2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

5,551 to 5,600 of 7,079 << first < prev | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it really "outsiders" inciting violence when the main speaker suggests that he prefers when people are carried out on stretchers and that he'll pay legal bills for supporters that assault someone?


it's sort of like saying you are mad at the guy who brought matches to a bon fire...


To some, Hillary Clinton is a criminal, period. It doesn't matter what she has or has not been convicted of...she's a criminal, period. If prompted, these people will often say that "others would have gone to jail if they did what she did."

Of course, that ignores the actual problem -- that the rich and powerful receive special treatment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah... unless O'Keefe releases all of the unedited film I have no reason to even watch the video.

Quite frankly as a source of information he is shot. Nothing he has produced has been even close to what actually happens once the unedited paperwork is released.

Basically he is bad and if he's your source then you should feel bad too.


What? No, no, haven't you been paying attention to Candidate Trump? He was born into life with a golden spoon in his mouth (not just silver - pure gold!), got his wealth basically handed to him (and squandered a lot of it, going by his sub-par business performance), and as he's been very clearly telling us, the system is rigged against him. Otherwise he'd be winning. He definitely hasn't gotten the treatment he deserves.

Although with those trials set for the next few weeks, maybe we'll get lucky...


bugleyman wrote:

To some, Hillary Clinton is a criminal, period. It doesn't matter what she has or has not been convicted of...she's a criminal, period. If prompted, these people will often say that "others would have gone to jail if they did what she did."

Of course, that ignores the actual problem -- that the rich and powerful receive special treatment.

Normally because if they worked for the military or had a clearance they know people who DID go to jail or were prosecuted for doing the exact thing that Clinton did.

That sort of influences their opinions when they see someone treated differently.

Which is ignoring the problem more, the people who speak out, or the people who let it slide?

I think it's a hard call with Clinton to be honest. Despite what people say, I think she really didn't think she was doing anything wrong when she was doing that. However, I think AFTER the fact that once she realized she may have done something wrong, she sure as heck did everything she could to cover it up.

Of course, you'd either have to have a TON of integrity or be an idiot to admit to it after that, as that could send you to prison for a LOOONG time because then the guilt would be a given and they wouldn't even have to assume, they'd know. If she denies everything, then at least they don't know for certain whether she at least knew it was a crime or she was an old grandma who didn't know she was doing anything bad.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fergie wrote:
...I give Trump credit for self funding in the primaries...

Did he? I know he said he was doing that early on, but I thought it was later announced (by his campaign) that the money he personally spent was a loan to the campaign, since paid back via fundraising?


Something like that, yeah, and he's basically doing all fundraising now.

...

And diverting it to himself via significantly higher rent for offices in Trump Tower. You'd think that would be against campaign financing rules.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Fergie wrote:
...I give Trump credit for self funding in the primaries...
Did he? I know he said he was doing that early on, but I thought it was later announced (by his campaign) that the money he personally spent was a loan to the campaign, since paid back via fundraising?

He kind of did in part. But he loaned his campaign the money at first. It was only when donors had a fit about it that he supposedly forgave those loans to himself, though last I checked he hadn't actually filed the paperwork to forgive them, he simply said he had/would.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

To some, Hillary Clinton is a criminal, period. It doesn't matter what she has or has not been convicted of...she's a criminal, period. If prompted, these people will often say that "others would have gone to jail if they did what she did."

Of course, that ignores the actual problem -- that the rich and powerful receive special treatment.

Normally because if they worked for the military or had a clearance they know people who DID go to jail or were prosecuted for doing the exact thing that Clinton did.

Clinton...and pretty much every other national politician ever.

What I'm saying is that the problem -- that the rich and powerful are treated differently -- is systemic, and not at all specific to Clinton. Yet somehow Clinton belongs in prison, while the people with an R next to their name...don't?

That's just a little more hypocrisy than I can stomach.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some people feel this is a good way to describe Republicans right now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

To some, Hillary Clinton is a criminal, period. It doesn't matter what she has or has not been convicted of...she's a criminal, period. If prompted, these people will often say that "others would have gone to jail if they did what she did."

