2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Also, isn't there still another ongoing corruption investigation into her Clinton Foundation?
Quote: KeyserAfter having listened to the FBI's report, you have to conclude that she's either criminal, or completely incompetent and stupid or both.
Anyone who concludes that she's criminal based on the FBI's report must be really dense. There was no cause for indictment.
Quote: terapined
In am not anti gay
I am not a racist or bigot
I am pro choice
I support ACA
Who do you suggest I vote for President?
Quote: TigerWu
In THEORY, you should vote for a third party candidate. However, since everyone knows that it's either going to be Trump or Clinton, then Clinton should technically get your vote. Or you can just not vote.
Trump's position does not align with terapined's best interest, so the ONLY correct answer to terapined is Madam Hillary Clinton. A no vote is a very ill-adviced, and terapined can vote for third party candidate if and only if this third party candidate policy and/or character best serve his interest AND if terapined believed that his/her third party candidate has decent chance of becoming a POTUS.
Terapined and all of us should not demand perfection from any candidate because there is no such thing as perfect human being. However, for the scenario described by terapined, the only correct answer for terapined is a vote for Madam Hillary Clinton.
Quote: KeyserShe makes Sara Palin look bright.
Shoot, I'd probably vote for Palin over the Trumpster if those were the only choices.
Quote: RonC"Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort."
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
I never really thought that there "would" be an indictment; I won't get into a debate about whether there "should" have been one or not. I will say that her systematic disregard for the security of classified information is unacceptable. The poor excuses about this person and that person doing it are just that--excuses--and there is no proof that any of them allowed their negligence to reach the epic proportions that hers did.
The hindsight 20/20 approach to this has mostly glossed over the institutional practices of the State Dept. The use of private servers, other devices, the setup of the technology and secure practices developed long before she got there. Condi Rice and Colin Powell had similar arrangements, and what they were doing was what carried over into her term.
Secy Clinton showed up at State, they gave her a computer and a phone, and told her what to do. She's not a tech geek, she did what they recommended. Security policies changed during and after her tenure, I don't know how quickly her practices changed during those transitions, but I promise, knowing how DOT worked just before she was SOS, she got handed stuff and used it without any understanding of why. Not her job, any more than it was the job of Senior Executives in DOT.
I don't disagree that security may have been compromised. But there was no intent or even awareness of security issues that are now known to exist. She has to be responsible for the institutional failure, as does any Dept head, but not for the mechanics of the failure. That would be a failure of State, NSA, whoever else is involved with protecting information and assets, regardless of who was SOS at the time. Some culpability probably goes back years before her time; it didn't suddenly change with her arrival.
I've never seen her energize a crowd like that.
But - this has taken the focus off of what a god awful candidate Donald Trump is.
The "Mexican" judge born in Indiana. His horrifying response to Orlando. Anti-Semitic tweets. This guy is DOA.
I'll be honest - last month I was a *little* worried that Republicans would "wise up" and figure out a way to dump Donald Trump before the convention.
I am not worried about that anymore. It's just too late.
Hillary could be beaten by a real candidate. But not by a bigot like Donald Trump.
Quote:She makes Sara Palin look bright.
So far this is the stupidest thing I've read all day.
Quote:Also, isn't there still another ongoing corruption investigation into her Clinton Foundation?
I think that investigation was dropped, but I could be wrong.
Quote: KeyserAt this point, I'm afraid that Trump is our best option. Hillary just doesn't have the moral fiber or the mental capacity required for the job.
That's your opinion. Go ahead , vote for Trump
on the flip side
I am pro choice, pro ACA and pro gay marriage.
I am for a path to citizenship for all those in our country
I don't support a religious test to immigrate to our country
Don't you think its reasonable that I vote for Clinton?
Quote:So far this is the stupidest thing I've read all day.
I think we all agree, that Hillary's not the brightest crayon in the box.
Quote: beachbumbabsThe hindsight 20/20 approach to this has mostly glossed over the institutional practices of the State Dept. The use of private servers, other devices, the setup of the technology and secure practices developed long before she got there. Condi Rice and Colin Powell had similar arrangements, and what they were doing was what carried over into her term.
No, they did not have "similar arrangements"--they may not have handled everything in the best way possible, but it looks to me like only Hillary Clinton took it to the level of having a private, off-site server.
