80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 11 Jul, 2016 09:01 pm
@blatham,
Knowing that the republicans is gonna block everything, why did Hillary even bother?
glitterbag
 
  3  
Mon 11 Jul, 2016 09:21 pm
Back in 2008, I was at my DIL's family gathering and her sister asked me who I would support. In particular she asked about Obama and Clinton. I told her I would support whoever became the candidate but I added a qualifier. I said that if Hillary was nominated and became President, we would be dealing with all the old discredited Clinton rumor crap for the next 4 to 8 years, but if Obama was the nominee we would see an uncomfortable rise in racism because we just haven't become an adult nation.

I voted twice for Obama and I will vote for Hillary this coming Nov. I spent too many years serving our country to simply hand the keys to the executive restroom to a bloated egomaniac. I just hope the turnout is heavy, and if my worst fears are realized and Trump wins, I'll have to accept it.
glitterbag
 
  4  
Mon 11 Jul, 2016 09:25 pm
@glitterbag,
I knew there would be a big backlash if Obama won, I just underestimated how deep the racial animosity was in the this new century.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 11 Jul, 2016 10:15 pm
@glitterbag,
If Trump wins, I'll accept it too, but I'm more than sure that our country will be harmed by this small brained narcissist.
Trump is not an economist, and doesn't understand the trade relationships our country has with the world. His myopia and ignorance will take this country into a recession.
Trump doesn't understand 'comparative advantage.' That's Econ 101, and he went to Wharton? LOL
Quote:
Search Results
Definition: The benefit or advantage of an economy to be able to produce a commodity at a lesser opportunity cost than other entities is referred to as comparative advantage in international trade theory.
Definition of' 'Comparative Advantage' - The Economic Times
economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/comparative-advantageThe Economic Times
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Mon 11 Jul, 2016 11:11 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Oh for fucks sake.. NONE of them were marked SECRET at the time they were sent. That is the entire point of this. ZERO emails were correctly marked to classify them as secret at the time they were sent or received. The 3 emails that were shown to have any markings at all did NOT include the header required to show they were classified in any way.

Facts seem to elude you as you continue to make claims that are untrue. At this point I can only conclude you are intentionally lying.

I take it you're playing a word game regarding the term "marked". If Hillary made sure that none of the top secret emails were actually marked top secret, that does not let her off the hook for putting top secret emails on an unsecured server. It just shows that she knew that she was doing something wrong and was taking steps to hide her wrongdoing.

Nice smokescreen, but Hillary still knowingly and recklessly put top secret emails on an unsecured server that was easy for foreign governments to hack, even though she knew that this was against State Department policy.
revelette2
 
  3  
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 05:19 am
@cicerone imposter,
That is why it is important to vote for democrat (or voting democrat independents) senators and representatives in the house, not just in 2016, but mid terms too.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  5  
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 06:37 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
If Hillary made sure that none of the top secret emails were actually marked top secret, that does not let her off the hook for putting top secret emails on an unsecured server. It just shows that she knew that she was doing something wrong and was taking steps to hide her wrongdoing.


Who's lying now??

Director Comey was specifically asked and he specifically addressed this VERY POINT and he said that there was NO EVIDENCE that Clinton tried to knowingly get around classification rules. No evidence. No evidence.

That's from the professional investigators who poured over every part of this case, viewed emails from the server and matched them to emails from the state department, and honestly have zero political interest in protecting Clinton.

You sir, are a liar.
blatham
 
  3  
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 07:17 am
@glitterbag,
Quote:
I knew there would be a big backlash if Obama won, I just underestimated how deep the racial animosity was in the this new century.

That's very interesting. I hadn't thought about this before but I didn't see it coming. Groups of skinheads from Ohio, sure, or pockets down south, yes, but I had really underestimated how susceptible so many would be to the slimy urging of rabble rousers like Limbaugh (his early comments on the size of Michelle's rear end.) And I really didn't think Limbaugh and so many others on the right would play the game of fostering and encouraging existing racist sentiment. I was naive.
revelette2
 
  1  
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 07:23 am
@blatham,
Quote:
I was naive.


