80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
parados
 
  3  
Tue 5 May, 2015 01:21 pm
@Baldimo,
The govt has no reason to say she didn't hand over her emails. She, like every other citizen, is given the benefit of the doubt. Of course we could argue that your standard should be applied to all candidates. We don't know if Jeb Bush handed over all his Florida emails so by rights we should have a 3rd party search his computers. We don't know if Rand Paul committed any crimes with his emails so should we have a 3rd party check all of his emails?

Your assumption of wrong doing should be applied to all or else you are being political since you have no evidence.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Tue 5 May, 2015 01:32 pm
@parados,
I'll ask again Parados, did they use their own email servers? If the email would have been handled on a govt server as all govt business should be, then we wouldn't have any issues.

Did the GOP candidates work for the Federal govt with their private email servers? If they did, then they should be checked out to make sure they handed over all of their govt emails. Once again it's not a matter of private emails, it was the use of a private email server which was erased.

I also wanted to point out that if they were using this email server for private emails, did they suddenly stop using email and that's why you claim the server was no longer in use and could be deleted?
parados
 
  3  
Tue 5 May, 2015 01:51 pm
@Baldimo,
Many government employees used outside servers including AOL, gmail etc for official business. A private email server is much more secure than those free or low cost suppliers.

You continue to assign a nefarious purpose without evidence. Under that argument then we have to assume that Romney's failure to provide 10 years of tax returns would prove he was found hiding money in overseas accounts. You understand that argument is ridiculous but you want to use it against Hillary.

People stop using email services for lots of reasons. Once again you assign a nefarious purpose without evidence. People change jobs and get a new email. They are getting too much junk at an existing email. Their email address becomes public knowledge so they get a new one. In the case of Hillary, her email address became public and she changed jobs. Her email server also became public which would open it to attempts to hack it. A very good reason to shut it down. It's called security. Once shut down you wipe the hard drive which again is called security.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Tue 5 May, 2015 02:18 pm
@parados,
She stopped being Sec of State almost 2 years ago, why delete it now if the job is the reason for the deletion? Why delete a personal email server that was originally used for their private email account if you are going to use the job as the excuse?

When I change jobs, my personal email account doesn't change. You are grasping at straws and excuses for Hillary.

Her email server didn't become public, it became public knowledge. Her email address became public but that doesn't mean they just couldn't change the email address and the domain name.

You guys are big fans of deleting emails when your people are suspected of doing wrong. How many email mishaps have there been with the people who worked for Obama's admin? I know, I know... The GOP had email issues as well, blah blah blah... The problem with that is that none of them are running for President. If they are, lets make sure they weren't doing what Hillary did, private email server to keep their dirty laundry under wraps and hidden from the people. This is dirty Clinton 101.
parados
 
  3  
Tue 5 May, 2015 02:23 pm
@Baldimo,
Oh, so it is OK when the person IS the President or Vice President but wrong when the person is running for the office.

Drunk
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Tue 5 May, 2015 02:24 pm
@Baldimo,
Actually, she is prepping to run for President. Sounds like a good reason to change email servers and have a new email address. I'll bet she has a website now too. You are arguing that anything she does is signs of a crime and until she proves otherwise you will believe she is criminal. That is idiotic.
joefromchicago
 
  5  
Tue 5 May, 2015 03:19 pm
Remember, georgeob1 is a top-notch political prognosticator. And anyone who doesn't believe me should just ask President Romney.
Thomas
 
  5  
Tue 5 May, 2015 05:55 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
"Who likes which party" should not be a major factor

I believe the opposite of what you say is true.

Any Republican nominee, if elected president, will seek to repeal Obamacare. Any Democratic nominee will seek to preserve it. Any Republican nominee will drastically cut taxes on higher incomes; any Democrat will keep the progression of the tax system as it is, maybe even increase it. The Democratic candidate will most likely have allowed President "43" Bush to con her into supporting the invasion of Iraq, but at least wised up about it later. Meanwhile, any Republican candidate remains conned even after the invasion turned into a disaster. He or she will still claim to believe that Iraq was a success, and that America should seek more successes like it in the near-ish future. Either Democrat will support gay marriage. Either Republican will oppose it or avoid the issue altogether. And the list goes on and on.

Issue for issue for issue, then, the differences between the two big parties' platforms far exceed those between the candidates within each. Consequently, party allegiance is almost the only factor that should count for voters at all.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Tue 5 May, 2015 06:04 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
The differences between the two big parties' platforms far exceed those between the candidates within each. Consequently, party allegiance is almost the only factor that should count for voters at all.


What? No longer counting is

Is she honest
is he like me
can I count on her in a crisis
is he a prick
has she been able to get things done
Thomas
 
  3  
Tue 5 May, 2015 06:07 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
What? No longer counting is

I said they shouldn't count, I didn't say they won't. Since voters are human, they may sometimes do things even though they shouldn't.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Tue 5 May, 2015 06:15 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
What? No longer counting is

I said they shouldn't count, I didn't say they won't. Since voters are human, they may sometimes do things even though they shouldn't.


Ya, that is way fucked up.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Tue 5 May, 2015 07:49 pm
@parados,
It's not idiotic, you only want it to be. It protects your mind from what you know she really did. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. You are indeed a good little Hillary monkey. You crave a vehicle of convenience to explain the time line. If she knew she was running for president why wait till the **** hits the fan with your govt emails on your private email server, to delete the server? Like I said, vehicle of convenience. She had you hooked with that whole "vast right wing conspiracy" crap back in the 90's didn't she?

