Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (9 Viewers)

[cobalt_27]

Which is funny in light of the distinctions you DO make....see "security review" vs "criminal investigation" or "the server is being reviewed, not Hillary" (though not sure that was you....that one was one of the best)

Yeah, Comey pretty much knocked @timschochet whole "security review" crap out of the park months ago.  He doubled down on that yesterday, indicating this was a criminal inquiry of HRC:

The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

 

[Sweet J]

Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush/Clinton SOS/_(Clinton running for president)_/Clinton/Clinton

Sure, but is this a result of a two party system?  Or just more of an Oligarchy kind of thing? 

Our very representative democracy is one in which a two party system will always flourish.  The only way to change that is to change our current iteration of representative democracy.  Maybe move to something more like the British?  Do they have more than two (primary) parties?

 

[cobalt_27]

Yeah, Comey pretty much knocked @timschochet whole "security review" crap out of the park months ago.  He doubled down on that yesterday, indicating this was a criminal inquiry of HRC:

And for the record, I would appreciate both an admission of a mistake and an apology from @timschochet for dragging us through this whole false meme of a "security review" for months. ?

 

[Don Quixote]

Sure, but is this a result of a two party system?  Or just more of an Oligarchy kind of thing? 

Our very representative democracy is one in which a two party system will always flourish.  The only way to change that is to change our current iteration of representative democracy.  Maybe move to something more like the British?  Do they have more than two (primary) parties?

They have the Liberal Democrats, which has some support, but trails pretty far behind Labour and the Whigs.

A proportional representation system (versus single member districts) is probably the best way to force multiple parties.

 

[freakinback]

I'm honestly flabbergasted that anybody could suggest, objectively, that a Hillary Clinton presidency and a Donald Trump presidency would be "equally as bad", or that Hillary would be worse. All I can surmise is that either you're not really paying attention to Donald Trump, or you simply don't believe most of what he says (if the latter is the case, you'd still have to explain why a lying Donald Trump would be superior to a lying Hillary Clinton.) 

Yea! Another bankers' puppet can continue to run the country into the ground. Sad this is consider by many the best option, and honestly it may be. 

 

[cobalt_27]

Does anyone know, will Comey's testimony before congress be televised tomorrow?  I am not up in arms over the result, I just found him to be exceptionally gifted at walking everyone through the process yesterday, and I want to hear / know more.

 

[GroveDiesel]

This is some pretty weird thinking.

"Honey, we need a babysitter tonight. How about John Wayne Gacy?"

"No way."

"OK, well how about Lance Armstrong?"

"Don't trust him at all, so I fail to see that as an improvement."

"Well, how about the quiet girl down the street that everyone ignores for no reason?"

"No way, you have to choose either a murderer or a lying cheating scumbag that ruined the lives of several people."

 

[Jayrok]

Yeah, Comey pretty much knocked @timschochet whole "security review" crap out of the park months ago.  He doubled down on that yesterday, indicating this was a criminal inquiry of HRC:

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

"a felony to mishandle classified information EITHER intentionally or in a grossly negligent way"...  So it's a felony to mishandle classified information in a grossly negligent way.  He concluded that she handled the information in an "extremely careless" manner.  

1.  Is there a difference in the meaning of the terms "grossly negligent" and "extremely careless", in a legal sense?  If so, what is the difference?  

2.  Comey kept saying they couldn't find evidence of "intent" on her part.  But if #1 is correct, why would they need "intent" of anything regarding this issue if she was grossly negligent?  

He said that they did find classified information that was stored on that private system.  If they did find evidence of negligence or extreme carelessness, then why the conclusion to not recommend indictment?  

Was it like in A Few Good Men where Lt. Weinberg told Lt. Kaffee not to pursue Col Jessep if he didn't think he could get him to admit he ordered the code red?  Was he afraid for his career?  

 

[Courtjester]

As a Clinton fanboy, I understand you would be a champion of contorting words into meaning things they don't connote (such as the meaning of what the word 'is' is, for example).  Admitting a mistake may be a component of an apology, but it is not an apology.  "I made a mistake on my taxes," for example, is not an apology.  But, saying "I made a mistake on the Iraq vote, and I am sorry" would be an apology.  Hillary left out the essential part of one...she left out the apology.

