Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

Really great in depth look at Hillary Clinton from the New Yorker. Well worth reading; not a puff piece. 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/hillary-clinton-candidacy.html

Of course you liked it.  It was an emotional piece which plays into the way you think designed by the Hillary campaign disguised as journalism.  

This is the type of BS which Tim considers hard journalism:

"But soon there’s only one family left and the mood shifts. Francine and David Wheeler are there with their 13-year-old son, Nate, and his 17-month-old brother, Matty, who’s scrambling around on the floor. They carry a stack of photographs of their other son, Benjamin, who was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, when he was 6. David presses the photos of his dead son on Clinton with the urgency of a parent desperate to keep other parents from having to show politicians pictures of their dead 6-year-olds."

OMG.  I can't even imagine what constitutes a puff piece.  

 

[cobalt_27]

This is flat out insulting to nearly everyone you've been arguing with. Some things are confusing. Including this. Nothing wrong with not having a clear opinion in the face of all this information. I can understand folks reviewing the information available and coming to various conclusions. But to have such an exceptionally strong opinion that you've maintained over the past god knows how many months, only now to finally admit you have no ### ####ed idea what you're talking about but still talk about it anyhow? 

It's utterly ridiculous. Spend less time typing and pretending to have a clue what you're blathering on about and instead actually read some links folks post instead of just often saying you'll 'read it later because you're on your phone'. It's not the first time you've done this, either. 

But, really, does any of this surprise you about Tim?  

Those of us who have come to e-know him over the years have found him likable, but also exceedingly self-focused.  He is not interested in having an exchange or conversation in an effort to share ideas.  Instead, it's to share his ideas.  He is rigid and prone to reject ideas or data that conflict with his world view, the one he is selling to you here reliably every day.  

So, after building up Hillary week after week and, assuredly sprinkling in some imperfections here and there so as to not come off as too glorifying, it's no surprise that he would not read up on the legal scholars, many of whom are Democrats and with no ostensible axe to grind, who see evidence from OIG and conclude there is a strong chance she is indicted.  At minimum, it's not a surprise he would avoid due diligence in knowing more about this issue because it would compromise the foundation of what he believes in her and, more importantly, the narrative he has been selling you.

But, the frustration is understandable.  You want to exchange ideas here and you find someone seemingly as passionate as Tim and wonder 'how could someone informed seem so indifferent to it all?'  Well, here is your answer.  He's not informed at all.  At least not as  it relates to this topic, anyway.  Because it bores him.  

Sigh.

 

[jon_mx]

Tim stays willfully ignorant of facts which don't reinforce his bias.  It seems like Groudhog Day, you have to go over facts every day like the previous day did not happen. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Wait a minute.  Doesn't matter if you like, love, or loathe the ACA, that was not some tiny adjustment.  What Obama did was a massive political achievement.

Politically sure.  For those without insurance (including those who had what no longer qualifies as insurance or carriers chose to no longer offer)  sure.  For most everyone else the changes in health care are at best an acceleration of what has been going on for decades.  For the government the ACA authorized the research and deployment of new reimbursement methods which so far as achieved some limited success.  Next year individual states can apply for waivers and get into the act.  Ultimately the success or failure of the ACA will be determined, as Obama stated on whether it "bends the cost curve down" via a bunch of small course corrections that individually don't seem like much.  Which is Obama's philosophy for governing,

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

She should have sought permission. 

Do great leaders seek permission?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So we have to hash out his role in the financial crisis and how qualified/unqualified he is/was while running himself?

Nevermind, I get it now. I'd bring up anything to not have to talk about Hillary if I was in her camp too.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows

I guess you are just realizing who shares the anti Hillary bed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Really great in depth look at Hillary Clinton from the New Yorker. Well worth reading; not a puff piece. 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/hillary-clinton-candidacy.html

Everyone knows NYM is soft core faux liberal pseudointellectualism, especially starting with liberals who if you want serious commentary you go to New Yorker, not New York. If you want restaurant, bar and move reviews, go to NY Mag. NYMag is the definition of political puffery, it runs personality pieces posing as political ones.