I think many of us were.
blatham
 
  3  
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 07:28 am
Quote:
The nation’s intelligence director on Monday batted down House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) effort to prevent Hillary Clinton from receiving intelligence briefings once she receives the Democratic nomination.

In a letter obtained by CNN, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the speaker that all “officially nominated, eligible” candidates receive those briefings.

"Nominees for president and vice president receive these briefings by virtue of their status as candidates, and do not require separate security clearances before the briefings," Clapper wrote, as quote by CNN. "Briefings for the candidates will be provided on an even-handed non-partisan basis."
http://bit.ly/29MDMx3

Unless Ryan's staff is comprised of utter idiots, this consequence was predictable. So why bother? And that's the easy one - to continue doing whatever he can to continue degrading Clinton's character for possible electoral gain. As I've said, this is the game they now play all the time.
blatham
 
  3  
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 07:45 am
@revelette2,
Yes, many of us were naive. And Obama himself was one of the naive.

I don't really fault the citizens of America here. A community so large and so diverse will have divisions and animosities, that seems inevitable. Where I lay blame is on those who seek to make those divisions and animosities more acute. Those are the bad guys.

I don't know how many here will recall the letter sent by John Dilulio to Ron Suskind after Dilulio had worked in the Bush administration at the beginning of the first term. If you haven't, read it http://bit.ly/29MHGWI
Quote:
In eight months, I heard many, many staff discussions, but not three meaningful, substantive policy discussions. There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues. There were, truth be told, only a couple of people in the West Wing who worried at all about policy substance and analysis, and they were even more overworked than the stereotypical, nonstop, 20-hour-a-day White House staff. Every modern presidency moves on the fly, but, on social policy and related issues, the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and the only casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking — discussions by fairly senior people who meant Medicaid but were talking Medicare; near-instant shifts from discussing any actual policy pros and cons to discussing political communications, media strategy, et cetera. Even quite junior staff would sometimes hear quite senior staff pooh-pooh any need to dig deeper for pertinent information on a given issue.


When this is your operating procedure and your value-set, then the game shifts from governance to political warfare using whatever weapons are at hand. It fosters the worst of human tendencies and behaviors.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 08:16 am
Jumping jillikers! Who could have predicted this?!

Quote:
"Two Republi" can congressmen on Monday formally requested that the U.S. Attorney for the District investigate whether Hillary Clinton committed perjury when she testified before a congressional committee about her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

The letter from U.S. Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
http://wapo.st/29MQ9JK
Like, I mean, that's totally out of the blue (or red maybe)
blatham
 
  2  
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 08:37 am
A very good, if frightening-as-hell piece from the NYT
Quote:
Dallas Shooting and Open-Carry Laws Loom Over Cleveland Convention Plans
http://nyti.ms/29MSHaS
On the other hand, though, if the NRA thesis on gun ownership (everyone is safer if everyone is walking about with a flame-thrower and a belt of grenades) is valid, then the police have got it all wrong here and Cleveland will be the safest place in the whole glorious nation.
revelette2
 
  3  
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 08:49 am
@blatham,
It is what they do, waste time and money on useless investigations and hearings. I mean with all the important issues of the day which they could be worried about, fixing the justice system for minorities, blacks in particular, is more urgent and needful in light of these protest and killings. I wish they would think issues such as that was more important than worrying about whether Hillary lied during her testimony of emails which turned out she didn't break the law about anyway. Whitewater all over again. We can look forward to more of the same unless we get rid of these republican jokers in the house and the senate.

Sorry if I sound bitter, the whole thing just disgust me to no end.
snood
 
  1  
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 09:21 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

A very good, if frightening-as-hell piece from the NYT
Quote:
Dallas Shooting and Open-Carry Laws Loom Over Cleveland Convention Plans
http://nyti.ms/29MSHaS
On the other hand, though, if the NRA thesis on gun ownership (everyone is safer if everyone is walking about with a flame-thrower and a belt of grenades) is valid, then the police have got it all wrong here and Cleveland will be the safest place in the whole glorious nation.