Of course, that ignores the actual problem -- that the rich and powerful receive special treatment.

Normally because if they worked for the military or had a clearance they know people who DID go to jail or were prosecuted for doing the exact thing that Clinton did.

That sort of influences their opinions when they see someone treated differently

We went over this like 30 pages ago. The charges were dropped and there is no legal precedent where someone was convicted for that activity. She's not a criminal by definition of the law so she's as much of a "criminal" as you arbitrarily decide.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Normally because if they worked for the military or had a clearance they know people who DID go to jail or were prosecuted for doing the exact thing that Clinton did.

I am curious who went to jail for doing the exact thing Clinton did. I mean, how many people are even in a position to set up their own email server with a government address? I suspect that most of those talking it don't actually mean the "exact thing", but some other thing involving classified data which isn't nearly the same thing at all.

We know of people who didn't get prosecuted for what was actually the same thing, Colin Powell, for one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Normally because if they worked for the military or had a clearance they know people who DID go to jail or were prosecuted for doing the exact thing that Clinton did.

I am curious who went to jail for doing the exact thing Clinton did. I mean, how many people are even in a position to set up their own email server with a government address? I suspect that most of those talking it don't actually mean the "exact thing", but some other thing involving classified data which isn't nearly the same thing at all.

We know of people who didn't get prosecuted for what was actually the same thing, Colin Powell, for one.

Also the RNC who ran servers for the White House and destroyed the evidence rather than turn it over to Congress as required by law.

But I'm noticing a distinct lack of calls for Gowdy and Issa who both did actually release material to go to jail as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

THIS was posted by my friend Russell Blackford; figured I'd share it here. It implies that a lot of what we think about "Trump supporters" may not be totally accurate.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
THIS was posted by my friend Russell Blackford; figured I'd share it here. It implies that a lot of what we think about "Trump supporters" may not be totally accurate.

It pretty much is.


I have to say I'm getting really tired of Trump supporters complaining about "the elite."


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Knight who says Meh wrote:
I have to say I'm getting really tired of Trump supporters complaining about "the elite."

Get used to it. Bernie supporters complain about them too.


CrystalSeas wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
I have to say I'm getting really tired of Trump supporters complaining about "the elite."
Get used to it. Bernie supporters complain about them too.

I thought the Bernie bros complained about the top one tenth of the one percent?


I admit the video isn't great, but it is worth actually investigating. I know I will be keeping my eye on politifact. I am not a Trump supporter at all, but I find both candidates to be a complete dumpster fire.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The only only positive thing I see about Trump's antics lately is that the Bernie diehards I know have almost entirely stopped with their own "rigged primary" talk.

If anyone wants a good laugh at James O'Keefe's expense I recommend the wild tale of his weird "love boat" sting attempt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
THIS was posted by my friend Russell Blackford; figured I'd share it here. It implies that a lot of what we think about "Trump supporters" may not be totally accurate.

It talks a lot about how we shouldn't stereotype working class Americans, which is certainly fair, but it doesn't really say much about why Trump supporters do support him. It does point out his base is really among middle-class blue collar workers, but doesn't really say anything about why they're behind a bigot in such numbers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

To some, Hillary Clinton is a criminal, period. It doesn't matter what she has or has not been convicted of...she's a criminal, period. If prompted, these people will often say that "others would have gone to jail if they did what she did."

Of course, that ignores the actual problem -- that the rich and powerful receive special treatment.

Normally because if they worked for the military or had a clearance they know people who DID go to jail or were prosecuted for doing the exact thing that Clinton did.

Clinton...and pretty much every other national politician ever.

What I'm saying is that the problem -- that the rich and powerful are treated differently -- is systemic, and not at all specific to Clinton. Yet somehow Clinton belongs in prison, while the people with an R next to their name...don't?

That's just a little more hypocrisy than I can stomach.

I don't recall other politicians (Democrat or Republican, or even Libertarian) simply just using normal email to pass classified information.

In fact, I believe there are laws against that (to which Clinton was immune apparently because...intent...of course...which doesn't apply to anyone else apparently).

thejeff wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Normally because if they worked for the military or had a clearance they know people who DID go to jail or were prosecuted for doing the exact thing that Clinton did.