"Clinton said, regarding her State Department email practices, "my predecessors did the same thing."
This is a misleading claim chiefly because only one prior secretary of state regularly used email, Colin Powell. Powell did use a personal email address for government business, however he did not use a private server kept at his home, as Clinton did."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/
Quote: beachbumbabsSecy Clinton showed up at State, they gave her a computer and a phone, and told her what to do. She's not a tech geek, she did what they recommended. Security policies changed during and after her tenure, I don't know how quickly her practices changed during those transitions, but I promise, knowing how DOT worked just before she was SOS, she got handed stuff and used it without any understanding of why. Not her job, any more than it was the job of Senior Executives in DOT.
I don't really think that anyone recommended a private server...and, I'm sorry, SECURITY is the job of everyone handling potential harmful material--classified stuff certainly counts as that. I am sure she was either supposed to be briefed or was briefed.
I don't know the level of security required at DOT, but it is a failure of immense proportions if there is not someone at a fairly senior level responsible for the proper handling of sensitive information. Please tell me we aren't as stupid about it as you seem to say we are....
Quote: beachbumbabsI don't disagree that security may have been compromised. But there was no intent or even awareness of security issues that are now known to exist. She has to be responsible for the institutional failure, as does any Dept head, but not for the mechanics of the failure. That would be a failure of State, NSA, whoever else is involved with protecting information and assets, regardless of who was SOS at the time. Some culpability probably goes back years before her time; it didn't suddenly change with her arrival.
Each person in the job had the responsibility to take security seriously. Powell's and Rice's apparent sins do not somehow necessarily reduce those of Clinton in any way. I am disappointed that our government doesn't care enough to do better; I know guys who spent most of their enlistments in vaults properly handling the kind of information that apparently some many levels higher think is okay to put out there for potentially everyone to see.
Quote: KeyserI think we all agree, that Hillary's not the brightest crayon in the box.
As with most things that you think, that is wrong.
Quote:That's your opinion. Go ahead , vote for Trump
on the flip side
I am pro choice, pro ACA and pro gay marriage.
I am for a path to citizenship for all those in our country
I don't support a religious test to immigrate to our country
Don't you think its reasonable that I vote for Clinton?
No actually I don't think that's reasonable in any way whatsoever.
I'm pro rights for all women, which is why I can't back Hillary.
And regarding gay marriage, so friggin what. Trump's not against gay marraige. Most American's don't care, but we are tired of hearing about "gay rights". Especially since it's such a small small percentage of the entire population.
Quote: KeyserI think we all agree, that Hillary's not the brightest crayon in the box.
You don't have to be the brightest crayon in the box. Only the brightest in the race.
In general, I don't believe it is incompetence even then. Though it may be enough to get someone fired.
The actual incompetents made mistakes routinely, didn't learn, and didn't improve. That's incompetence.
If the definition of incompetence is finally making a serious mistake, then most people are incompetent.
Quote: rxwineThe discussion of incompetence is interesting. I've had people who worked for me make serious mistakes.
In general, I don't believe it is incompetence even then. Though it may be enough to get someone fired.
The actual incompetents made mistakes routinely, didn't learn, and didn't improve. That's incompetence.
If the definition of incompetence is finally making a serious mistake, then most people are incompetent.
The level of "incompetence" or the severity of the "mistake" in terms of damage to an entity--a company, a unit, whatever--makes a difference in how it is handled. Some of either is acceptable at certain levels; it may be what keeps that person from being promoted or otherwise moving forward, but they may keep their job.
The level of "mistake", if we are to call it that, that Hillary Clinton or someone on her staff made seems to be in--at least--technical violation of the laws surrounding the handling of classified information. There was negligence and there was mishandled information. Like it or not, being in violation of law does not automatically get one prosecuted. It appears this is the opening that allows for such a damning statement from the FBI Director without him recommending charges be filed.
This level of "mistake" or "incompetence" does merit firing from a position of trust. We can parse a whole bunch of words and defend her all anyone cares to, but the facts put forth along with her consistent lies about what happened make her completely untrustworthy and would have led to her relief from most positions requiring extreme trust.
The time it took to get to this point worked in her favor for the nomination. Her opponent works in her favor for election. We'll see what happens!!
