| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: The email thing has been re-opened because they keep finding more shady stuff.
Really? How do you now it is "shady?" Because apparently, not even the FBI knows. What they said amounted to "we're looking at some more e-mails." That's it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it does equal criminality. It's called negligence
Apparently the director of the FBI disagreed with you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If everything was fine and dandy, why would they have considered it new and sufficient evidence to start investigating again?
Thank you for illustrating why we have the Hatch act.
|
For people saying it is all the hate is just because she is a woman, then wow. No.
If it was entirely because she was a woman, then people would have cared when Condoleeza Rice kept her Secretary of State emails on a private server. They didn't, just as no one cared when Colin Powell did that same thing as well (or when thirteen separate Benghazi's happened while Bush was President).
So it's less a 'woman did it' thing and more a 'Democrat did it' thing.
Guilty-until-proven-innocent aside...when did we start talking about "real" liberals? Is there a decoder ring? :P
Go watch the congressional hearing and form your own opinion rather than let people tell you your opinion.
...and here come the underhanded insults. I wish I were surprised.
All-in-all, Gore and Nader share the blame for that mess. Actually, there was probably voting fraud going on there, so maybe Gore, Nader and Bush should share it. :PThat I can fully agree with. The myriad faults of the Gore campaign were lampshaded hilariously on Doonesbury, from renderings of the Gore Bot to Gore trying to figure out if this was a week to praise Clinton or bury him in his campaign strategy.
I'd leave out blaming Bush. It was after all his JOB to win the race.
Can I blame Jeb Bush for his attempts to throw the state to his brother? And his Secretary of the State, Katherine Harris, for doing the dirty work. Mostly voter purges and the like?
Absolutely.. you can throw in as many villains as you want and and find evidence for.
But no matter how many you throw in, that does not absolve Nader for his part, unless you can prove that his influence on the vote total was a significantly neutral one, and that's a hard sell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely.. you can throw in as many villains as you want and and find evidence for.
But no matter how many you throw in, that does not absolve Nader for his part, unless you can prove that his influence on the vote total was a significantly neutral one, and that's a hard sell.
The thing I always find interesting about 2000 is that there is no debate that Gore got more votes than Bush, but both our electoral process and our judiciary ensured that the person who didn't get the most votes won. So...Democracy? :P
The thing I always find interesting about 2000 is that there is no debate that Gore got more votes than Bush, but both our electoral process and our judiciary ensured that the person who didn't get the most votes won. So...Democracy? :PAbsolutely.. you can throw in as many villains as you want and and find evidence for.
But no matter how many you throw in, that does not absolve Nader for his part, unless you can prove that his influence on the vote total was a significantly neutral one, and that's a hard sell.
The electoral system by its nature allows for this possibility. The election of the President unlike that for state governor is not a direct democratic process, if it were, the Electoral College would never have been established. And there would be no such things as battleground states. It's arguable however that a direct democracy might disenfranchise more people, or at least regions of the country than it would help.
Whether it should exist, is a whole nother bucketfull of s+*~ storm debate which is not really tangent here. It's not going away in the next two weeks.
Not so strange.
As I said before, every election process lives and dies on its CLARITY of results. And if it is unclear, no matter how undesired the result is, things will go from bad to much, much, MUCH worse in moments.
Obama has said it again and again. It is an absolutely central part of the election process that the loser admits defeat to the winner.
Because the only alternative is? Yes. Civil war, or at least the attempt at such.
America has a CLEAR system. The people choose the electors. The electors choose the president. Within that logic, there is no room for other interpretations. Be thankful of that.
Whether more people actually voted for Gore or not is very far down the list of interesting results of the election.
Bugley, I absolutely agree with you on the Gore thing. It just goes to show that the popular vote is absolutely meaningless on deciding president. The electoral college is the only vote the matters on that, so why bother?
Also, techncially, isn't the USA not a democracy? I believe it is a Republic, but I need to look that up.
A republic is one very well known and accepted form of a democratic society. Please don't start that, you too.
Also, techncially, isn't the USA not a democracy? I believe it is a Republic, but I need to look that up.
Technically, I believe we're a Democratic Republic. The power comes from the people, and goes through elected officials who make decisions on the people's behalf. In some cases, the explicit consent of the people is required for something to be approved, regardless of what the elected officials think.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If everything was fine and dandy, why would they have considered it new and sufficient evidence to start investigating again?Edit: The email thing has been re-opened because they keep finding more shady stuff.Really? How do you now it is "shady?" Because apparently, not even the FBI knows. What they said amounted to "we're looking at some more e-mails." That's it.
