others against them? So if she said and did horrible things in the past, it's okay? She's never once apologized for the things she had done in the past, not once. In fact she ignores any questions of it or responsibility and lies about it as soon as she's capable (and keeps that lie going until horrendously caught), but yet we have to ignore the fucked up shit she's done or said?
And I don't know why i bother to ask this since you already said you didn't read them but...did you read the email I linked to? They talk specifically of knowledge knowing SA has direct ties to ISIL and funds them. So apparently we know a lot.
And you are right. I already clarified I meant her foundation was being funded by SA (though evidence supports that funds from the foundation aren't being used like one would assume). The problem is that she accepts it in the first place and with the knowledge she possesses.
And to the second link: Proven true via email? Where did they encourage violence.
They wanted to get some protestors out to the RNC. That's not a crime, and they thought of things to say on their signs.
Where is the scandal here? Where is the violence?
"theatlantic"? You want to use that site over actual DNC/HRC campaign emails? How are they completely baseless? You just read (I hope!) their emails discussing how to oversample and skew data in their favor and you link to a site that says it doesn't exist? Oh my...she could really get away with anything.lol
Did you even watch the video? It goes with the email. I said the emails prove PV right/authentic (there there is a DNC effort to cause disruption at Trump rallies). And if you are unaware, Project V revealed footage of DNC/HRC staffers and workers/consultants discussing how to pay people to "do shit" at rallies and whatnot. The emails prove the intent of pushing disruption etc in the rallies in compliments to the footage.
The problem is that her campaign was pushing disruption, violence, and rigging in some form. Sure it isn't Hillary herself on the streets, but it was her campaign and people she hired. It is the foundation of her presidential run. That's the scandal. If you don't think her campaign running off this kind of shit is wrong, then nothing will ever prove it to you.
It is also not even cracking anything which is remotely true whatsoever.
And quite honestly, i am not really thrilled about more things like that when a lot of your sources already skew the truth or even simply ignore it (putting out emails as 'source' which do not even say what they claim they do).
I mean, sure, we can talk about that per PM, but i have already dug very deep into the trump clinton epstein thing with rather valid sources.
If the only sources pointing to someone being a pedophile are reddit and infofars and stuff like that, i really doubt it is worth my time.
Okay, so "playing dominoes on walnut pasta sauce" isn't worth cracking whatsoever? You don't mind that the words they use are largely used by known pedophiles and child sex ring leaders (which thanks to Weiner, we know exists)? Alright, that's why I asked. I didn't want to waste my time.
(and no, I was going to post links to reddit/pol which links to the emails. It was going to be for convenience of the links being in one place only. I would expect anyone to believe things on reddit.)
Those are, but clinton did not commit them.
Not any of the things i have read into that are in your spoiler tag at least and i stopped at three because there was absolutely no basis for any of them, leaving me pessimistic.
I already explained why the email thing is really not a scandal (aligning with the view of the FBI on that matter), and nor is the superpredator comment.
As i stressed, clinton has a good run as a new york senator, and there are many reps who do (behind closed doors, evidenced by the fact that they worked on bills with her) respect her.
She will make a good president.
Trump wouldn't, nor would stein or johnson.
You could at least pay me the respect of reading the things that I have given you. How in the world can you come to a conclusion without even reading it all? No wonder the email scandals and her failures mean so little to so many people...
No basis? These are emails from her closest advisers, staffers, and consultants. They aren't just comments from some random dude saying he "heard this" or "saw that". This is undeniable prove of corruption in the HRC campaign. Her personally committing any of these actions herself doesn't change what it is, does it?
All I am seeing is your opinion. You say she's a good senator, that her policies work, but you haven't (and probably won't) explain how. A few good deeds for society doesn't make someone POTUS material and "she did what she could" certainly doesn't make her POTUS material either.
I never said calling black people/kids is a scandal, I said it is racist and it is.
NO, her entire campaign did the things a normal political campaign does since decades.
It is not media bias when the media report negatively about a person who quite honestly only says and does negative things like trump.
His comments on vaccines for example. He had absolutely no clue that vaccines do not work well when only some people are vaccined.
Then is TTP comments, where he said: “Is it a perfect document? Based upon what I understand it is not, but I could not tell you what the specifics are for why that’s not the case other than that it’s better than nothing given the current state of trade. So I would be in support of TPP.”
Now, i am strongly in favour of TTP, but it is not a good thing when a politician has absolutely no knowledge about things.
It is not a first and not a last with johnson. He just says things and when asked why he says them he usually has no idea.
If he had the coverage clinton and trump has, he'd naturally say more nonsensial things. It is good for him that he can't.
A normal campaign goes out to hire mentally ill people to start "shit" at opponent's rallies? Normal campaigns incite disruption, violence, data manipulation, media control (poor Bernie), gets to set questions at Presidential Debates, lies and more? Normal campaigns hide servers in basements and discuss extremely sensitive information through email? Hmm, someone should tell Trump so he can deal in.