Also by Rebecca Traister:

The Election and the Death Throes of White Male Power

- If this were Breitbart or Newsmax someone would immediately point and say 'oh look at the bizarre extremism, you can plainly see just by looking at the author's other pieces that you can't trust this.' Here this serves as delicious yummy mainstream self-gratification.

Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Was Never Going to Be Easy. But Did It Have to Get This Hard

This is the actual title of the piece. It never does explain why Hillary's campaign has so struggled. Best I can tell all those mean men are out to get her.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Do great leaders seek permission?

(actual Stalin quote)

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

But, really, does any of this surprise you about Tim?  

Those of us who have come to e-know him over the years have found him likable, but also exceedingly self-focused.  He is not interested in having an exchange or conversation in an effort to share ideas.  Instead, it's to share his ideas.  He is rigid and prone to reject ideas or data that conflict with his world view, the one he is selling to you here reliably every day.  

So, after building up Hillary week after week and, assuredly sprinkling in some imperfections here and there so as to not come off as too glorifying, it's no surprise that he would not read up on the legal scholars, many of whom are Democrats and with no ostensible axe to grind, who see evidence from OIG and conclude there is a strong chance she is indicted.  At minimum, it's not a surprise he would avoid due diligence in knowing more about this issue because it would compromise the foundation of what he believes in her and, more importantly, the narrative he has been selling you.

But, the frustration is understandable.  You want to exchange ideas here and you find someone seemingly as passionate as Tim and wonder 'how could someone informed seem so indifferent to it all?'  Well, here is your answer.  He's not informed at all.  At least not as  it relates to this topic, anyway.  Because it bores him.  

Sigh.

Fantastic post

 

[jon_mx]

(actual Stalin quote)

I am guessing he actually said it in Russian.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I am guessing he actually said it in Russian.  

Великие лидеры не испрашивать разрешение

There.

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

There.

 

[RCon]

I already knew that timschochet doesn't understand the difference between opinion/editorial and fact, but now it seems he doesn't understand the difference between "puff piece" and "journalism".

And yeah, there's little more irritating than this conversation:

A. I think X
B. No, definitely not X, I'm sure of it.
A. Well, it seems like X to me, because of P, Q, and R.
B. I don't know anything about P, Q, and R.  But I'm positive it's not X.
A. Well, P, Q, and R really show why X is, in fact, true.
B. P, Q, and R bore me, and I'm not interested.
A. Then how can you know it's not X?
B. I'm just sure of it, that's all.

 

[The Commish]

This isn't hard.  I mean, it clearly is for her and for you, but she failed to comply with record requirements that have the force of law.  That's really not in dispute since the IG report.

Is that important enough to keep someone from running for president? I don't think so, in a vacuum.  I suspect you don't either. But why is it so hard to admit that she did it?

HF meet Tim.....Tim HF.

This is one of his rabbit holes with no bottom HF.  You'll never get an admission but a whole lot of "I don't know" or "I'm not sure".  Funny part is for as little as he supposedly doesn't know or he's not sure of, his statements of no wrong doing are pretty emphatic.  That's our Tim.

 

[timschochet]

Good morning. 

I've read all the criticism over the last few pages and I regard it, frankly, as unjust. Jon claims I'm willfully ignorant of facts. This despite that last night I posted a Politicfact judgment which contradicted some of my earlier claims and made my candidate look bad. Cobalt claims I am not interested in sharing ideas unless they are my ideas. I think there's enough evidence to prove that this is not so. In terms of this thread I have responded to nearly every criticism and attack against Hillary. Why would I do that if I wasn't interested in exchanging ideas? Am I only exchanging ideas in his eyes if I come I accept his negative view about Hillary Clinton? Surely there are enough people in this thread attacking Hillary- is it necessary for me to join them? 

