When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@McGentrix,

They are investigating matters related to her emails. Since law enforcements briefed on the matter have already said Hillary is not the target, it is a good guess they are working on matters related to her emails, perhaps her emails were hacked by foreign countries or others. At the time Hillary was secretary of state is was not illegal for her to use a private email server. As of right now, her emails were deemed classified or top secret after they were looked at by either the state department or the intelligence. I see no laws she has broken. She would have to have sent classified emails with the intent to reveal classified information to persons who were not authorized to receive them to have broken the law from what I understand from the links parodos left.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Obama's integrity? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! OMG, I haven't laughed that hard in a looooong time... actual tears from that one.

It is absolutely the case that, if I am to contrast the scholarship, the hard-gained knowledge and the intellect of yourself and David Brooks, you will end up the winner in all ways. This is absolutely the case.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Why are the FBI investigating it then? This is the part I don't think you guys get. Do you think the FBI is just an outreach of the Republican party?

Because its time to put it to bed. Why didn't Cheney get a looky at? An Investigation is not a conviction. You might want to put up the gallows kit until the FBI drops its investigation.

The law's screwed up. Fix the ******* law. No more Cheney dumps, no more Clinton dumps. See? Everything will be alright, just go after the cause: the law.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Polly want a cracker???

1 Reply

It Gets Harder From Here For Bernie Sanders
But New Hampshire couldn’t have gone better for him

Quote:

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Bernie Sanders won and won big here on Tuesday. He earned 60 percent of the vote in New Hampshire and won nearly every town and city in the state. The size and scope of his victory should give his campaign hope, but he still has work to do.

It would be tempting to say that Sanders won here only because of latte-drinking liberal New Englanders, but he won across ideological groups. Sanders earned the same 60 percent from moderate and conservative voters as he did from liberal voters. If he can attract that share of moderates and conservatives in other states, he won’t hit a brick wall among whites in Appalachia or the South who tend to be more conservative than those in New Hampshire and Iowa. Sanders may not be able to win in the Deep South, where black voters are a majority, but he can be competitive if he can win moderate whites in southern states.

The biggest dividing line in the Democratic race here was income. Sanders crushed Hillary Clinton by 30 percentage points among voters with a family income of less than $100,000, but won by just 7 percentage points among those making more than $100,000, according to the exit poll. That divide along income lines is an advantage for Sanders: More Democrats earn below the $100,000 threshold than above it. In 2008, just 17 percent of Democratic primary voters nationally were whites from families earning more than $100,000, compared to 43 percent who were whites from families earning less than $100,000.

The rest in the source.

1 Reply

@woiyo,

Quote:

Polly want a cracker???

Just because you'd rather he put his head into the ground and ignore the big picture?

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

I doubt any rightwing voice commenting here will accept anything I've just written and that's because they've gone effectively insane along with most of the rest of their community. As Rupert Murdoch said a couple of years ago about Ailes, "He actually believes all this stuff" (referring to what Fox throws out every hour of every day).

That's not a particularly scholarly (or friendly) argument - 'Agree with me or you have proved yourself to be effectively insane.'

As is amply demonstrated in the commentaries here and in the media, contending political views are strongly felt on both sides, and even within them in the ongoing primaries. They color the interpretations of nearly everyone about nearly every element of the stuff being examined and thrown back and forth in the ongoing debates. That is neither new nor unusual in politicl debates, either in this country or other democracies.

For example, I disagree with Blickers about the relative health of our current economic recovery and assume she and I have different political perspectives. I don't think she is insane at all. I do think she expends too much effort searching for statistics that support her argument while dismissing those that don't, and in selecting narrow slices of time to support her conclusions when longer term looks confound them. She in turn probably has some complaints about my selections and interpretations, but (ahem!) , as we both know, she is mistaken.

I'm aware that you see deeper, darker trends in the political contests here coming from conservatives generally. I don't agree with you about that, and invite you to to deflect some of the energy and time which you put into studying contemporary political commentary instead into that of previous political struggles in this country - from Hamilton/Jefferson & the Federalists to the Jackson vs Bank of America era to the post civil war struggles over monetary policy (Blaine et.al.) and into the 20th century. It's always been a fairly raucous affair, salted with incompromising rhetoric and accusations of bad intent. However, it did expose and ventilate the issues and, over time lead to political synthesis and stability enough to allow the people to improve their own lives --- (overall very effectively compared to most nations).

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

The email server is not someone without clearance she talked to about top secret information. What CI is talking about is covered under the law.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

I generally agree with the comments of Harry Enten you pasted here. Sanders was expected to win in New Hampshire, but did so with a bigger margin than was expected. New Hampshire is only partly representative of the State primaries that follow,and Hillary is expected to do a lot better in most of them.

I believe his analysis was a bit flawed in a couple of respects.
(1) A 7% margin among Democrats earening over $100K is a large masrgin in American politica: most presidential elections are won or lost with smaller margins than that.
(2) He didn't appear to consider the possibility that declining perceptions of Hillary's suitability for the presidency in terms of her character and record might have been a factor in the somewhat surprising New Hampshire results.

With respect to the latter, I don't claim to know the truth either - we will all find out as events unfold. However it is a plausible possibility, given what is being widely reported.

0 Replies

http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

Ahem, Hillary. Looking at you.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

The FBI is investigating a couple of things.
1. Was the server compromised and if so by whom.
2. Were emails sent to Hillary that contained top secret information that had been pulled from the secure network. This would make others subject to criminal prosecution and not Hillary.
3. Since it was determined there is classified info in the emails, was it criminal at all in how it got there.

An investigation doesn't make Hillary guilty of anything.

3 Replies

@parados,

How do you know these things? Are you connected with the FBI some how? What is your source?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

If you read reliable news sources you can actually learn things.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

An investigation doesn't make Hillary guilty of anything.

You are beating a dead horse. Only a court of law can exstablish the guilt to which you refer, and no one here has claimed otherwise. That appears to be one of your favorite techniques for diverting a discussion away from ground you don't like. It is deceptive and a bit tiresome.

The issue before us has to do with Hillary's effectiveness in leading the State Department and what her actions in that office imply about her character and her suitability for an even more responsible position, that of President of the United States. The facts that,
(1) She herself did not comply with directives she issued to State Department employees, affirming their applicability to all such employees, regarding the use of e mail for official purposes and the proper handling of classified material.
(2) When the facts of her use of a private server became known, she issued a series of evasive half truths about her motives and the facts, then altering them in stages to fit newly emerging facts; and
(3) clearly put her own personal convenience ahead of her responsibility to safeguard sensitive, highly classified invormation

all attest to her unsuitability for the office she seeks.

0 Replies

@parados,

"When I got to work as Secretary of State, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry one device for my work and personal email instead of two,"

So she is basically lazy? That implies she likely forwarded some of those "sensitive" e-mails. Why are you defending her?

2 Replies

@woiyo,

I would have opted for convenience too, especially if it was ALLOWED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT (which it was).

1 Reply

@woiyo,

She isn't lazy, she's a liar. Don't forget that she lied about only having a single phone. She admitted to having an iPhone and a Blackberry.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Of course you would . Like you, Clinton did not take her position seriously enough and put at risk sensitive information because she is lazy. Sure, "EVERYONE ELSE DID IT" will be your excuse to defend her actions and what seems to be a bad "rule".

She is a liar and unfit to serve in public office in any capacity.

2 Replies

@woiyo,

Quote:

She is a liar and unfit to serve in public office in any capacity.

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess that you watch Fox.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Actually, no. Except if they are broadcasting a football game. I hate TV News !!!!

1 Reply

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know