It is media bias when they only focus on Trump's negative aspects and pay no attention to Hillary's. You don't call the email scandal a scandal but it is one (even CNN can't deny that), and yet it doesn't get any media coverage outside of conservative sources. When only conservative or Trump protesters and supporters who get violent get media coverage, it is media bias. When media channels secretly work to push one candidate over others, it is media bias. Whether or not you accept it that is what it is and is the only reason, for example, Bernie lost so horribly.
Okay, that's two things. What more is there? I'd honestly like to know. It'll be depressing to find out just one more person running is not fit for the job, but I'd like to know.
You mean, hillary clinton staffers making a joke and while doing that, saying that someone actually told clinton she could use a private server, disproving the benghazi claims?
Like, mc mullen would probably be an even more dangerous candidate than trump, because i would assume trump lets someone else reign while he just keeps on clowning arround (while mc mullen is a mormon with some fairly radical views).
But for the big WTF moment alone, i would not even be bad if mc mullen wins.
Right, a joke. I suppose the email talking very seriously about letting Hillary Clinton abuse someone (preferably a staffer) before interviews/debates is also a joke? Let's just assume all the emails are a joke...
Answer me this and please be as honest as you can be: if any of this had been leaked for Trump, if he was caught doing any of this or if his staffers had been, how would you respond to it? Would you still downplay breaking federal laws, accepting funds of any kind from SA etc etc?
Can someone explain more of Evan McMullen? I've seen so little of him yet I only hear how he's crazy from both sides. From what I can find he doesn't seem too bad...
Voting for Marco Rubio or McMullin is better than voting for DJT. And with McMullin, you have a former CIA operative so he's better in foreign relations department.
Well, that much is true, those guys would indeed be preferable to trump. There are things which make trump worst than other republicans but we still need to remember that as a whole generic republicans and trump agree on 90% of things. That 10% could be catastrophic but the 90% is what made the bush presidency. I am not sure if former CIA operative is a positive thing though. To me that's code for "holy shit" levels of shady. Just look at what the CIA did in south america during the 70s and 80s.... and then during the iraq war. Maybe that looks good at the US but outside the US that might be a somewhat scary qualification. I guess I would have to look a tad deeper into his actual record though.
It wasn't "just a safety measure" she ignored, it was federal law. It doesn't matter if she didn't know about the law existing, or if she followed others' breaking the law (which is hilarious to defend really) or risking the nation's secrets and security. It doesn't matter. How can you sit there and say that her ignorance, or her willingness to follow others' stupidity and lack of concern for laws, isn't a bad thing?
A federal law she didnt break since every investigation found that in fact she showed no criminal behaviour.
And it does not a lot to that if she knew or not.
I can say that because i know how these things work.
Being part of an office culture leads to things like that. I didnt say it is not a bad thing, i say it is a structural problem which is not clinton's fault.
She has herself to blame for doing a mistake, but it is not a crime that she committed, nor is it a big deal.
Then noone is great potus material because i can assure you that no signle politician and not even secret service worker knows the complete guidelines of his or her job.
You can take issue in that, and it is a structural issue, but acting like it is a big deal is baseless.
And I can talk about Sanders all I want, because it is still viable to vote for him (if I wanted to) and he is a hell of a lot better than Clinton. It doesn't matter if he lost the primary. If enough people were intelligent or thoughtful (asking too much, I know), they could just as easily press his name on the ballot as they could Hillary. He's still on it. The only reason the other options are unlikely to help is because there are so many people, like you, that would rather hand over the position of POTUS to a scumbag because they don't want their party to lose to the opposing color's nominee.
Ummm.what? I just looked it up, and while it is obscure already that many states allow write ins, 9 states dont. There is no way for sanders to win this election anymore and he already endorsed clinton.
And there is nothing intelligent about doing nonsense like that.
And...lol. People like me? You mean people who are not from the US and have no party loyalities but only common sense and knowledge to judge what happens in the US?
You call Syria and Libya a "good job"? What? Explain to me how any of that is good. She advised toppling governments by supporting "rebels" (terrorists later) that were replaced by something far more heinous (ISIL). This isn't the first time either. So tell me, what part of any of her policies were good? Explain it. You like to claim that it was, but what has happened in those countries speaks for itself.
Which was the best possible move. Gaddafi had to go, he already lost power. Same for assad. If anything, the problem was that it didnt happen fast and effectively enough in syria.
And there was nothign replaced 'later'. Islamic terrorists were there already, assad and gaddafi lost power already.
If the US and europe had not intercepted in lybia, you would have seen a syria right in front of europe, which is not acceptable.
It would have been a much worse situation. Almost the whole world was for the lybia intervention too.
They had a mandate, the arab league and europe explicitly asked for help, too.
Also, the rebels in syria are actually the ones fighting assad and isis. If Assad didnt have the russians to back him, he'd be long gone.
But on the other hand, even with russia backing him, assad was not able to quickly eliminate the opposition (with or without US help, btw).
If anything, if the US had been able to get assad out of the picture faster, syrians would not have had to suffer that long.
That was beyond poor wording. She talks of black youth (Ice Cube discusses it pretty well) as if they were the scourge of the earth and you call it "poor wording"? This is just getting ridiculous what her supporters will say to defend her actions. If she misspoke, why won't she direct it when she is confronted? Why has she turned every person away that has asked about it?