Yeah man, I was wondering if anyone else shared my deep sense of unease about what some gun enthusiast might do at, or just outside the convention.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 10:36 am
@glitterbag,
within this interesting article

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/bill-clintons-past-and-hillarys-future.html#jumpLink

Quote:
It is another figure from the 1990s who has captured the imagination — and especially the fears — of many white working-class men. It doesn’t matter that Trump was a rich boy from New York who became a real-estate mogul, or that he shows little empathy for suffering, or that his trade policies resemble the opposite of those typically associated with his own party. Trump appeals not just to workers’ frustrations but also to their alienation. (That the standard-bearers of the Democratic Party since Bill Clinton left office include an African-American and a woman have only made the reactions more extreme.)



___


every time I think I don't ever want to hear about Bill Clinton again, I read something like this piece and am fascinated all over again
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 10:56 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
Director Comey was specifically asked and he specifically addressed this VERY POINT and he said that there was NO EVIDENCE that Clinton tried to knowingly get around classification rules. No evidence. No evidence.

That's nice. Was it just a coincidence then that the classification notification just happened to be missing from ALL of the secret and top secret emails that showed up on Hillary's unsecured server?

Hillary sounds more and more like a Mafia boss saying "You can't prove I did it."

There is evidence, by the way, that Hillary knowingly violated State Department regulations regarding her personal server.


maporsche wrote:
You sir, are a liar.

Liberals always rely on outrageous personal attacks when they (inevitably) fail to defend their bankrupt ideology.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 11:07 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
Quote:
The nation’s intelligence director on Monday batted down House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) effort to prevent Hillary Clinton from receiving intelligence briefings once she receives the Democratic nomination.

In a letter obtained by CNN, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the speaker that all “officially nominated, eligible” candidates receive those briefings.

"Nominees for president and vice president receive these briefings by virtue of their status as candidates, and do not require separate security clearances before the briefings," Clapper wrote, as quote by CNN. "Briefings for the candidates will be provided on an even-handed non-partisan basis."
http://bit.ly/29MDMx3

Unless Ryan's staff is comprised of utter idiots, this consequence was predictable. So why bother? And that's the easy one - to continue doing whatever he can to continue degrading Clinton's character for possible electoral gain. As I've said, this is the game they now play all the time.

When a politician does something shockingly outrageous, it seems pretty reasonable for opposing politicians to raise the issue during an election.

There is also a movement to get Hillary's closest advisers (who she would have wanted to have advising her in the White House if she wins) stripped of their security clearance. That movement has a much greater chance of succeeding.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 11:10 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
It is what they do, waste time and money on useless investigations and hearings.

Liberals really do think that the rules don't apply to them.


revelette2 wrote:
I wish they would think issues such as that was more important than worrying about whether Hillary lied during her testimony of emails which turned out she didn't break the law about anyway.

It is true that the normal remedy for what Hillary did is not criminal prosecution.

The normal remedy for what Hillary did is to fire the person from their government job and to revoke their security clearance.


revelette2 wrote:
Whitewater all over again.

Isn't that the one where a bunch of corrupt liberals went to prison?


revelette2 wrote:
We can look forward to more of the same unless we get rid of these republican jokers in the house and the senate.

Yes, let's get rid of everyone who tries to make Liberals follow the rules.


revelette2 wrote:
Sorry if I sound bitter, the whole thing just disgust me to no end.

Liberals had the same reaction back when we asked Bill Clinton not to commit a long string of felonies in the White House.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  5  
Tue 12 Jul, 2016 11:13 am
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
Was it just a coincidence then that the classification notification just happened to be missing from ALL of the secret and top secret emails that showed up on Hillary's unsecured server?

No it's not a coincidence. If the document is not marked classified, Hillary would not know it is classified, and if she wants to send the document along to someone else in her department, which is likely, that person would be on the government Email system and therefore a copy is automatically made as soon as Hillary sends it to them.

But if the document isn't marked classified when Hillary gets it, obviously Hillary cannot be held responsible for knowing it is classified, can she? No, she cannot. And the Hillary haters have been screaming all along that it doesn't matter if she knew or not, she broke the law by sending it knowingly or unknowingly, which is not the truth at all.

No wonder this Email thing is on its last legs as far as the public caring about it. The Hillary haters just keep going around in illogical circles.
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/08/2025 at 07:10:26