Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (7 Viewers)

[timschochet]

Ah yes, Kissinger and Nixon with their spectacularly wrong detente and engagement establishment theories about how to deal with the USSR.

Along came Ronald Reagan of the "we win, they lose" theory of the Cold War, One of many reasons why the Reagan presidency was way more effective than the Nixon administration.

It wasn't.

How would we know? You haven't gotten to either of them in your rankings yet.

And when I do, I can promise you now that Reagan will be ranked higher than Nixon- but that is an overall assessment. If I were concentrating on foreign policy alone, I would take Nixon over Reagan, easily.

 

[Slapdash]

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

 

[The Commish]

I don't want to belabor the email issue because it's so boring. But she's been very clear all along about what she did and why she did it. You seem determined to believe she's some sort of psychopathic liar. That's fine. To me, the whole issue couldn't be less important.

The disconnect is, you want more of the same in Washington. You've made that abundantly clear by your comments. You don't mind being lied to, I do. I'd rather have an honest discussion and disagree with the position than have some blowhard try and make nice with me and convince me of something they don't believe in just to get a job.

I care about honesty as well. But my first goal is a prosperous America with less problems than we have now. Shouldn't that be the priority?

I guess that would be the narrative for one who believes in the trickle down approach. Problem is, if you believe that approach works you are having to ignore TONS of evidence to the contrary.

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you talking about "trickle down" economics? Or something else? Either way, I'm not sure how it relates to what I wrote. You place a premium in personal honesty, and that's fine. However, when you state stuff like "we only know what they want us to know" you're already setting yourself up for failure, because there is nobody you can support in such a scenario. Bernie Sanders? Even if he somehow got elected, he'd only be co-opted by the dishonest system that you oppose. (Perhaps he already has been.)

I'm far more naive than you. (At least, that's how you think of me- or deluded, or blind, or whatever.) I truly believe that most leading national politicians (notice I exclude here state officials, Saints!) in this country truly want to make America a better place. Of course there's some corruption, and some lies once in a while, and conspiracies in rare instances, but far less than most people suppose. What there is more of than anything else is laziness, incompetence, and unintended consequences due to things being out of control. These issues worry me much more than deliberate malfeasance. I believe Hillary Clinton should be President because she is the most able.

Not sure it's "failure" to understand what the product is and how it was made. I simply don't make it any more than that and I'm ok with that approach. And I don't really have a problem with the system (other than doing away with the electoral college) it's usually the people abusing the system that I have a problem with.I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post because we are simply too far apart on what reality is in Washington. You choose to believe the dog and pony show they are throwing out there. I don't. I choose to look at their actions. When you trot out phrases like "some corruption" and "some lies" (as if they are few and far between rather than the general rule) we're never going to be close to the same page. However, I do believe that those in office are out to "better" this country. Where we disagree is on where that goal is on their list of goals. I don't believe it's in the top three of their goals, but it's there somewhere.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is from the FTLOGDE Hilary thread:

The Benghazi committee says in a statement:

The House Select Committee on Benghazi today released its March 4, 2015, subpoena to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in response to her inaccurate claim she had not been subpoenaed. The committee subpoenaed Clinton directly after it became aware of her exclusive use of personal email and a server and that the State Department was not the custodian of Clinton’s official record. The State Department failed to reveal this essential information to the Benghazi Committee or any other investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attacks until days before a media outlet was going to publish the information, meaning no investigation prior to the Benghazi Committee’s had access to the Secretary of State’s communications as part of its review.

Hillary must have simply misspoke or is a serial liar.

This totally escaped attention:

KEILAR: But you said they - that they did the same thing, that they used a personal server and -

KEILAR: - subpoena deleted emails from them?

CLINTON: You know, you're starting with so many assumptions that are - I've never had a subpoena. There is - again, let's take a deep breath here. Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation. I had one device. When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system.

Now I didn't have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system.

And now I think it's kind of fun. People get a real-time behind-the-scenes look at what I was emailing about and what I was communicating about.

Wow, that's really shocking. Is she obtuse, in denial, disconnected from reality, does she just think she can lie and make reality whatever she wants? Is she a compulsive liar? This seems trite, but really, what's going on here?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

NYT is already on it:

Hillary Clinton Says She Wasn’t Given a Subpoena, but a Document Shows Otherwise

Here's the subpoena.

What's more State had received demands for documents and FOIA requests dating back to 2010. There were also demands for preservation dating well before the subpoena. State received at least one subpoena in May 2013.

 

[Quint]

HRC is incapable of admitting a mistake. even if it could be spun to benefit her or put her in a better light.

seem pathological at this point.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't see the point of your response Saints. I'm glad she changed her mind on illegals, but that's not what she was referring to anyhow. She was referencing Trumps comments when he stated that most illegals from Mexico were "rapists and murderers- and a few are nice people."

She's hasn't changed her mind, that's her, she's just changed her words. She's more hypocritical than Trump is and that's saying a lot.