She called black criminals that way. Not black youth. Lots of black people back then agreed with those statement and the policy which followed.
Clinton is bad at handling situations like with the somali woman in the video. I am not denying that at all. It is however not wrong what she told her: That her record regarding the black community speaks for itself. She always had big support in the black community. That is just a fact, even against obama.
Also: Why do you say there is no media coverage of clinton's mistakes? There is. I knew that video from leftwing (not rightwing) sources, because they covered that and because lots of the were pro sanders at that time.
What also speaks for itself is how old that video is. Clinton simply does not do as many mistakes as trump.
In the video she behaved disrespectful towards a possible voter. Alright. That happened and that's not good.
But how can that even compare to trump telling people to beat other people up on his rallys? When did clinton ever do something like that?
And that doesn't even name the officials that had donated to her (other wealthy SA officials), or the donations given to her in 2014 from Kuwait, Brunei etc etc.
He's never once favored this man's endorsement or acknowledgement. And yet he's being ripped a new one (like I said) and yet again the double standards reveal themselves. At least he disavows these donations and support, can't say the same about Hillary and her foundation accepting massive funds from countries that brutally murder women and gays.
It is not a double standard and noone twisted his words.
Trump stands for a racist policy and is endorsed by the KKK. If that does not raise your eyebrow, i really cannot help you there.
He then at first denied he even knew who the guy who endorsed him was (which is provably false) and later simply said he takes every vote without even adressing concerns.
Criticism there is completely warranted for.
Clinton is not operating her foundation and the donations from saudi arabia came in 2008. It is a big stretch to say someone would deny money from a country which is an official ally of the US and if he doesnt he is unethical.
By that logic, someone from europe would be unethical if he took money from the US because death penalty kills many innocent peopl or due to the iraq war.
Noone does that.
Furthermore, inner politics are a completely different playing field. Those are really false equivalences.
If clinton was endorsed by any violent group openly and would be asked about it, i would exspect her to adress it in a competent manner.
If she doesnt do it, criticism is warranted for. But that did not happen. Thus you have to dig up a donation to her foundation which she did not operate at that time from 8 years ago which didnt even amount to much money and she probably didnt even remember due to its insignificance.
And I don't know why i bother to ask this since you already said you didn't read them but...did you read the email I linked to? They talk specifically of knowledge knowing SA has direct ties to ISIL and funds them. So apparently we know a lot.
In 2008, Isis did not exist, and the emails (and yes i have read some and they usually do not say what you think they do) and even now, as i explained you, it is not as easy as 'saudi arabia supports isis'.
It is quite complex, saudi arabia has its own problems with isis and alkaida now and even before it were private saudi persons and not the government itself.
"theatlantic"? You want to use that site over actual DNC/HRC campaign emails? How are they completely baseless? You just read (I hope!) their emails discussing how to oversample and skew data in their favor and you link to a site that says it doesn't exist? Oh my...she could really get away with anything.lol
I want to use a site instead of explaining you what oversampling means.
And it does not mean to skew data in their favor, that is simply not what stands in the email.
And no, i am not watching a video like that. I keep to what the mail says and what it means. And since i have a backround in statistics, i know what oversampling means.
I read up what the video is about now. So one official from americans univted for change did engage in unethical practices (or two of them, depending on your opinion on craemer).
Both got fired for it, both plans didnt amount to much. Basically, foval banked on trump supporters attacking his protestors.
It has to be added here that the videos were heavily edited and no transcript was made public.
And none of it can be directly connected to hillary clinton.
So why do you want to compare that to trump openly shouting to beat protestors up on his rallys?
Okay, so "playing dominoes on walnut pasta sauce" isn't worth cracking whatsoever? You don't mind that the words they use are largely used by known pedophiles and child sex ring leaders (which thanks to Weiner, we know exists)? Alright, that's why I asked. I didn't want to waste my time.
As i said, we can talk about that via PM.
The thing is that i think it is complete bullshit. I think some people made up a secret pedophile code and then just ran with it to found strangely worded passages.
I actually read up some examples, read the emails and am now even more convinced that this is true.
But okay, let's play this game: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/30613
That must be the mail you talk about.
What stands in that male: Herb, whoever that is, got pizza instead pasta.
Now let's run with the code you wanna tell me is totally pedophile slang (taken from a rightwring nutjob site i found this on):
“pizza” = girl
“cheese” = little girl
“pasta” = little boy
“sauce” = orgy
So, what herb tells us here is that john podesta AND HIS WIFE sent him no 'pasta with wonderful sauces' (so no little boy orgy) but instead several young girls (pizza with cheeses) in a BOX? He said he noticed it by the shape of the box?
Then he says that he waits for his children and grandchildren so he can DEMOLISH THEM?
Really? That is the pedophile code? Do pedohpile wait for their family to demolish their victims?
It makes absolutely no sense really.
What stands there is that for whichever reason, Herb was sent actual pizza by mary and john. Friends do that sometimes, i sometimes buy pizza on paypal and send it to my friend when i know he has a rough exam phase.
