What a farce. If anyone else in the United States had 12 FBI agents investigating them for over a year, you damn well believe they'd end up buried under the prison. Bravo ShilLIARy, I am impressed!
Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!
-
-
The Benghazi hearing didn't do much of any damage to her, this doesn't look like it'll do any damage either which means the Republicans and Trump are going to have to come up with something else to smear her with come the debates.
I have doubts about this issue being dropped by the time the debates roll around and for Trump to show the restraint to not bring it up during a debate would be surprising to say the least. Even Benghazi is still regularly brought up. Regardless, we know that this won't affect her among her supporters or detractors. If you supported Hillary before you will still do so now and if you were against Hillary before, well, you're probably still against Hillary now no matter what the results. Whoever is on this odd broad fence between Hillary and Trump would be the main group influenced by the results of this investigation.
-
Something about the Clintons turns out to be not as sinister as Republicans insisted?
BLOW ME THE FUCK DOWN, I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS SURPRISING EVENT IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 1998
-
What a farce. If anyone else in the United States had 12 FBI agents investigating them for over a year, you damn well believe they'd end up buried under the prison. Bravo ShilLIARy, I am impressed!
If your world view requires increasingly complex conspiracy theories to be maintained you might just
Oh why am I even wasting my breath.
-
What a farce. If anyone else in the United States had 12 FBI agents investigating them for over a year, you damn well believe they'd end up buried under the prison. Bravo ShilLIARy, I am impressed!
I bet your patting yourself on the back for that zinger.
-
A thing I wanted to happened didn't in the politics!!!
Maybe….FBI is bought and paid for?? Maybe....the US election will be rigged like we live in the Russian Federation??
Yes, these are more plausible then a disappointing thing being reality to me, a smart and sharp minded person. -
And now the shit is hitting the fan harder, as the FBI is releasing everything on Hilary Clinton.
This election is so fucked.
EDIT: "No charges will be recommended." Oh… Oh okay.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-comey-no-charges-appropriate-000000895.html So the conclusion is the same as its always been. Hillary Clinton screwed up, she admits she screwed up, and she isn't going to be indicted because her mistakes weren't intentional or nefarious. They were just dumb. Sounds about right to me. But TLM is right that Republicans will have a field day with this especially with the FBI director saying individuals rarely come out of a situation like this facing no consequences. Well, meet Hillary. Unless you look at the political damage (if any) this whole debacle has done to Hillary Clinton.
Bear in mind that
Bush and Cheney had 22 MILLION deleted emails from THEIR private server about the illegal false pretense wars.Hillary's couple thousand is nothing in comparison. So no, nothing was ever going to come from it… on top of there never actually being anything there to begin with other than Fox News propoganda. Not without dragging Bush and Cheny out for war crimes!
What a farce. If anyone else in the United States had 12 FBI agents investigating them for over a year, you damn well believe they'd end up buried under the prison. Bravo ShilLIARy, I am impressed!
Or maybe the fact that 12 FBI agents spent a year and came up with squat shows that, guess what, there was squat there to find. Just like every other time for the last 30 years the republicans have made up a scandal about her.
And hey, guess what else? If you actually fact check and compare her statements and history up against actual facts? She's generally one of the most honest politicians there is! I know both sides have decided to agree that "She lies all the time!" and just take it as fact, but it just isn't true.
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen?detail=facebookI have doubts about this issue being dropped by the time the debates roll around and for Trump to show the restraint to not bring it up during a debate would be surprising to say the least. Even Benghazi is still regularly brought up. Regardless, we know that this won't affect her among her supporters or detractors. If you supported Hillary before you will still do so now and if you were against Hillary before, well, you're probably still against Hillary now no matter what the results. Whoever is on this odd broad fence between Hillary and Trump would be the main group influenced by the results of this investigation.
Thats okay, they can just bring up Trumps rape charges for balance.
It may or may not be true or a crime he actually committed, but hey, the story is out there.
-
The director of the FBI is a Republican, if there was anything worth pinning on her, they would do it
-
"A twenty-five year study of dragons has found no dragons nor existence that they exist. Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that dragons are really good at hiding."
@Cyan:
The director of the FBI is a Republican, if there was anything worth pinning on her, they would do it
Hell, not only was he a Bush appointee as Deputy Attorney General but he both contributed to and endorsed both McCain and Romney. So it's not like he's a big fan of Obama.
-
While she didn't do anything criminal, her careless and reckless behaviour probably would've cost her the election if she wasn't up against Trump.
-
Eh, people keep saying that not actually being guilty will hurt her but I don't buy that. The lede is that the FBI said there won't be charges, it was never really an issue that most people ever cared that much about to begin with, and it'll be pushed out of the news fairly quickly anyway. Especially if either of them announces a running mate this week.
Pretty soon, it's just going to be remembered, correctly, as another failed attempt at a hatchet job against Hillary.
-
While she didn't do anything criminal, her careless and reckless behaviour probably would've cost her the election if she wasn't up against Trump.
It… really hasn't been careless or reckless though?
Seriously. It really is the Republicans drumming up and making anything they can that sounds even remotely bad and exploding it far beyond reason. Same way they've tried to attack Obama on literally everything.
-
Again, much of the "classified" information was material considered classified by the CIA that is actually readily available to people outside of the government and could have just as easily been the source material for those emails as internal documents.
You could pick up an issue of Time or a newspaper from the time period and get that exact same information.
-
Meanwhile, in Trumponia:
"Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but he killed terrorists."