Anonymousbob thinks Im insulting everyone with whom I've disagreed over the email story by stating that I found the legal details confusing and boring. How then, he demands, can I claim to have a strong opinion? By writing this he obviously hasn't read me, because I have NEVER offered a strong opinion about whether or not Hillary violated the rules or the law. My strong opinion was over whether it mattered one way or the other, particularly in terms of her qualifications for the Presidency. My belief is that it does not. As regards the question of whether rules or laws were broken, I have been VERY consistent all along: I was skeptical, but unsure, confused by the conflicting arguments, hopeful that it would go away, confident there would be no indictment, and bored by the whole thing. I've stated all of this openly and never hidden any of it. I don't think I've insulted anyone. 

I will continue to fight for Hillary Clinton in this thread. There's me and squistion, sometimes TGunz. DParker, Tobias, BFS, and CTSU will defend Hillary from time to time but she's not their first choice. Everybody else who comtributes to this thread is strongly opposed to Hillary Clinton. So yeah we are surrounded. I kinda like that. I feel I'm fighting the good fight here. And she's gonna win. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I can see a future Academy Award winning movie developing around this investigation, the cat and mouse, the lying and stonewalling.  Hillary and team will not be the protagonists.  And the movie will resonate because it will reveal how hard it is to nail the corrupt and powerful, even when they are plainly guilty and conspire as a group to obstruct justice.  Comey and team will be the Herod, most likely.  Let's hope it has a happy ending,   

Imagine the scene with Mills answering "I don't recall," then the audacity of the legal claim.  The frustration of the FBI realizing in the moment that the DOJ limited questioning because they bought into the attorney-client lie to obsfucate.

A team simply looking for the truth, and nothing else, having barrels thrown at them left and right - when they know there's a pack of crimes there.  And the Presidency on the other side.

This will be an important era in our history.

 

[The Commish]

She should have sought permission. 

Do great leaders seek permission?

Usually there is no need.  Great leaders take time to understand the rules they are bound to so they can be as effective/efficient as possible under the law.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I love how the boards greatest flip flopper is now too rigid, too close minded!  You holier than thou guys casting stones at Tim need a good long look in the mirror.

 

[The Commish]

I will continue to fight for Hillary Clinton in this thread. There's me and squistion, sometimes TGunz. DParker, Tobias, BFS, and CTSU will defend Hillary from time to time but she's not their first choice. Everybody else who comtributes to this thread is strongly opposed to Hillary Clinton. So yeah we are surrounded. I kinda like that. I feel I'm fighting the good fight here. And she's gonna win. 

These guys are of the "well, there's plenty to dump on her, but X isn't one of them" sort of arguments....not exactly defense of Hillary.  Don't know if any of them voted for her in their primaries.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I didn't ask if it was a "serious" violation.  I asked if you were aware that her setting up a private email server and failing to provide 100% of her emails for archiving at least violates 36 CFR 1236.22, as a starting point.

Stop bullying tim just because he doesn't have a law degree, GB! 

As far as I can tell this regulation simply provides recordkeeping guidelines for agencies, it does not criminalize behavior by individuals. I see no provision directing criminal (or any) penalties for agency leadership for failure of the agency to comply anywhere in Part 1236, or in fact anywhere in Subchapter B (although admittedly I didn't actually read the whole thing, just skimmed the relevant parts). 

Can you connect the dots for me? 

 

[The Commish]

I love that Tim a concedes a point from Politifact - and people still pile on.

I still say all this stuff about FOIA, Blackberry's, classified after the fact, etc is all window dressing. The real story will be what's in the 30,000 deleted emails. They were deleted on purpose, they were deleted for a reason - and the reason wasn't "yoga routines".