I am curious who went to jail for doing the exact thing Clinton did. I mean, how many people are even in a position to set up their own email server with a government address? I suspect that most of those talking it don't actually mean the "exact thing", but some other thing involving classified data which isn't nearly the same thing at all.

We know of people who didn't get prosecuted for what was actually the same thing, Colin Powell, for one.

The crime isn't setting up a personal email server, it is actually sending classified over an unprotected and uncertified server or email.

That actually happens more than people realize. I was in administrative law (that means I did various paperwork, they call it the paper lawyer) which meant I had connections regarding veterans and occasionally military, and I knew at least a few that dealt with this.

However, this is one where the law protects them, which means the cases are controlled by the military and hence rather protected.

What it meant for me, was that these were guys who had served, but then did prison time and then dishonorably discharged (and security clearance revoked). It meant that to try to get them benefits, it was a LOT harder (actually, mostly impossible). Trying to get them to reverse that on their paperwork, or at least get them an honorable discharge...that's a tough draw.

I don't think it always results in prison time. There are times I've seen that apparently it was just a removal of the security clearance and than a discharge. I think it depends on the type of violation (was it really classified sent over unsecure comms, was it a uncleared or unsanctioned thumbdrive stuck into a government computer, was it a simple mention of something they shouldn't...etc.).

If I knew a few of them, it's probable those who dealt regularly with clearances in the military knew a LOT more.

Accidentally talking classified over unsecure comms is a big thing. As I said, I don't think people realize how often it happens or how easy it is to occur sometimes (especially now with thumbdrives that plug into computers, and other media that can cross contaminate from a secure network to an unsecure network). It's even easier to violate the laws pertaining to this when you do it on purpose and/or have your own server.

I don't think anything ever connected Powell with sending classified information over unsecure comms. In fact, as his position and knowledge, I'd say that he pretty much never did that.

Have his own server...no problem with that. Sending classified over unsecured networks...major problems with that.

For me, I don't do any of that stuff anymore myself (only volunteer work now days for whatever I want to volunteer for, and play around like browsing forums like this, unless I run out of money), so who knows, maybe things have changed now...but back in the day...yeah...I can see why a lot of veterans who had clearances would be majorly upset at what happened in regards to Clinton.

I personally, am more threatened by other things...but I can understand those who are very angry about how Clinton's clearance and emails were handled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I don't think anything ever connected Powell with sending classified in formation over unsecure comms. In fact, as his position and knowledge, I'd say that he pretty much never did that.

Have his own server...no problem with that. Sending classified over unsecured networks...major problems with that.

Nothing ever connected him doing so because no one ever started a witch hunt against him looking for any minor violation to hang him on. There's been no public inquiry poring over ever line in every email he sent on his server looking for mistakes.

We never would have known about the "classified" emails on Clinton's server without that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's important to realize that Clinton was not in the Military. There are laws that apply to them, that do not apply to civilians. Considering the FBI report showing systemic lack of following email protocols, because of the over-classification (seriously, a NYT article) and the fact that it was required to bypass in order to do their jobs effectively, you can guarantee that every State Dept. administration since the advent of email has absolutely done this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
THIS was posted by my friend Russell Blackford; figured I'd share it here. It implies that a lot of what we think about "Trump supporters" may not be totally accurate.

I found the following more telling of my fears than others will admit.

Quote:


Meanwhile, the racism and nationalism that surely exist among them also exist among Democrats and higher socioeconomic strata. A poll conducted last spring by Reuters found that a third of questioned Democrats supported a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States. In another, by YouGov, 45% of polled Democrats reported holding an unfavorable view of Islam, with almost no fluctuation based on household income. Those who won’t vote for Trump are not necessarily paragons of virtue, while the rest are easily scapegoated as the country’s moral scourge.


Squeakmaan wrote:
It's important to realize that Clinton was not in the Military. There are laws that apply to them, that do not apply to civilians. Considering the FBI report showing systemic lack of following email protocols, because of the over-classification (seriously, a NYT article) and the fact that it was required to bypass in order to do their jobs effectively, you can guarantee that every State Dept. administration since the advent of email has absolutely done this.