This time, it was pizza instead pasta and he thanked them for it and says he waits for his children and grandchildren to demolish the boxes (which some young kids like to do).
Thus the domino comment makes lots of sense because he staples the empty boxes while working because the bum is too lazy to take out the trash.
Sounds a lot like me quite honestly.
Find that baseless? Your call, but it has a lot more basis in reality than thinking a pedophile writes to his kiddy dealer that he will demolish the young girls he was sent together with his grandchildren.
The other mails contain even less, but more evidence that someone wanted desperately to read something into innocent lines.
You could at least pay me the respect of reading the things that I have given you. How in the world can you come to a conclusion without even reading it all? No wonder the email scandals and her failures mean so little to so many people...
No basis? These are emails from her closest advisers, staffers, and consultants. They aren't just comments from some random dude saying he "heard this" or "saw that". This is undeniable prove of corruption in the HRC campaign. Her personally committing any of these actions herself doesn't change what it is, does it?
All I am seeing is your opinion. You say she's a good senator, that her policies work, but you haven't (and probably won't) explain how. A few good deeds for society doesn't make someone POTUS material and "she did what she could" certainly doesn't make her POTUS material either.
I never said calling black people/kids is a scandal, I said it is racist and it is.
I read the things you have given me, but i do have my limits.
If you make claim after claim after claim which all turn out to be wrong and completely baseless (or at least most of them), at some point i will have to focus on some of them.
When someone makes baseless claims, at some point i come to the conclusion that it is not worth it to read up more baseless claims but start with the first few false ones i got.
So what does make someone potus material if not a good run as senator? I explained you why i think she had a good run and i have linked you a list of what she did in her time as senator.
Feel free to think otherwise, but it is still a lot more than a guy who ran businesses into the ground without any care for his workers, an anti vaccine nutjob and someone who does not know anything about the policies he advocates for.
It was a comment she should not have made, but clinton is not a racist. As i have said several time, the policy she and bill advocated for in the verge of that comment was supported by most of the black community. It was poor wording, if you want, call it racist wording.
But she was always an advocate for the black community and endorsed by the majority of black voters.
A normal campaign goes out to hire mentally ill people to start "shit" at opponent's rallies? Normal campaigns incite disruption, violence, data manipulation, media control (poor Bernie), gets to set questions at Presidential Debates, lies and more? Normal campaigns hide servers in basements and discuss extremely sensitive information through email? Hmm, someone should tell Trump so he can deal in.
No, it doesnt, but it was not clinton's campaign who did. It was one staffer from a liberal advocacy group who then got fired.
And yes, as i said, the private server thing is completely normal and came before clinton's run.
Why would she endanger herself there? If she had something to hide, if anything, she would have cared more for security.
It is media bias when they only focus on Trump's negative aspects and pay no attention to Hillary's. You don't call the email scandal a scandal but it is one
Fact is that the numerous investigations could not show criminal intent or any criminal behaviour.
Fact is also that the media have been all over this for more than a year now (speaking about media bias and such.).
Right, a joke. I suppose the email talking very seriously about letting Hillary Clinton abuse someone (preferably a staffer) before interviews/debates is also a joke? Let's just assume all the emails are a joke...
Answer me this and please be as honest as you can be: if any of this had been leaked for Trump, if he was caught doing any of this or if his staffers had been, how would you respond to it? Would you still downplay breaking federal laws, accepting funds of any kind from SA etc etc?
Yes. The wording in the email your presented hear with (or a staffer...) seems like a joke.
And i would also see it as a joke if a trump staffer had sent one of those.
I am actually not making any big fuss about allegations which have no real evidence for them regarding trump.
I am not standing here saying trump raped a 13 year old girl, even tho there are serious allegations against him.
I am not bringing up the fact that trump raped his wife and it is only not legally a rape because you could not rape your spouse in that state at that time (but a court still let them divorce faster because they saw it as evident that he behaved 'cruel and inhuman' against her).
I am not bringing up any of the numerous allegations of women saying he groped her otherwise abused them.
I am not bringing up the allegations against him as a businessmen regarding fraud, tax evasion or illegal buisness practices.
I leave all these things out, because some of them are just allegations for now, and some of the are very far in the past (the thing with his wife) and they don't matter here.
he is a terrible candidate because he is a nutjob with no political knowledge whatsoever, stands for racist, sexist and violent politics and founds his whole campaign on lies and the spread of hatred.
If I missed something, I'll get to it. It is getting hard to maneuver the posts when I have to quote them like this. lol anything I miss I'm amend with at the bottom under "EDIT".
A federal law she didnt break since every investigation found that in fact she showed no criminal behaviour.
And it does not a lot to that if she knew or not.
I can say that because i know how these things work.
Being part of an office culture leads to things like that. I didnt say it is not a bad thing, i say it is a structural problem which is not clinton's fault.
She has herself to blame for doing a mistake, but it is not a crime that she committed, nor is it a big deal.
"I can say that because I know how these things work"? And saying that just magically makes you right?
You are passing it off as something not serious because others did it. It isn't someone else's fault she did what she did. No one forced her to do. And I beg to differ. The FBI didn't say it wasn't a big deal, they just said there was no reason to charge her because it was "gross negligence" mostly. They never once said it wasn't a big deal or that it wasn't breaking a federal law.