The real story here is the lack of judgment and potential lack of ethics/integrity (TBD) along with opening a security hole by hooking an inadequately secured server to government networks as a matter of "convenience" (supposedly).  That's enough right there...don't need to know what was in the emails.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

By writing this he obviously hasn't read me, because I have NEVER offered a strong opinion about whether or not Hillary violated the rules or the law. My strong opinion was over whether it mattered one way or the other, particularly in terms of her qualifications for the Presidency. My belief is that it does not. As regards the question of whether rules or laws were broken, I have been VERY consistent all along: I was skeptical, but unsure, confused by the conflicting arguments, hopeful that it would go away, confident there would be no indictment, and bored by the whole thing. I've stated all of this openly and never hidden any of it. I don't think I've insulted anyone. 

The email story has legs, somewhat, because Hillary is going to have to appear before Congress, and that will make news. And there will be further requests for information which will be refused, and there will be court hearings and decisions, and all of THAT will make news.

But at the same time, the story really doesn't have any legs, unless some revealing document is discovered. Those who want to compare this to Nixon: the major difference is that there is evidence that Nixon knew about the Watergate break in and paid people to cover it up. John Dean's testimony to Congress about this skewered him. The fact that Nixon destroyed tapes was perceived as incriminating only AFTER Dean's testimony which indicated to the public that there was wrongdoing. In Hillary's case, that smoking gun isn't there so far. What you would need is either some document or someone to testify that Hillary did something wrong with regards to Benghazi or some other situation. Lacking that, this story still won't go anywhere no matter how much it stays in the news for a short time.

I'm not criticizing you here, but maybe it's a good time to revisit where things stand since your original assessment.

I think the thing that I would criticize you for is the constant non-ending claim it's unimportant. It has been always important and it's gotten more important.

Also on Nixon/Watergate, Dean was not the key. Magruder was the key. Yesterday - in the Msnbc interview you posted on - Hillary apparently went out of her way to say that she had no knowledge of what Bentel had done to tell State staff to 'shut up' about Hillary's rogue system. Seems to me it was important enough for Hillary to vehemently address it, as you put it.

The smoking gun is in the bag, that's the server itself, which was seized last summer.

 

[RCon]

Good morning. 

I've read all the criticism over the last few pages and I regard it, frankly, as unjust. Jon claims I'm willfully ignorant of facts. This despite that last night I posted a Politicfact judgment which contradicted some of my earlier claims and made my candidate look bad. Cobalt claims I am not interested in sharing ideas unless they are my ideas. I think there's enough evidence to prove that this is not so. In terms of this thread I have responded to nearly every criticism and attack against Hillary. Why would I do that if I wasn't interested in exchanging ideas? Am I only exchanging ideas in his eyes if I come I accept his negative view about Hillary Clinton? Surely there are enough people in this thread attacking Hillary- is it necessary for me to join them? 

Anonymousbob thinks Im insulting everyone with whom I've disagreed over the email story by stating that I found the legal details confusing and boring. How then, he demands, can I claim to have a strong opinion? By writing this he obviously hasn't read me, because I have NEVER offered a strong opinion about whether or not Hillary violated the rules or the law. My strong opinion was over whether it mattered one way or the other, particularly in terms of her qualifications for the Presidency. My belief is that it does not. As regards the question of whether rules or laws were broken, I have been VERY consistent all along: I was skeptical, but unsure, confused by the conflicting arguments, hopeful that it would go away, confident there would be no indictment, and bored by the whole thing. I've stated all of this openly and never hidden any of it. I don't think I've insulted anyone. 

I will continue to fight for Hillary Clinton in this thread. There's me and squistion, sometimes TGunz. DParker, Tobias, BFS, and CTSU will defend Hillary from time to time but she's not their first choice. Everybody else who comtributes to this thread is strongly opposed to Hillary Clinton. So yeah we are surrounded. I kinda like that. I feel I'm fighting the good fight here. And she's gonna win. 

Yet you repeatedly tell us, emphatically, how all the accusations against her are just VRWC conspiracies and that there's no validity to any of them.  Then, when pressed on any specific accusation, you immediately retreat to "well, I don't know the details, but I remember reading an editorial once a long time ago that convinced me she's innocent."

