The problem is that Carpet Bombing doesn't work, because it doesn't discriminate between citizens and terrorists; in other words, you're essentially killing them both (on one side of the argument, it's great because you're killing terrorists; on the other, you're killing people who're not affiliated with them).
It really depends, but if we're talking about Syria, then yes, there are civilians living close to terrorists.
I mean, if it were easy to identify who's a terrorist and who isn't, then the Syrian conflict wouldn't have been in an enormous mess right now with at least 4 different factions.
Seems like clinton has been polling between the 64-65% over the last few days. i guess she won't be going lower than that unless there is yet another bombshell. i am not optimistic about her polling increasing much over the next few days.
Really? What the hell is going on here? First they say they can't prove gross negligence, then they say they are opening the investigation again over emails they haven't seen and now they say they won't be changing their initial recommendation? Why even open the investigation again? What sick game is comey playing? I am just confused and exasperated with the topic because nothing seems to make a damn ounce of sense. A few days ago I mentioned I was about to jump on the comey tried to influence the election bandwagon but even with new information I can't really change my position from that (meaning I am not yet on it). This is just confusing. And to me it looks like this has tarnished the FBI's reputation over nothing which is perhaps even more serious in the long term.... Now, I could understand if they didn't change their recommendation at the end. The evidence they need to find to prove gross negligence is nothing short of extraordinary. But actually saying it makes this much more confusing.... Or did they actually finish the investigation over such a short period of time? That sounds even more incredible....
Why is that interesting? I could also make the point that the projection is coming close to it's mid july numbers and then early august numbers and then mid september numbers and then early october numbers.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Now, even if clinton does benefit in the polls from the FBI saying it once again won't recommend inditing then unfortunately we won't get to see it in the polls. It would take a few days for the polls to definitely show that and the election is already upon us....
See? Things cleared up just in time for the election, not that she had anything to worry about in the first place. The only people who mostly cared about her gross negligence and incompetence appears to be third party voters, stray Democrats and conservatives.
I know this is not a post, but i will still answer:
You are comparing willfull distribution of classified information with the maximum possible public reaction as target to not following a safety measure.
That's like saying someone is as bad as a thief because he forgot to lock the door.
Also: Why would anyone in the american voting system NOT vote for the lesser of two evils?
Clinton is even the lesser of four evils, it's not like stein or johnson are better choices.
Not picking the smaller evil means picking the bigger one.
You should have at least mentioned me. How am I supposed to know you are asking me a question otherwise?
How wasn't Hillary's actions willful? Many of her staffers and people she emailed warned her not to discuss classified information via email, and she still did it. She knew her actions would break federal laws and be a huge security risk and she still did it. So tell me again how this wasn't willful? Did someone make her do it? Snowden revealed classified information for the people. Hillary ignorantly and selfishly discussed classified information on insecure servers since even before leaving Secretary of State for her own gain. All of which could have put us, the people, at risk.
"Not picking a smaller evil means picking a bigger one"? What kind of nonsense is that? If more people had their heads on straight they wouldn't have to pick a "bigger" or "lesser" evil. That is part of the beauty of democracy. The problem is with the voters on this issue. Most of them feel some unreal responsibility and debt to their party that they would rather vote for a scumbag in blue/red than someone far more suitable for the job. There are also the voters who will side with someone based on their popularity (Some Obama voters for example) or the saddest kind of voter—the ignorant (due to media bias).
Now tell me how Gary Johnson isn't a better option against Clinton/Trump? So far the stupidest thing he has ever said or done to my knowledge is "What is Aleppo?" (feel free to correct me though). You can argue that means his foreign policy ideas and foreign policy knowledge could bring disaster, but you are ready to have U.S citizens vote in a woman with at least six failed foreign policies (most in a long run), so that couldn't be too much of a downer for her supporters (especially since she is so ready to start a war/problem with Russia). Can you logically and unbiasedly explain to me how Gary Johnson is worst than a corrupt, lying racist ("Bring them to heel" and "f**king Jew bastard") funded by Saudi Arabia?
Yes, they do, and you would be surprised. Terrorists choose to live in villagers or villagers' houses so that they can't be bombed (or have at least a lesser chance of being bombed). They also readily use civilians (children too) as shields or bargaining chips for their survival.
Just bombing them is wrong, doesn't work and only potentially creates more terrorists than was eliminated. I think we've seen that from Obama's excessive drone usage.