Truly, idiotic apologia for Saddam is a shared far-right/far-left feature.
-
How bout that Saddam Hussein we gonna bring that back?…......no?.........why?
-
Look at that. Saddam Hussein was good at something and Obama had him killed because Obama is ruining America.
-
keep an open mind but not so open that it falls out. Being skeptical has validity especially knowing that the more power people have, the more people are more likely to be corrupt. Imagine everyone in here jumping on that telling this to someone who believes that in russia journalists getting assasinated and everyone being like hah you're wrong conspiracies are bs bla bla/
Don't get me wrong the hate on Hillary is a bit overstated. I know people who will vote for trump because they think Hillary is the worst and buy into these media. It's all over reddit too about how you can't trust Hillary. She is not my favorite, but she is miles ahead of Trump for sure and gets unwarranted hate.
-
Barack HUSSEIN Obama? Or is that OSAMA?!?!
Coincidence? I think not!
-
Hilary paid for Batman vs Superman's bad reviews.
-
No, that was Marvel.
Who forgot to pay for Deadpool to get bad reviews, but did remember to do it for X-Men.
-
@S.C.:
I bet your patting yourself on the back for that zinger.
What are you talking about? @Robby:
Or maybe the fact that 12 FBI agents spent a year and came up with squat shows that, guess what, there was squat there to find. Just like every other time for the last 30 years the republicans have made up a scandal about her. And hey, guess what else? If you actually fact check and compare her statements and history up against actual facts? She's generally one of the most honest politicians there is! I know both sides have decided to agree that "She lies all the time!" and just take it as fact, but it just isn't true. http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen?detail=facebook
! Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Right, squat.
-
Yes, the "classified" information that appears regularly in the New York Times, as Ubiq said earlier.
Hence no reasonable prosecutor following up on it.
Also, did you read the website I linked? You quoted it, so you must have seen it.
-
@S.C.:
I bet your patting yourself on the back for that zinger.
Yes, the "classified" information that appears regularly in the New York Times, as Ubiq said earlier. Hence no reasonable prosecutor following up on it. Also, did you read the website I linked? You quoted it, so you must have seen it.
Skimmed it and saw "facebook post", "sexism", " we all know elections favor men", "scandal" etc and decided it wasn't worth my time.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
oops, didn't mean to quote you twice, S.C. Amigo.
-
Here, I'll break down the big piece for you, since you can't be bothered.
.Politifact, the Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking project, determined for example that Hillary was actually the most truthful candidate (of either Party) in the 2016 election season. And in general Politifact has determined that Hillary is more honest than most (but not all) politicians they have tracked over the years.
And there are quite a lot of sources and evidence and track record and gasp facts, backing that up. It also even provides the origin of the "Hillary is a liar" idea, which was an opinion piece that had zero facts behind it. It also covers a lot of the propoganda, the various scandals and their originating sources, opinion polls, and a few other things, while also citing sources, If you care to actually look. (which you don't.) It's pretty decently in depth.
But people liked the "Hillary is a liar" narrative, so it stuck.
I don't understand why people insist on the extreme of "is the devil" or "Is perfectly honest and pure," or "it's time just because she's a woman" when, with any human, it's going to be down the middle. She has a decent, not great but decent, and very public, track record.
Her supporters and haters alike should embrace that fact, warts and all. She's done plenty of actual wrong things you can cherry pick her career and make her out to be as bad (or as good) as you want, without having to exaggerate or lie about a single thing.
Facts are your allies, use what's actually there, not the extreme fanfiction you've made up.
But just ignoring any other facts presented to you, any outside sources, so that you can keep your pre-made bias? That's not discussion,or news, or debate, learning or teaching, that's zealotry. -
I learn so much coming to this thread.
I had been curious where these Hilary is the devil and a liar things had come from. On my friend's Facebook walls I'm seeing so much hate for her and people saying she's worse than Trump. Which even just without digging that should seem ridiculous to anyone.
-
This next bit is long, so I'll break it up. Where Hillary and the media and general impressions are concerned.
Lying-
[hide]Hillary is a politician, and like all politicians she is no stranger to “massaging” and/or exaggerating the truth. And yes on occasion she will let loose a whopper. But is she worse than other politicians? The evidence suggests that she is no worse, and actually better, than most other politicians. Internet videos like the “13 minutes of Hillary lying” appear to be mostly examples of Hillary changing her position over several decades, combined with annoying but typical political behavior. Her career is long enough it predated the internet. It predates the Soviet Union falling. Her career predates you or me even being born. The world has changed, opinions and ideas can change too. But if you actually fact check the things she's said, and try to ignore the propaganda that either side has made, (and both sides have different propoganda that conflicts with what she's done wrong!) her overall record for telling the truth is pretty solid, especially for a very public politician.You can check this forum archive. Six months ago I was staunchly pro-Bernie, and adamantly "Hillary is corrupt, everyone knows it" Does that mean I was lying then? Or that I'm lying now? No. It means that in the time since, I've read stuff, researched, and seen facts from multiple sources, not just given into the narrative given by any one side, and seen how they act in the time since. My opinion on things has become more informed, and as a result, has changed. (I also know even more that Trump is awful, but that's a different matter.) Science decided a few years back that Pluto wasn't a planet anymore. Things change.[/hide]
Scandals
[hide]Webster’s dictionary defines a scandal as, “an occurrence in which people are shocked and upset because of behavior that is morally or legally wrong.” But here’s a question: Are scandals still scandals if nobody actually did anything wrong? And I think that’s a fair question, because Hillary’s political foes love to point out all the times she has been implicated (directly or indirectly) in scandals. Not surprisingly, however, they fail to point out that she has always been cleared of any wrongdoing.So if she’s always innocent, why then does she find herself caught up in so many scandals? For that answer, perhaps we should look at the Wikipedia definition of scandal, which states, “A scandal can be broadly defined as an accusation or accusations that receive wide exposure. Generally there is a negative effect on the credibility of the person or organization involved.” Notice the important difference? Perhaps the “negative effect on credibility” is not so much the RESULT of these scandals as it is the INTENT of those who create them.
Did you know that Republicans once spent 10 days and 140 hours investigating the Clinton’s use of the White House Christmas Card list? Because that is a real thing that actually happened. As the Atlantic recently pointed out, “No other American politicians—even ones as corrupt as Richard Nixon, or as hated by partisans as George W. Bush—have fostered the creation of a permanent multimillion-dollar cottage industry devoted to attacking them.”
Compare for example the treatment Hillary is getting due to her private email “scandal” to that of General David Petraeus. Hillary has been accused of hosting a personal email server that “might” have made classified documents less secure, even though the documents in question were not classified as secret at the time she received and/or sent them. (Side note: some government documents receive secret classifications “at birth”, while other can be retroactively classified as secret.) In order for Clinton to have committed a criminal act, she would have had to knowingly and willfully mishandle material that was classified at the time she did so. After a year of tons of FBI agents investigation no one has accused her of doing that, and it doesn’t appear as if anyone will, and the fbi has now decided that "yeah, no sane lawyer would go after what is there".
General Petraeus on the other hand, while he was Director of the CIA, knowingly gave a journalist, who was also his mistress, a series of black books which according to the Justice Department contained, “classified information regarding the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions quotes and deliberative discussions from high level National Security Council meetings and [Petraeus’] discussions with the president of the United States of America.” Petraeus followed that up by lying to numerous government officials, including FBI agents, about what he had done. And lets not forget that according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, adultery is itself a court-martial offense. And I remind you that none of this is in dispute. Petraeus admitted to all of it.
Petraeus’ violations were significantly more egregious than anything Clinton is even remotely accused of. And yet Republicans and other Hillary foes are howling about her issue, wearing “Hillary for Prison 2016” t-shirts while insisting that this disqualifies her from public office. Meanwhile even after pleading guilty to his crimes Petraeus continued to be the recipient of fawning sentiments from conservatives. Senator John McCain stated that, “All of us in life make mistakes and the situation now, I hope, can be put behind him…” Politico quoted a former military officer who worked with Petraeus as calling the entire situation “silly”. Prominent Republicans have already made it clear that they would call him back to work in the highest levels of government if they win the Presidency. And some are still attempting to convince him to seek the Presidency himself.[/hide]
Money-
[hide]Money — OK let’s talk about her money. Hillary has a lot of it. And she has earned most of it through well-paid speaking fees. And the idea of getting paid $200,000 or more for a single speech seems so ludicrous to many people that they assume that it simply must be some form of bribery. But the truth is that there is a large, well-established and extremely lucrative industry for speaking and appearance fees. And within that industry many celebrities, sports stars, business leaders and former politicians get paid very well. At her most popular for example, Paris Hilton was being paid as much as $750,000 just to make an appearance. Kylie Jenner was once paid over $100,000 to go to her own birthday party, and to this day Vanilla Ice gets $15,000 simply to show up with his hat turned sideways.And let’s talk about the more cerebral cousin of the appearance agreement, which is the speaking engagement. Is $200k really that unusual? In fact “All American Speakers”, the agency that represents Clinton, currently represents 135 people whose MINIMUM speaking fee is $200,000. Some of the luminaries that get paid this much include: Guy Fieri, Ang Lee, Carla Delevingne, Chelsea Handler, Elon Musk, Mehmet Oz, Michael Phelps, Nate Berkus, and “Larry the Cable Guy”. And no that last one is not a joke. And if you drop the speaking fee to $100k, the number of people they represent jumps to over 500. At $50,000 the number jumps to over 1,200. And All American Speakers are obviously not the only agency that represents speakers. So there are in fact thousands of people getting paid this kind of money to give a speech.
For millions of Americans struggling to pay their bills, the very idea that someone can make $100,000 or more for just giving a speech or hanging out at a Vegas nightclub is obscene. But as Richard Nixon used to say, “don’t hate the player, hate the game.” Hillary didn’t invent the speaking engagement industry, and she isn’t anywhere near the first person to make a lot of money from it. And while her fees are in the upper range of what speakers make, neither they nor the total amount of money she has made are unusual.
Before he ran for President in 2007, Rudy Giuliani was making about $700,000 a month in speaking fees with an average of $270k per speech. It’s estimated that in the 5 years before his run he earned as much as $40 million in speaking fees. Nobody cared, no accusations of impropriety were made, and there was almost no media interest. So why did Giuliani get a pass, while Hillary stands accused of inherent corruption for making less money doing the same thing?
And speaking of corruption, after leaving the Florida governor’s office Jeb Bush made millions of dollars in paid speeches. This includes large sums he collected from a South Korean metals company that reaped over a BILLION dollars in contracts from his brother’s presidential administration. Speaking to an Indian newspaper about this type of thing Bush said, “This is the life of being the brother of the president.” Do you remember reading all about that while Jeb was running for President? I didn’t think so. Jeb got a pass too.
[/hide]Wall Street —
[hide]First things first. No, the majority of the money Clinton has made from speaking fees did not come from Wall Street. In fact it’s not even close. She has given nearly 100 paid speeches since leaving the State Dept., and only 8 were to “Wall Street” banks. Nearly all of her speeches were to organizations like American Camping Association, Ebay, Cisco, Xerox, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, United Fresh Produce Association, International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association, California Medial Association, A&E Television Networks, Massachusetts Conference for Women, U.S. Green Building Council, National Association of Realtors, American Society of Travel Agents, Gap, National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, etc.Corporations and Associations pay large fees for important speakers all of the time. And Hillary got booked fairly often because she is interesting and popular, and because there’s a great deal of status attached to having her speak at an event. Ignoring all of this however, a large contingent of anti-Hillary people continue to insist that all speaker’s fees from Wall Street banks were bribes, and that because of this they “own” her. But by that logic shouldn’t we all be asking what the fuck the American Camping Association is up to?
Also, with the possible exception of one speech given to Deutsche Bank, all of Hillary’s 8 speeches to Wall Street were for a speaking fee of $225,000. That does not even break the top 20 of her highest paid speeches. For example she received over $275,000 each in three speeches she gave to The Vancouver Board of Trade, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, and Canada 2020. So apparently Canadians also “own” her.
Does Wall Street have influence with Hillary? Grow up, of course they do. Wall Street is one of the key engines of the American economy, and as such has enormous influence with everyone. EVERYONE. Don’t kid yourself on that point. And aside from anything else, she was a 2-term Senator of New York, and this made Wall Street an important corporate member of her constituency. The issue is not influence. The issue is whether or not paid speeches and campaign donations alone are proof of corruption. And they’re not. And the last time I checked there was an important difference between association and guilt, between proof and slander.?[/hide]
Again: why is Hillary being held to a standard that never appears to be applied to her republican counterparts? Am I not supposed to notice that a media frenzy has been aimed at Hillary Clinton for accepting speaking fees of $225,000 while Donald Trump has been paid $1.5 MILLION on numerous occasions with hardly a word said about it? Am I supposed to not notice that we are now in an election season in which Donald Trump, a proud scam artist whose involvement in “Trump University” alone is being defined by the New York Attorney General as “straight-up fraud”, is regularly calling Hillary Clinton “Crooked Hillary” and getting away with it?
And this is all without getting into the sexism factor. Because that's obviously at play too, but lets not discredit all the points above by pretending it can be boiled down to just that. Sexism is a whole different can of worms.
And maybe it’s OK if we pause for a moment from the accusations and paranoia and just acknowledge her enormous accomplishments. In the entire history of our nation, only 6 Presidents have also served as Secretary of State. Only 3 have served both as Secretary of State and in Congress. By any objective measure Hillary Clinton is not just the most qualified candidate this season, she’s one of the most qualified people to ever seek the office. The New York Times in endorsing her stated that, “voters have the chance to choose one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in history.” Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg stated that, “she is probably the best qualified presidential candidate ever.” Even Marco Rubio, one-time choice of the GOP establishment (and tea-party love-child) stated in a Republican debate that, “If this is a resume contest, Hillary Clinton is going to be the new President of the United States.”
-
Somethigs wrong with my formating here and it just won't fix so I bid stuff to space them out even though they didn't need to be hidden…@Robby:
Bear in mind that Bush and Cheney had 22 MILLION deleted emails from THEIR private server about the illegal false pretense wars. Hillary's couple thousand is nothing in comparison. So no, nothing was ever going to come from it… on top of there never actually being anything there to begin with other than Fox News propoganda. Not without dragging Bush and Cheny out for war crimes!
Yes, you have a point when you make a comparison but comparisons should not be used to excuse the actions of others. An exaggeration but it's like saying, 'Bush and Cheney killed 1000 people but Hillary only killed 1 sooo…she cool.' No, not really. And this is not about whether she should have been indicted or not (as it's obvious enough the FBI director made the right call) but how her actions are so readily accepted and what all this handwaving of her problems means. Was it 'not a big deal' that she deleted thousands of her emails that cannot be recovered from her time when she sent state department emails over an unclassified system (her private email server)? Was it ok that her much less secure private email was attempted to be hacked into while she was doing this? Are we fine with the fact that Hillary definitely did send classified material over her private email server compounded on top of those previous issues I mentioned? And I'm not talking about the questionable classified material, I'm talking about the 'no doubt this shit was classified and no one's doubting that' material.[hide]None of the above is ok with me. Not what Hillary did and definitely not what Bush and Cheney did. Obviously, when it comes to the severity and scope of the issues it's apples and oranges but it's unencouraging to me that Hillary's problems are being handwaved as not a problem…at all. Like, seriously, at all. It doesn't matter what your political leaning is or who you support, you should be able to look at any person and admit when they messed up, especially when they themselves admit it.[/hide][hide]Was it a big deal as Republicans made it out to be? No.Should she have been indicted? No.Was it a definite and ethical problem that Hillary conducted state department business over a private email server and deleted thousands of emails before they can be reviewed? Yes.[/hide]
Thats okay, they can just bring up Trumps rape charges for balance.It may or may not be true or a crime he actually committed, but hey, the story is out there.
There's just something about a rape scandal that makes it so much less palatable. To be fair that dislike should also be made for a case like Benghazi where someone is being blamed for the unfortunate murder of others.
-
Again: why is Hillary being held to a standard that never appears to be applied to her republican counterparts? Am I not supposed to notice that a media frenzy has been aimed at Hillary Clinton for accepting speaking fees of $225,000 while Donald Trump has been paid $1.5 MILLION on numerous occasions with hardly a word said about it? Am I supposed to not notice that we are now in an election season in which Donald Trump, a proud scam artist whose involvement in “Trump University” alone is being defined by the New York Attorney General as “straight-up fraud”, is regularly calling Hillary Clinton “Crooked Hillary” and getting away with it? And this is all without getting into the sexism factor. Because that's obviously at play too, but lets not discredit all the points above by pretending it can be boiled down to just that. Sexism is a whole different can of worms. And maybe it’s OK if we pause for a moment from the accusations and paranoia and just acknowledge her enormous accomplishments. In the entire history of our nation, only 6 Presidents have also served as Secretary of State. Only 3 have served both as Secretary of State and in Congress. By any objective measure Hillary Clinton is not just the most qualified candidate this season, she’s one of the most qualified people to ever seek the office. The New York Times in endorsing her stated that, “voters have the chance to choose one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in history.” Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg stated that, “she is probably the best qualified presidential candidate ever.” Even Marco Rubio, one-time choice of the GOP establishment (and tea-party love-child) stated in a Republican debate that, “If this is a resume contest, Hillary Clinton is going to be the new President of the United States.”
1.5 million is put a drop in the bucket compared to the 22 million she's made over the past 3 years in speaking fees. $3.2 million of which coming from 14 speeches delivered to financial-sector interests. They aren't paying her $3.2 million dollars and inviting her back a dozen+ times because she is admonishing them, lmao. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that she is beholden to those special interest groups. Yes, she's accomplished a lot in her life, but I'm less concerned with the prestigious offices she's held and more concerned with what she's said and done while holding them. She may have a lot of experience, but that doesn't necessarily mean she has good judgement. Lol @ this guy thinking the Patraeus "scandal" was more egregious than Hillary's e-mail debacle. Who someone is fucking is there own business and has zero impact on my personal life whereas Hillary recklessly endangered our national security.
-
Petraeus was actively trading secret information for sexual favors and not just run of the mill stuff either and certainly not intradepartmental conversations. All he got was a year of probation and a fine.
And, one more time, it's mainly an issue of how the State Department handles information versus the intelligence community. Of the eight "Top Secret" email chains, seven of them were about drone strikes while the other apparently was Hillary asking for thoughts about how she should handle potential questions about Blackwater during a visit to Pakistan. Others mentioned photos from spy satellites that everyone knows exist anyway.
-
It is incredible, given everything being discussed and sourced in this thread, how people continue to only hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe.
-
Corker won't be on tbe GOP ticket.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/corker-not-trump-vp
Also Bernie continues to piss away any potential influence he might have in the Democratic Party.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/report-sanders-booed-house-dems
-
Also Bernie continues to piss away any potential influence he might have in the Democratic Party.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/report-sanders-booed-house-dems
Sanders has that John Cena heat despite being CM Punk:ninja:
-
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ernst-not-trump-vp
Ernst is also out.
I'm betting Gingrich or Christie at this rate.
-
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ernst-not-trump-vpErnst is also out.I'm betting Gingrich or Christie at this rate.
Christie can't take the job. He seems pretty content as a Mickey-D's deliveryman.
-
What's the over/under on dark horse and haughty dipshit Mike Pence?
-
To think, we're only ~4 months away.
-
1.5 million is put a drop in the bucket compared to the 22 million she's made over the past 3 years in speaking fees.
Are you for real?!?! This is the most blatant and ridiculous cherry picking I've seen in this thread period, and that's saying something.
$1.5 Million is a "Drop in the bucket"? Really?!?! You DO know that $1.5 Million is what Trump gets paid for ONE Speech right?!?! Do you REALLY think Trump was asked to speak at one place and went "Yeah, that's good, I got $1.5 Million for this gig, that's enough, I never have to do this again"?!?!?!?!
Hell no. The Donald has spoken at numerous engagements and taken untold numbers of money from them. I say untold because we don't know exactly which. See, Clinton has released her tax returns and other financial information, so we actually know who she's spoken to. That's, at least on some level, her being transparent about this while Trump still refuses to release any such information.
But if you're making 1.5 Million per speech to talk places, that isn't exactly a job you only do once.You think "1.5 Million" is a drop in the bucket? I think Clinton's 20 Million is a drop in the bucket compared to what TRUMP no doubt makes doing just as many speeches.
$3.2 million of which coming from 14 speeches delivered to financial-sector interests. They aren't paying her $3.2 million dollars and inviting her back a dozen+ times because she is admonishing them, lmao. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that she is beholden to those special interest groups. Yes, she's accomplished a lot in her life, but I'm less concerned with the prestigious offices she's held and more concerned with what she's said and done while holding them. She may have a lot of experience, but that doesn't necessarily mean she has good judgement.
No, The fact that she's given them a few speeches at a VERY low cost compared to what some men ask doesn't, in and of itself, mean she's beholden to them. If she charged $225 million normally, but suddenly upon going to Goldman Sachs, got paid notably higher, like at least $500 million while everyone else still gave her $225, that would be something worth looking at, but the financial institutions gave her no more money than any other group that hired her to speak.
Lol @ this guy thinking the Patraeus "scandal" was more egregious than Hillary's e-mail debacle. Who someone is fucking is there own business and has zero impact on my personal life whereas Hillary recklessly endangered our national security.
So, let me get this straight.
Guy actually trades classified secrets to a female journalist so she'll sleep with him, meaning the national security secrets ACTUALLY GOT OUT, but that's fine.
Hillary housed a very small amount (again, only about 110-150 out of 30,000 emails were classified at the time) on a personal email server that WAS secure, just not necessarily AS secure as the government servers and RISKED them getting out as a result even tho there's no evidence that anyone ever successfully hacked them….
And Hillary is The WORSE of these two?!?!?! Really?!?!
That's like saying someone driving a little haphazardly, but who hasn't actually hit anyone should be punished harder than a guy intentionally driving his car at 90 in a 45 to impress a chick who crashes full on into someone else's car as a result.
-
Was it 'not a big deal' that she deleted thousands of her emails that cannot be recovered from her time when she sent state department emails over an unclassified system (her private email server)?
No. It was not a big deal at all. It was the latest in a line of invented scandals meant to shred her credibility that had little or no basis in actual fact. Where after a solid year of digging they managed to come up with some minor problems that even you or I have probably done.
Was it ok that her much less secure private email was attempted to be hacked into while she was doing this?
It wasn't though. Are we also to blame Playstation for having its servers hacked? Having email on a different server is not a crime nor should it be.
Are we fine with the fact that Hillary definitely did send classified material over her private email server compounded on top of those previous issues I mentioned?
And I'm not talking about the questionable classified material, I'm talking about the 'no doubt this shit was classified and no one's doubting that' material.Information that was classified after the fact, by a completely different departmen,t and appears in public newspapers of the time, is not really classified material. So yes, I'm fine with that.
Several months ago in this very thread I myself said something like "Yeah, Hillary has really done wrong on this email thing." and then I got the actual facts on it rather than the propoganda, and changed my mind on it. No, it's really not a big deal.
The FBI has even said so. That after a year of constant digging they were sort of kind of able to create the possibility of a minor thing i you look at it a certain way, but no one sensible would give any thought to it and you're really stretching to try and make anything out of it. That's their official word on the matter.
There's just something about a rape scandal that makes it so much less palatable. To be fair that dislike should also be made for a case like Benghazi where someone is being blamed for the unfortunate murder of others.
Okay. Hillary screwed up some sure. Anyone with that long a career is going to have problems here and there. I concede that point.
But you say its not a matter of scale, it doesn't matter that the other side has done worse because she has done wrong? Why aren't you throwing anywhere near the same amount of scrutiny or anger or passion at anyone else, who are and have done far, far worse? Why are you sweeping under the rug and excusing the actual convicted documented crimes? So Jeb Bush making billions of war profiteering off his brother being president isn't a big deal. Trump making more for one speech than Hilary does in 10, without any reveal on who he has done speeches for or how much money he has actually made isn't a big deal? A potential rape scandal and long history of rapes and abusing of women gets swept under the rug because you don't want to talk about it and it's distasteful? Actual documented war crimes aren't important? Guantanomo Bay? And someone like Patreus admitting to the fact he actually did INTENTIONALLY sell actual state secrets and he gets a slap on the wrist. And like I said, Bush and Cheney ALSO had a private server with state secrets that could have been hacked and they deleted far, far more mass quantities of emails pertaining to an illegal war effort. I'm sure if they'd had a year long FBI investigation on them at the time equivalent or worse of what Hillary did would have come up, but that's okay because it's not Hillary? How about every single person involved impeaching Bill over a blow job have all themselves, every single one, also been in sex scandals and some of them even jailed for it?
Dick Cheney shot a man in the face and not only got away with it, but got an apology from the man he shot!
But none of that is important or matters as much as Hillary's made up non-scandal, because you don't like her. Is that what it boils down to?
1.5 million is put a drop in the bucket compared to the 22 million she's made over the past 3 years in speaking fees. $3.2 million of which coming from 14 speeches delivered to financial-sector interests. They aren't paying her $3.2 million dollars and inviting her back a dozen+ times because she is admonishing them, lmao. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that she is beholden to those special interest groups. Yes, she's accomplished a lot in her life, but I'm less concerned with the prestigious offices she's held and more concerned with what she's said and done while holding them. She may have a lot of experience, but that doesn't necessarily mean she has good judgement. Lol @ this guy thinking the Patraeus "scandal" was more egregious than Hillary's e-mail debacle. Who someone is fucking is there own business and has zero impact on my personal life whereas Hillary recklessly endangered our national security.
Okay, so you're seriously just reading what you want to read.
-Trump gets 1.5 million PER SPEECH.
-Patreus ACTUALLY SOLD Classified information and ACTUALLY betrayed the country, and has admitted it… but has gotten a slap on the wrist for it.
-Hillary has made a lot of money doing speeches, yes. There are many people that make way more doing the same thing, including Trump and Jeb Bush. Hillary we know who she has talked to and what she has been paid, and the variety of people she has talked to, and no she's not been bought. Trump has made far more doing the same thing but that never comes up AND we don't know who they've actually talked to or how much they've been paid total because no tax return release.
-Every single one of Hllary's "scandals" has ended up with her innocent. As if her political opponents just make up stuff constantly to try and taint her reputation, but she's been ultimately declared innocent every single time.
You are reeeeally trying to just cherry pick now without actually reading anything else and just flat out ignoring anything that contradicts your current pre-decided viewpoint..
-
Today's exchange.
@Hillary:
It’s not about how much he can build but how much he can take…. He got rich and got out, and thinks that’s something to be proud of.
@Trump:
I made a lot of money in Atlantic City and left 7 years ago, great timing (as all know). Pols made big mistakes, now many bankruptcies.
@actual:
Mr. Trump believes in putting your oxygen mask on first before helping others
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-spokesperson-clinton-plane-crash-bankruptcy-record
-
@Cyan:
Meanwhile, in Trumponia:"Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but he killed terrorists."Truly, idiotic apologia for Saddam is a shared far-right/far-left feature.
Saddam is probably one of the dumbest examples you could try and use for the old creepy sociopath line of "Dictators at least provided stability!".This is the last man prior to Putin to attempt an annexation, he launched an all out aggressive decade long war with a neighboring country, attempted literal genocide using chemical weapons, oversaw multiple ethnic uprisings, and his rule was based on a minority population's support and privileged association with him.
-
One of the many unfortunate results of the Iraq war is that it turned Saddam into a martyr figure.
-
What's the over/under on dark horse and haughty dipshit Mike Pence?
My own governor has been making a habit of trolling the crap out of this guy on the national stage, so I kinda hope it happens so Hillary taps Malloy for stuff.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
One of the many unfortunate results of the Iraq war is that it turned Saddam into a martyr figure.
To Iraqi Sunnis, I don't think anyone else though.The Iraqi Shia and Iraqi Kurds still hate the fucker and always will given the things he did.
-
@Monkey:
To Iraqi Sunnis, I don't think anyone else though.The Iraqi Shia and Iraqi Kurds still hate the fucker and always will given the things he did.
To many (muslim) westerners he's the poor sap who became victim to American imperialism and their quest for oil.
-
To many (muslim) westerners he's the poor sap who became victim to American imperialism and their quest for oil.
To a depressing amount of "leftists" as well. The kind that will hug to the grave anyone who says "US BAD".
-
Sorry about the formatting of the text, but there seeems to be a problem with the board's editor. @Kaiolino:
To many (muslim) westerners he's the poor sap who became victim to American imperialism and their quest for oil.
There are 3 different phases with Iraq:The first Gulf war in 1990 where Iraq invaded Koweit and the international coalition punished them for it. This was phase 1.Then phase 2 began with the sanctions that lead to more than 500.000 children dying: source or source, I think, not only muslims should feel sorry for them, even if you think that Saddam is an asshole, 500.000 children, half a million, it is unbelievable. You can note the epic and inhuman answer of Albright, who thought that it was worth it.Then there is phase 3, where Iraq has been punished for weapons of mass destruction that never existed. I mean, come on, we know now that everything was a big lie, you can hate Saddam, but we are talking about a war that destroyed a country, created the fertile land for Isis and instability in all the region, so what you think it was for weapons of mass destruction and not about oil? are you serious?Let me remind you, the 9/11 terrorists are 19: 15 from Saudi Arabia, 2 from United Arab Emirates, 1 from Egypt and 1 from Lebanon, still, Iraq is the country that got invaded, and still now you don't see the problem with the Iraq war? Really?I don't know if it's about US bad or not, but even in the US, it's not rare to see people who are not leftists nor muslims who think the war is a complete lie, mistake and certainly not about human rights, as we have seen with Abu Ghraib.
-
Some of the "classified" emails were improperly labelled material.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/hillary-clinton-classified-emails-error-225194
The State spokesman said he was aware of two instances where "Confidential"-level classification markings appeared in the set of emails State processed for public release under the Freedom of Information Act. He appeared to refer to a Fox News report last month that highlighted an email proposing a call from Clinton to Malawi Presidential Joyce Banda after she took power following the death of President Bingu wu Mutharika in April 2012.
"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mutharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in," the message said. The "(C)" at the beginning of the paragraph signals its content is classified "Confidential," although the message appears to have been cut and pasted because it is missing the full set of markings required for a classified message.
-
No. It was not a big deal at all. It was the latest in a line of invented scandals meant to shred her credibility that had little or no basis in actual fact. Where after a solid year of digging they managed to come up with some minor problems that even you or I have probably done.
The careless mishandling of classified material for convenience sake is sorta a big deal. Sorta, right? I mean, it's not like she accidentally spammed her coworkers an invitation to her birthday bash. That would not be a big deal. Like, at all.
It wasn't though. Are we also to blame Playstation for having its servers hacked? Having email on a different server is not a crime nor should it be.
If there's a designated server for official state business at the top level it might be a good idea to use it.The blame on her isn't from the fact that there were attempted hacks. The blame has everything to do with the attempted hacks on her less secure private server which she used instead of the state department server. Plus, she failed to report the attempted hacks into her private server though she should have. I'm not saying it was illegal what she did because it wasn't really. I mean, sure, using a private server went against set policy that was established years prior and all that but illegal? Nah. What I am saying though is that it was indeed careless and irresponsible. It was a mistake that she admits to. And I don't think you'd disagree her mistakes carry a lot more weight of responsibility due to the job she (was) in.
Information that was classified after the fact, by a completely different departmen,t and appears in public newspapers of the time, is not really classified material. So yes, I'm fine with that.
Again, not all of the emails were classified after the fact or were even 'questionably' classified. The fact is cut and dry that some of the emails were just plain classified. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/ [hide]@FactCheck:
We now know from the FBI investigation that: More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department contained classified information, including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received. (Most emails were retroactively deemed to contain classified information by the U.S. agencies from which the information originated.) Some of the emails containing classified information “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information,” contrary to Clinton’s claims that none was marked classified. Comey did not provide a specific number. “~~everal thousand work-related emails” were not turned over to the State Department in 2014, but were recovered by the FBI. Comey said “three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received.” [/hide]
…you say its not a matter of scale, it doesn't matter that the other side has done worse because she has done wrong?
Oh no, not saying that at all. I'm saying a bigger scale does not negate a smaller scale.
Why aren't you throwing anywhere near the same amount of scrutiny at anyone else, who are and have done far, far worse, and ACTUAL crimes? Why are you sweeping under the rug and excusing the far, far worse actual convicted documented crimes? So Jeb Bush making billions more than Hillary isn't a big deal, Trump making more than her from the same sources isn't a big deal? A potential rape scandal and long history of rapes and abusing of women gets swept under the rug because you don't want to talk about it and it's distasteful? Actual documented war crimes aren't important? Guantanomo Bay? And someone like Patreus admitting to the fact he actually did INTENTIONALLY sell actual state secrets and he gets a slap on the wrist and no investigation. Bush and Cheney ALSO had a private server with state secrets that could have been hacked and they deleted far more mass. I'm sure if they'd had a year long FBI investigation on them at the time equivalent or worse of what Hillary did would have come up. How about every single person involved impeaching Bill over a sex scandal have all themselves been in sex scandals?Dick Cheney shot a man in the face and not only got away with it, but got an apology from the man he shot!
To be honest, I pretty much agree with everything you've said here except for the parts where you say I'm sweeping under the rug worse crimes or ignoring them all together. That's a bit of a right hook. I mean, I don't know where you got that from and can only assume because I've never mentioned them before maybe you think I'm ok with them? Believe me, if I would have mentioned these offenses before I'd be railing against them just as hard but my focus just isn't on them and my criticism of Clinton is not a defense of the Bush administration as I view them quite separately. Don't get me wrong though, if you want to have a hate fest against Bush and co. I'll be one of the first to jump in.
But none of that is important or matters as much as Hillary's scandal, because you don't like her. Is that what it boils down to?
It is important and I've never said or implied otherwise and I also like Hillary Clinton. I wouldn't be voting for her otherwise and my vote is not a 'lesser of 2 evils' thing. Furthermore, my criticism of Hillary regarding this whole email scandal/debacle/issue/controversy/whatever one wants to call it is soft criticism. She was admittedly careless and irresponsible but that's about it. If you want to hear some real criticism against Hillary Clinton I could drone on about how she'll handle our banks and domestic spying issues. http://apforums.net/showthread.php?t=43000&page=78&p=3589115&viewfull=1#post3589115~~
-
Just gonna leave this here
-
Sorry about the formatting of the text, but there seeems to be a problem with the board's editor. There are 3 different phases with Iraq: The first Gulf war in 1990 where Iraq invaded Koweit and the international coalition punished them for it.
You are forgetting a little thing called the Iran-Iraq war, also dozens of other things if you are saying strictly "Iraq" rather than "Saddam".
2 began with the sanctions that lead to more than 500.000 children dying: source or source, I think, not only muslims should feel sorry for them, even if you think that Saddam is an asshole, 500.000 children, half a million, it is unbelievable. You can note the epic and inhuman answer of Albright, who thought that it was worth it. Then there is phase 3,
Oh ok, so you're also forgetting the Al-Anfal campaign and the 1991 uprisings. Which are pretty important since the former involved genocidal actions.Also why are you saying "them". We're talking about Saddam Hussein, not the people of Iraq. In fact it would be virtually impossible to be confused about this unless you give our posts the same level of thorough reading as you do news articles.
you can hate Saddam, but we are talking about a war that destroyed a country,
Saddam is actually what is being talked about, like literally.
created the fertile land for Isis and instability in all the region
ISIS blew up in Syria. Not Iraq. Yes their original form is from Iraq, but ISIS is a reincarnation of that group that Syria created. ISIS invaded Iraq from Syria, they did not pop up out of nowhere from within Iraq.And the war in Syria had nothing to do with the Iraq war.
I don't know if it's about US bad or not, but even in the US, it's not rare to see people who are not leftists nor muslims who think the war is a complete lie,
You are really bad at reading if you think Saddam is not the subject of everything said before your post.
-
Sorry about the formatting of the text, but there seeems to be a problem with the board's editor.
Same problem here.
There are 3 different phases with Iraq: The first Gulf war in 1990 where Iraq invaded Koweit and the international coalition punished them for it. This was phase 1. Then phase 2 began with the sanctions that lead to more than 500.000 children dying: source or source, I think, not only muslims should feel sorry for them, even if you think that Saddam is an asshole, 500.000 children, half a million, it is unbelievable. You can note the epic and inhuman answer of Albright, who thought that it was worth it. Then there is phase 3, where Iraq has been punished for weapons of mass destruction that never existed. I mean, come on, we know now that everything was a big lie, you can hate Saddam, but we are talking about a war that destroyed a country, created the fertile land for Isis and instability in all the region, so what you think it was for weapons of mass destruction and not about oil? are you serious? Let me remind you, the 9/11 terrorists are 19: 15 from Saudi Arabia, 2 from United Arab Emirates, 1 from Egypt and 1 from Lebanon, still, Iraq is the country that got invaded, and still now you don't see the problem with the Iraq war? Really? I don't know if it's about US bad or not, but even in the US, it's not rare to see people who are not leftists nor muslims who think the war is a complete lie, mistake and certainly not about human rights, as we have seen with Abu Ghraib.
I don't think many people here would disagree with you that the Iraq war was one big mistake but Sadam was one piece of shit and there's no mistaking that.