 

[timschochet]

Saints, whether it's important or not is a subjective opinion. It's not something that can be proven by facts one way or the other. Obviously we disagree on the level of importance of this story. Not sure why my position deserves any criticism. 

And thanks for quoting that post. I still think it's fairly accurate.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, whether it's important or not is a subjective opinion. It's not something that can be proven by facts one way or the other. Obviously we disagree on the level of importance of this story. Not sure why my position deserves any criticism. 

And thanks for quoting that post. I still think it's fairly accurate.

No problem thought it helpful but by definition a story that lasts 14 months, with two IG investigations, a Congressional hearing, 50 federal lawsuits, Hillary's staff and maybe Hillary herself deposed, a security review, two presidential interviews, FBI investigation, data and hardware seized in multiple places, and nomination and general election ramifications is important. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

Dude on the other side is vilifying and threatening the free press and its vital role as a check on public officials at every opportunity, embracing conspiracy theories and dangerous lies with no recourse, refusing to release standard information provided by all presidential candidates, and you all are in here complaining about the vagaries of NARA regulations as applied to non-.gov electronic communications while expressing your deep concerns about integrity and accountability.

Is this some sort of weird denial thing?  I don't like what Clinton did with her emails either, but holy ####, if you really care about integrity and accountability and openness as much as you say you do, how about we take down the massive elephant in the room first?

 

[timschochet]

As we argue over Hillary's emails (and as Rich wants to bring up the 90s Clinton scandals yet again) 1,000 Syrian migrants just perished yesterday. Most of them died trying to flee on a leaky wooden boat, nearly exactly like the ones Jews died on when they tried to flee Europe during the Holocaust- some of them members of my own family. It outrages me that the world is allowing this to happen again. 

Hillary wants us to accept at least 10,000 of these migrants. That's not enough for me, but it's better than Trump who refuses to take any (or any Muslim period). Among so many other things, this election is about whether or not we as a nation are going to give into xenophobia. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Dude on the other side is vilifying and threatening the free press and its vital role as a check on public officials at every opportunity, embracing conspiracy theories and dangerous lies with no recourse, refusing to release standard information provided by all presidential candidates, and you all are in here complaining about the vagaries of NARA regulations as applied to non-.gov electronic communications while expressing your deep concerns about integrity and accountability.

Is this some sort of weird denial thing?  I don't like what Clinton did with her emails either, but holy ####, if you really care about integrity and accountability and openness as much as you say you do, how about we take down the massive elephant in the room first?

My position is they have never been mutually exclusive. In fact it would have helped a great deal if the Dems had not put forth someone so cratered with integrity issues. This election should be slam dunk.

 

[timschochet]

Dude on the other side is vilifying and threatening the free press and its vital role as a check on public officials at every opportunity, embracing conspiracy theories and dangerous lies with no recourse, refusing to release standard information provided by all presidential candidates, and you all are in here complaining about the vagaries of NARA regulations as applied to non-.gov electronic communications while expressing your deep concerns about integrity and accountability.

Is this some sort of weird denial thing?  I don't like what Clinton did with her emails either, but holy ####, if you really care about integrity and accountability and openness as much as you say you do, how about we take down the massive elephant in the room first?

Wow. Fantastic post. 

 

[cobalt_27]

Dude on the other side is vilifying and threatening the free press and its vital role as a check on public officials at every opportunity, embracing conspiracy theories and dangerous lies with no recourse, refusing to release standard information provided by all presidential candidates, and you all are in here complaining about the vagaries of NARA regulations as applied to non-.gov electronic communications while expressing your deep concerns about integrity and accountability.

Is this some sort of weird denial thing?  I don't like what Clinton did with her emails either, but holy ####, if you really care about integrity and accountability and openness as much as you say you do, how about we take down the massive elephant in the room first?

Nobody likes what Hillary did with the emails to varying degrees.  Some of us find it astonishing and, in fact, criminal...and still would vote for her over Trump.  The issue isn't about who is better, Trump or Hillary.  The issue is that Hillary is neither politically, nor ethically, a strong candidate and it's sort of a plea to start considering a better alternative for the candidate that will face Trump in the general.

 

[TobiasFunke]

My position is they have never been mutually exclusive. In fact it would have helped a great deal if the Dems had not put fotg someone so cratered with integrity issues. This election should be slam dunk.

Sure, they're not mutually exclusive.  But one is a much much much bigger problem than the other, yet far more time and energy is being spent on the smaller problem.

If you are someone concerned with accountability in our public officials, Trump's press conference yesterday alone should be far more concerning to you than anything related to Clinton's emails. One of the two people who might be president doesn't think he should be accountable to the press and has turned his supporters against the press simply because they are investigating his claims and actions. Let that simmer for a bit.  Who told you about Clinton's email problems, and did the legwork?  Or any other "scandal" that you think taints Clinton?  What do you think happens to all that stuff in the American people validate and elect a politician who rejects the press?

 

[The Commish]

Dude on the other side is vilifying and threatening the free press and its vital role as a check on public officials at every opportunity, embracing conspiracy theories and dangerous lies with no recourse, refusing to release standard information provided by all presidential candidates, and you all are in here complaining about the vagaries of NARA regulations as applied to non-.gov electronic communications while expressing your deep concerns about integrity and accountability.

Is this some sort of weird denial thing?  I don't like what Clinton did with her emails either, but holy ####, if you really care about integrity and accountability and openness as much as you say you do, how about we take down the massive elephant in the room first?

It's not either/or, it's both   I guess I spend my time more over here because I know most Trump supporters are beyond hope.  I don't get the same sense in this thread.  Perhaps I'm wrong.  Railing on Trump is very much a "water is wet" proposition for most all of us.  Apparently, for some, it's not as obvious with respect to Hillary.  However poor the arguments for Hillary are, they are still arguments even if it takes a professional mental gymnast to make them.  In the Trump threads, not so much.

 

[timschochet]

and it's sort of a plea to start considering a better alternative for the candidate that will face Trump in the general.

I don't agree that there is a better alternative, but even if I did, it's too late. Any attempt to push this now will not remove Hillary as the candidate; it will only serve to weaken her against Trump. I know you don't like it but she is all that's left standing in the way of a Trump presidency. There's no other alternative. 

 

[Sinn Fein]

Why do you keep repeating this, when you're far too intelligent to believe it.  You are extremely well informed, so I'm left to conclude you're simply being dishonest.

Obama stands by his and Hillary's decision to intervene.  He says his biggest mistake was not planning well enough for the aftermath. I know you know this, but apparently it doesn't fit your smear Hillary agenda, so you simply spread falsehoods.  

Why do you do this? 

That is pretty much part and parcel with the decision to intervene, and unfortunately representative of a lot of our foreign policy decisions - we intervene with no plan to deal with the ramifications, often leaving the situation as bad or worse as what is was prior to our intervention.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sure, they're not mutually exclusive.  But one is a much much much bigger problem than the other, yet far more time and energy is being spent on the smaller problem.

If you are someone concerned with accountability in our public officials, Trump's press conference yesterday alone should be far more concerning to you than anything related to Clinton's emails. One of the two people who might be president doesn't think he should be accountable to the press and has turned his supporters against the press simply because they are investigating his claims and actions. Let that simmer for a bit.  Who told you about Clinton's email problems, and did the legwork?  Or any other "scandal" that you think taints Clinton?  What do you think happens to all that stuff in the American people validate and elect a politician who rejects the press?

I feel very strongly about Trump, the Curiel thing has me disgusted. And there is zero doubt that a lot of energy is being spent on Trump (including by me) by the whole country across all walks. But we need to not not-talk about things because they are disturbing or because they indicate larger problems. We're dealing with cognitive dissonance here.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It's not either/or, it's both   I guess I spend my time more over here because I know most Trump supporters are beyond hope.  I don't get the same sense in this thread.  Perhaps I'm wrong.  Railing on Trump is very much a "water is wet" proposition for most all of us.  Apparently, for some, it's not as obvious with respect to Hillary.  However poor the arguments for Hillary are, they are still arguments even if it takes a professional mental gymnast to make them.  In the Trump threads, not so much.

I guess. I dunno, it just strikes me as odd.  Clinton is almost certainly going to be the nominee.  It's not ideal, far from it of course especially if you are big into accountability and ethics. But at this point I think every question about Clinton has to be framed as a comparison to Trump, because one of them is going to be our next president, and on the issue of accountability and ethics (as with pretty much every other issue), Clinton is the better choice by a mile.  We can return to the business of patching the holes from an accountability standpoint once we've made sure the whole ####ing house doesn't burn down.

 

[The Commish]

Sure, they're not mutually exclusive.  But one is a much much much bigger problem than the other, yet far more time and energy is being spent on the smaller problem.

If you are someone concerned with accountability in our public officials, Trump's press conference yesterday alone should be far more concerning to you than anything related to Clinton's emails. One of the two people who might be president doesn't think he should be accountable to the press and has turned his supporters against the press simply because they are investigating his claims and actions. Let that simmer for a bit.  Who told you about Clinton's email problems, and did the legwork?  Or any other "scandal" that you think taints Clinton?  What do you think happens to all that stuff in the American people validate and elect a politician who rejects the press?

The "smaller" problem is a cloud of uncertainty when it should be a lay up against the "bigger" problem.  The only way it's "smaller" is by comparison.  Both are pretty large problems based on their own merits.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

it's too late

Because the DNC kept everyone on the bench off the field and put the thumb down on Sanders' candidacy (I'm not a 'rigged' guy but 1. debates and 2. DWS). A 70+ yo guy from VT, his calling card is "integrity" and he has Hillary campaigning in CA in June. Just think about what someone next gen with a rep for decency like Sanders would be doing right now. And you threaten everyone with Trumpism yet tell everyone they are now extorted into voting for Hillary. Really, thank you.

 

[timschochet]

I feel very strongly about Trump, the Curiel thing has me disgusted. And there is zero doubt that a lot of energy is being spent on Trump (including by me) by the whole country across all walks. But we need to not not-talk about things because they are disturbing or because they indicate larger problems. We're dealing with cognitive dissonance here.

Why? Why can't you say, for example: "I am putting aside all of my concerns with Hillary Clinton for the time being because the greater goal is to defeat Donald Trump." This was essentially Jerry Brown's position yesterday when he endorsed her. If you mean what you say why can't you do the same thing? 

 

[timschochet]

Because the DNC kept everyone off the bench off the field and put the thumb down on Sanders' candidacy (I'm not a 'rigged' guy but 1. debates and 2. DWS). A 70+ yo guy from VT, his calling card is "integrity" and he has Hillary campaigning in CA in June. Just think about what someone next gen with a rep for decency like Sanders would be doing right now. And you threaten everyone with Trumpism yet tell everyone they are now extorted into voting for Hillary. Really, thank you.

I don't agree with any of this. But even if I did it's still too late. 

 

[The Commish]

I guess. I dunno, it just strikes me as odd.  Clinton is almost certainly going to be the nominee.  It's not ideal, far from it of course especially if you are big into accountability and ethics. But at this point I think every question about Clinton has to be framed as a comparison to Trump, because one of them is going to be our next president, and on the issue of accountability and ethics (as with pretty much every other issue), Clinton is the better choice by a mile.  We can return to the business of patching the holes from an accountability standpoint once we've made sure the whole ####ing house doesn't burn down.