You should have at least mentioned me. How am I supposed to know you are asking me a question otherwise?
How wasn't Hillary's actions willful? Many of her staffers and people she emailed warned her not to discuss classified information via email, and she still did it. She knew her actions would break federal laws and be a huge security risk and she still did it. So tell me again how this wasn't willful? Did someone make her do it? Snowden revealed classified information for the people. Hillary ignorantly and selfishly discussed classified information on insecure servers since even before leaving Secretary of State for her own gain. All of which could have put us, the people, at risk.
Sorry, forgot it wont automatically inform you when i quote ur sig.
Snowden revealed information which directly lead to humans being in danger of death because he carelessly revealed the true names of agents of the US in his leaks. That directly destroyed a lot of US operations. Most of clinton's emails, even if they run under 'classified' actually contained no information which would endanger national security.
The whole agency, even before clinton even was in there, ignored those kinds of safety measures on a daily basis.
That is no excuse for doing it too, but it does put her behaviour into perspective when prior secretaries of state and other employees did the same thing without anyone raising an eyebrow.
And YOU tell me how the FBI has not found any evidence for her misconduct being willfull.
Where are those emails where she gets warned? Can you quote them to me? Can you present the evidence in them, which the FBI then, regarding your opinion, obviously ignored, just to reopen the case now?
"Not picking a smaller evil means picking a bigger one"? What kind of nonsense is that? If more people had their heads on straight they wouldn't have to pick a "bigger" or "lesser" evil. That is part of the beauty of democracy. The problem is with the voters on this issue. Most of them feel some unreal responsibility and debt to their party that they would rather vote for a scumbag in blue/red than someone far more suitable for the job. There are also the voters who will side with someone based on their popularity (Some Obama voters for example) or the saddest kind of voter—the ignorant (due to media bias).
It is not a nonsense. If you dont vote hillary, you give half a vote to trump, who is the bigger evil.
You help the bigger evil getting into office.
And no, it is not the voter's fault, but your systems fault.
I am not responsible for your two party system which makes it hard for a third party to get elected.
But in your system, it is absolutely rational to pick the smaller of two evils, exspecially when one of them is a politician with an actually good track record (clinton was widely regarded as a pretty capable senator of new york) and someone who ran his businesses into the ground and cared shit for his workers, is a racist, a sexist, is the favourite of the kremlin and vowed to bring people with opposing opinions into jail.
Now tell me how Gary Johnson isn't a better option against Clinton/Trump? So far the stupidest thing he has ever said or done to my knowledge is "What is Aleppo?" (feel free to correct me though). You can argue that means his foreign policy ideas and foreign policy knowledge could bring disaster, but you are ready to have U.S citizens vote in a woman with at least six failed foreign policies (most in a long run), so that couldn't be too much of a downer for her supporters (especially since she is so ready to start a war/problem with Russia). Can you logically and unbiasedly explain to me how Gary Johnson is worst than a corrupt, lying racist ("Bring them to heel" and "f**king Jew bastard") funded by Saudi Arabia?
Because gary johnson does not know what aleppo is.
Because gary johnson has absolutely no fucking clue whatsover on foreign or domestic politics.
He is completely uninformed and just says things, and when he gets busted he says 'oh well i change my mind and informed myself now'.
Someone like that cannot run office. He is as clueless as trump about anything policy related.
And no, clinton has not 'six failed foreign policies'. Clinton was a pretty good secretary of state.
Before the left office, she had high approval ratings and was seen as capable. Only the email affair which broke out later on dragged her down, and i already explained that, UNLIKE SNOWDEN, she did not endanger anyone with her emails.
It breaks down to 'She used a private server which possibly could have been a security risk', but it could neither be proved that she willfullly ignored a security measure (which makes sense, if she knows former secretary of state did that too and everyone else. Why would she assume it's taboo?) nor did any real consequence follow up on it.
So which failed policies would she have as secretary of state?
Clinton is not 'ready to start a war with russia'. That is complete nonsense. And those are the kinds of allegations which make me question how much the anti-clinton crowd actually knows about the things she has said or done.
Clinton is also not funded by saudi arabia. There is also no evidence or even good reason to believe that clinton is corrupt.
Let's start with one claim at a time, i am willing to play this game. Try to find evidence about 'clinton being funded by saudi arabia'.
I know you won't find one. You will find some bullshit claims which can easily be disproven (because at some point before she ever was secretary of state her foundation got a minor sum from a saudi arabian donor. Which means...basically nothing). But go for it.
