Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (2 Viewers)

[TobiasFunke]

  I am not voting for either one.  You can make all the distinctions you want.  Neither are fit to hold the office.  And when neither are fit - its a bit disingenuous to argue that one is more less fit than the other...

My personal opinion is that Clinton poses a greater threat to the country because of her likely economic and  foreign policy positions than Trump.  That is not an endorsement of Trump, nor an acknowledgment that Trump is deserving of my vote.

It should be responsive as to why I don't think my vote for a 3rd party is a "mistake", or that I am somehow dooming the country by not voting for either of the major party candidates.  I think both parties are corrupt.  I think both candidates are flawed enough that neither is fit to lead the country.  But, I can't change who the parties nominate - I voted in my primary, so that was all I can do at this stage.  

I can voice my opinion of the parties, by not validating their choice for a nominee.

I wasn't arguing that you should vote one way or another, or that one is fit to hold office and the other is not. I was specifically attempting to refute your claim that Clinton's lies about her server motivations are somehow worse than Trump's lies about Muslims celebrating 9/11 or illegal immigrant crime rates when you consider the context. I strongly disagree with that.. As far as your vote, I'll pitch the anti-Trump vote all day but if you hear it out and still think there's more value in a protest vote or not voting, so be it.

 

[Joe Summer]

Who's asking you to emphasize anything? Just stop absurdly denying them. "I don't think Hillary has done anything wrong."

Maurile, there is a difference between denying Hillary's actions and denying whether they were wrong.

Denying the former is absurd. Denying the latter is a matter of opinion.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A Split Over Israel Threatens the Democrats’ Hopes for Unity


A bitter divide over the Middle East could threaten Democratic Party unity as representatives of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont vowed to upend what they see as the party’s lopsided support of Israel.

Two of the senator’s appointees to the party’s platform drafting committee, Cornel West and James Zogby, on Wednesday denounced Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and said they believed that rank-and-file Democrats no longer hewed to the party’s staunch support of the Israeli government. They said they would try to get their views incorporated into the platform, the party’s statement of core beliefs, at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in July.

“Justice for Palestinians cannot be attained without the lifting of the occupation,” Dr. West, one of Mr. Sanders’s five representatives on the platform committee, said in an interview. Dr. West said that while he recognized the necessity to provide for the security of Jews, who for thousands of years have been a “hated people,” he thought that the platform needed to bring more balance to “the plight of an occupied people.”

The presence of Dr. Zogby and Dr. West on the 15-member panel, which also has six appointees of Hillary Clinton and four from the party chairwoman, does not guarantee their views will prevail. But it raises the prospect that one of the party’s most sensitive issues will be open to public debate while Mrs. Clinton is in a fight to unify her party and appeal to voters turned off by Donald J. Trump. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/bernie-sanders-israel-democratic-convention.html?_r=1

 

[cobalt_27]

It is astounding to me that someone with your stated political beliefs could write "I believe there are greater risks with Clinton."

It's astounding to you because you have a fundamental disregard for the importance of ethics.

Nixon, after all, is one of your favorites.

 

[psychobillies]

I would be curious to hear the context of the Clinton lie that you consider worse than the Trump lies about, say, Muslims in America celebrating 9/11, or criminal tendencies of illegal immigrants, the context of which was pretty obviously to vilify largely peaceful communities in order to stoke unwarranted fears and garner the support of hateful islamophobes and xenophobes.  That context seems way worse than any lie I've ever heard from Clinton, carefully chosen or not.  You disagree I take it?

How about the one that led to a film maker being thrown into prison in order to help Obama get elected?   Tjat guy probably felt ostracized in his own country too.  Lying to the families about it was pretty horrible as well.  Those lies have had actual consequences, so I'd say they are worse.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm happy to continue to beat on Clinton as warranted, but I'm officially laying off of tim for an indeterminate period of time.  Bruins have to stand together right now.     

 

[TobiasFunke]

How about the one that led to a film maker being thrown into prison in order to help Obama get elected?   Tjat guy probably felt ostracized in his own country too.  Lying to the families about it was pretty horrible as well.  Those lies have had actual consequences, so I'd say they are worse.

I have no idea what you're talking about.  Who was thrown in prison for what now?

 

[dparker713]

Yeah, I am almost certain to vote 3rd party at this stage - not because they will win - but because if they start to get consistent support, we start to see better candidates, and more nuanced positions.