I get the short term POV vs the long term POV.  I am firmly in the latter camp simply because our government runs itself that way.  IMO, if we don't step back and begin making decisions based on the long term, our short term decisions are going to do more harm than good.  Just my perspective.

 

[Jayrod]

I don't agree with any of this. But even if I did it's still too late. 

No, its not.

Get Sanders on the ballot.  Every sane person in the USA will vote for him.  Put Hillary on there and I'm "wasting" my vote on Johnson.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why? Why can't you say, for example: "I am putting aside all of my concerns with Hillary Clinton for the time being because the greater goal is to defeat Donald Trump." This was essentially Jerry Brown's position yesterday when he endorsed her. If you mean what you say why can't you do the same thing? 

Sorry why should I not allow my vote to be extorted, is that what you're asking me? You set up a choice of one and then I'm supposed to thank you for this stinking rotten porridge or else I can starve? Thanks a lot.

And oh btw eat it or don't but whatever you do don't talk about the crappy porridge, this is what this is about, let's not kid ourselves.

 

[timschochet]

No, its not.

Get Sanders on the ballot.  Every sane person in the USA will vote for him.  Put Hillary on there and I'm "wasting" my vote on Johnson.

There was a nomination process. More Democrats wanted Hillary. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Thanks for the porridge.

 

[Zegras11]

I already knew that timschochet doesn't understand the difference between opinion/editorial and fact, but now it seems he doesn't understand the difference between "puff piece" and "journalism".

And yeah, there's little more irritating than this conversation:

A. I think X
B. No, definitely not X, I'm sure of it.
A. Well, it seems like X to me, because of P, Q, and R.
B. I don't know anything about P, Q, and R.  But I'm positive it's not X.
A. Well, P, Q, and R really show why X is, in fact, true.
B. P, Q, and R bore me, and I'm not interested.
A. Then how can you know it's not X?
B. I'm just sure of it, that's all.

And then the next post to change the conversation. 

 

[Jayrod]

There was a nomination process. More Democrats wanted Hillary. 

There IS a nomination process and its not over yet.  It is still numerically possible for Sanders to win.  A massive win by Sanders next Tuesday would put him ahead in delegates.  It is a longshot, but there is still a chance.  Your own state alone could swing the primary in his favor.

An indictment announcement sometime this week could do it.

 

[The Commish]

I feel very strongly about Trump, the Curiel thing has me disgusted. And there is zero doubt that a lot of energy is being spent on Trump (including by me) by the whole country across all walks. But we need to not not-talk about things because they are disturbing or because they indicate larger problems. We're dealing with cognitive dissonance here.

Why? Why can't you say, for example: "I am putting aside all of my concerns with Hillary Clinton for the time being because the greater goal is to defeat Donald Trump." This was essentially Jerry Brown's position yesterday when he endorsed her. If you mean what you say why can't you do the same thing? 

At some point we draw a line in the sand and determine enough is enough.  I drew my line long ago.  I've never had a major party candidate I'd be willing to vote for ever.  I now have one and the DNC is hell bent in cutting off it's nose to spite it's face just because "it's Hillary's time".  Why would I support that?  Why would I want to support either party?  They've been in charge of this country for a long time.  Wall Street is doing fine, but the average Joe is not.  What's in it for me to support someone who doesn't support me or fight for things I deem worth fighting for?

 

[tommyGunZ]

At some point we draw a line in the sand and determine enough is enough.  I've never had a major party candidate I'd be willing to vote for ever.  I now have one and the DNC is hell bent in cutting off it's nose to spite it's face just because "it's Hillary's time".  Why would I support that?  Why would I want to support either party?  They've been in charge of this country for a long time.  Wall Street is doing fine, but the average Joe is not.  What's in it for me to support someone who doesn't support me or fight for things I deem worth fighting for?

Because it's rational.  

 

[Zegras11]

Because it's rational.  

Supporting Hillary or Trump is the farthest thing. away from rational.