There is a difference.

in high school I slept with a fat skank, it was a mistake. But I was 16 and just happy to be having sex, so I really was not sorry about it.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

"Well, how about the quiet girl down the street that everyone ignores for no reason?"

"No way, you have to choose either a murderer or a lying cheating scumbag that ruined the lives of several people."

I was criticizing his statement that he "fails to see an improvement" with Clinton as compared to Trump, not his decision to vote third party.  I can understand the latter even if I disagree with it.  I can't understand the former.

 

[RCon]

Sure, but is this a result of a two party system?  Or just more of an Oligarchy kind of thing? 

Our very representative democracy is one in which a two party system will always flourish.  The only way to change that is to change our current iteration of representative democracy.  Maybe move to something more like the British?  Do they have more than two (primary) parties?

I think instant run-off voting, even with no other change, would dissolve the two-party system pretty quickly.

 

[timschochet]

And for the record, I would appreciate both an admission of a mistake and an apology from @timschochet for dragging us through this whole false meme of a "security review" for months. ?

First off it wasn't for months. I spent a couple of hours in the course of several weeks making that distinction- the reason I did was for the same reason Hillary did, because "criminal investigation" sounds much worse than it actually was. 

But in any case I was wrong. I will apologize if you promise never to use my name in a hashtag again. Not a fan. 

 

[Politician Spock]

I was criticizing his statement that he "fails to see an improvement" with Clinton as compared to Trump, not his decision to vote third party.  I can understand the latter even if I disagree with it.  I can't understand the former.

I fail to see an improvement that matters. Even if one is better than the other, it doesn't matter. 

 

[cobalt_27]

First off it wasn't for months. I spent a couple of hours in the course of several weeks making that distinction- the reason I did was for the same reason Hillary did, because "criminal investigation" sounds much worse than it actually was. 

But in any case I was wrong. I will apologize if you promise never to use my name in a hashtag again. Not a fan. 

Just a tip:  another important rule on apologies is that they be free of contingencies or strings attached.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I was criticizing his statement that he "fails to see an improvement" with Clinton as compared to Trump, not his decision to vote third party.  I can understand the latter even if I disagree with it.  I can't understand the former.

This is what I think many Clintonites are failing to grasp.  Bad = Bad

They might both be bad for different reasons, but there is no rational way to decide that one bad is better than another bad - in this case.  I happen to think Clinton is far more dangerous than Trump - but that is more because I think she will do whatever she wants.  With Trump, I don't think he gets anything done, other than spewing out a lot of rhetoric.  

So, one, I don't like what he says.  The other, I don't like what she does.  I'll suffer the consequences of the blowhard, before supporting someone who I know will do bad things.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Good summary here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/clinton-campaign-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

F.B.I.’s Critique of Hillary Clinton Is a Ready-Made Attack Ad


By PATRICK HEALYJULY 5, 2016



=





 


Hillary Clinton at a campaign rally with President Obama in Charlotte, N.C., on Tuesday. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times
Hillary Clinton may not be indicted on criminal charges over her handling of classified email, but the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, all but indicted her judgment and competence on Tuesday — two vital pillars of her presidential candidacy — and in the kind of terms that would be politically devastating in a normal election year.

The silver lining for Mrs. Clinton is that this is not a normal election year.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is built on the premise that she has the national security experience and well-honed instincts to keep Americans safe in the age of terrorism, and that Donald J. Trump does not. Nearly every day, she seeks to present herself as a more thoughtful and responsible leader.

She has spent months describing Mr. Trump as “reckless,” “unprepared” and “temperamentally unfit” to be president, and she has pointed to her four years as secretary of state and eight in the Senate as unparalleled preparation for becoming commander in chief.

Yet in just a few minutes of remarks, Mr. Comey called into question Mrs. Clinton’s claims of superiority more memorably, mightily and effectively than Mr. Trump has over the entire past year. And with potentially lasting consequences.F.B.I. Recommends No Charges for Clinton


The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said on Tuesday that the agency was not recommending charging Hillary Clinton in her use of a private email server while secretary of state.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish Date July 5, 2016. Photo by Cliff Owen/Associated Press.