What hypocrisy are you referring to? And what does this have to do with Trump? Trump basically called illegals from Mexico rapists and murderers. That's hateful speech. When has Hillary ever said anything like that?

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner and former New York senator who had some say over policy that could have impacted Trump’s vast business dealings, received donations from both him and son Donald Trump Jr. on separate occasions in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007, according to state and federal disclosure records.


Trump has also been generous with the Clinton Foundation, donating at least $100,000, according to the non-profit.

In another sign of their closeness, Clinton attended Trump’s 2005 wedding to current wife Melania Knauss at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, ...(According to People, Clinton had front-pew seating.

http://www.politico....l#ixzz3fL0OMMmX

Ah, good times:

http://www.people.co..._809170,00.html

And she's so "disappointed" in him, old pals like that.

 

[squistion]

Hillary's team contends the subpoena quote was taken out of context:

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-camp-benghazi-panel-email-subpoena-2015-7

Hillary Clinton and House Republicans are now engaged in a testy back and forth

Things are heating up between the Republican-led House Select Committee on Benghazi and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

Clinton's team slammed the Benghazi panel on Wednesday for allegedly taking her comments out of context while accusing her of lying in a nationally televised interview.

"That was not accurate," Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told Business Insider in a statement.

Merrill was referring to a statement made by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina), the chair of the select committee. Earlier in the day, Gowdy released a March subpoena issued to Clinton that he said showed she gave an "inaccurate" answer during an interview with CNN

Gowdy pointed to a Tuesday exchange between Clinton and interviewer Brianna Keilar, during which she said she "never had a subpoena."

Here's the exchange:

CLINTON: Previous secretaries of state have said they did the same thing. And people across the government knew that I used one device. Maybe it was because I am not the most technically capable person and wanted to make it as easy as possible.

KEILAR: But you said they did the same thing. That they used a personal server and while facing a subpoena deleted emails.

CLINTON: You know, youre starting with so many assumptions there. Ive never had a subpoena. There is again, lets take a deep breath here. Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation. I had one device. When I mailed anybody in the government it would go into the governments system. Now, I didnt have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system.

But Merrill insisted Clinton was answering the question after a "suggestion was made that a subpoena was pending at the time."

Merrill also noted that Gowdy did not issue the subpoena until months after Clinton had reviewed thousands of emails sent and received from a personal email account on a private server during her time as secretary of state.

"She was asked about her decision to not to retain her personal emails after providing all those that were work-related, and the suggestion was made that a subpoena was pending at the time. That was not accurate," Merrill said.

"In fact, Trey Gowdy did not issue a subpoena until March, months after she she'd done that review," he continued. "Further, the subpoena was specifically asking for documents pertaining to Libya and the attacks on our facility in Benghazi, documents which, along with tens of thousands of others, she had already given to the Department of State."

 

[squistion]

Wait, you think that makes her look better?

Definitely. Before I looked into it, I figured it had to be something like this, (in this case a time frame issue) as it really didn't make sense that she would lie about something that could be so easily disproven, so it probably had to do with the context of what the interviewer was asking her.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Wait, you think that makes her look better?

Definitely. Before I looked into it, I figured it had to be something like this, (in this case a time frame issue) as it really didn't make sense that she would lie about something that could be so easily disproven, so it probably had to do with the context of what the interviewer was asking her.

Oh Jesus H Christ.

 

[The Commish]

 

[RCon]

I suspect Hillary is no longer capable of distinguishing between truth and lies.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary's team contends the subpoena quote was taken out of context:

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-camp-benghazi-panel-email-subpoena-2015-7

Hillary Clinton and House Republicans are now engaged in a testy back and forth

Things are heating up between the Republican-led House Select Committee on Benghazi and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

Clinton's team slammed the Benghazi panel on Wednesday for allegedly taking her comments out of context while accusing her of lying in a nationally televised interview.

"That was not accurate," Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told Business Insider in a statement.

Merrill was referring to a statement made by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina), the chair of the select committee. Earlier in the day, Gowdy released a March subpoena issued to Clinton that he said showed she gave an "inaccurate" answer during an interview with CNN

Gowdy pointed to a Tuesday exchange between Clinton and interviewer Brianna Keilar, during which she said she "never had a subpoena."

Here's the exchange:

CLINTON: Previous secretaries of state have said they did the same thing. And people across the government knew that I used one device. Maybe it was because I am not the most technically capable person and wanted to make it as easy as possible.

KEILAR: But you said they did the same thing. That they used a personal server and while facing a subpoena deleted emails.

CLINTON: You know, youre starting with so many assumptions there. Ive never had a subpoena. There is again, lets take a deep breath here. Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation. I had one device. When I mailed anybody in the government it would go into the governments system. Now, I didnt have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system.

But Merrill insisted Clinton was answering the question after a "suggestion was made that a subpoena was pending at the time."

...

About the claim of temporal difference, this is what Hillary said:

I've never had a subpoena.

As in never, ever.

She said that. All by herself. Just like all the rest of this insanity, Hillary did this all on her own.