Basically, every claim you made can be disproven. Pick one.
Oh, and saying clinton is a racist because someone claims without evidence that she called someone 'fucking jew bastard' 26 years ago? Lol, come on.
The thing about Gary Johnson is just that he has no idea what he is fucking talking about.
At any point in time. There seems to be no topic about which he has any knowledge.
By that logic, you could also vote some hot chick from the jersey shore.
I think he was referring to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern donations towards the Clinton Foundation, but how exactly does it tie to Hillary herself, I'm not sure (unless we're going with the Wikileaks releasing files that claims that Bill Clinton received a Birthday gift of a million dollars from Qatar, I think?).
I think he was referring to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern donations towards the Clinton Foundation, but how exactly does it tie to Hillary herself, I'm not sure (unless we're going with the Wikileaks releasing files that claims that Bill Clinton received a Birthday gift of a million dollars from Qatar, I think?).
I think so too and i was adressing that later in the post.
It just annoys me so much when things get taken completely out of context to generate some baseless claim.
So, if you noticed Twitter and Wikileaks went down at the same time, it could very well be due to the new emails leaked of her staffers claimed she killed two people.
Sorry, forgot it wont automatically inform you when i quote ur sig.
Snowden revealed information which directly lead to humans being in danger of death because he carelessly revealed the true names of agents of the US in his leaks. That directly destroyed a lot of US operations. Most of clinton's emails, even if they run under 'classified' actually contained no information which would endanger national security.
The whole agency, even before clinton even was in there, ignored those kinds of safety measures on a daily basis.
That is no excuse for doing it too, but it does put her behaviour into perspective when prior secretaries of state and other employees did the same thing without anyone raising an eyebrow.
Actually, Snowden did not directly reveal much himself. He handed the information over to someone else (Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Ewen MacAskill), who did with it as they pleased. Regardless, the point is that she treated that information as if it were nothing from the start. It is still classified information she handled carelessly. They both were responsible for the same thing and he's the only one being charged with treason. It doesn't matter if anyone got hurt, it doesn't change the fact the acts were the same.
And you just said it—it is not an excuse. It doesn't matter if others did it before her. The only big difference is that she did it for personal gain and to avoid being caught on her lies. Snowden did it to show U.S citizens what was going on.
And YOU tell me how the FBI has not found any evidence for her misconduct being willfull.
Where are those emails where she gets warned? Can you quote them to me? Can you present the evidence in them, which the FBI then, regarding your opinion, obviously ignored, just to reopen the case now?
So, what you are saying is that someone didforce her to send and discuss classified information via email? Right, makes perfect sense. Unless you want to say she was ignorant to the law and what she was doing, but that would be a whole new discussion of why she isn't fit for president.
First, let me tell you that the FBI didn't ignore it. These are new emails that surfaced from Weiner's emails. That's why they reopened the investigation because they came across thousands and thousands of new emails. Secondly and lastly, sure I'll link it. It was John Podesta that warned her mostly (though he's at fault of it himself too because he ignored suggestions to encrypt the emails). You can find the emails in the leaks and hacks from their emails here:
It is not a nonsense. If you dont vote hillary, you give half a vote to trump, who is the bigger evil.
You help the bigger evil getting into office.
And no, it is not the voter's fault, but your systems fault.
I am not responsible for your two party system which makes it hard for a third party to get elected.
But in your system, it is absolutely rational to pick the smaller of two evils, exspecially when one of them is a politician with an actually good track record (clinton was widely regarded as a pretty capable senator of new york) and someone who ran his businesses into the ground and cared shit for his workers, is a racist, a sexist, is the favourite of the kremlin and vowed to bring people with opposing opinions into jail.
That is nonsense but you don't accept it as nonsense because you support Hillary Clinton. Don't vote Hillary, vote Bernie if you are a Democrat. There are other options out there that are at least not evil or corrupt. You can make a choice. It is the voter's fault if they decide to vote on party colors, popularity or when they know absolutely nothing about any of the candidates.
*most of my yous here are plural.
A good track record? Okay. Prove it please with evidence. Show me how she's good, and then prove to me how Trump is a racist, sexist and a "favorite of Kremlin".
Because gary johnson does not know what aleppo is.
Because gary johnson has absolutely no fucking clue whatsover on foreign or domestic politics.
He is completely uninformed and just says things, and when he gets busted he says 'oh well i change my mind and informed myself now'.