No, as has been said before a few pages back, the investigation wasn't re-opened; the FBI had not closed the "Clinton emails" investigation. (FYI, the 9/11 investigation isn't closed either, and they only recently closed the D.B. Cooper case. Yes, really.)
Again, to recap from pages back: the FBI had been digging into Anthony Weiner because he is being investigated for sexting with a 15-yro in North Carolina. Huma Abedin had already turned in her work laptop back when Clinton originally turned over her emails originally. It came to the FBI's notice that there was a personal laptop that both Abedin and Weiner had used for various everyday household/personal tasks. Abedin voluntarily turned the notebook over to the FBI. When an agent asked if she had used it for work for Clinton, she said she didn't remember if she did or didn't. The FBI took possession of the notebook, and then had to wait until Sunday afternoon before their warrant went through. They didn't start any forensic analysis on the notebook until then, in order to not invalidate any possible evidence for either case.
The FBI didn't know what was on the laptop or wasn't. If there were emails from Abedin's work for Clinton, they didn't know what was in those emails, if they were classified or not (or what classification level), or if they were duplicate copies of what Clinton already turned in. This wasn't because they suspected anything "shady" or had proof of "new evidence" on Clinton's or Abedin's part. This was just routine followup, just chasing a possible lead. That's it. Comey said all this in his poorly-worded, poorly-handled letter.
The only one's who seem certain this is a smoking gun of Clinton's wrongdoing are the same people who have been gunning for her: Jason Chaffetz (R), Trey Gowdy (R), anti-Clinton voices in the media like Rush Limbaugh (R), the Trump Campaign (R)... and everyone else convinced that after 25+ years of slinging monkey poop at the Clinton's, this time, they'd finally have their proof.
The thing I always find interesting about 2000 is that there is no debate that Gore got more votes than Bush, but both our electoral process and our judiciary ensured that the person who didn't get the most votes won. So...Democracy? :PAbsolutely.. you can throw in as many villains as you want and and find evidence for.
But no matter how many you throw in, that does not absolve Nader for his part, unless you can prove that his influence on the vote total was a significantly neutral one, and that's a hard sell.
Republic
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, technically we do know that Clinton is guilty of using e-mail.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing found in Hillary's emails? No, I watched some of the congressional hearing. They found stuff. She released stuff that was labeled confidential. She just claimed she didn't notice. So, now ignorance is an excuse? From what I saw, the FBI said there was wrongdoing but they did not believe they could get anyone willing to prosecute, so they dropped it. That's not saying she did nothing wrong in any way. That's saying yeah, she did some shady stuff but meh, whatever.
I watched the hearings, too. And no, the FBI didn't say there was wrongdoing—they said there was carelessness.
And there was. Do I like that Hillary made that fumble? No. But tons of other politicians do it without getting harassed about it. She's acknowledged it was a mistake.
I watched the hearings. In fact, I watched the last one all the way through—and that one went half a day. I watched a bunch of Republicans reduce a critical governmental process to, as you guys put it, "political theater", bringing down biased attack after biased attack in a transparent effort to simply tire the former Secretary of State out. And her voice went out! But what did I not watch? I did not watch "the choke moment". I did not watch anything we didn't already know. Not even the most minuscule grain of evidence has surfaced to indicate any sort of evil intent—Hillary did not do Benghazi, she did not cause Pence's plane to fly off the runway, and she did not use a private email server to rig the election against Donald Trump.
No law was broken. She made a minor mistake. I don't like that, but only in this polarized environment could the GOP actually inflate that to claim she deserves to be in jail. It's truly pathetic.
Whether more people actually voted for Gore or not is very far down the list of interesting results of the election.
Disagree. Of course most of us understand how the electoral college works, and yet we often still talk about the election as if the electoral college didn't exist. That's what I find interesting.
Perhaps this because "we the people" wish to see that the winner takes the majority of the popular vote by however slim a margin?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, technically we do know that Clinton is guilty of using e-mail.
HRC is notorious for buying 11, sometimes even 12, items in the "10 Items or Less" lane at the supermarket when they have a good BOGOF. Also, she sometimes forgets to bring in her cloth shopping bags from the car, forcing the bagger to use plastic. GUILTY!
Bill jaywalks all over the damn place. You can't stop him. Streets, lanes, driveways, boulevards, tarmacs... the thug life chose him. Hell, he jaywalks in his sleep. GUILTY!