These questions...:

KEILAR: But do you bear any responsibility for that?

Do you see any role that you've had in the sentiment that we've seen, where people are questioning whether you're trustworthy?

....were completely ignored, as though they held no meaning for her.

**********

Another odd comment comes to light too:

I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system.

Now what would be the portion not in the vast majority? Is that 10,000 emails? Is that 1,0000 emails? What was in them? How were they selected for deletion? She admits there in that sentence that she deleted official documentation.

Keilar's question...:

Can you tell me the story of how you decided to delete 33,000 emails and how that deletion was executed?

...remained completely ignored.

 

[squistion]

About the claim of temporal difference, this is what Hillary said:

I've never had a subpoena.

As in never, ever.

No, not never, ever, she was referring to the context of what the interviewer had just said. You have many talents, Saints, but mind reading is not one of them and the explanation given by her staff seem equally as valid an interpretation and actually makes more sense than lying about something that could be so easily disproven. This is similar to "What difference does it make?" and Obama's "You didn't build this" which the right wing blogosphere also got mileage on taking out of context, but got no long term traction with the American public and this won't either.

 

[TripItUp]

Republicans clinging to this Benghazi crap...it's pathetic.

This is coming from somebody who voted Romney in 2012.

Let's move on to the issues at hand please.

 

[RCon]

Hillary hit it out of the park in her CNN interview. Expressed her disappointment in Trump and Bush, stated her firm support for a Path to Citizenship, put the email story to bed. She was just outstanding. She is far and away the best candidate in either party, not even close at this point.

Hit it out of the park, huh? After reading the full transcript, it doesn't appear she actually answered any of the questions put to her, or uttered one sentence of substance. Which answer did you particularly like?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

About the claim of temporal difference, this is what Hillary said:

I've never had a subpoena.

As in never, ever.

No, not never, ever, she was referring to the context of what the interviewer had just said. You have many talents, Saints, but mind reading is not one of them and the explanation given by her staff seem equally as valid an interpretation and actually makes more sense than lying about something that could be so easily disproven. This is similar to "What difference does it make?" and Obama's "You didn't build this" which the right wing blogosphere also got mileage on taking out of context, but got no long term traction with the American public and this won't either.

I'm outta likes [shakes fist] but I would have liked that post.

I will concede the obvious here - that even according to Merrell's own statement (or the report on it) Hillary deleted emails in December. Now, by that time State had received a subpoena, in May 2013. Hillary left office 2/1/13. State had also received demand letters for documents and State had been subject to numerous FOIA lawsuits dating to 2010. But Hillary did not receive a personal subpoena until March 2015. Now, to my mind that doesn't excuse her of any of her duties to retain public documents or disclose them or produce them. And it also means that Congress, and FOIA claimants, could not have issued subpoenas directly to Hillary unless they knew she was concealing records in the first place, which they did not until after December 2014.

However, technically, Keilar's question indicated that Hillary was under subpoena when she deleted the emails ("used a personal server and while facing a subpoena deleted emails."). To me, the answer for Hillary there is to make a distinction between her duty as opposed to State's duty. Now, I don't think there is a distinction. It's no different to me than if she had taken a box full of official paper from a State Dept. conference in say Germany and then brought them directly home instead of returning them to State. The fact that public records were physically located in her private property does not change their public nature. Now, maybe she was aware of this, and maybe that's why she phrased her response like she did, but technically yes as of December she had never received a subpoena personally up to that point.

Having conceded that much I think you could concede that she should have phrased it accurately if that's what she meant. (ie "I had not received a subpoena at the time that I deleted my emails", instead of "I never received a subpoena"). But then maybe that requires some mind reading as well.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

My guess is Hillary will be asked this question again, and she will have to follow just that drill, trying to distinguish why her official emails were not subject to State department requests. I'm guessing that's where Keilar was going with that to begin with.

And I had no obligation to do any of that.

That's Hillary just a little further down from the issue about the subpoena. She was not obligated (by personal subpoena) in December 2014 because no one knew she had public records in her private and sole possession.

She produced the emails because she knew she would be obligated once their existence became known. It's an open question why she suddenly produced them out of nowhere, but the answer was likely that she was aware that State had been stonewalling the AP and other FOIA requesters for up to 5 years and the time to pay the piper had come due, State was going to reveal the existence of her private repository and then the whole world would know, so she preempted the whole process rather than fight a battle she knew she would lose (and in the process risk a whatever it was that concerned her coming to light). The NY Times reported the story (probably via leak from State), then the AP filed suit 3/11/15, then Gowdy issued his subpoena on 3/13/15.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary hit it out of the park in her CNN interview. Expressed her disappointment in Trump and Bush, stated her firm support for a Path to Citizenship, put the email story to bed. She was just outstanding. She is far and away the best candidate in either party, not even close at this point.

Hit it out of the park, huh? After reading the full transcript, it doesn't appear she actually answered any of the questions put to her, or uttered one sentence of substance. Which answer did you particularly like?