Neither Clinton nor Trump would make good presidents.  I doubt either would completely sink the country, though I think there are greater risks with Clinton.  My read on Trump is that he is not really a confrontation-type of guy - he barks alot (and likes that type of confrontation) but when it gets down to it - I don't think he will make any critical errors and bite off more than he can chew. 

With Clinton, I can rest assured that abortion rights will remain the same - which is simply not a concern I have - but I do worry that her fiscal policy will be full of short-term bumps, that lead to bubbles, that lead to recessions - see, Bill.  I do worry that her foreign policy will lead us into military conflict unnecessarily, and without proper planning on an end-game - which always makes a bad situation worse.  I trust Clinton slightly more on the environment, but I don't really trust either of them.

i think Joshua had it right the whole time - The only winning move is not to play. 

You're fundamentally misunderstanding 3rd parties in American politics.  They either take over for one of the established parties, get subsumed, or are irrelevant.  More positions and more parties cannot survive and they're not going to change the selection process of candidates.

And claiming Trump isn't a confrontation guy is so far removed from reality I've no idea how you could claim it.  They guy sues/is sued constantly.  Picks fights in the media with people of all stripes.  Digs his heels in on minor/inconsequential issues.  His business record is replete with critical errors and making promises he can't deliver.  

 

[Sinn Fein]

You're fundamentally misunderstanding 3rd parties in American politics.  They either take over for one of the established parties, get subsumed, or are irrelevant.  More positions and more parties cannot survive and they're not going to change the selection process of candidates.

And claiming Trump isn't a confrontation guy is so far removed from reality I've no idea how you could claim it.  They guy sues/is sued constantly.  Picks fights in the media with people of all stripes.  Digs his heels in on minor/inconsequential issues.  His business record is replete with critical errors and making promises he can't deliver.  

You've convinced me.  I will not vote Trump.  Promise.

 

[Henry Ford]

You've convinced me.  I will not vote Trump.  Promise.

Like a real promise, or a Clinton promise?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Like a real promise, or a Clinton promise?

I want to say one thing to the American people.  I want you to listen to me.  I am going to say this again.  [fingerwave] I will not vote for that man. Mr. Trump. [/fingerwave]  I did not tell anyone to vote for Trump.  Not a single time.  Never.

Now, I need to go back to work.

 

[dparker713]

You believe Bernie supporters will and should back Hillary if she's the nominee, yes? 

Hardly equivalent, as Hillary has not stolen the nomination from Bernie.  She's beaten him at the ballot box.

 

[squistion]

Hardly equivalent, as Hillary has not stolen the nomination from Bernie.  She's beaten him at the ballot box.

Don't try to confuse them with the facts.

 

[cobalt_27]

The #### they will.  There are actual Hillary supporters - alot of them.

"Hillary supporters" <> "sane"

 

[dparker713]

Shame on the Democrats for putting us in this position then.

Yeah, its the Democrats' fault for not anticipating a pathological liar, reality TV star, bigoted bully would steamroll the entire Republican primary field.  Hmm, well... maybe... 

 

[Henry Ford]

Yeah, its the Democrats' fault for not anticipating a pathological liar, reality TV star, bigoted bully would steamroll the entire Republican primary field.  Hmm, well... maybe... 

It's not like this was out of the realm of possibility.

 

[Henry Ford]

If we're willing to blame a mother for failing to anticipate that her son would jump into a gorilla enclosure... I'm just saying.

 

[dparker713]

It's odd that a great leader would understand the environment and rules under which they are operating?  I don't disagree that a great leader also push the envelope and even alter the system, but that's not an objective unless they understand the rules they are currently bound by....two completely different things.

Yes I think its odd you think great leaders know and understand the rules they're bound by.  As I think of great leaders as generally not following the rules but forging their own path.  This is why I asked you for examples.

 

[cobalt_27]

Yeah, its the Democrats' fault for not anticipating a pathological liar reality TV star, bigoted bully would steamroll the entire Republican primary field.. ...was the one voted into the general election.

 

[Loan Sharks]

Hillary ditching the press

Afraid to face the media

 

[dparker713]

There's nothing about Hillary's lies that come across as compulsive.  She isn't anywhere near as divorced from reality as Trump.

 

[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

Hillary ditching the press

Afraid to face the media

From Tim's New Yorker puff piece.

Clinton hates the press. A band of young reporters follows her, thanklessly, from event to event, and she gives them almost nothing. Unlike other candidates, she does not ride on the same plane with them...

 

[Loan Sharks]

From Tim's New Yorker puff piece.

In addition I read a article that she is dispatching surrogates to attack Trump. 