Chelsea was born a Clinton. GUILTY!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Set, I'm not excusing anyone ever doing that stuff. I would consider them all on the same level.
Which is why you are just as vocally chasing downn Trey Gowdy, and Darrel Issa right?
After all you were obviously paying attention so you are aware they both actually released information publically instead of had some after the fact inadvertent possible spillage?
And you are just as vehement in chasing down the AOL account of Powel (that he admitted was for avoiding public scrutiny) and the RNC servers the Bush administration used right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Set, I'm not excusing anyone ever doing that stuff. I would consider them all on the same level.Which is why you are just as vocally chasing downn Trey Gowdy, and Darrel Issa right?
Issa shouldn't be too hard to find. I think he's still in the local hospital's burn unit.
Well, technically we do know that Clinton is guilty of using e-mail.HRC is notorious for buying 11, sometimes even 12, items in the "10 Items or Less" lane at the supermarket. Also, she sometimes forgets to bring in her cloth shopping bags from the car, forcing the bagger to use plastic. GUILTY!
Bill jaywalks all over the damn place. You can't stop him. Streets, lanes, driveways, boulevards, tarmacs... the thug life chose him. Hell, he jaywalks in his sleep. GUILTY!
False equivalency. People still act like Bill is somehow this nice, likable guy. I know moderates and Democrats who like him and yet utterly despise Hillary. Nevermind the fact that he's probably both more corrupt and more right-leaning than she is. He's a dude and he's a good speaker, so we like him and demonize (literally) her.
|
No, as has been said before a few pages back, the investigation wasn't re-opened; the FBI had not closed the "Clinton emails" investigation. (FYI, the 9/11 investigation isn't closed either, and they only recently closed the D.B. Cooper case. Yes, really.)
"Reopen" is an apprporiate general term for what happened, and is one every news organization is using. "Reactivated" is probably more accurate, but I haven't heard it used even once.
If everything was fine and dandy, why would they have considered it new and sufficient evidence to start investigating again?Edit: The email thing has been re-opened because they keep finding more shady stuff.Really? How do you now it is "shady?" Because apparently, not even the FBI knows. What they said amounted to "we're looking at some more e-mails." That's it.No, as has been said before a few pages back, the investigation wasn't re-opened; the FBI had not closed the "Clinton emails" investigation. (FYI, the 9/11 investigation isn't closed either, and they only recently closed the D.B. Cooper case. Yes, really.)
Again, to recap from pages back: the FBI had been digging into Anthony Weiner because he is being investigated for sexting with a 15-yro in North Carolina. Huma Abedin had already turned in her work laptop back when Clinton originally turned over her emails originally. It came to the FBI's notice that there was a personal laptop that both Abedin and Weiner had used for various everyday household/personal tasks. Abedin voluntarily turned the notebook over to the FBI. When an agent asked if she had used it for work for Clinton, she said she didn't remember if she did or didn't. The FBI took possession of the notebook, and then had to wait until Sunday afternoon before their warrant went through. They didn't start any forensic analysis on the notebook until then, in order to not invalidate any possible evidence for either case.
The FBI didn't know what was on the laptop or wasn't. If there were emails from Abedin's work for Clinton, they didn't know what was in those emails, if they were classified or not (or what classification level), or if they were duplicate copies of what Clinton already turned in. This wasn't because they suspected anything "shady" or had proof of "new evidence" on Clinton's or Abedin's part. This was just routine followup, just chasing a possible lead. That's it. Comey...
And presumably FBI Director Chemey...if only to prove that he's not an Obama-Clinton stooge.
False equivalency. People still act like Bill is somehow this nice, likable guy. I know moderates and Democrats who like him and yet utterly despise Hillary. Nevermind the fact that he's probably both more corrupt and more right-leaning than she is. He's a dude and he's a good speaker, so we like him and demonize (literally) her.Well, technically we do know that Clinton is guilty of using e-mail.HRC is notorious for buying 11, sometimes even 12, items in the "10 Items or Less" lane at the supermarket. Also, she sometimes forgets to bring in her cloth shopping bags from the car, forcing the bagger to use plastic. GUILTY!
Bill jaywalks all over the damn place. You can't stop him. Streets, lanes, driveways, boulevards, tarmacs... the thug life chose him. Hell, he jaywalks in his sleep. GUILTY!