And you are wrong. Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) specifically states sharing and storing classified information and intelligence on personal emails and servers is unlawful. She violated the 2009 Federal Records Act (Section 1236.22) as well:
“Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.”
And they weren't preserved at all. It was also a violation of FOIA. Her usage of private email accounts and servers was used to circumvent FOIA, which in turn is defiant to the law. The only reason she wasn't charged with anything is because a situation like this is new/uncommon and so the laws written don't have any guidelines to go on. They don't expect officials to misplace classified information from its rightful custody.
The intent of one who breaks these laws isn't what determines whether or not they break them either. Just consider David Petraeus. He didn't intend for the CI he gave away to cause any damage, but still broke federal laws doing it (and he knew it was classified info). What about Brian Nishimura? Brian and Hillary's situations are pretty similar, too. Both unlawfully retained classified information on insecure systems. It wasn't his "intent" to cause harm and nothing came of his negligence itself, but he was charged as a "point".
At the very least, if we are to turn our heads to the laws she broke or ignored, she should be charged for making a false statement on the whole email scandal, but it looks like she's being handled the same way John Deutch was handled...surprise surprise.
Then noone is great potus material because i can assure you that no signle politician and not even secret service worker knows the complete guidelines of his or her job.
You can take issue in that, and it is a structural issue, but acting like it is a big deal is baseless.
They sound like morons just like Hillary Clinton. Explain how thinking my government and its elected officials fully knowing their jobs, the country laws and obeying them is wrong/unexpected of me or that discussing the seriousness of those who do not possess those traits are "baseless"?Many are okay with a moron running their country (or the U.S etc), but I am not okay with it.
Ummm.what? I just looked it up, and while it is obscure already that many states allow write ins, 9 states dont. There is no way for sanders to win this election anymore and he already endorsed clinton.
And there is nothing intelligent about doing nonsense like that.
And...lol. People like me? You mean people who are not from the US and have no party loyalities but only common sense and knowledge to judge what happens in the US?
What does endorsing Clinton mean? And yes, some states do not allow write ins, but most do. That isn't the only options people have either, there are still other ballot options as well (for example, Gary, Evan, etc). Being informed on your decisions and deciding not to vote in a corrupt racist (who either, apparently, doesn't know the law or is just plan idiotic) isn't intelligent? Okay.
Please don't do that here, you know that "people like you" was discussing your bias (unless you missed the context of my entire post) and obvious alignment. No party affiliation? Not officially of course, but every single issue you are presented with against Hillary Clinton you brush aside as if it means nothing. You have excuses up the yahoo for her actions, incompetence, lies and corruption but begrudge every other candidate for similar or far more minor issues.
Which was the best possible move. Gaddafi had to go, he already lost power. Same for assad. If anything, the problem was that it didnt happen fast and effectively enough in syria.
And there was nothign replaced 'later'. Islamic terrorists were there already, assad and gaddafi lost power already.
If the US and europe had not intercepted in lybia, you would have seen a syria right in front of europe, which is not acceptable.
It would have been a much worse situation. Almost the whole world was for the lybia intervention too.
They had a mandate, the arab league and europe explicitly asked for help, too.
Was Gaddafi better or worse than the situation we have now? I have asked you several times now and I will ask it again: explain why her actions were good. What came of it that is worth praising? Where is your proof that it would have been worse without intervention?
Also, the rebels in syria are actually the ones fighting assad and isis. If Assad didnt have the russians to back him, he'd be long gone.
But on the other hand, even with russia backing him, assad was not able to quickly eliminate the opposition (with or without US help, btw).
If anything, if the US had been able to get assad out of the picture faster, syrians would not have had to suffer that long.
After the collapse, the "rebels" became the terrorists. I'm not talking about the current rebels helping to fight back ISIL. The discussion is that her foreign policies caused far more damage enacted than the damage that came before. Their suffering was initiated and went on for so long because of the policies and intervention of the U.S.
She called black criminals that way. Not black youth. Lots of black people back then agreed with those statement and the policy which followed.
Clinton is bad at handling situations like with the somali woman in the video. I am not denying that at all. It is however not wrong what she told her: That her record regarding the black community speaks for itself. She always had big support in the black community. That is just a fact, even against obama.
Also: Why do you say there is no media coverage of clinton's mistakes? There is. I knew that video from leftwing (not rightwing) sources, because they covered that and because lots of the were pro sanders at that time.
What also speaks for itself is how old that video is. Clinton simply does not do as many mistakes as trump.
In the video she behaved disrespectful towards a possible voter. Alright. That happened and that's not good.
But how can that even compare to trump telling people to beat other people up on his rallys? When did clinton ever do something like that?
She said "kids". Kids. That's black youth. At the moment of that speech she is discussing a harsh bill on crime that would push for mandatory minimums on first time offenders, especially for "certain kinds of ". In the speech she openly refers to this "certain kind" as the black youth, calling them super-predators that need to be brought to heel. She isn't just talking about chronic criminals, but black youth and first time offenders as the worst of the worst.