So what you have is a presidential candidate who is putting her husband in charge of the economy, sending other people to attack Trump and hiding from the press. You add all those things up with no clear message and she is weak and about to take a epic beat down from the Donald. 

 

[The Commish]

Yes I think its odd you think great leaders know and understand the rules they're bound by.  As I think of great leaders as generally not following the rules but forging their own path.  This is why I asked you for examples.

If they don't know the rules, how do they know they are forging their own path and not just following the rules?

ETA:  To answer your question the first two that come to mind are Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.  They both understood the environments they were in better than anyone in the world.  They understood what drove their space and how things worked.  They both proceeded to turn it all on it's head altering technology as we know it today.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Hillary ditching the press

Afraid to face the media

My favorite line here:

Clinton told CNN on Tuesday, when asked about not holding a press conference in months, that “we will” hold one.

Someone in the press asked her a question just yesterday and she answered it.  Seems fairly accessible and responsive to me

 These days it seems pretty meaningless whether you call something a "press conference" or not.  Trump holds them all the time so he can get media coverage and then just rambles about his nonexistent steaks and his wine and how the press hates him, and never ever actually provides a substantive response to a press question. Yesterday Sanders held a "press conference" where he fielded exactly zero questions. 

I wish Clinton were more accessible and responsive to the media.  I wish all the candidates were.  I don't really care what they call it.

 

[Loan Sharks]

Seems fairly accessible and responsive to me

I wish Clinton were more accessible and responsive to the media. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

She was accessible and responsive in giving a prompt answer after a question was raised.  I wish she'd do it more often; although after the coverage of Whitewater and BENGHAZI!!! and the other non-scandals in her past I understand her reluctance. Not sure why that confuses you. 

The point is you don't need a press conference to do be accessible and responsive, especially since the concept of a "press conference" has been thoroughly trashed at this point.  Even Sanders apparently doesn't feel bound by their rules any more.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In addition I read a article that she is dispatching surrogates to attack Trump. 

So what you have is a presidential candidate who is putting her husband in charge of the economy, sending other people to attack Trump and hiding from the press. You add all those things up with no clear message and she is weak and about to take a epic beat down from the Donald. 

Really, this is what Hillary and the Clinton campaigns do, they are big, they are professional, they are well resourced, they are experienced, and it's something Trump should have been aware of and it poses a unique problem for him which the GOP did not present. While the GOP challengers felt they needed to ignore or out-snark or personally attack or drill on policy, they were doing it themselves. None really have this sort of phalanx of media proxies and surrogates that the Clintons do. If he didn't come prepared for battle then he doesn't know what he's doing. Hillary ideally for her will be able to be cool and stay above the fray while Trump is hammered from various directions. Ordinarily I've called such tactics out but Trump has stupidly come out and directly challenged the media, he is trying to destroy their credibility.

It reminds me of the Gary Hart situation where he issued the 'come and get me' challenge.

 

[timschochet]

Well, you screwed up by choosing a candidate we're not going to vote for. So don't blame us if Trump wins!!!

At least 5 people have posted this "response" in the last few days. I use that term in quotation remarks because it's not really a response to anything I've written. Not once have I suggested that I will blame Sanders fans or anybody else if Trump wins. The thing is: I don't want to blame anybody! I'm not really into playing that game. I just want you guys to help NOW. 

Hillary should win this thing. But it's not impossible that she will lose. There should be a common interest among many of us to see that she doesn't. 

 

[timschochet]

Who's asking you to emphasize anything? Just stop absurdly denying them. "I don't think Hillary has done anything wrong."

That statement, and similar ones, were made within the context of this thread and Hillary as a life long politician. It would have been more accurate for me to write, "I don't think Hillary has done anything seriously wrong," or "I don't think Hillary has done anything disqualifying." I have made both those arguments as well, and will continue to do so.

That being said, the Politifact article last night that called Hillary's statement that she had permission false is troubling, which is why I posted it. Apparently she did, in fact, do something wrong, and she deserves to be criticized for it- the problem is, IMO, is that the amount of criticism has been way over the top, basically for partisan reasons. Which in itself follows the same pattern of nearly every Clinton scandal. 

 

[AnonymousBob]

There's nothing about Hillary's lies that come across as compulsive.  She isn't anywhere near as divorced from reality as Trump.

Is calculated better than compulsive? 