Someone like that cannot run office. He is as clueless as trump about anything policy related.
And no, clinton has not 'six failed foreign policies'. Clinton was a pretty good secretary of state.
Before the left office, she had high approval ratings and was seen as capable. Only the email affair which broke out later on dragged her down, and i already explained that, UNLIKE SNOWDEN, she did not endanger anyone with her emails.
It breaks down to 'She used a private server which possibly could have been a security risk', but it could neither be proved that she willfullly ignored a security measure (which makes sense, if she knows former secretary of state did that too and everyone else. Why would she assume it's taboo?) nor did any real consequence follow up on it.
So which failed policies would she have as secretary of state?
"Could have been"? No. It was a security risk. Nothing, thankfully, came up from her incompetence. That doesn't change that she treated that information the same as Snowden.
Every foreign policy she was involved in collapsed and became a clusterfuck. That's failure. Syria, Libya and Honduras are a few to name. She has no idea how to handle foreign countries and is ready to ruin whatever thin relationships we have with Russia. When half of the admin is a close friend that she broke federal laws with or lied with about issues like Benghazi, it makes perfect sense that they would give her "high approval ratings". That means nothing.
Why should she assume? She shouldn't assume anything. She should know federal laws and that discussing classified information on insecure servers (that she hid away in a basement) is wrong. So which is it: she was forced to write these emails or she's a moron that doesn't know federal laws etc? Those are the only two ways it wasn't willful.
Clinton is not 'ready to start a war with russia'. That is complete nonsense. And those are the kinds of allegations which make me question how much the anti-clinton crowd actually knows about the things she has said or done.
She's constantly pointing fingers at Russia. She even claimed the hacks were from Russia, when they aren't. She's too ready to start something with them.
Clinton is also not funded by saudi arabia. There is also no evidence or even good reason to believe that clinton is corrupt.
Let's start with one claim at a time, i am willing to play this game. Try to find evidence about 'clinton being funded by saudi arabia'.
I know you won't find one. You will find some bullshit claims which can easily be disproven (because at some point before she ever was secretary of state her foundation got a minor sum from a saudi arabian donor. Which means...basically nothing). But go for it.
Basically, every claim you made can be disproven. Pick one.
Oh, and saying clinton is a racist because someone claims without evidence that she called someone 'fucking jew bastard' 26 years ago? Lol, come on.
No, she's a racist because she referred to black kids and gang members/neighborhoods as "superpredators" and that they "need to be brought to heel". Feel free to head over to c-span and watch the entire video. And when a young African American woman brought this up to her years later, she lost her shit and had her taken away (while laughing at her like an asshole).
"Minor sum"? I would not call $25 million "minor".
Her foundation was funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. According to the Clinton Foundation website, since 1997, they have accepted donations from $10m and $25million from officials in Saudi Arabia (she also accepted lavish gifts from King Abdullah). Emails also shows she knew SA was funding ISIS.
It's the moral of it that is important here. People are ripping Donald Trump a new one because some KKK asshole donated to him (and he didn't even know) and yet countries that have been supporting terrorists funding her Foundation and giving her personal gifts goes right under the radar. It's pathetic just how one sided this election (which evidence exists of as well) has been and how blind/biased some of her supporters are.
How is she corrupted? I'm curious...have you read any of the email leaks or hacks yet?
That's not even cracking the emails that show child sex rings, prostitution, abduction of children etc that she, her husband, John Podesta and many others are connected to. Such as one email saying "Would love to get a pizza for an hour?" (they share images too) or "Ps. Do you think I’ll do better playing dominos on cheese than on pasta?"?
Just so you know those are common keywords pedos use and none of the emails talking about walnuts, lg/b, pasta, pizza, maps etc make sense until you crack them. I don't want to bring that up because it requires linking to /pol (which links to the emails), reddit (also links to the emails) etc but if you are willing to sit down and read through them, I'd be happy to share those too.
Anyways...
Those are the actions, thoughts and workings of a corrupt person. If you want to play the "she didn't know/was ignorant to it all" do you really think someone with such a hug track record of "I didn't know" should be POTUS? And if she honestly didn't know, why lie about it in the first place and continue to lie about it?
At the very least, regardless of believing if she knew about this mass corruption under her, her entire campaign has been run off of corruption, data manipulation, confirmed media bias etc which makes her eligibility questionable and wrong.