Can't you guess?

 

[RCon]

Hillary hit it out of the park in her CNN interview. Expressed her disappointment in Trump and Bush, stated her firm support for a Path to Citizenship, put the email story to bed. She was just outstanding. She is far and away the best candidate in either party, not even close at this point.

Hit it out of the park, huh? After reading the full transcript, it doesn't appear she actually answered any of the questions put to her, or uttered one sentence of substance. Which answer did you particularly like?

Can't you guess?

So that's it? That's all you took out of the entire interview?

By the way, the phrase "path to citizenship" is meaningless. I support a path to citizenship. I support allowing all current illegals to apply for citizenship in an identical fashion to all other immigrants seeking to become citizens. That's a path.

 

[Sam Quentin]

it really didn't make sense that she would lie about something that could be so easily disproven.

 

[squistion]

About the claim of temporal difference, this is what Hillary said:

I've never had a subpoena.

As in never, ever.

No, not never, ever, she was referring to the context of what the interviewer had just said. You have many talents, Saints, but mind reading is not one of them and the explanation given by her staff seem equally as valid an interpretation and actually makes more sense than lying about something that could be so easily disproven. This is similar to "What difference does it make?" and Obama's "You didn't build this" which the right wing blogosphere also got mileage on taking out of context, but got no long term traction with the American public and this won't either.

I'm outta likes [shakes fist] but I would have liked that post.

I will concede the obvious here - that even according to Merrell's own statement (or the report on it) Hillary deleted emails in December. Now, by that time State had received a subpoena, in May 2013. Hillary left office 2/1/13. State had also received demand letters for documents and State had been subject to numerous FOIA lawsuits dating to 2010. But Hillary did not receive a personal subpoena until March 2015. Now, to my mind that doesn't excuse her of any of her duties to retain public documents or disclose them or produce them. And it also means that Congress, and FOIA claimants, could not have issued subpoenas directly to Hillary unless they knew she was concealing records in the first place, which they did not until after December 2014.

However, technically, Keilar's question indicated that Hillary was under subpoena when she deleted the emails ("used a personal server and while facing a subpoena deleted emails."). To me, the answer for Hillary there is to make a distinction between her duty as opposed to State's duty. Now, I don't think there is a distinction. It's no different to me than if she had taken a box full of official paper from a State Dept. conference in say Germany and then brought them directly home instead of returning them to State. The fact that public records were physically located in her private property does not change their public nature. Now, maybe she was aware of this, and maybe that's why she phrased her response like she did, but technically yes as of December she had never received a subpoena personally up to that point.

Having conceded that much I think you could concede that she should have phrased it accurately if that's what she meant. (ie "I had not received a subpoena at the time that I deleted my emails", instead of "I never received a subpoena"). But then maybe that requires some mind reading as well.

Yes, it could have been phrased better, but I am sure she didn't mean it to say that she never had been subpoenaed on anything, ever in her entire life (which is what the right wing blogosphere has been claiming) as she certainly couldn't have forgotten this:

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,5653,00.html

Hillary Clinton Subpoenaed on Whitewater

WASHINGTON, D.C.: Independent Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr has subpoenaed Hillary Rodham Clinton, the White House disclosed Monday. She will testify this Friday in Washington before a federal grand jury regarding the mystery surrounding the discovery of her Whitewater billing records.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Using Private Email, Hillary Clinton Thwarted Record RequestsIn 2012, congressional investigators asked the State Department for a wide range of documents related to the attack on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. The department eventually responded, furnishing House committees with thousands of documents.

But it turns out that that was not everything.

The State Department had not searched the email account of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton because she had maintained a private account, which shielded it from such searches, department officials acknowledged on Tuesday.

It was only last month that the House committee appointed to investigate Benghazi was provided with about 300 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails related to the attacks. That was shortly after Mrs. Clinton turned over, at the State Department’s request, some 50,000 pages of government-related emails that she had kept on her private account.

It was one of several instances in which records requests sent to the State Department, which had no access to Mrs. Clinton’s emails, came up empty.

In 2013, Nitasha Tiku, then a reporter for Gawker, filed a Freedom of Information Act request, seeking all correspondence on Mrs. Clinton’s private email account between her and Sidney Blumenthal, a close adviser and onetime staff member in the Clinton White House. Some of those emails had already spilled into public view and been reported in the news media. But the State Department told Gawker that it could find no records responsive to the request, Gawker reported. ... In Mrs. Clinton’s case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record.

In response to a State Department request, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, late last year, reviewed her account and decided which emails to turn over to the State Department.

...

But political groups and news organizations said requests for records related to Mrs. Clinton had repeatedly gone unanswered.

In December, The Associated Press said its FOIA requests for records related to Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, the oldest of which was submitted in March 2010, were not answered. In addition to requesting Mrs. Clinton’s schedules, The A.P. asked for correspondence related to Huma Abedin’s special arrangement to serve as a top adviser to Mrs. Clinton and consult for private clients. “We have not received any documents yet, despite the promised deadlines, and we are evaluating the situation,” said Erin Madigan White, spokeswoman for The A.P.