Like I said, different standards apply. We're not as evolved socially to accept the behavior we admire in men in the same way when we see it in women.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
False equivalency. People still act like Bill is somehow this nice, likable guy. I know moderates and Democrats who like him and yet utterly despise Hillary. Nevermind the fact that he's probably both more corrupt and more right-leaning than she is. He's a dude and he's a good speaker, so we like him and demonize (literally) her.Well, technically we do know that Clinton is guilty of using e-mail.HRC is notorious for buying 11, sometimes even 12, items in the "10 Items or Less" lane at the supermarket. Also, she sometimes forgets to bring in her cloth shopping bags from the car, forcing the bagger to use plastic. GUILTY!
Bill jaywalks all over the damn place. You can't stop him. Streets, lanes, driveways, boulevards, tarmacs... the thug life chose him. Hell, he jaywalks in his sleep. GUILTY!
Oh, I'm not saying Bill Clinton is a saint. He has mythic level Charisma and has gotten away with ethically-dubious-but-not-illegal things. He seems to often go into full schmooze mode without considering the consequences. And the crap he has put his wife, his daughter, and other women through makes me nauseous. But overall, I think he's a fairly typical wealthy white guy of privilege who has spent too long amongst all the other douchebags in politics. That's not an excuse of his behavior, just an observation that we need a better class of leaders... and that we should figure out why we like male !ssholes in charge, so we can stop electing/hiring/promoting them.
Why HRC gets so much more hate than him... well, if Obama's Presidency re-exposed this country's long-festering racism, HRC's candidacy (and hopefully her Presidency) is slowly peeling back the filthy bandage on the country's deep sexism. The country isn't going to do much of anything about either problem, but it's darn sure gonna complain about the worst of all sins: being called sexist (and racist).
Issa shouldn't be too hard to find. I think he's still in the local hospital's burn unit.Set, I'm not excusing anyone ever doing that stuff. I would consider them all on the same level.Which is why you are just as vocally chasing downn Trey Gowdy, and Darrel Issa right?
Well there it is. I can't even fathom how he can call want he has done working with President Obama. That's shake my head level nuts. Especially considering how democrats were running from their successes in the midterms, and now Issa wants to be all chummy? WoW.
Well there it is. I can't even fathom how he can call want he has done working with President Obama. That's shake my head level nuts. Especially considering how democrats were running from their successes in the midterms, and now Issa wants to be all chummy? WoW.Issa shouldn't be too hard to find. I think he's still in the local hospital's burn unit.Set, I'm not excusing anyone ever doing that stuff. I would consider them all on the same level.Which is why you are just as vocally chasing downn Trey Gowdy, and Darrel Issa right?
Either 1) prolonged high-levels of cognitive dissonance causes brain damage, or b) keeping one's cranium tucked in one's cranial cavity deprives one's brain of oxygen, causing brain damage.
If you were drowning 50 feet from shore, Issa would throw you 25 feet of rope only so he could claim he met you half way.
Well, technically we do know that Clinton is guilty of using e-mail.
She's mainly guilty of being someone born in the Pre-Internet Stone Age trying to adapt to the world of Networking.
How dare hillary have email thats on multible computers!!!!!
My major concern with a nuclear winter is the whole polluting our air quality much like people that want to use volcanoes to do the whole cooling down the planet.Ironically, the Icelandic volcano eruption in 2010 was calculated to the 'net environmentally friendly' since emission reductions from grounded planes outweighed direct emissions. (not the same effect as you were thinking of, but shows where people get crazy ideas from)
For the record, I'm against natural disasters.
(ps. a fundamental problem with US politics is that you have only 2 major parties, which makes negative campaigning way overpowered and prevents cooperation. Unfortunately there's no clear way out of it).
For the record I'm only against earthquakes and forest fires. Floods I can survive. Same thing with long term winter/ice ages. But poor air makes for bad survival.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of double standards: [Newsweek] "Donald Trump's Companies Destroyed Emails in Defiance of Court Orders"
Edit: It's also their cover.
Speaking of double standards: [Newsweek] "Donald Trump's Companies Destroyed Emails in Defiance of Court Orders"
Edit: It's also their cover.
...Has it not yet been made clear that basically everything he blames someone else for doing is, in fact, what he's done? XD;
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing with Hillary is setting precedent I guess so hopefully they are both punished for their actions.
No, Colin Powell set the precedent when he was Secretary of State. She did not do anything that her predecessors hadn't already done.
So they're all scummy?
All humans are flawed in their own unique ways.