 

[timschochet]

Really, this is what Hillary and the Clinton campaigns do, they are big, they are professional, they are well resourced, they are experienced, and it's something Trump should have been aware of and it poses a unique problem for him which the GOP did not present. While the GOP challengers felt they needed to ignore or out-snark or personally attack or drill on policy, they were doing it themselves. None really have this sort of phalanx of media proxies and surrogates that the Clintons do. If he didn't come prepared for battle then he doesn't know what he's doing. Hillary ideally for her will be able to be cool and stay above the fray while Trump is hammered from various directions. Ordinarily I've called such tactics out but Trump has stupidly come out and directly challenged the media, he is trying to destroy their credibility.

It reminds me of the Gary Hart situation where he issued the 'come and get me' challenge.

Except that Gary Hart's challenge was made against a "normal" politician. Trump seems to be immune from everything.

In 2008 John Edwards campaign was ruined when he was caught sleeping around while his wife was suffering from cancer, and he tried to cover it up. If Trump were in a similar situation, would he be ruined? I doubt it. 

 

[The Commish]

My favorite line here:

Someone in the press asked her a question just yesterday and she answered it.  Seems fairly accessible and responsive to me

 These days it seems pretty meaningless whether you call something a "press conference" or not.  Trump holds them all the time so he can get media coverage and then just rambles about his nonexistent steaks and his wine and how the press hates him, and never ever actually provides a substantive response to a press question. Yesterday Sanders held a "press conference" where he fielded exactly zero questions. 

I wish Clinton were more accessible and responsive to the media.  I wish all the candidates were.  I don't really care what they call it.

  It's a question about why she's been inaccessible via press conference.  I don't disagree with anything below that though.  

Personally, as I said before, I am not sure why we think our press "deserves" anything from anyone.  They aren't the beacon of journalism they once were.  I really wouldn't care if all the candidates told them to take a hike.  What "news" they spit out of these interactions with the candidates is minimal.  Most of it is simple to drive the 24 hour news cycle.

 

[timschochet]

Or consider this: only a little over a year ago: Donald Sterling was ostracized and removed from the NBA for being caught making offensive comments in private. Yet Sterling's comments pale compared to a lot of stuff Trump has said in public! 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Maurile Tremblay:
 

If people in Florida hadn't voted third-party in 2000, then 8000 U.S. soldiers wouldn't have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

- One other thought on this - if the Clintons hadn't been so dysfunctional maybe Gore would have won Florida. Hell I'll say he definitely would have. The Clintons' behavior led to the no. 1 issue in the 2000 election being essentially behavior and demeanor in office. Gore was associated with their administration so in a way they led to Bush getting elected which led to x, y, z. Saying the Clintons' behavior in office and the incredible, dysfunctional rancor which follows is irrelevant just flies in the face of reality. Hillary is in a boatload of trouble for doing the most basic, simple of functions and it becomes a massive investigation of duplicity and corruption. Even if/when she is exonerated it will leave anger, disgust, cynicism, loss of faith in government and justice. It's corrosive, it has corrosive effects, and we are about to do it again.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Hardly equivalent, as Hillary has not stolen the nomination from Bernie.  She's beaten him at the ballot box.

Do you believe the majority of Democrats wouldn't support Bernie is he was the nominee against Trump? 

I happen to agree with Tim and numerous others that the majority of typical Democrats who vote will go with the party, whoever the nominee may be. It's the number that might vote and the non traditional Democrats where I think she's in trouble. That's something I don't see her improving upon. 

 

[AnonymousBob]

Or consider this: only a little over a year ago: Donald Sterling was ostracized and removed from the NBA for being caught making offensive comments in private. 

Thank you, Casey Kasem.

 

[TobiasFunke]

  It's a question about why she's been inaccessible via press conference.  I don't disagree with anything below that though.  

Personally, as I said before, I am not sure why we think our press "deserves" anything from anyone.  They aren't the beacon of journalism they once were.  I really wouldn't care if all the candidates told them to take a hike.  What "news" they spit out of these interactions with the candidates is minimal.  Most of it is simple to drive the 24 hour news cycle.

Yeah, I railed against your anti-press message and what I think is conflating the 24 hour news stations with the far more important work done by investigative reporters, campaign beat reporters and the like.  It's silly.  Its not our press that deserves anything, it's that we deserve information and accountability and our press is the conduit. No press = no democracy, simple as that.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Did we know this already? I didn't.

FBI probe of Clinton email expands to second data company

Sounds like they might have those 30,000 deleted emails but it's unclear at this point.

"Starting to think this whole thing is covering up some shady ####."

Just a follow-up on this.
 