...But since 2009, said Laura Diachenko, a National Archives and Records spokeswoman, federal regulations have stated that “agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.” ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/politics/using-private-email-hillary-clinton-thwarted-record-requests.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

That was March 4th. So Hillary, was obligated by State Department request to turn over her emails. Hillary was obligated under federal rules and public records law to retain her emails and not destroy them. Hillary was obligated under numerous court and Congressional record requests to State to turn over her public records. These requests predated the Libyan investigation by two years.

The subpoena to her personally was issued 9 days after it became known what she was doing.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yes, it could have been phrased better, but I am sure she didn't mean it to say that she never had been subpoenaed on anything...

Squizz thanks, I am sure she will have a chance to clarify soon.

In the meantime, hopefully I get to FF research because that time is nigh. Talk at ya later and thanks for the discussion.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary hit it out of the park in her CNN interview. Expressed her disappointment in Trump and Bush, stated her firm support for a Path to Citizenship, put the email story to bed. She was just outstanding. She is far and away the best candidate in either party, not even close at this point.

Hit it out of the park, huh? After reading the full transcript, it doesn't appear she actually answered any of the questions put to her, or uttered one sentence of substance. Which answer did you particularly like?

Can't you guess?

So that's it? That's all you took out of the entire interview?

By the way, the phrase "path to citizenship" is meaningless. I support a path to citizenship. I support allowing all current illegals to apply for citizenship in an identical fashion to all other immigrants seeking to become citizens. That's a path.

I took a lot out of the interview. I thought you wanted to know which part I liked best.

 

[RCon]

Hillary hit it out of the park in her CNN interview. Expressed her disappointment in Trump and Bush, stated her firm support for a Path to Citizenship, put the email story to bed. She was just outstanding. She is far and away the best candidate in either party, not even close at this point.

Hit it out of the park, huh? After reading the full transcript, it doesn't appear she actually answered any of the questions put to her, or uttered one sentence of substance. Which answer did you particularly like?

Can't you guess?

So that's it? That's all you took out of the entire interview?

By the way, the phrase "path to citizenship" is meaningless. I support a path to citizenship. I support allowing all current illegals to apply for citizenship in an identical fashion to all other immigrants seeking to become citizens. That's a path.

I took a lot out of the interview. I thought you wanted to know which part I liked best.

Let me rephrase. Which answers did you think were particularly substantive? I didn't see any that both answered the question asked and/or were anything more than platitudes.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary hit it out of the park in her CNN interview. Expressed her disappointment in Trump and Bush, stated her firm support for a Path to Citizenship, put the email story to bed. She was just outstanding. She is far and away the best candidate in either party, not even close at this point.

Hit it out of the park, huh? After reading the full transcript, it doesn't appear she actually answered any of the questions put to her, or uttered one sentence of substance. Which answer did you particularly like?

Can't you guess?

So that's it? That's all you took out of the entire interview?

By the way, the phrase "path to citizenship" is meaningless. I support a path to citizenship. I support allowing all current illegals to apply for citizenship in an identical fashion to all other immigrants seeking to become citizens. That's a path.

I took a lot out of the interview. I thought you wanted to know which part I liked best.

Let me rephrase. Which answers did you think were particularly substantive? I didn't see any that both answered the question asked and/or were anything more than platitudes.

Well it depends on how you want to look at it. I thought her answer on immigration was very substantive. Also on the emails.

She's going to be giving a lot of interviews. We'll get to know what she thinks about every issue under the sun.

 

[squistion]

Well it depends on how you want to look at it. I thought her answer on immigration was very substantive. Also on the emails.

She's going to be giving a lot of interviews. We'll get to know what she thinks about every issue under the sun.

Which will completely destroy the meme of "Hillary is afraid to talk to reporters or speak out on the issues - she is just coasting to the nomination..."

 

[RCon]

Let me rephrase. Which answers did you think were particularly substantive? I didn't see any that both answered the question asked and/or were anything more than platitudes.

Well it depends on how you want to look at it. I thought her answer on immigration was very substantive. Also on the emails.

She's going to be giving a lot of interviews. We'll get to know what she thinks about every issue under the sun.

Well, if you thought her answers regarding the e-mails were substantive, then we obviously have very different definitions of the word substantive. Yours apparently means "lengthy regardless of actual content". She didn't answer those questions at all.

And, no, we won't get to know what she really thinks. The interviews will all be more of these non-answer answers. Not that she's the only politician guilty of this; most are.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Can someone clarify for me what Hillary's stance is on sanctuary cities? She was for them the last time she ran but seemed to blame San Francisco for not deporting the illegal immigrant killer. Is she now against sanctuary cities? Additionally, Hillary multiple times said the city should have deported the guy. Can someone let me know if Hillary understands that cities don't deport?

 

[Mister CIA]

In other news, Whoopi Goldberg continues defense of Bill Cosby.