I'm of the opinion that's not true, especially with the Powell.

Powell would be someone who understood very clearly about classified on unsecure networks. Maybe it's because I am a person of color and so is he, but I think those who infer this either don't understand the discipline that Powell had, or don't have as high an opinion of him simply because he's not white.

A private server would be very useful, but unclassified on it...I'm betting he would be one who wouldn't stand for that.

(Clarification addition: In the military, as far as I, a civilian know, they have different servers. One that they could regularly talk to me on, or their normal emails and such, and one that I had no access to which is the server they send all their classified information on. Powell already dealt with this thing of an unsecure and secure server his entire time in the military without [as far as I know] a clearance violation. If he had done that for over 20 years, there is NO reason to think that he suddenly violated these laws when he attained another government position in the Bush administration).

As for different laws, I can only attest to what I dealt with in regards to the veteran's situations and trying to reverse their paperwork from the military. I didn't work with trying to reverse non-military government workers who were discharged for clearance violations...

However, working with the military veterans makes me able to understand their outrage where they would be punished but she would not be.

It's not rocket science, it's simply, some are punished where she was not for the exact same thing. Those who were, or knew those who were (at least military as far as I know) probably have every right to be outraged and upset. I can simply see why they may feel that way and empathize with that.

Is there a reason that people feel those who bled and died for our freedom and feel this outrage should simply be discounted and tell them they shouldn't feel that way?

We can have our own opinions without trying to discount that others may have valid reasons for their own opinions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But was Powell ever asked, no subpoenaed to provide every single email he ever received or sent during his service?

And why exactly was Clinton required to do this? because people died during her time in office.

People died while Powell was serving, no inquiry.

The Bush administration lost 2 million emails

Lost

no inquiry

You can point you finger at Hillary Clinton every hour of every day and accuse her of crimes, accuse her of being treated to favoritism if you want, but you should not overlook the fact that she has been investigated well beyond the pale, and why, do you ever ask that question? Why where there 9

NINE

senate investigation into the Benghazi incident, four deaths, very much want to say here that any death should be investigated, yes I agree, but NINE investigations?

61 people working for the state department died in attacks on foreign embassies under the Bush administration, now tell me how many senate investigations where held?

not NINE

and why?

I am voting for Hillary, because she is qualified, competent, and most importantly, not a criminal, but simply a modern politician, like any other politician

and she is a democrat, and the democratic party platform is one I can support, while I have never been able to get behind the republican party platform.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Haven't had a chance to go through the past two days' posts, alas, but a couple articles on Social Security:

Hillary Clinton And Wall Street: Financial Industry May Control Retirement Savings In A Clinton Administration

and, Blackstone's Tony James Touting What Looks Like Clinton's Scheme to Gut Social Security

Maybe, without banging-intern scandals, Hillary will be able to pull off what Bill couldn't.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

To some, Hillary Clinton is a criminal, period. It doesn't matter what she has or has not been convicted of...she's a criminal, period. If prompted, these people will often say that "others would have gone to jail if they did what she did."

Of course, that ignores the actual problem -- that the rich and powerful receive special treatment.

Normally because if they worked for the military or had a clearance they know people who DID go to jail or were prosecuted for doing the exact thing that Clinton did.

B#~~#&%*.

Cite one identical case.

If you look at the actual record, the most similar cases to Clinton's, they resulted in either no prosecution, or small fines ($7500).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Was at a costume party last night. A couple came dressed as Hillary and Donald. For a door prize, Hillary won a drone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious, GreyWolfLord, did you watch Comey testify before Congress after his press conference?

Video


Knight who says Meh wrote:

I'm curious, GreyWolfLord, did you watch Comey testify before Congress after his press conference?

Video

I am actually NOT that interested in the Clinton scandal myself.

What I'm pointing out are those that are upset at her may have valid reasons for their anger.

Just because one hasn't had it happen to them or know other, does not necessarily invalidate the anger from the Armed forces or the military over the issue.

Even without the people I tried to help, going over the the military.com forums or other forums veterans frequent paint quite a picture in some of their thoughts regarding this and other issues in regards to both Trump and Clinton (as well, ironically Gary Johnson who, if you were to believe their forums, is doing far better among military than one would expect).