The thing about Gary Johnson is just that he has no idea what he is fucking talking about.
At any point in time. There seems to be no topic about which he has any knowledge.
By that logic, you could also vote some hot chick from the jersey shore.
Because of Aleppo? What else has he shown he has no idea what he's talking about? If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but I'd like to know what this outstanding evidence is that proves he's an idiot. And no, not the same thing at all...
I think he was referring to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern donations towards the Clinton Foundation, but how exactly does it tie to Hillary herself, I'm not sure (unless we're going with the Wikileaks releasing files that claims that Bill Clinton received a Birthday gift of a million dollars from Qatar, I think?).
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
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
May I ask why do you think he's got a chance still, even when the media was under her control and whatnot? This email scandal proved just how little people care about the morals and standards of their leader...
The fact that his rallies are attracting better crowds than hers. Lately Trump looking more matured. He handle the Nevada situation well I'd say. Wouldn't be surprised if he wins there. Then NH may go for him too. Same with NC, FL. If he gets these 4 he might win. Heck he''s doing good even in the late Michigan polls.
The fact that his rallies are attracting better crowds than hers. Lately Trump looking more matured. He handle the Nevada situation well I'd say. Wouldn't be surprised if he wins there. Then NH may go for him too. Same with NC, FL. If he gets these 4 he might win. Heck he''s doing good even in the late Michigan polls.
Well you may be onto something! They are currently tied in FL (at least when I checked two hours ago). Maybe it'll be a tighter race than originally thought.
Glad this travesty of an election is coming to an end tomorrow.... voting for Hillary but can't say that with conviction. She's the better of two terrible options.
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!?
Tomorrow's the day. We'll find out if E-mail deleting witch, or Fuckface von Clownstick wins. Either way, I won't be surprised who'll be the victor.
But I do wonder how Clinton (or Trump, but mainly Clinton) will fare without that one delegate in Washington state. That, and the odds of Mcmullen winning Utah seems fairly possible.
Actually, Snowden did not directly reveal much himself. He handed the information over to someone else (Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Ewen MacAskill), who did with it as they pleased. Regardless, the point is that she treated that information as if it were nothing from the start. It is still classified information she handled carelessly. They both were responsible for the same thing and he's the only one being charged with treason. It doesn't matter if anyone got hurt, it doesn't change the fact the acts were the same.
And you just said it—it is not an excuse. It doesn't matter if others did it before her. The only big difference is that she did it for personal gain and to avoid being caught on her lies. Snowden did it to show U.S citizens what was going on.
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?
So, what you are saying is that someone didforce her to send and discuss classified information via email? Right, makes perfect sense. Unless you want to say she was ignorant to the law and what she was doing, but that would be a whole new discussion of why she isn't fit for president.
First, let me tell you that the FBI didn't ignore it. These are new emails that surfaced from Weiner's emails. That's why they reopened the investigation because they came across thousands and thousands of new emails. Secondly and lastly, sure I'll link it. It was John Podesta that warned her mostly (though he's at fault of it himself too because he ignored suggestions to encrypt the emails). You can find the emails in the leaks and hacks from their emails here:
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).
That is nonsense but you don't accept it as nonsense because you support Hillary Clinton. Don't vote Hillary, vote Bernie if you are a Democrat. There are other options out there that are at least not evil or corrupt. You can make a choice. It is the voter's fault if they decide to vote on party colors, popularity or when they know absolutely nothing about any of the candidates. *most of my yous here are plural.
A good track record? Okay. Prove it please with evidence. Show me how she's good, and then prove to me how Trump is a racist, sexist and a "favorite of Kremlin".
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.
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.
"Could have been"? No. It was a security risk. Nothing, thankfully, came up from her incompetence. That doesn't change that she treated that information the same as Snowden.
Every foreign policy she was involved in collapsed and became a clusterfuck. That's failure. Syria, Libya and Honduras are a few to name. She has no idea how to handle foreign countries and is ready to ruin whatever thin relationships we have with Russia. When half of the admin is a close friend that she broke federal laws with or lied with about issues like Benghazi, it makes perfect sense that they would give her "high approval ratings". That means nothing.
Why should she assume? She shouldn't assume anything. She should know federal laws and that discussing classified information on insecure servers (that she hid away in a basement) is wrong. So which is it: she was forced to write these emails or she's a moron that doesn't know federal laws etc? Those are the only two ways it wasn't willful.
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.
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.