Quote: ams288As with most things that you think, that is wrong.
That was an insult, just in case no one else recognized it.
Quote: KeyserNo actually I don't think that's reasonable in any way whatsoever.
Interesting
We seem to be on opposite sides of some issues
I think its perfectly reasonable to vote for Trump if you are , against ACA, against choice and anti immigrant
Yet because I am pro gay marriage, pro ACA, pro choice and pro immigration
Its not reasonable for me to vote for Clinton? Why? I dislike John Miller.
Seems a pretty illogical conclusion
No, that wasn't an insult, that was one person expressing his opinion as to the correctness of another person's statements. You want an example of an insult? Donald Trump's suggestion that his anti-Semitic graphic wasn't anti-Semitic because the six-pointed star was "a sheriff's badge" is an insult to your intelligence. Trump must think a lot of people are pretty dumb to fall for that explanation. We know he loves the "poorly-educated."Quote: TwoFeathersATLThat was an insult, just in case no one else recognized it.
Fortunately, Trump's constituents in the KKK didn't fall for his sham explanation. Former KKK leader David Duke, whose Twitter feed I will not dignify by reposting here, understands what Trump really meant by his original post and he applauds it. Do you?
Quote: TwoFeathersATLThat was an insult, just in case no one else recognized it.
No one else recognized it, cause it wasn't.
He has a long history of being wrong on everything.
Go back to the 2012 election thread and read for yourself (grab the popcorn first).
One of my favorite whoppers from that thread was when he predicted African Americans would riot in the streets when Mitt Romney defeated Obama.
Quote: ams288As with most things that you think, that is wrong.
This is either an insult or the closest you can get to it without it being called an insult.
How in the world do you know what "most things" anyone thinks actually are?
You'll skate, most likely, but you attacked more than the writing...
Whitewater
travel gate
Cattle futures
Destroy the lives of hubby Bill's amorphous alliances
Benghazi - may not have been her fault, might have been her boss, she was 'quiet' at best
The Clinton Foundation, with big money from odd places overseas while she serves as SoS
It's a long list. Remember Vince Foster? Remember the Rosé law firm files, remember anything?
If Barney Fife ran against Hillary, I'd vote for Barney.
Same for Donald Duck, Minnie Mouse, Porky Pig, and the Big Bad Wolf.
My vote would cancel out Trig's except I'm in the wrong state.
Calling Face, are we ready yet?
There's a vast discrepancy between chastising someone for a negligent breach of protocol that might have led to a bad outcome (but didn't), vs. chastising someone for intentional conspiracy to defraud that actually did lead to a bad outcome.Quote: RonCEach person in the job had the responsibility to take security seriously. Powell's and Rice's apparent sins do not somehow necessarily reduce those of Clinton in any way. I am disappointed that our government doesn't care enough to do better; I know guys who spent most of their enlistments in vaults properly handling the kind of information that apparently some many levels higher think is okay to put out there for potentially everyone to see.
If anyone should be indicted here, it's Trump. Whether that happens before or after he drops out of the presidential race is yet to be seen, but Trump calling Hillary "crooked" is like Kim Jong Il calling Obama a bad leader.
Quote: RonCThis is either an insult or the closest you can get to it without it being called an insult.
How in the world do you know what "most things" anyone thinks actually are?
You'll skate, most likely, but you attacked more than the writing...
In the words of the great RonC:
Quote: RonCAsk for the suspension, if one just must do so. If one can resist that, let the moderators moderate; I am sure they will do whatever they do...and it sure would help if everyone didn't take offense at every little thing that might be a tad insulting.
Quote: MathExtremistThere's a vast discrepancy between chastising someone for a negligent breach of protocol that might have led to a bad outcome (but didn't), vs. chastising someone for intentional conspiracy to defraud that actually did lead to a bad outcome.
If anyone should be indicted here, it's Trump. Whether that happens before or after he drops out of the presidential race is yet to be seen, but Trump calling Hillary "crooked" is like Kim Jong Il calling Obama a bad leader.
Again, investigate and prosecute Trump if there is a reason do so...I agree that we should hold him accountable. Has that been done? Have charges been filed? You folks wanted to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt on her case; why not give Trump that in his case?
Your statement seems to be incorrect--the FBI Director did not address a "negligent breach of protocol that might have led to a bad outcome (but didn't)"--he said this:
"Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
That certainly does not mean that there is no possibility that there was or will be any harmful outcome as a result of her negligent behavior.
Quote: ams288In the words of the great RonC:
Quote: RonC
Ask for the suspension, if one just must do so. If one can resist that, let the moderators moderate; I am sure they will do whatever they do...and it sure would help if everyone didn't take offense at every little thing that might be a tad insulting.
I stand by that statement. I do not think that you should be suspended. Your statement sounded to me like an insult. You said that it wasn't. I disagreed.
I am allowed to disagree with you, right?
Quote: RonCQuote: ams288
I stand by that statement. I do not think that you should be suspended. Your statement sounded to me like an insult. You said that it wasn't. I disagreed.
I am allowed to disagree with you, right?
Of course you are. That's basically all we do.
Quote: ams288Quote: RonCQuote: ams288
I stand by that statement. I do not think that you should be suspended. Your statement sounded to me like an insult. You said that it wasn't. I disagreed.
I am allowed to disagree with you, right?
Of course you are. That's basically all we do.
Great! I thought that I might have lost that right through some progressive action that I didn't know about...
Quote: RonCQuote: ams288Quote: RonCQuote: ams288
I stand by that statement. I do not think that you should be suspended. Your statement sounded to me like an insult. You said that it wasn't. I disagreed.
I am allowed to disagree with you, right?
Of course you are. That's basically all we do.
Great! I thought that I might have lost that right through some progressive action that I didn't know about...
Nope.
Not yet. But wait until Crooked Hillary stacks the Supreme Court with her communist cronies.
Quote: ams288Quote: RonCQuote: ams288Quote: RonCQuote: ams288
I stand by that statement. I do not think that you should be suspended. Your statement sounded to me like an insult. You said that it wasn't. I disagreed.
I am allowed to disagree with you, right?
Of course you are. That's basically all we do.
Great! I thought that I might have lost that right through some progressive action that I didn't know about...
Nope.
Not yet. But wait until Crooked Hillary stacks the Supreme Court with her communist cronies.
Are you trying to scare me?
Quote: RonCQuote: ams288Quote: RonCQuote: ams288Quote: RonCQuote: ams288
I stand by that statement. I do not think that you should be suspended. Your statement sounded to me like an insult. You said that it wasn't. I disagreed.
I am allowed to disagree with you, right?
Of course you are. That's basically all we do.
Great! I thought that I might have lost that right through some progressive action that I didn't know about...
Nope.
Not yet. But wait until Crooked Hillary stacks the Supreme Court with her communist cronies.
Are you trying to scare me?
No. Sometimes I attempt to make jokes.
Quote: RonCAre you trying to scare me?
Quote: ams288No. Sometimes I attempt to make jokes.
As do I...perhaps we should stick to our day jobs!
Quote: KeyserThe fact that so many Democrats are putting party before country like this is astonishing.
Do you feel the same about the GOP? They have party leaders who openly concede Trump is an apocalyptic nightmare and then go on to endorse him anyway. It's insane.
Quote:They know Hillary is the worst candidate they have ever allowed to be their nominee.
I am a Democrat and I don't feel this way.
1. Hillary had a blonde moment and isn't the brightest crayon in the box.
2. She's a criminal and feels the laws are for the little people.
3. All of the above.
Quote: billryanI'd take Hilary over McGovern, Mondale or Dukakis in a heartbeat.
And Gore. And probably Kerry, too.
Yeah, she's far from the worst Democratic nominee, just in the last 30 years.
EDIT: Hey, here's a question I have for Republicans/conservatives/Obama detractors: how come whenever he does something that is in line with what you think should be done, you criticize him for it anyway?
For example, he said he was going to close Gitmo, and he was trashed for that idea. Then years later he still hasn't closed it, and the exact same people are trashing him for it. I thought you WANTED Gitmo to stay open? You should be praising him.
And just today I read an article that he is going to be keeping troops in Afghanistan longer, which is exactly what his opponents have wanted, and yet I see conservatives and Republicans criticizing him for not bringing the troops home like he said he was going to do, and prolonging the war, and getting our guys killed.
I just don't understand some people...
If you're supporting Trump, your criticism is hilariously hypocritical. Or have you forgotten that Trump conspired to defraud "the little people" and take their money?Quote: KeyserTake your pick
1. Hillary had a blonde moment and isn't the brightest crayon in the box.
2. She's a criminal and feels the laws are for the little people.
3. All of the above.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/in-trump-institute-donald-trump-had-florida-partners-with-a-record-of-fraud/2283767
Trump dissed the midgets too!Quote: MathExtremistIf you're supporting Trump, your criticism is hilariously hypocritical. Or have you forgotten that Trump conspired to defraud "the little people" and take their money?
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/in-trump-institute-donald-trump-had-florida-partners-with-a-record-of-fraud/2283767
You gotta draw a line in the sand somewhere...
Quote: TwoFeathersATLTrump dissed the midgets too!
You gotta draw a line in the sand somewhere...
I know you like to be funny but you are crossing a line into insulting.
chill
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Little-people-combat-society-s-midget-mentality-2615522.php
"What I hope is that people's understanding evolves so that they realize the word is considered by many little people as a slur on their humanity"
On a lighter note
Gretchen Carlson is suing Rodger Ailes
I got the popcorn out
I wonder if foxnews will report this lol
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gretchen-carlson-harassment-lawsuit_us_577d22c1e4b09b4c43c1c624
All the blonde ladies at Fox look the same to me.
EDIT: Wait, was she just fired today?
Quote: ams288I literally had no idea Gretchen Carlson was not on Fox News anymore.
All the blonde ladies at Fox look the same to me.
EDIT: Wait, was she just fired today?
On the rare occasion that I used to watch Fox News I could never get over how unprofessional and childish Gretchen Carlson was. I think it's perfectly obvious she is/was only a TV journalist because of her looks. It was embarrassing watching her interview people.
I try to stay "chilled". You may have noticed, maybe you didn't, I am the most frequent target of my sad attempts at humor. You might want to think about that fact for a moment now.Quote: terapinedI know you like to be funny but you are crossing a line into insulting.
chill
But I will take your friendly advice under consideration.
Just 2F
The GOP nowadays can just not let anything go. How many YEARS and how many MILLIONS of dollars did they waste doing investigation after investigation of Benghazi? Was it this thread where I read that Congress spent more time investigating Benghazi than they did Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and the Kennedy Assassination?? To me, this whole issue says way more about the corruption of Congress than it does Hillary Clinton. Now how long is this email "scandal" going to go on? If Hillary's elected, I bet they'll still be investigating Benghazi and emails till the day she leaves office, if not after.
Quote: TigerWuhttps://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-attack-fbi-over-decision-clinton-emails-075513976--election.html
The GOP nowadays can just not let anything go. How many YEARS and how many MILLIONS of dollars did they waste doing investigation after investigation of Benghazi? Was it this thread where I read that Congress spent more time investigating Benghazi than they did Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and the Kennedy Assassination?? To me, this whole issue says way more about the corruption of Congress than it does Hillary Clinton. Now how long is this email "scandal" going to go on? If Hillary's elected, I bet they'll still be investigating Benghazi and emails till the day she leaves office, if not after.
They don't realize that when they beat a dead horse like they always do, everyone but their rabid base tunes them out.
The GOP is going to overplay their hand with this, just like they always do with everything related to Hillary.
Quote: TigerWuIf Hillary's elected, I bet they'll still be investigating Benghazi and emails till the day she leaves office, if not after.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, and say, not after.
Donald Trump just tweeted an image of a coloring book from the Disney movie Frozen that has a six pointed star on the cover. Apparently this is somehow proof that his white supremacist-created meme about Crooked Hillary wasn't anti-Semitic.
You. Can't. Make. This. Stuff. Up.
Edit: OMG! I can't believe they would be so obviously slanted! Jesus Christ they must think nobody is paying attention!
Quote: ams288Donald Trump just tweeted an image of a coloring book from the Disney movie Frozen that has a six pointed star on the cover. Apparently this is somehow proof that his white supremacist-created meme about Crooked Hillary wasn't anti-Semitic.
Hillary with an abolutely A+ reply on Twitter: "Do you want to build a strawman?"