CBDunkerson wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
Right here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY even if you don't accept the source, listen to what members of the campaign actually say and ask yourself if that is actually an okay thing to do, or a reprehensible act.

O'Keefe hasn't released a video which wasn't fraudulently edited yet. I see no reason to believe this one is any different.

That being said, the people in the videos are also NOT "people in her campaign". Rather, a PAC which Clinton's campaign is legally prohibited from coordinating with hired a consulting firm which hired those people as outside contractors. We're not talking 'inner circle' here... rather way out on the barely related fringes.

And BTW, in 2015*, the Trump Foundation paid at least $10,000 to Project Veritas, the source of those videos. Videos which even conservative Glenn Beck's The Blaze faulted for "editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented."

* Donation info for 2016 not available yet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
What I'm pointing out are those that are upset at her may have valid reasons for their anger.

I'm not sure that reasons based in misinformation and outright lies are "valid." My understanding is that there are two very common misconceptions floating around here.

* The first is that civilians are held to the same standards with regard to handling classified information that military personnel are.
* The second is that this act, if committed by anyone else, would have resulted in severe punishment.

We know the first to be false by reading the UCMJ, and we have direct congressional testimony by the head of the relevant agency that the second is also false.

One of the things that security officers love to do is to talk a big game, precisely because if they can scare E-2s with fairy tales of being locked up in Leavenworth forever and a day if they so much as leave a piece of paper by a window, that will reduce the number of real incidents they have to deal with. But by the same token, if the security people actually were as fanged as they like to play, no one would ever have a clearance at all.


another article where the comments show a lot of anger towards Clinton

sailer who uses mishandled classified cites Clinton's leniency...wants same treatment because of...intent


Orfamay Quest wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
What I'm pointing out are those that are upset at her may have valid reasons for their anger.

I'm not sure that reasons based in misinformation and outright lies are "valid." My understanding is that there are two very common misconceptions floating around here.

* The first is that civilians are held to the same standards with regard to handling classified information that military personnel are.
* The second is that this act, if committed by anyone else, would have resulted in severe punishment.

We know the first to be false by reading the UCMJ, and we have direct congressional testimony by the head of the relevant agency that the second is also false.

One of the things that security officers love to do is to talk a big game, precisely because if they can scare E-2s with fairy tales of being locked up in Leavenworth forever and a day if they so much as leave a piece of paper by a window, that will reduce the number of real incidents they have to deal with. But by the same token, if the security people actually were as fanged as they like to play, no one would ever have a clearance at all.

Well, I know personally they are pretty fanged.

On the cases I've worked on I get absolutely NO information regarding the actual incidents typically. Why...because I simply don't have the clearance for it.

They are VERY tight lipped.

Doesn't matter that I have an email they could send it too.

I suppose, according to the military I should have paid Clinton 100K (or to her foundation?) and asked her to get it for me.

Of course, I didn't do such a thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

another article where the comments show a lot of anger towards Clinton

sailer who uses mishandled classified cites Clinton's leniency...wants same treatment because of...intent

He seems to have deliberately copied classified military technology to share with civilians. That's nothing like what Clinton actually did.


Another article regarding Petraeus that has some interesting comments from military members on military.com

similiarities lacking Clinton - petraeus investigations

The comments are rather telling on the typical attitudes.


And yay, mail-in ballot filled out, sealed, and envelope signed to go out in Monday's mail.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

another article where the comments show a lot of anger towards Clinton

sailer who uses mishandled classified cites Clinton's leniency...wants same treatment because of...intent

Yeah, that's not at all similar. Clinton's acts had no criminal intent (mens rea), which is an absolute requirement for any sort of criminal prosecution . Any prosecutor who tried to file a case while knowing he was unable to prove the element of intention would be risking serious sanctions himself for barratry.