To her charge that he is “reckless,” Mr. Trump may now respond by citing Mr. Comey’s rebuke: that Mrs. Clinton and her team “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

To her promises to defend the United States, Mr. Trump may now retort with Mr. Comey’s warning that “it is possible that hostile actors gained access” to Mrs. Clinton’s email account and the top secret information it contained.

And to her reproofs about his temperament and responsibility, Mr. Trump may now point to Mr. Comey’s finding that “there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes” on handling classified information — though Mr. Comey said that other factors, like Mrs. Clinton’s intent, argued against criminal charges



Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

 






Worst of all was the totality of Mr. Comey’s judgment about Mrs. Clinton’s judgment.

She is running as a supremely competent candidate and portraying Mr. Trump, in essence, as irresponsible and dangerous. Yet the director of the F.B.I. basically just called her out for having committed one of the most irresponsible moves in the modern history of the State Department. And a day that should have been one of Mrs. Clinton’s best of the campaign — as she stumped alongside President Obama for the first time and received his hearty endorsement — ended up as one of her worst. 

Her clearest selling point — that she, unlike Mr. Trump, can manage challenging relationships with allies and adversaries — has now been undercut because she personally mismanaged the safeguarding of national security information.

These were only Mr. Comey’s words, of course: He did not recommend federal charges against Mrs. Clinton or any of her aides, which came as a huge relief to Democrats who feared worse.

Still, as the Republican strategist Russ Schriefer put it on Tuesday, “Any time a campaign is using ‘Well, at least she wasn’t indicted’ as a cause for celebration isn’t a good day for the campaign.”

As bad as this looks for Mrs. Clinton, with voters reminded once more of the history of scandal that shadows the Clintons, she could still rebound quickly. She is no longer “under investigation,” after all, and Mr. Trump could very well bungle the political gift he has just been given.

Photo



 



Donald J. Trump in Raleigh, N.C., on Tuesday, along with Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
A more conventional Republican nominee would probably already be using Mr. Comey’s remarks to churn out new attack ads and bombarding television and radio audiences until every voter had heard the phrase “extremely careless” more than he or she could count. A typical nominee would have allies memorizing Mr. Comey’s best lines and repeating them on cable news and at local political events — assailing Mrs. Clinton’s judgment and experience to exploit and deepen the mistrust that many Americans feel toward her, and to drive up her unfavorability ratings in public opinion polls.

But Mr. Trump is not typical. He has reserved relatively little television advertising time in swing states. He prefers to launch attacks over Twitter and at campaign rallies rather than to use commercials or surrogates as force multipliers. And he has a tendency to choose the wrong targets and overcomplicate his arguments. On Tuesday, for instance, he chose to attack Mr. Comey for not bringing charges against Mrs. Clinton, writing on Twitter, “The system is rigged.”


Advertisement
Continue reading the main story


A few hours later, Mr. Trump issued a longer statement full of insinuations and conspiracy theories: “Our adversaries almost certainly have a blackmail file on Hillary Clinton,” he said. He argued that her lawyers and former President Bill Clinton were up to no good, and contended that Mr. Comey’s findings disqualified Mrs. Clinton from the presidency, a popular Republican talking point.

But he did not attack her judgment, which could influence undecided voters, until Tuesday evening at his rally in Raleigh, N.C. “Her judgment is horrible — look at her judgment on emails, who would do it?” Mr. Trump said. But he did not prosecute the argument in any depth, and quickly moved on.

This exactly what the Clintons hope Mr. Trump will continue to do: denounce the investigative process, which few voters understand. Beat up on a relatively unknown figure like Mr. Comey, who is not running for anything. And overreach politically, by playing up conspiracy theories — delighting some voters but causing many others to roll their eyes.

As long as Mr. Trump continues to do so, Mrs. Clinton and her advisers believe that she can weather Mr. Comey’s public reprimand without sustaining much long-term damage.

“The issue now for Trump is to make a case against Mrs. Clinton that, even though she may not be charged with a crime, do you want a president who was extremely careless and incompetent in handling the most important top secret materials?” said Edward J. Rollins, a veteran Republican strategist who is working with a group supporting Mr. Trump’s campaign. “Guilty, no; incompetent and arrogant, yes!”

But Mr. Rollins said he was not sure whether Mr. Trump was capable of making that attack consistently and effectively.