 

[timschochet]

Can someone clarify for me what Hillary's stance is on sanctuary cities? She was for them the last time she ran but seemed to blame San Francisco for not deporting the illegal immigrant killer. Is she now against sanctuary cities? Additionally, Hillary multiple times said the city should have deported the guy. Can someone let me know if Hillary understands that cities don't deport?

Good question. Perhaps she believes, as I do, that sanctuary cities should protect illegal immigrants from deportation, with the exception of those who commit violent crimes (any illegal who commits a violent crime should serve out a prison sentence and then face deportation.)

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Can someone clarify for me what Hillary's stance is on sanctuary cities? She was for them the last time she ran but seemed to blame San Francisco for not deporting the illegal immigrant killer. Is she now against sanctuary cities? Additionally, Hillary multiple times said the city should have deported the guy. Can someone let me know if Hillary understands that cities don't deport?

Good question. Perhaps she believes, as I do, that sanctuary cities should protect illegal immigrants from deportation, with the exception of those who commit violent crimes (any illegal who commits a violent crime should serve out a prison sentence and then face deportation.)

You theorizing on Hillary's stance doesn't clarify what her actual position is on sanctuary cities.

 

[dhockster]

Can someone clarify for me what Hillary's stance is on sanctuary cities? She was for them the last time she ran but seemed to blame San Francisco for not deporting the illegal immigrant killer. Is she now against sanctuary cities? Additionally, Hillary multiple times said the city should have deported the guy. Can someone let me know if Hillary understands that cities don't deport?

Good question. Perhaps she believes, as I do, that sanctuary cities should protect illegal immigrants from deportation, with the exception of those who commit violent crimes (any illegal who commits a violent crime should serve out a prison sentence and then face deportation.)

You theorizing on Hillary's stance doesn't clarify what her actual position is on sanctuary cities.

Tim tried to clarify what her position is based on what he has heard her say. That's what you asked for. I don't know what else you wanted him to say as she has not currently stated what her position is on sanctuary cities. Any clarification is just supposition on our part.

 

[RCon]

Can someone clarify for me what Hillary's stance is on sanctuary cities? She was for them the last time she ran but seemed to blame San Francisco for not deporting the illegal immigrant killer. Is she now against sanctuary cities? Additionally, Hillary multiple times said the city should have deported the guy. Can someone let me know if Hillary understands that cities don't deport?

Good question. Perhaps she believes, as I do, that sanctuary cities should protect illegal immigrants from deportation, with the exception of those who commit violent crimes (any illegal who commits a violent crime should serve out a prison sentence and then face deportation.)

So, in your opinion, cities should determine on their own, which federal laws are valid and which aren't, and therefore, which are worth following and which should be ignored? Further, the federal government should allow cities to ignore laws that the city doesn't like? Does this also apply to states? Counties? Home-owner's associations? Individuals?

 

[timschochet]

Can someone clarify for me what Hillary's stance is on sanctuary cities? She was for them the last time she ran but seemed to blame San Francisco for not deporting the illegal immigrant killer. Is she now against sanctuary cities? Additionally, Hillary multiple times said the city should have deported the guy. Can someone let me know if Hillary understands that cities don't deport?

Good question. Perhaps she believes, as I do, that sanctuary cities should protect illegal immigrants from deportation, with the exception of those who commit violent crimes (any illegal who commits a violent crime should serve out a prison sentence and then face deportation.)

So, in your opinion, cities should determine on their own, which federal laws are valid and which aren't, and therefore, which are worth following and which should be ignored? Further, the federal government should allow cities to ignore laws that the city doesn't like? Does this also apply to states? Counties? Home-owner's associations? Individuals?

Only with regard to illegal immigration.

 

[The Commish]

Can someone clarify for me what Hillary's stance is on sanctuary cities? She was for them the last time she ran but seemed to blame San Francisco for not deporting the illegal immigrant killer. Is she now against sanctuary cities? Additionally, Hillary multiple times said the city should have deported the guy. Can someone let me know if Hillary understands that cities don't deport?

Good question. Perhaps she believes, as I do, that sanctuary cities should protect illegal immigrants from deportation, with the exception of those who commit violent crimes (any illegal who commits a violent crime should serve out a prison sentence and then face deportation.)

So, in your opinion, cities should determine on their own, which federal laws are valid and which aren't, and therefore, which are worth following and which should be ignored? Further, the federal government should allow cities to ignore laws that the city doesn't like? Does this also apply to states? Counties? Home-owner's associations? Individuals?

Only with regard to illegal immigration.

Just a random line in the sand being drawn then?

 

[timschochet]

Can someone clarify for me what Hillary's stance is on sanctuary cities? She was for them the last time she ran but seemed to blame San Francisco for not deporting the illegal immigrant killer. Is she now against sanctuary cities? Additionally, Hillary multiple times said the city should have deported the guy. Can someone let me know if Hillary understands that cities don't deport?

Good question. Perhaps she believes, as I do, that sanctuary cities should protect illegal immigrants from deportation, with the exception of those who commit violent crimes (any illegal who commits a violent crime should serve out a prison sentence and then face deportation.)

So, in your opinion, cities should determine on their own, which federal laws are valid and which aren't, and therefore, which are worth following and which should be ignored? Further, the federal government should allow cities to ignore laws that the city doesn't like? Does this also apply to states? Counties? Home-owner's associations? Individuals?

Only with regard to illegal immigration.

Just a random line in the sand being drawn then?

Its not random. There's lot of historical precedence. For example, several cities in New England chose in the 1850s to disobey the federal Fugitive Slave Act.

 

[Quint]

HRC + recent comments on SF Sanctuary City status = grandstanding.

She's in absolutely no danger of losing CA in the general election, so she can say whatever she wants even if it seems to contradict earlier statements.

 

[Soonerman]

Can someone clarify for me what Hillary's stance is on sanctuary cities? She was for them the last time she ran but seemed to blame San Francisco for not deporting the illegal immigrant killer. Is she now against sanctuary cities? Additionally, Hillary multiple times said the city should have deported the guy. Can someone let me know if Hillary understands that cities don't deport?

Good question. Perhaps she believes, as I do, that sanctuary cities should protect illegal immigrants from deportation, with the exception of those who commit violent crimes (any illegal who commits a violent crime should serve out a prison sentence and then face deportation.)

So, in your opinion, cities should determine on their own, which federal laws are valid and which aren't, and therefore, which are worth following and which should be ignored? Further, the federal government should allow cities to ignore laws that the city doesn't like? Does this also apply to states? Counties? Home-owner's associations? Individuals?

Only with regard to illegal immigration.

Just a random line in the sand being drawn then?

Its not random. There's lot of historical precedence. For example, several cities in New England chose in the 1850s to disobey the federal Fugitive Slave Act.

Just a tip. Using Nazism and slavery to analogize to conditions today is very rarely a good idea.

 

[RCon]

Can someone clarify for me what Hillary's stance is on sanctuary cities? She was for them the last time she ran but seemed to blame San Francisco for not deporting the illegal immigrant killer. Is she now against sanctuary cities? Additionally, Hillary multiple times said the city should have deported the guy. Can someone let me know if Hillary understands that cities don't deport?

Good question. Perhaps she believes, as I do, that sanctuary cities should protect illegal immigrants from deportation, with the exception of those who commit violent crimes (any illegal who commits a violent crime should serve out a prison sentence and then face deportation.)

So, in your opinion, cities should determine on their own, which federal laws are valid and which aren't, and therefore, which are worth following and which should be ignored? Further, the federal government should allow cities to ignore laws that the city doesn't like? Does this also apply to states? Counties? Home-owner's associations? Individuals?

Only with regard to illegal immigration.

So, in your opinion, cities should be allowed to determine on their own, which federal laws are valid and which aren't (as long as you agree with their determination), and therefore, which are worth following and which should be ignored? Further, the federal government should allow cities to ignore laws that the city doesn't like? Does this also apply to states? Counties? Home-owner's associations? Individuals?

In other words, everyone should be allowed to ignore laws that you, timschochet, don't like.

 

[The Commish]

Can someone clarify for me what Hillary's stance is on sanctuary cities? She was for them the last time she ran but seemed to blame San Francisco for not deporting the illegal immigrant killer. Is she now against sanctuary cities? Additionally, Hillary multiple times said the city should have deported the guy. Can someone let me know if Hillary understands that cities don't deport?

Good question. Perhaps she believes, as I do, that sanctuary cities should protect illegal immigrants from deportation, with the exception of those who commit violent crimes (any illegal who commits a violent crime should serve out a prison sentence and then face deportation.)

So, in your opinion, cities should determine on their own, which federal laws are valid and which aren't, and therefore, which are worth following and which should be ignored? Further, the federal government should allow cities to ignore laws that the city doesn't like? Does this also apply to states? Counties? Home-owner's associations? Individuals?

Only with regard to illegal immigration.

Just a random line in the sand being drawn then?

Its not random. There's lot of historical precedence. For example, several cities in New England chose in the 1850s to disobey the federal Fugitive Slave Act.

Is it safe to say you believe these two topics are analogous? Or are you saying there is "historical precedence" to simply ignore the federal government? I.E. the "well, they did it too" line of thinking.

 

[RCon]

Let me put it another way. Do you understand the difference between:

1. I don't like this certain federal law. I think the law should be changed. States, people, cities, and every other organization should actively work to get the law changed.

2. I don't like this certain federal law. I think the law should be changed. Until it is changed, I think people should be free to ignore and break the law without consequence.

With respect to illegal immigration, you seem to think that position 1 and position 2 are both valid. Let's add to the positions a little bit, though.

1a. I don't like this certain federal law. I think the law should be changed. States, people, cities, and every other organization should actively work to get the law changed. I recognize that other people may feel similarly about other laws, even if I do not. Those people should also be free to actively work to get those laws changed.