You'd need to bring her in, not on a "knowingly mishandling classified information" case (which is what the sailor is facing), but on "gross negligence in handling classified information case." While there's such a law on the books (18 USC 793), it's been used -- literally -- only once in the past century. And, indeed, there's some question about whether or not the law itself is constitutional (since criminalizing negligence is extremely hard to do, precisely because of the mens rea requirement). That's the last thing any FBI prosecutor would want to do, bring a charge on a hundred year old law and have it thrown out because the law itself is invalid.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

another article where the comments show a lot of anger towards Clinton

sailer who uses mishandled classified cites Clinton's leniency...wants same treatment because of...intent

He seems to have deliberately copied classified military technology to share with civilians. That's nothing like what Clinton actually did.

What part of, read the comments section did you miss?

I posted these articles so you could read the MILITARY and VETERAN member's take on things...not ours.

If you want to understand someone, it's best to see what they write rather than trying to express your opinion on the matter.

For example, believe it or not, on the email matters I'm not overly concerned about it right now (especially in light of what Trump probably would be like anyways), and so much of what I've written on it actually doesn't express my opinion in that regard.

what I have written is WHY I can empathize with those it does bother.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

another article where the comments show a lot of anger towards Clinton

sailer who uses mishandled classified cites Clinton's leniency...wants same treatment because of...intent

Yeah, that's not at all similar. Clinton's acts had no criminal intent (mens rea), which is an absolute requirement for any sort of criminal prosecution . Any prosecutor who tried to file a case while knowing he was unable to prove the element of intention would be risking serious sanctions himself for barratry.

You'd need to bring her in, not on a "knowingly mishandling classified information" case (which is what the sailor is facing), but on "gross negligence in handling classified information case." While there's such a law on the books (18 USC 793), it's been used -- literally -- only once in the past century. And, indeed, there's some question about whether or not the law itself is constitutional (since criminalizing negligence is extremely hard to do, precisely because of the mens rea requirement). That's the last thing any FBI prosecutor would want to do, bring a charge on a hundred year old law and have it thrown out because the law itself is invalid.

Read my post above...

or are people so self-focused they don't care what the actual military verterans who were the ones complaining think, and would rather simply state our opinions rather than read theirs and understand WHAT they might be saying?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I posted these articles so you could read the MILITARY and VETERAN member's take on things...not ours.

If you want to understand someone, it's best to see what they write rather than trying to express your opinion on the matter.

but when their understanding is simply wrong because it leaves out crucial facts, I don't need to take their writings particularly seriously. You may have a reason to believe that the capital of France is Berlin,.... but the proper response is either to ignore you, or to point out that your "reason" is, in fact, incorrect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
or are people so self-focused they don't care what the actual military verterans who were the ones complaining think, and would rather simply state our opinions rather than read theirs and understand WHAT they might be saying?

What's to understand? The military types were -- literally -- lied to, and they bought into the lies.

If they want to learn the truth, I will happily educate them. If they don't want to learn the truth, then "consign them therefore to the flames."


Greywolflord - while I commend your attempt to point out that what you are trying to do is show those who have expressed a lack of confidence in your premise the attitudes of OTHERS who have strong opinions about HRC, I might be missing the point.

Certainly there are many people who have strong opinions about HRC, many of those opinions might very well be based upon misinformation, or deliberate misdirection of facts by those individuals who have a specific agenda of creating a negative opinion of HRC.

So, I will be one of these people here to say, yes I agree, people hate HRC, yes, some of those people have , to them, a good reason to hate HRC, however, I believe that the agenda of the GOP is to make people hate HRC and for that reason alone, I am suspect of the accusations made against her.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
or are people so self-focused they don't care what the actual military verterans who were the ones complaining think, and would rather simply state our opinions rather than read theirs and understand WHAT they might be saying?

What's to understand? The military types were -- literally -- lied to, and they bought into the lies.

If they want to learn the truth, I will happily educate them. If they don't want to learn the truth, then "consign them therefore to the flames."

I think that's pretty arrogant. I suppose you could fly a plane, drive a sub, and shoot a gun better than they could as well...afterall, you have that "great" education.

And obviously, you should teach their JAG a little thing or two since you know FAR more than they do?

I worked with Vets a LOT when I was working, and even though I knew the regulations, I'd say they knew FAR more than I did in regards to many things, including security clearances and what one was or could do with a security clearance.