Hillary was already as close as I would like her to get to the "3am" phone call. She doesn't even pass her own smell test. Money from foreign govt's and interests that wasn't declared until after it was discovered? This woman has been running for President since Bill left office. None of these current events were accidents. They were being shady and were caught. No one who will or wants to run for president on the GOP side will get as many "accidents" to make up for as Hillary.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Tue 5 May, 2015 08:46 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

It is standard practice to delete ANY server that is no longer being used that may contain sensitive government information. It is required under government regulations. If she hadn't scrubbed the server then people would be complaining that it was a security risk. She can't win with you guys.


It 's also illegal to put ANY sensitive government information on a private server that is outside the government;s control. The careful parsing of words. cleverly qualified denials and deceiful omissions of closely related facts so characteristic of the Clinton method,( and so evident in your post) are a bit more regognizable now by the general public. I don't think they are as effective anymore.

There's an additional fact. Hillary isn't as adept on her feet,as was her husband. particularly when she has already painted herself into a corner, His schtik doesn't work so well any more and her version doesn't work well at all. She doesn't do well hiding her elitism, sense of entitlement and interest in herself. I think she will have a rough year, and I don't see any gathering sympathy for her. Insteead I see the many powerful reasons the Democrat establishment has to protect ther - they have few alternatives. However, if once her armor is pierced she could crumble fast and that establishment could quickly desert her.

This, of course is my own speculation about the unknown future, and I could be wrong.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Tue 5 May, 2015 09:13 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Hillary isn't as adept on her feet,as was her husband. particularly when she has already painted herself into a corner, His schtik doesn't work so well any more


The Clintons’ worst defender in chief

Ruth Marcus

Quote:
Oh, Bill. There you go again. We knew you were going to pop off, but did it have to be so soon — and so tone-deaf?

The Clinton deal is “two for the price of one,” as Bill Clinton famously promised in 1992. But 23 years later, that bargain comes with different baggage attached.

Then it was the intimations of Hillary Clinton as co-president, Machiavelli in a pantsuit. Now — and let us pause to appreciate the role reversal and the country’s journey on issues of gender — it is the awkward reality of running not only while married to an ex-president but also as a name partner in the sprawling entity of Clinton Inc.

Into this treacherous swamp strolls Bill Clinton, on an annual Clinton Foundation trip to Africa. His interview with NBC News’s Cynthia McFadden was vintage Clinton, with its air of injured dismissiveness about concerns over his assiduous fundraising and lucrative speechifying.

Will you continue to give speeches, McFadden asked? “Oh yeah,” Clinton responded, as if the notion of calling a halt during his wife’s presidential campaign were absurd. “I gotta pay our bills.”

Oh. My. God.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-clintons-worst-defender-in-chief/2015/05/05/09ff9ba2-f343-11e4-84a6-6d7c67c50db0_story.html?hpid=z3

Yeppers

He has not been the same since the heart attack, but still, this has to be him trying to sabotage Hillary again. Hillary should know him well enough to see this coming, if she wanted POTUS she should have divorced him years ago. Yet another indication of her poor judgment is going to be a problem.

EDIT: Just to be clear, these tend to be half million dollar speeches, plus expenses.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Wed 6 May, 2015 02:49 am
Yeah...Hillary doesn't have a chance!

These guys just don't want her to be the head of the ticket because she'd be too easy to beat...and they want to be fair.

And the public just hates her husband, Bill.



Jesus H. Christ...what a fairy tale land Republicans live in!
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Wed 6 May, 2015 05:49 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
Remember, georgeob1 is a top-notch political prognosticator. And anyone who doesn't believe me should just ask President Romney.

It'll be interesting to see how good I am at it.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Wed 6 May, 2015 05:49 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
I believe the opposite of what you say is true.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying that there is no difference in the policies of the two parties.

I am saying that, because of the 2013 gun control debacle, the Republicans are guaranteed to win the White House in 2016, and there is nothing at this point that the Democrats can do about it.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Wed 6 May, 2015 05:50 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
At this point goerge, Clinton has been attacked so many times by the GOP without facts that the facts would have to be pretty convincing to change people's minds. You aren't going to change minds by attacking her without extremely strong evidence. You are only going to make her more sympathetic.

The Clintons have not been attacked without facts. The problem is that facts do not matter to a large number of Liberals.

I don't include you in the list of Liberals for whom facts do not matter. But unfortunately you are just one person.
parados
 
  2  
Wed 6 May, 2015 06:08 am
@Baldimo,
What **** hit the fan? A political attack on her? You simply make up things and then use them to attack. Hillary turned over her emails to the State Department and then wiped her server. She had lawyers that made the determinations. She certainly didn't do it herself. One would assume that lawyers follow the law. If you have evidence the please present it to us.

If every time a politician is associated with a group that fails to file completely accurate forms with the government is precluded from running from office then every damn politician would be out of office and in jail. They all rely on numerous other people to file accurate and timely reports. Most if not all politicians have had to file amended reports on campaign financing.

You continue down your path of "I know Hillary is lying. I just can't prove it." bull ****.
parados
 
  2  
Wed 6 May, 2015 06:09 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:

It 's also illegal to put ANY sensitive government information on a private server that is outside the government;s control.

And if you think Secs of State are sending classified documents by email then you clearly need your head examined.
 

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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 06/22/2024 at 10:50:25