2a. I don't like this certain federal law. I think the law should be changed. Until it is changed, I think people should be free to ignore and break the law without consequence. I recognize that other people may feel similarly about other laws, even if I do not. People should also be free to ignore and break those laws without consequence.

See where this breaks down? Position 1a is still valid, while position 2a becomes the equivalent of having no laws at all.

 

[timschochet]

Thanks for attempting to clarify my position Rich. But I'm not at all worried about it breaking down, as you claim. I am not a dictator nor a politician. My political views are wholly subjective, sometimes wildly inconsistent, and often hypocritical. I support sanctuary cities because in general I don't believe in deporting illegal immigrants. That doesn't make me an anarchist, nor am I suggesting that anyone should be allowed to disobey any law they disagree with. if that seems inconsistent then so be it.

 

[timschochet]

Can someone clarify for me what Hillary's stance is on sanctuary cities? She was for them the last time she ran but seemed to blame San Francisco for not deporting the illegal immigrant killer. Is she now against sanctuary cities? Additionally, Hillary multiple times said the city should have deported the guy. Can someone let me know if Hillary understands that cities don't deport?

Good question. Perhaps she believes, as I do, that sanctuary cities should protect illegal immigrants from deportation, with the exception of those who commit violent crimes (any illegal who commits a violent crime should serve out a prison sentence and then face deportation.)

So, in your opinion, cities should determine on their own, which federal laws are valid and which aren't, and therefore, which are worth following and which should be ignored? Further, the federal government should allow cities to ignore laws that the city doesn't like? Does this also apply to states? Counties? Home-owner's associations? Individuals?

Only with regard to illegal immigration.

Just a random line in the sand being drawn then?

Its not random. There's lot of historical precedence. For example, several cities in New England chose in the 1850s to disobey the federal Fugitive Slave Act.

Is it safe to say you believe these two topics are analogous? Or are you saying there is "historical precedence" to simply ignore the federal government? I.E. the "well, they did it too" line of thinking.

They are not analogous except to point out that there's historical precedence for cities choosing to ignore federal laws, justifiably in certain very rare circumstances.

 

[RCon]

Thanks for attempting to clarify my position Rich. But I'm not at all worried about it breaking down, as you claim. I am not a dictator nor a politician. My political views are wholly subjective, sometimes wildly inconsistent, and often hypocritical. I support sanctuary cities because in general I don't believe in deporting illegal immigrants. That doesn't make me an anarchist, nor am I suggesting that anyone should be allowed to disobey any law they disagree with. if that seems inconsistent then so be it.

It doesn't seem inconsistent. It is inconsistent. You are, literally, advocating that certain groups of people should be allowed to ignore, without consequence, laws they don't like.

 

[timschochet]

Thanks for attempting to clarify my position Rich. But I'm not at all worried about it breaking down, as you claim. I am not a dictator nor a politician. My political views are wholly subjective, sometimes wildly inconsistent, and often hypocritical. I support sanctuary cities because in general I don't believe in deporting illegal immigrants. That doesn't make me an anarchist, nor am I suggesting that anyone should be allowed to disobey any law they disagree with. if that seems inconsistent then so be it.

It doesn't seem inconsistent. It is inconsistent. You are, literally, advocating that certain groups of people should be allowed to ignore, without consequence, laws they don't like.

Only with regard to illegal immigration.

 

[RCon]

Thanks for attempting to clarify my position Rich. But I'm not at all worried about it breaking down, as you claim. I am not a dictator nor a politician. My political views are wholly subjective, sometimes wildly inconsistent, and often hypocritical. I support sanctuary cities because in general I don't believe in deporting illegal immigrants. That doesn't make me an anarchist, nor am I suggesting that anyone should be allowed to disobey any law they disagree with. if that seems inconsistent then so be it.

It doesn't seem inconsistent. It is inconsistent. You are, literally, advocating that certain groups of people should be allowed to ignore, without consequence, laws they don't like.

Only with regard to illegal immigration.

Some ranchers in Texas don't like the law that says they can't shoot illegal immigrants on site. Apparently they should be able to ignore, without consequence, that law.

 

[The Commish]

Thanks for attempting to clarify my position Rich. But I'm not at all worried about it breaking down, as you claim. I am not a dictator nor a politician. My political views are wholly subjective, sometimes wildly inconsistent, and often hypocritical. I support sanctuary cities because in general I don't believe in deporting illegal immigrants. That doesn't make me an anarchist, nor am I suggesting that anyone should be allowed to disobey any law they disagree with. if that seems inconsistent then so be it.

It doesn't seem inconsistent. It is inconsistent. You are, literally, advocating that certain groups of people should be allowed to ignore, without consequence, laws they don't like.

Only with regard to illegal immigration.

So TIm....let's say there is a different path to citizenship established by the gov't than the one we have now and we hit the reset button. Will you continue to support illegal immigrants who thumb their noses at the new process and do what they want?