There are things Vets may not know, but to discount THAT MANY OF THEM simply because they are military...that does NOT sit easy with me.

I AM an American, maybe not the whitebread Christian heterosexual type that is the majority, but I Am an American now, and I HIGHLY respect the sacrifices that those who served have made so that I can have the freedoms I experience. I also value their opinions, EVEN IF I DON'T SHARE those opinions, I respect them.

Unlike us, who have our bookreading, they have actual EXPERIENCE with the clearance system. Most of the time, if I had to choose between someone who is bookread, and someone with experience...if it's one or two years (and many of those veterans have 20) I'll probably go with the experience if it doesn't also require certification.

I HIGHLY DOUBT you could educate them on anything...but if you want...you have their forums, you have their site now...you can go over there and see how far your "education" is going to get you. I expect their "experience" will probably have them NOT be "educated" in all honesty.

Not all vets feel anti-Clinton, or are angered about her emails, but there is a prevailing attitude which can be seen at military.com and other sites military and veterans read and post at. If you want to understand WHY they feel the way they do...I think it is essential to read and try to see where they are coming from.

As I said, I may not share their opinions or even care on the same subject, but as they suffered and died for my freedoms, I'll gladly take punishment for them to express theirs, and do all I can to understand WHY they may feel the way they do, even on items which I may feel very strongly about in the exact opposite way.

Perhaps it's FUN to bash the military on these forums. Perhaps it makes me even MORE unpopular for doing so. However, I have a HIGH regard for them (believe it or not again), and appreciate all the sacrifices they made (even Irontruth...I do appreciate his sacrifice as well, and he could be a good example of someone that doesn't feel the same way as many do on military.com) so that I can be free.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Greywolflord,
How the holy heck are you getting that from Orfmay's response? He is saying the military types are wrong because they believe things that are untrue. tha'ts it. It's not some anti-military rant. It's literally "These guys don't know thefull information, like most other people commenting, and I'd be happy to show them it all. If they still don't listen, who cares for their opinion as they're willfully misinformed."

It doesn't matter what the military regulations are, Clinton is a civilian and not subject to them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:

I'm curious, GreyWolfLord, did you watch Comey testify before Congress after his press conference?

Video

I am actually NOT that interested in the Clinton scandal myself.

What I'm pointing out are those that are upset at her may have valid reasons for their anger.

Just because one hasn't had it happen to them or know other, does not necessarily invalidate the anger from the Armed forces or the military over the issue.

Even without the people I tried to help, going over the the military.com forums or other forums veterans frequent paint quite a picture in some of their thoughts regarding this and other issues in regards to both Trump and Clinton (as well, ironically Gary Johnson who, if you were to believe their forums, is doing far better among military than one would expect).

At my community college, the veterans group was pissed that they couldn't hold their school sponsored fund raiser at a strip club.

Just because people are pissed about something doesn't mean it's justified or legitimate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Ignoring for a moment the PotUS/VPotUS ticket, maybe this tweet from Sanders will motivate some reluctants to vote for their Dem Senate candidate.
That position would go to a Democrat more senior than Sanders who is an Independent again. Ryan is just honking off.

Sanders has (for more than a decade) caucused with the Democrats and has appropriate seniority. He's currently the "Ranking Member" (senior member from the minority party) in the Budget Committee, so, although it's not impossible that someone like Sen. Leahy would opt out of his position on the Judiciary committee and ask for Budget instead,.... but it's very unlikely.

I think Ryan has the right of it.

An update on this:

Quote:

Vox: "Paul Ryan attacked Bernie Sanders. It backfired spectacularly."

“If we lose the Senate, do you know who becomes chairman of the Senate budget committee?,” Ryan said, according to the Nation. “A guy named Bernie Sanders. Ever heard of him? That’s what we’re dealing with here if we lose control of the Senate.”

Ryan’s hit on Sanders backfired, badly. Citing Ryan’s comments in a fundraising blast, Sanders was able to raise just under $2 million in two days for about a dozen Democratic Senate and House candidates — furthering his chances of actually becoming budget committee chair.

AH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!

5,551 to 5,600 of 7,079 << first < prev | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards