That's right.
Really Pickers, why are you dwelling on this? I've made it perfectly clear. If you have a serious question you should ask it, if not you should be quiet now.
Bernie is running
- Thread starter TomUS
- Start date
That's right.
Really Pickers, why are you dwelling on this? I've made it perfectly clear. If you have a serious question you should ask it, if not you should be quiet now.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Tell you what, stop asserting your belief she is "a proven criminal" and post up some proof.
Really Pickers, your whining caterwauls are starting to obstruct this discussion. Please control yourself.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
So you have no proof she is a criminal. Ta.
But, but,.... she must be because the screaming wingnuts at the convention were angrily chanting "Lock her up! Lock her up!"
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I don't know if you answered the question I asked: by not voting, are you ok with the possibility that Trump will win, and will be the one to choose the replacement for Scalia - and maybe others? Ginsburg is 83, and Kennedy is almost 80.
As I say, it was a difficult decision, and this was a significant consideration. On balance however I decided that I couldn't vote for any candidate, for the reasons I gave earlier.
But if I was absolutely, gun-to-the-head forced to choose between these two monsters, I'd choose Trump on the grounds that, based on her record, Hillary would be worse than Trump on foreign policy.
Trump says he's going to do terrible things, but Hillary has already done them. That's more important than the supreme court for me.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I understand your reasoning, but it seems to me that even if we accept your premise that she's actually responsible for things like Benghazi [given that she was Secretary of State, and not the President], then the results of her handiwork, while blameworthy, haven't resulted in much more than 'business as usual'.
The largest recent blunders made in the Middle East by the US, were made by the Bush Administration, although it's arguable that Obama's policies haven't changed things for the better there.
Trump's policies in the Middle East are hardly likely to be more subtle and well-thought-out than Obama's; but on top of that, he has to somehow force Mexico to pay for a wall; and he's talking about not coming to the aid of Baltic countries, if Russia were to invade - in other words, undermining NATO, and bringing Europe that much closer to war.
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
So in effect, you're saying that the supreme court appointments won't affect you? But I'm sure you don't mean that your immunity would affect your vote or abstention.
stupid kid
...
Why are you buying into an obvious political smear? She's been accused of crimes for years and so has he, but it was all bullshit,and the majority of it was conspiratorial bullshit. Vince Foster, whitewater, Benghazi, email server. They had a Republican head of the FBI investigate her for I don't even know how long, and untold politically motivated congressional hearings. With all the millions of dollars and thousand of hours that've been pissed away by her enemies, don't you think they would've found at least one thing to indict her on by now?
Of course they'll affect me. But not as much as US foreign policy does.
Anyone either watching or reading FBI Director James Comey's press conference announcing that the Bureau has submitted a "no prosectution" recommendation to the Department of Justice concerning Hillary Clinton's private email server should have been left with a sinking feeling in their stomach. Comey spent the better part of the conference itemizing all of the violations of felony provisions of Federal Codes that Hillary was guilty of. He freely admitted that "110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received." He further itemized: "Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information." Comey noted that, while the FBI did not uncover "clear evidence" of intentional violation of the laws "governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
Specifically, Comey reported that "seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails from others about the same matters." He even concluded that "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation... None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government--or even with a commercial service like Gmail."
Comey went on to report that Secretary Clinton exclusively used her private server when she was traveling, including when she was traveling in countries with a history of hacking into sensitive government data.
At the end of the day, Comey fell back on a simple excuse for the "no prosecution" recommendation: Hillary Clinton was not behaving like a classic spy out to do damage to the national security of the United States on behalf of a foreign power or for personal motives. Just because the FBI attorneys could not find case precedent for Secretary Clinton's behavior is not the same thing as saying she is not worthy of felony prosecution. Indeed, people with far more background in national security law than I can claim, have made clear to me that the mishandling of Top Secret/Special Access Program material is a serious felony--slam dunk, no ifs ands or buts.
From here:
HARPER: HILLARY'S SPECIAL TREATMENT FROM FBI
Basically, the FBI director rattled off a list of offences committed, then said she shouldn't be prosecuted because she didn't intend to break the law. You try that defence and see how far it gets you.
Specifically, Comey reported that "seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails from others about the same matters." He even concluded that "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation... None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government--or even with a commercial service like Gmail."
Comey went on to report that Secretary Clinton exclusively used her private server when she was traveling, including when she was traveling in countries with a history of hacking into sensitive government data.
At the end of the day, Comey fell back on a simple excuse for the "no prosecution" recommendation: Hillary Clinton was not behaving like a classic spy out to do damage to the national security of the United States on behalf of a foreign power or for personal motives. Just because the FBI attorneys could not find case precedent for Secretary Clinton's behavior is not the same thing as saying she is not worthy of felony prosecution. Indeed, people with far more background in national security law than I can claim, have made clear to me that the mishandling of Top Secret/Special Access Program material is a serious felony--slam dunk, no ifs ands or buts.
From here:
HARPER: HILLARY'S SPECIAL TREATMENT FROM FBI
Basically, the FBI director rattled off a list of offences committed, then said she shouldn't be prosecuted because she didn't intend to break the law. You try that defence and see how far it gets you.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
Some real gems in the leaks of DNC e-mails
New Leak: Top DNC Official Wanted to Use Bernie Sanders’s Religious Beliefs Against Him
Nice people.
New Leak: Top DNC Official Wanted to Use Bernie Sanders’s Religious Beliefs Against Him
Nice people.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Shurely "offences allegedly committed"
Selected juicy stuff from the DNC email leak:
WikiLeaks List: Most Damaging Emails About DNC, Clinton, & Bernie
Surprise surprise the whole thing was rigged against Bernie and in favour of the hag.
WikiLeaks List: Most Damaging Emails About DNC, Clinton, & Bernie
Surprise surprise the whole thing was rigged against Bernie and in favour of the hag.
Not to surprising in that Bernie isn't a Democrat. He's an independent that caucuses with & usually votes with the Democrats. The Democratic party establishment doesn't like a non-Democrat running for the Democratic nomination.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
This is just further proof of what Sanders supporters have been saying for months. We've been trying to oust the chair of the party, but didn't have the direct proof to make it happen. She was pretty precarious before. She's essentially let the Republicans have their way with very little in the way of counter from her. It's likely that she's a gonner now. If so, the Sanders candidacy did some good.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
I sometimes get together with other Bernie supporters. We've been trying to come up with a "what's next" list. What are the things that we should be working on now? Where should we be working, in the Democratic Party, the Green Party, or elsewhere? That sort of thing. Number one or two on the list was to get rid of her. I guess we can cross that one off.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
Sadly, reports of her demise were a bit exaggerated - she has apparently gone from the DNC to work for the Clinton campaign full-time.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
No wonder she was smirking in the pictures her after she "resigned." This is just further proof of how rigged the electoral system is.
Oh please. Not the Green Party.....the best friend the right wing ever had.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
They aren't great, but not for that reason Debunked: The Myth That Ralph Nader Cost Al Gore the 2000 Election - disinformation
I don't think it's a myth. I have no doubt that Nader gave us Bush. Charlie Cook knows what he's talking about.
Ralph Nader Was Indispensable To The Republican Party
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
Hillarys going to lose Tom. Because she's crooked and rigged the election and this time has been caught bang to rights. No conspiracy. Her and her mates rigged the election, because they're all bent. And got caught.
DNC will be a circus. Virtually no protests worth speaking about at Trumps convention. Clintons will be a war zone . Her innate crookedness and that of her crooked circle will be the best friend Trump ever had . And probably hand him the election. That and their sheer incompetence . Like if your going to rig an election don't talk about it on insecure emails .
Imagine those incompetents being in charge .
Sad .
DNC will be a circus. Virtually no protests worth speaking about at Trumps convention. Clintons will be a war zone . Her innate crookedness and that of her crooked circle will be the best friend Trump ever had . And probably hand him the election. That and their sheer incompetence . Like if your going to rig an election don't talk about it on insecure emails .
Imagine those incompetents being in charge .
Sad .
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
I know. They're pretty pathetic and ineffectual. I believe the hope is that if Bernie supporters move over there, there will be enough motivated people to make it more viable.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
Did you read the article I linked? The reality is that Gore was just a terrible candidate and so Dems voted Bush or did not vote at all. Reminds me of some other situation...
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
This is why Bernie signed on with the Dems. And why he's endorsing Clinton now. He wanted to avoid any shade of this clinging to him.
I read it. But I trust the Cook organization. Charlie Cook is a brilliant political analyst. I used to admire Nader.....until 2000. And Gore wasn't such a terrible candidate. He won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes.
Similar threads