Datto and Platte River seemed at odds, however, over how Clinton’s emails wound up on Datto’s cloud storage, which may have resulted from a misunderstanding.

Platte River spokesman Andy Boian said the firm bought a device from Datto that constantly snaps images of a server’s contents and connected it to the Clinton server at a New Jersey data storage facility. Platte River never asked Datto to beam the images to an off-site cloud storage node and never was billed for that service, he said. Company officials were bewildered when they learned of the cloud storage, he said.

“We said, ‘You have a cloud? You were told not to have a cloud.’ We never received an invoice for any cloud for the Clintons.’”

The source familiar with Datto’s account, however, said Platte River was billed for “private cloud” storage, which requires a cloud storage node. Because Platte River lacks one, the source said, the data bounced to Datto’s off-site cloud storage. The source said that senior Platte River officials may not have realized it, but company technicians “were managing the off-site storage throughout.”

Datto did not know it was backing up Clintons’ email server until mid August, the source said.

As to whether the FBI might recover Clinton’s personal emails from Datto’s storage, the source said: “People don’t [use] Datto’s service for getting rid of data.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article37968711.html

 

[dparker713]

If they don't know the rules, how do they know they are forging their own path and not just following the rules?

ETA:  To answer your question the first two that come to mind are Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.  They both understood the environments they were in better than anyone in the world.  They understood what drove their space and how things worked.  They both proceeded to turn it all on it's head altering technology as we know it today.

Gates stole IP left right and center, and Jobs couldn't work within a company resulting in his being ousted from any real power at Apple his first go around.  I mean, they might have known the rules, but neither of those men ever let rules get in their way.

 

[squistion]

Except that Gary Hart's challenge was made against a "normal" politician. Trump seems to be immune from everything.

In 2008 John Edwards campaign was ruined when he was caught sleeping around while his wife was suffering from cancer, and he tried to cover it up. If Trump were in a similar situation, would he be ruined? I doubt it. 

No, that didn't ruin his campaign. He was running well beyond Obama and Clinton and dropped out the race before his affair with Rielle Hunter was confirmed by sources outside of the National Enquirer. It certainly would have instantly ended his campaign, but that was not why he suspended his campaign before the California primary.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Except that Gary Hart's challenge was made against a "normal" politician. Trump seems to be immune from everything.

In 2008 John Edwards campaign was ruined when he was caught sleeping around while his wife was suffering from cancer, and he tried to cover it up. If Trump were in a similar situation, would he be ruined? I doubt it. 

Does it matter who the opponent is?

If he sets the bar higher then they will try to reach that bar, and if their shots lack in magnitude they will more than make up for in frequency. He will be getting zero mercy.

 

[The Commish]

Yeah, I railed against your anti-press message and what I think is conflating the 24 hour news stations with the far more important work done by investigative reporters, campaign beat reporters and the like.  It's silly.  Its not our press that deserves anything, it's that we deserve information and accountability and our press is the conduit. No press = no democracy, simple as that.

You did?...sorry I missed it.  I have no idea how you separate the two honestly.  That has to be a case by case decision.  I know there are good sources for news, all of which seem to be outside the United States.  If you have some approved consistent sources we should know about that fit what you describe as "investigative reporters, campaign beat reporters and the like" I'd like the list.  It has to be far easier to list those people than the 24 hour news yahoos.

 

[dparker713]

Is calculated better than compulsive? 

Morally, no.  Politically, abso-#######-lutely.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That statement, and similar ones, were made within the context of this thread and Hillary as a life long politician. It would have been more accurate for me to write, "I don't think Hillary has done anything seriously wrong," or "I don't think Hillary has done anything disqualifying." I have made both those arguments as well, and will continue to do so.

That being said, the Politifact article last night that called Hillary's statement that she had permission false is troubling, which is why I posted it. Apparently she did, in fact, do something wrong, and she deserves to be criticized for it- the problem is, IMO, is that the amount of criticism has been way over the top, basically for partisan reasons. Which in itself follows the same pattern of nearly every Clinton scandal. 

Tim, I'm always respectful of differing conclusions and actually I enjoy them.

My suggestion would be just look at facts yourself. Ignore conservative and liberal blogs. Just look at the facts yourself.

For me one telling fact - and it is a fact - is that Hillary destroyed the entirety of the electronic version of her email archive. That includes the personal and the public, all of it.

Now do you accept that very basic fact?

If so, and considering the extreme extra work and time that goes into printing into paper and then turning that over to State who then had to take months (again, that's a fact) to go through it, why would she do that?

I'm glad to listen to your conclusions but work on your facts, start with that basic one.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You did?...sorry I missed it.  I have no idea how you separate the two honestly.  That has to be a case by case decision.  I know there are good sources for news, all of which seem to be outside the United States.  If you have some approved consistent sources we should know about that fit what you describe as "investigative reporters, campaign beat reporters and the like" I'd like the list.  It has to be far easier to list those people than the 24 hour news yahoos.

No it really isn't.  There's tons of reliable press.  All you have to do is ignore televised 24 hour news channels and everyone affiliated with them, and of course ignore the blogs and opinion pages.  Everyone else is almost always trustworthy and you can assume as much until someone specifically demonstrates otherwise.  In fact they're not just trustworthy, they're vital to a functioning democracy.  If you reject them you might as well reject democracy and appoint a king or something.

 

[The Commish]

If they don't know the rules, how do they know they are forging their own path and not just following the rules?

ETA:  To answer your question the first two that come to mind are Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.  They both understood the environments they were in better than anyone in the world.  They understood what drove their space and how things worked.  They both proceeded to turn it all on it's head altering technology as we know it today.

Gates stole IP left right and center, and Jobs couldn't work within a company resulting in his being ousted from any real power at Apple his first go around.  I mean, they might have known the rules, but neither of those men ever let rules get in their way.

Of course they knew the rules.  Again, any wise leader knows the rules which is my assertion.  If those aren't up to snuff for you, how about Pope Francis?  Winston Churchill? Abe Lincoln?  These are all people who are/were extremely effective because they took the time and learned the current environments they were/are working in.  We can flip this around and ask you for a list of effective leaders who just went and did their own thing without understand the current environments/rules they were working under I guess.

 

[dparker713]

Do you believe the majority of Democrats wouldn't support Bernie is he was the nominee against Trump? 

I happen to agree with Tim and numerous others that the majority of typical Democrats who vote will go with the party, whoever the nominee may be. It's the number that might vote and the non traditional Democrats where I think she's in trouble. That's something I don't see her improving upon. 

Unless Bernie pulls 70%+ on the 7th across all races, he'll have lost in the popular vote.  I'd guess you'd lose a significant portion of Hillary's base if the nomination was then handed to Sanders (barring an indictment).  I doubt you'd see many of them vote Trump, but I think Bernie loses some 30-40% of her backers in that case.    

 

[timschochet]

Tim, I'm always respectful of differing conclusions and actually I enjoy them.

My suggestion would be just look at facts yourself. Ignore conservative and liberal blogs. Just look at the facts yourself.

For me one telling fact - and it is a fact - is that Hillary destroyed the entirety of the electronic version of her email archive. That includes the personal and the public, all of it.

Now do you accept that very basic fact?

If so, and considering the extreme extra work and time that goes into printing into paper and then turning that over to State who then had to take months (again, that's a fact) to go through it, why would she do that?

I'm glad to listen to your conclusions but work on your facts, start with that basic one.

Is it a fact?

Yes and no, IMO. It's a fact, but not necessarily the way you construct it. I have a feeling what happened is something like this:

HUMA The State Department needs copies of all your work emails for the FOIA.

HILLARY Don't they already have copies?

HUMA They didn't keep them. Or they can't find them. I dunno, it's all screwed up.

HILLARY Well, I don't want to give them my personal emails. Can't we separate those?

HUMA Yeah, it's gonna take a lot of time to go through it though. We'll have to pay somebody.

HILLARY You're right. I wish I had thought of that before. What a mess. Oh well, let's do it.

HUMA What do you want me do with the private ones once you've separated them?

HILLARY I dunno. Get rid of them I suppose. I don't need them anymore. 

 

[The Commish]

You did?...sorry I missed it.  I have no idea how you separate the two honestly.  That has to be a case by case decision.  I know there are good sources for news, all of which seem to be outside the United States.  If you have some approved consistent sources we should know about that fit what you describe as "investigative reporters, campaign beat reporters and the like" I'd like the list.  It has to be far easier to list those people than the 24 hour news yahoos.

No it really isn't.  There's tons of reliable press.  All you have to do is ignore televised 24 hour news channels and everyone affiliated with them, and of course ignore the blogs and opinion pages.  Everyone else is almost always trustworthy and you can assume as much until someone specifically demonstrates otherwise.  In fact they're not just trustworthy, they're vital to a functioning democracy.  If you reject them you might as well reject democracy and appoint a king or something.