Even as Democrats cringed listening to Mr. Comey deconstruct Mrs. Clinton’s sloppiness, they consoled themselves by expressing confidence that the moment would pass.

“The vice-presidential picks, conventions and debates will overtake this news before long,” said Bill Burton, a former adviser to President Obama. “And a presidential race is a choice. And if the question is judgment, Donald Trump would be a pretty stupid answer."

While Clinton advisers were skeptical that Mr. Comey’s remarks would sway many undecided voters, they also said relatively little publicly to avoid fanning any flames — preferring instead, they said, to wait and see if Mr. Trump might stumble and say something to take the heat off her.

Mr. Trump has had weeks of unrelentingly negative news coverage, most recently about whether a Twitter post was anti-Semitic, and Clinton advisers said that they were counting on him to make some kind of flippant remark about Mr. Comey or the F.B.I. that might boomerang on him.

But there was no avoiding the conclusion that Tuesday — which had held much promise for Mrs. Clinton, thanks to Mr. Obama’s much-anticipated endorsement — was instead one of the lowest points of her campaign so far.

After eight years of a relatively scandal-free administration, voters listening to Mr. Comey describe the intricacies of the F.B.I.’s email investigation received a bracing reminder that things tend to get complicated with the Clintons.

 

[timschochet]

Just a tip:  another important rule on apologies is that they be free of contingencies or strings attached.

Well I disagree with that rule. Sorry about that! 

 

[cobalt_27]

"a felony to mishandle classified information EITHER intentionally or in a grossly negligent way"...  So it's a felony to mishandle classified information in a grossly negligent way.  He concluded that she handled the information in an "extremely careless" manner.  

1.  Is there a difference in the meaning of the terms "grossly negligent" and "extremely careless", in a legal sense?  If so, what is the difference?  

2.  Comey kept saying they couldn't find evidence of "intent" on her part.  But if #1 is correct, why would they need "intent" of anything regarding this issue if she was grossly negligent?  

He said that they did find classified information that was stored on that private system.  If they did find evidence of negligence or extreme carelessness, then why the conclusion to not recommend indictment?  

Was it like in A Few Good Men where Lt. Weinberg told Lt. Kaffee not to pursue Col Jessep if he didn't think he could get him to admit he ordered the code red?  Was he afraid for his career?  

Those are really good questions.  Versions I have asked myself.  I suspect he will be asked to answer similar questions tomorrow, and I am genuinely interested in his answers.

 

[timschochet]

So Comey is being called before Congress? What a joke.

 

[cobalt_27]

Well I disagree with that rule. Sorry about that! 

 Well played.

 

[Jayrok]

Those are really good questions.  Versions I have asked myself.  I suspect he will be asked to answer similar questions tomorrow, and I am genuinely interested in his answers.

I am interested as well.  

 

[ShamrockPride]

Interesting.

Which of the listed traits (misogyny, Islamophobia, xenophobia, conspiracy theorist, no foreign policy background, narcissistic personality disorder and I'll add a lack of understanding of the basics of separation of power under our Constitution) do you think is applicable to Clinton?

What negative traits of Clinton do you think Trump does not share?

So the choices are a warmongering candidate concerned with lining their own pocket or a racist warmongering candidate concerned with lining their own pocket?

Thanks, I'll pass on both.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So Comey is being called before Congress? What a joke.

I totally see the GOP screwing this up, however I also think the people have a right to know everything which is not classified, all the search terms and methodology for culling the documents, whether deleted emails were recovered and how much and nature, the names of the people who administered the server, who those people worked for, the non-private emails recovered themselves, etc., etc., etc. All of it. Put it in a report and make all the unclassified documentation public.

 

[Jayrok]

So Comey is being called before Congress? What a joke.

 Link

In a statement, Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, called Comey's recommendation a day earlier that Clinton should not be prosecuted for her use of private servers "surprising and confusing."

"Individuals who intentionally skirt the law must be held accountable. Congress and the American people have a right to understand the depth and breadth of the FBI's investigation. I thank Directory Comey for accepting the invitation to publicly answer these important questions," Chaffetz wrote.

I think he was asked and he agreed to appear before the House Oversight Committee to explain why he came to his conclusion.  