She's constantly pointing fingers at Russia. She even claimed the hacks were from Russia, when they aren't. She's too ready to start something with them.
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).
No, she's a racist because she referred to black kids and gang members/neighborhoods as "superpredators" and that they "need to be brought to heel". Feel free to head over to c-span and watch the entire video. And when a young African American woman brought this up to her years later, she lost her shit and had her taken away (while laughing at her like an asshole).
"Minor sum"? I would not call $25 million "minor".
Her foundation was funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. According to the Clinton Foundation website, since 1997, they have accepted donations from $10m and $25million from officials in Saudi Arabia (she also accepted lavish gifts from King Abdullah). Emails also shows she knew SA was funding ISIS.
It's the moral of it that is important here. People are ripping Donald Trump a new one because some KKK asshole donated to him (and he didn't even know) and yet countries that have been supporting terrorists funding her Foundation and giving her personal gifts goes right under the radar. It's pathetic just how one sided this election (which evidence exists of as well) has been and how blind/biased some of her supporters are.
How is she corrupted? I'm curious...have you read any of the email leaks or hacks yet?
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/
This is the important part:
It’s now possible to look up donation amounts on the Clinton Foundation’s website. Using Trump’s Saudi Arabia example, Saudi Arabia shows up as having given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation started. When it began in 1997, the foundation’s main goal was to build the Clinton presidential library, although it left open the option to "engage in any and all other charitable, educational and scientific activities" that nonprofits are allowed to do under federal law.
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.
Basically, the saudis gave the campaign nothing. So why would clinton be 'funded' by them?
[/spoiler]
It's the moral of it that is important here. People are ripping Donald Trump a new one because some KKK asshole donated to him (and he didn't even know) and yet countries that have been supporting terrorists funding her Foundation and giving her personal gifts goes right under the radar. It's pathetic just how one sided this election (which evidence exists of as well) has been and how blind/biased some of her supporters are.
How is she corrupted? I'm curious...have you read any of the email leaks or hacks yet?
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.
About the spoiler thing, since the first two of the claims u made there were completely baseless, i will only take on those two:
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?
That's not even cracking the emails that show child sex rings, prostitution, abduction of children etc that she, her husband, John Podesta and many others are connected to. Such as one email saying "Would love to get a pizza for an hour?" (they share images too) or "Ps. Do you think I’ll do better playing dominos on cheese than on pasta?"?
Just so you know those are common keywords pedos use and none of the emails talking about walnuts, lg/b, pasta, pizza, maps etc make sense until you crack them. I don't want to bring that up because it requires linking to /pol (which links to the emails), reddit (also links to the emails) etc but if you are willing to sit down and read through them, I'd be happy to share those too.
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.
Those are the actions, thoughts and workings of a corrupt person. If you want to play the "she didn't know/was ignorant to it all" do you really think someone with such a hug track record of "I didn't know" should be POTUS? And if she honestly didn't know, why lie about it in the first place and continue to lie about it?
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.
At the very least, regardless of believing if she knew about this mass corruption under her, her entire campaign has been run off of corruption, data manipulation, confirmed media bias etc which makes her eligibility questionable and wrong.
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.
Because of Aleppo? What else has he shown he has no idea what he's talking about? If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but I'd like to know what this outstanding evidence is that proves he's an idiot. And no, not the same thing at all...
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.
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?
Tomorrow's the day. We'll find out if E-mail deleting witch, or Fuckface von Clownstick wins. Either way, I won't be surprised who'll be the victor.
But I do wonder how Clinton (or Trump, but mainly Clinton) will fare without that one delegate in Washington state. That, and the odds of Mcmullen winning Utah seems fairly possible.
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.
Dang, that is some serious hillary love. I have looked at a few email but I am not so sure I have the context yet. There are comments about the organization spending 25 mil on travelling but I have no idea of over which period of time that happened and if that is a lot of money in this context. Googling hasn't provided much context yet. The part that is more concerning to me is the alleged 3 mill dollars for chelsea's wedding. A few articles suggest it was a chelsea thing rather than a hillary thing. Not enough information on the issue even though it is a big one IMO. I have read others but at least they do not seem to suggest what some sites think they do. To me the most damming email remains the one that explains how the clintons profited from the foundation by using it to secure paid speeches.
I think Trump would have done better if he had more ads like this, its like one of the first times I feel he can lead our country. No crooked Hillary, no expletives, no making fun of others, etc.