The only media coverage her mistakes/issues largely gets is from conservative sources and even then they are largely ridiculed and condemned as falsehoods because it came from non-Democratic sources.
Can you link me to this video of Trump? Not that I said they compare. Two wrongs don't make a right and worst wrong doesn't make a lesser wrong right.
Hmm, it must be nice to be rich [as the Clintons] to consider millions of dollars peanuts. lol
Anyways the transparency of further donations are sadly not recorded but admitted to (they don't have the legal need to share it), such as when Clinton was given gifts by SA officials/princes and Obama got the shitty end of the gifts. It isn't about the amount anyway, it is about the moral of it. She openly accepts funds and gifts from horrible countries, governments and officials and doesn't get slammed about it, but when a KKK man endorses Trump the world loses its shit.
It is not a double standard and noone twisted his words.
Trump stands for a racist policy and is endorsed by the KKK. If that does not raise your eyebrow, i really cannot help you there.
He then at first denied he even knew who the guy who endorsed him was (which is provably false) and later simply said he takes every vote without even adressing concerns.
Criticism there is completely warranted for.
What racist policy? And it is a double standard, you just proved it. You used "endorsed by the KKK" negatively as if he has control over it and yet play off endorsement for Hillary from Islamic states that now fund ISIL and creates havoc on earth for women, gays, non-Muslims etc. You don't care about the later but you care about the former.
Clinton is not operating her foundation and the donations from saudi arabia came in 2008. It is a big stretch to say someone would deny money from a country which is an official ally of the US and if he doesnt he is unethical.
By that logic, someone from europe would be unethical if he took money from the US because death penalty kills many innocent peopl or due to the iraq war.
Noone does that.
She's a part of the Clinton Foundation, what are you talking about? And no, read the links again. There have been several donations. They started in '97, stopped in '08 and then picked up again temporarily in '14. The Foundation only recently became transparent due to requests because she started running for POTUS.
Unethical to deny millions from a country that stones women to death and kills gays because we're allies? And yet it is unethical and racist for Trump to be supported by a KKK U.S citizen he has no control over?
Furthermore, inner politics are a completely different playing field. Those are really false equivalences.
If clinton was endorsed by any violent group openly and would be asked about it, i would exspect her to adress it in a competent manner.
If she doesnt do it, criticism is warranted for. But that did not happen. Thus you have to dig up a donation to her foundation which she did not operate at that time from 8 years ago which didnt even amount to much money and she probably didnt even remember due to its insignificance.
As I said, it is the moral of it. Regardless, email insight shows she now knows what Saudi Arabia is up to. She should make a comment on it, shouldn't she? They are a violent, hateful country that now fuels the flames of ISIL to do more damage not only against the U.S but to other countries, even other Islamic states.
Oh, memory lapses on millions of dollars from foreign countries. Perfect for our potential next president.
In 2008, Isis did not exist, and the emails (and yes i have read some and they usually do not say what you think they do) and even now, as i explained you, it is not as easy as 'saudi arabia supports isis'.
It is quite complex, saudi arabia has its own problems with isis and alkaida now and even before it were private saudi persons and not the government itself.
Who said that it did? At the time they were supporting and funding different kinds of terrorist cells, and was personally responsibly for the uprising of Mujahideen. Regardless of her knowledge of their affilications or support of terrorists, their actions against women/gays/non-muslims etc and laws still existed that she was undeniable aware of.
I want to use a site instead of explaining you what oversampling means.
And it does not mean to skew data in their favor, that is simply not what stands in the email. And no, i am not watching a video like that. I keep to what the mail says and what it means. And since i have a backround in statistics, i know what oversampling means.
And I still can't get you to even read or watch the material I post? Why am I even bothering with you anymore? I spend some considerable time I don't have to spare on these posts, collecting the info (especially from non-conservative sources so I don't cause people to be butthurt), and it gets disregarded.
I read up what the video is about now. So one official from americans univted for change did engage in unethical practices (or two of them, depending on your opinion on craemer).
Both got fired for it, both plans didnt amount to much. Basically, foval banked on trump supporters attacking his protestors.
It has to be added here that the videos were heavily edited and no transcript was made public.
And none of it can be directly connected to hillary clinton.
"read up"? Why don't you just watch the video? It isn't going to kill you and it shows a lot of people in DNC and HRC campaign doing very questionable and wrong things to push her campaign and harm not only Trump's but his voters too.
Why does it have to be connect to her to matter? I pointed it out to show that her campaign is run off of lies, corruption, manipulation and the like.
Why does it need to be compared? I don't need to tell you Trump does crazy shit or says it or his supporters do. Don't use Trump's (campaign) actions to justify Hillary's (campaign).
As i said, we can talk about that via PM.
The thing is that i think it is complete bullshit. I think some people made up a secret pedophile code and then just ran with it to found strangely worded passages.
I actually read up some examples, read the emails and am now even more convinced that this is true.
But okay, let's play this game: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/30613
That must be the mail you talk about.
What stands in that male: Herb, whoever that is, got pizza instead pasta.