 

[RCon]

I really don't get the answer of "but Trump is worse" to any and all criticisms of Hillary.  However, I'll try to offer a serious comparison of the two as POTUS.

Clinton is obviously more serious and less of a clown show.  She obviously understands the nuances of policy much better than Trump.  She would clearly be taken more seriously by other politicians, both foreign and domestic.  In terms of ability to do the job, there's really no contest.

There are also a number of areas where I find them equal.  Neither can be trusted to be transparent.  Neither can be trusted to tell the truth.  Both will seek to enrich themselves and their cronies at the expense of the public.  In some ways, Trump might perhaps be preferable in these areas, simply because everyone sees him for what he is, while many will defend Clinton's reprehensible behavior.  That is, I'd rather have someone flat out tell me they're pissing down my back than another who would tell me it's raining.

There are also some areas where I think Trump would be clearly preferable, although most of these are of the "silver lining" type.  For instance, I think we would see a reversal of the trend towards "imperial Presidency".  I think Trump would be much more likely to be quickly impeached, thus giving us (what I would hope is) an acceptable choice as POTUS going forward.  Naturally, that particular item is entirely dependent upon who each of them name as their running mate.  I think Congress, the media, and the public would be much less likely to ignore (or chalk up to VRWC) indications of corruption, influence peddling, etc.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This is what I think many Clintonites are failing to grasp.  Bad = Bad

They might both be bad for different reasons, but there is no rational way to decide that one bad is better than another bad - in this case.  I happen to think Clinton is far more dangerous than Trump - but that is more because I think she will do whatever she wants.  With Trump, I don't think he gets anything done, other than spewing out a lot of rhetoric.  

So, one, I don't like what he says.  The other, I don't like what she does.  I'll suffer the consequences of the blowhard, before supporting someone who I know will do bad things.

Of course there is.  You did it yourself (poorly) in the sentences immediately following the bolded one.

I personally don't think Clinton is "bad," but I'm not trying to argue that here. And I'm not trying to discourage people from voting third party right now (I've done that plenty already). 

I'm just arguing with this awful illogical nonsense that once something is bad it's bad and there's no degrees of badness.  That's really silly.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

So Comey is being called before Congress? What a joke.

I'm sure it will go as well as all the other hearings Republicans have had over the last few years. Maybe they can throw in another ACA repeal vote with just for fun. 

 

[msommer]

This is the second time I've heard this comparison... our government is now openly lobbying for businesses to deal with Iran and have dropped nearly all sanctions so... why was Iran so bad? And we're friends with the Sandinistas now even as they deal with China, Russia and Venezuela? So who did what wrong why?

At any rate this kind of thinking goes both ways. Comey laid out a case for violation of national security regs albeit unprosecuted while Trump is excoriated for vile supremacist retweets. Who's worse? Meanwhile in the end we have one candidate who just barely (I mean the last minute or so of the presser) emerged from one FBI investigation and we have another who is being sued for large scale fraud. Who's worse? Could play this game all day.

Link to when Reagan, sorry, North did the Iran/Contra deal the US was trading with Iran other than illegally, please

 

[badmojo1006]

Just a tip:  another important rule on apologies is that they be free of contingencies or strings attached.

Jesus, can you get any more petty? Just drop it, he apologized

 

[The Commish]

And for the record, I would appreciate both an admission of a mistake and an apology from @timschochet for dragging us through this whole false meme of a "security review" for months. ?

that's on you for falling for the toll job GB  

 

[GroveDiesel]

Coming from the NYT, this is just brutal:

Yet the director of the F.B.I. basically just called her out for having committed one of the most irresponsible moves in the modern history of the State Department

 

[timschochet]

I think Trump would be much more likely to be quickly impeached, thus giving us (what I would hope is) a more reasonable POTUS going forward.  Naturally, that particular item is entirely dependent upon who each of them as their running mate.  I think Congress, the media, and the public would be much less likely to ignore (or chalk up to VRWC) indications of corruption, influence peddling, etc.

It is very very difficult to impeach and remove a President. It's only been tried twice in our history, and both attempts failed. I would not be relying on this as means of controlling Donald Trump were he to be elected. 

 

[Sweet J]

A proportional representation system (versus single member districts) is probably the best way to force multiple parties.

Right.  You put it much better than me. 

As long as we have single member districts I don't understand how we could have more than two (primary) parties.  If any third party gets enough support to challenge the voting power of the other two, they would all then just reform into two parties again. 

 

[The Commish]

"a felony to mishandle classified information EITHER intentionally or in a grossly negligent way"...  So it's a felony to mishandle classified information in a grossly negligent way.  He concluded that she handled the information in an "extremely careless" manner.  

1.  Is there a difference in the meaning of the terms "grossly negligent" and "extremely careless", in a legal sense?  If so, what is the difference?  

2.  Comey kept saying they couldn't find evidence of "intent" on her part.  But if #1 is correct, why would they need "intent" of anything regarding this issue if she was grossly negligent?  

He said that they did find classified information that was stored on that private system.  If they did find evidence of negligence or extreme carelessness, then why the conclusion to not recommend indictment?  

Was it like in A Few Good Men where Lt. Weinberg told Lt. Kaffee not to pursue Col Jessep if he didn't think he could get him to admit he ordered the code red?  Was he afraid for his career?  

In my experience, here and other message boards, if the words aren't verbatim, there's an argument for "difference" even though the phrases illustrate the same thing.  It's like asking if "royal blue" and "dark blue" are the same.  Lawyers will say, yeah, it's two different words so two different meanings can exist even though in practical terms it's the same effin' thing.

 

[Zegras11]

LOL

 

[dparker713]

My examples weren't enough?

We didn't seem concerned enough to stop North Korea and Iran from developing nukes. Why not Saudi Arabia?

We torture people already. Sometimes we just get other countries to do the dirty work for us.

We target families - it is called bombing.

Trump just says "yeah, I'm okay with it." Well what he is okay with is what we are doing and what I expect Hillary will continue doing.

No he doesn't say "yeah, I'm ok with it"  He says we aren't nearly tough enough and need to be more aggressive and more ruthless.  His view seems to be that we're in a dire situation and all semblance of restraint should be excised.  

 

[dparker713]

I don't have time to list them all.  Really.  But let's start with Iraq war, setting up a private e-mail server, not bothering with security for said server, her support of DOMA, and support of fracking.

Whenever you have the time is fine.  I'm interested to see a detailed list of your objections to her judgment and policy decisions.  

 

[The Commish]

Good summary here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/clinton-campaign-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

But Trump's an idiot and doesn't have a chance of capitalizing on this.  We can debate Trump vs Hillary, devil vs demon child, whatever....one thing's clear, Trump is no politician.  Hillary would be sunk by now with any capable politician.  

 

[timschochet]

Coming from the NYT, this is just brutal:

No matter what source says it, it's laughable. 

A Secretary of State who provides Congress and the American public false information about WMDs in order to justify an invasion- that's irresponsible. A Secretary of State who covertly authorizes the sale of weapons to our enemies without consulting Congress, that's irresponsible. A Secretary of State who tells the American people that we are winning the war in Vietnam while the body counts keep getting higher and higher, that's irresponsible. Using your own email server? Give me a break.

When did we stop discussing serious issues? This crap is unbelievable. 

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

No matter what source says it, it's laughable. 

A Secretary of State who provides Congress and the American public false information about WMDs in order to justify an invasion- that's irresponsible. A Secretary of State who covertly authorizes the sale of weapons to our enemies without consulting Congress, that's irresponsible. A Secretary of State who tells the American people that we are winning the war in Vietnam while the body counts keep getting higher and higher, that's irresponsible. Using your own email server? Give me a break.

When did we stop discussing serious issues? This crap is unbelievable. 

just because you don't agree doesn't make it laughable.

 

[dparker713]

There has never been a better time to push for an alternative.  I literally can't imagine a better time.  If not now, when?

We're never going to have three viable parties.  Our government is designed to prevent it.  So while its a romantic notion, its also fairly quixotic.  Parties can rise and fall, and the Democrats or the Republicans may fade into history, but they'd be replaced with another party similar in structure if not in policy positions.

 

[timschochet]

And I failed to mention the most irresponsible Secretary of State in modern history: John Foster Dulles. In a famous speech, he told the people of Eastern Europe that if they rose up and rebelled against the Soviets, the United States would have their backs. Hungary listened and believed. They revolted, and the Soviets drove tanks into Budapest and slaughtered thousands of innocent people, including women and children. We did nothing. Dulles barely registered a complaint at the United Nations. It was one of the most shameful moments in the history of American foreign policy.

And what Hillary did with a private email server is comparable to this? Or worse? The New York Times should be ashamed for writing this crap. Grove Diesel should be ashamed for repeating it. 

 

[dparker713]

BTW, this apology thing is not a matter of semantics.  Anyone who works in any field of communications understands there is a critical, substantive distinction.

Seems like semantics to me and I'm a lawyer.

 

[squistion]

Just a tip:  another important rule on apologies is that they be free of contingencies or strings attached.

  I love it how you consider your opinion the last word on apologies.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And I failed to mention the most irresponsible Secretary of State in modern history: John Foster Dulles. In a famous speech, he told the people of Eastern Europe that if they rose up and rebelled against the Soviets, the United States would have their backs. Hungary listened and believed. They revolted, and the Soviets drove tanks into Budapest and slaughtered thousands of innocent people, including women and children. We did nothing. Dulles barely registered a complaint at the United Nations. It was one of the most shameful moments in the history of American foreign policy.

And what Hillary did with a private email server is comparable to this? Or worse? The New York Times should be ashamed for writing this crap. Grove Diesel should be ashamed for repeating it. 

Hungary is free today because of policies that Dulles put in place, the man was not a liar because he did not get NATO to go to war with the USSR. How about we compare the Bush Sr. / Bill Clinton policies toward the Shiites/Kurds and Hussein on that front. But none of these people are running for president. Every time you try the comp routine it is clearly to change the convo.

Hillary has a major problem. She lied about every single thing about this for more than a year. Every. Thing. If Hillary calls us into action anywhere for anything, we have zero reason to believe her, no matter what it is, great or small, no matter how important.

 

[dparker713]

So Hillary rolls into AC, craps all over the town, and somehow blames Trump for the whole town going in the dumper.

Ignoring decades of Democratic downward spiral in Atlantic City, which brought down all of New Jersey with it by not allowing North Jersey casinos as New York and Pennsyvlania built casinos closer to the bulk of the jersey population.  She also pointed out Trump abusing bankruptcy laws...which were first exploited en masse in the 90's under the Clinton administration

This is an odd and entirely wrong interpretation of NJ history.

 

[jon_mx]

Hillary did not kill 6 million Jews, so she has that going for her. 

 

[Smack Tripper]

This is an odd and entirely wrong interpretation of NJ history.

What's your opinion of George norcross in that case? 

 

[timschochet]

Hungary is free today because of policies that Dulles put in place, the man was not a liar because he did not get NATO to go to war with the USSR. How about we compare the Bush Sr. / Bill Clinton policies toward the Shiite and Hussein on that front. But none of these people are running for president. Every time you try the comp routine it is clearly to change the convo.

Hillary has a major problem. She lied about every single thing about this for more than a year. Every. Thing. If Hillary calls us into action anywhere for anything, we have zero reason to believe her, no matter what it is, great or small, no matter how important.

The bolded is entirely untrue. Dulles moved from George Kennan's containment policies and actually prolonged the Cold War. And he is directly responsible for the tragedy of the Hungarian rebellion of 1956. And the reason I brought this up is because Hillary's email server was called the most irresponsible act by a Secretary of State in modern American history, which is simply untrue, and laughable. 

Hillary did not "lie about every single thing." The emails are a minor issue, and have no relevance on how she conducts foreign policy. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The bolded is entirely untrue. Dulles moved from George Kennan's containment policies and actually prolonged the Cold War. And he is directly responsible for the tragedy of the Hungarian rebellion of 1956. And the reason I brought this up is because Hillary's email server was called the most irresponsible act by a Secretary of State in modern American history, which is simply untrue, and laughable. 

Hillary did not "lie about every single thing." The emails are a minor issue, and have no relevance on how she conducts foreign policy. 

The 1956 Nato discussion is irrelevant right now.

Tim, there is not a factual assertion she has made which has stood up. Comey blew every tattered piece of that roll of used toilet paper called the Briefing FAQ into the .