Now let's run with the code you wanna tell me is totally pedophile slang (taken from a rightwring nutjob site i found this on):
“pizza” = girl
“cheese” = little girl
“pasta” = little boy
“sauce” = orgy
So, what herb tells us here is that john podesta AND HIS WIFE sent him no 'pasta with wonderful sauces' (so no little boy orgy) but instead several young girls (pizza with cheeses) in a BOX? He said he noticed it by the shape of the box?
Then he says that he waits for his children and grandchildren so he can DEMOLISH THEM?
Really? That is the pedophile code? Do pedohpile wait for their family to demolish their victims?
It makes absolutely no sense really.
"Play this game"? What? There isn't any "game" going on. I asked because I didn't want to waste any more of my time after learning you didn't even have the decency to read the emails and links I gave you, or even watch the videos. Talk about disrespect.
So what does make someone potus material if not a good run as senator? I explained you why i think she had a good run and i have linked you a list of what she did in her time as senator.
Feel free to think otherwise, but it is still a lot more than a guy who ran businesses into the ground without any care for his workers, an anti vaccine nutjob and someone who does not know anything about the policies he advocates for.
Someone with foreign policies that actually panned out positively, for one. It would be nice to have someone who hasn't said racist remarks (but it happened in the past so forget?), or broke federal laws, accepts funds from questionable and evil countries, disrespects voters, hired unethical morons to run her campaign off of corruption, misinformation etc or wasn't biasedly presented by most media such as being handed questions or deciding questions to answer etc. Those seem like some pretty good starting points for POTUS material to me.
It was a comment she should not have made, but clinton is not a racist. As i have said several time, the policy she and bill advocated for in the verge of that comment was supported by most of the black community. It was poor wording, if you want, call it racist wording.
But she was always an advocate for the black community and endorsed by the majority of black voters.
"Racist wording"? It's astonishing what Hillary can get away with. Made horrendously racist remarks? It's okay, that was years ago. Called Latinos needy? Pssht, who cares? Helped start a racist joke about "colored people's time"? Eh.
It can't possibly be true that she's racist—she's got the support of many black communities!
No, it doesnt, but it was not clinton's campaign who did. It was one staffer from a liberal advocacy group who then got fired.
And yes, as i said, the private server thing is completely normal and came before clinton's run.
Why would she endanger herself there? If she had something to hide, if anything, she would have cared more for security.
Fact is that the numerous investigations could not show criminal intent or any criminal behaviour.
Fact is also that the media have been all over this for more than a year now (speaking about media bias and such.).
Yes. The wording in the email your presented hear with (or a staffer...) seems like a joke.
And i would also see it as a joke if a trump staffer had sent one of those.
I am actually not making any big fuss about allegations which have no real evidence for them regarding trump.
I am not standing here saying trump raped a 13 year old girl, even tho there are serious allegations against him.
I am not bringing up the fact that trump raped his wife and it is only not legally a rape because you could not rape your spouse in that state at that time (but a court still let them divorce faster because they saw it as evident that he behaved 'cruel and inhuman' against her).
I am not bringing up any of the numerous allegations of women saying he groped her otherwise abused them.
I am not bringing up the allegations against him as a businessmen regarding fraud, tax evasion or illegal buisness practices.
I leave all these things out, because some of them are just allegations for now, and some of the are very far in the past (the thing with his wife) and they don't matter here.
he is a terrible candidate because he is a nutjob with no political knowledge whatsoever, stands for racist, sexist and violent politics and founds his whole campaign on lies and the spread of hatred.
There is no evidence for any of that though. You can't say he raped his wife when nothing proves that he did. Someone just saying something doesn't proof anything, otherwise Hillary sexually assaulted a woman, Bill Clinton rapes children (which wouldn't be too surprising), and the Earth would be flat.
And wow, wow...I'm not defending him as a candidate. I never have. They're all nutjobs, just for different reasons.
What stands there is that for whichever reason, Herb was sent actual pizza by mary and john. Friends do that sometimes, i sometimes buy pizza on paypal and send it to my friend when i know he has a rough exam phase.
This time, it was pizza instead pasta and he thanked them for it and says he waits for his children and grandchildren to demolish the boxes (which some young kids like to do).
Thus the domino comment makes lots of sense because he staples the empty boxes while working because the bum is too lazy to take out the trash.
Sounds a lot like me quite honestly.
Find that baseless? Your call, but it has a lot more basis in reality than thinking a pedophile writes to his kiddy dealer that he will demolish the young girls he was sent together with his grandchildren.
The other mails contain even less, but more evidence that someone wanted desperately to read something into innocent lines.
I read the things you have given me, but i do have my limits.
If you make claim after claim after claim which all turn out to be wrong and completely baseless (or at least most of them), at some point i will have to focus on some of them.
When someone makes baseless claims, at some point i come to the conclusion that it is not worth it to read up more baseless claims but start with the first few false ones i got.
Wow. You know what, you don't have to be so disrespectful and rude. I thought no biggie over you declining to read/watch the things that I posted, even shrugged off you talking in all caps to me and using a condescending tone (when talking about oversamping and "how things work"), but damn....whatever pal.
You never "disproved" anything. You danced around a lot of it saying how you felt or what it meant according to you but you never brought any proof. A website citing how "Hillary is fantastic and everyone should love her" because she reformed a few problems with society is not evidence of any kind at all. Nothing more convincing than actually leaked emails, at least.
Your bias is astonishingly obvious and frustrating to maneuver around, I get it now. If you want to ignore everything Hillary has said or done, go ahead. It's common anyways. Maybe next time, I guess.
Oh, being a mormon will do it usually. lol I was expecting to see some really crazy Republican comments like "gays should be converted" and things like that.
It wasn't "just a safety measure" she ignored, it was federal law. It doesn't matter if she didn't know about the law existing, or if she followed others' breaking the law (which is hilarious to defend really) or risking the nation's secrets and security. It doesn't matter. How can you sit there and say that her ignorance, or her willingness to follow others' stupidity and lack of concern for laws, isn't a bad thing?
Well, she violated policy, not the law. The issue here is that her "ignorance" is the sole factor that determines whether she broke the law. The FBI was investigating her for "gross negligence" in regards to her handling classified information. Gross negligence is a legal term which has a very narrow definition:
google said:
Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.
Note the "conscious and voluntary" part. With that in mind, "ignorance" is actually the only plausible defense against gross negligence. Comey didn't indite because there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove that hillary was aware that what she was doing was against department policy and the law. Had hillary been indited they would have had to prove that what she did was conscious and voluntary beyond reasonable doubt. Comey mentioned a case where someone else was charged and prosecuted with gross negligence in regards to classified information. But in that specific case they actually found evidence which beyond reasonable doubt proved the guy was grossly negligent. IIRC they found a letter or email in which he actually admitted what he was going was wrong. Basically what it took to prosecute here was an actual and literal admission of guilt.
Comey said hillary was extremely careless but in this context he said that specifically to make a distinction from gross negligence.
Well, she violated policy, not the law. The issue here is that her "ignorance" is the sole factor that determines whether she broke the law. The FBI was investigating her for "gross negligence" in regards to her handling classified information. Gross negligence is a legal term which has a very narrow definition:
Note the "conscious and voluntary" part. With that in mind, "ignorance" is actually the only plausible defense against gross negligence. Comey didn't indite because there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove that hillary was aware that what she was doing was against department policy and the law. Had hillary been indited they would have had to prove that what she did was conscious and voluntary beyond reasonable doubt. Comey mentioned a case where someone else was charged and prosecuted with gross negligence in regards to classified information. But in that specific case they actually found evidence which beyond reasonable doubt proved the guy was grossly negligent. IIRC they found a letter or email in which he actually admitted what he was going was wrong. Basically what it took to prosecute here was an actual and literal admission of guilt.
Comey said hillary was extremely careless but in this context he said that specifically to make a distinction from gross negligence.
That's true (I mentioned that a few times), but there are others before her that did the same thing (but never got hacked) and got prosecuted, yet she hasn't. She knew, at the very least, it was classified information she was mishandling even if she was unaware of the policy (which itself is ridiculous. How could she not with the positions she has held? Sounds like she isn't fit for anything.). And then she claimed she had no idea there were servers, that she got hacked etc yet none of that could possibly be true.
And wow, wait, really? I haven't heard of that yet. Do you have a link to the case? I'd really like to read more about it.
And hillary got to 71% tonight in nate's forecast. She is definitely trending upward in the polls at least. And she seems to have recovered in florida and north carolina. Well, her margins aren't for me to be comfortable. I would like to say I am completely optimistic but at this stage in the 2008 race I was under the impression obama had a larger lead.... Whatever the case, the wait today is gonna suck. Happy general election day guys.
We're still being hurt by the decisions of the Bush administration which only got worse through Obama's admin. The decision either way is going to hurt the nation like hell so I can't be all that happy with it but yea...the wait. It is and already sucks.
That's true (I mentioned that a few times), but there are others before her that did the same thing (but never got hacked) and got prosecuted, yet she hasn't. She knew, at the very least, it was classified information she was mishandling even if she was unaware of the policy (which itself is ridiculous. How could she not with the positions she has held? Sounds like she isn't fit for anything.). And then she claimed she had no idea there were servers, that she got hacked etc yet none of that could possibly be true.
And wow, wait, really? I haven't heard of that yet. Do you have a link to the case? I'd really like to read more about it.
At this point I am going by what comey said to congress. His words were that there was only one case which was comparable to hillary's and in that case they found the letter or whatnot which proved the "conscious and voluntary" part. In hillary's case they just didn't have such extraordinary evidence.
At this point I am going by what comey said to congress. His words were that there was only one case which was comparable to hillary's and in that case they found the letter or whatnot which proved the "conscious and voluntary" part. In hillary's case they just didn't have such extraordinary evidence.
Well, reading a bit about the case I would argue that what I said applies perfectly. In this case, nishimura actually admitted his wrongdoings in regards to mishandling the classified information. He quite literally confessed to the whole thing. He gave up everything willingly. It's completely different from hillary who said she never knew she was doing something wrong (and even brought other people who in the past had used private servers).
I was talking about this one:
