Atheistforums.com

Humanities Section => Political/Government General Discussion => Topic started by: widdershins on July 05, 2016, 02:34:32 PM

Title: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: widdershins on July 05, 2016, 02:34:32 PM
It's all over the news today (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-no-charges-against-hillary-clinton-are-appropriate-for-email-server-use/), the FBI did not find cause to bring charges against Hillary in the latest Republican led witch hunt.  Maybe one of the next 16 investigations will turn up enough to impeach her with.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on July 05, 2016, 04:55:13 PM
One (http://rationalia.com/forum/images/smilies/probe.gif), coming up.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Flanker1Six on July 05, 2016, 05:17:40 PM
Actually they turned up more than enough to charge her with.  They simply didn't; based on political considerations, per the relevant conspirators within the Obamanation.   

For weeks; Admin Officials, including The Pres, have said either they were confidant no charges would be forth coming, or flat out; would not be forthcoming.   That's kinda hard to predict for an investigation that wasn't finished, and they "ostensibly" had no knowledge of the investigation details as it was fully independent, unbiased, professional, and all the other blah, blah, blah.   

Then; Bill him self; walks onto Loretta Lynch's plane; after a number of security measures are undertaken to ensure "no one is around" to kick it about the grandkids, and golf.   Never mind the ongoing FBI probe into Billary's hinky **** that Loretta is in charge of, or the ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation; which Bill him self is likely to be a witness in, if not a defendent in the very unlikely event any charges are brought pertaining to the CF's conduct/business dealings.  Hard to believe that two experienced pros like L & B are/were so stupid as to NOT realize the ramifications of such a meeting under the aforementioned circumstances.   

Then Billary has a three hour tour; eeeeerrrrrrr...................I mean interview on a "holiday weekend"  just prior to her and the Pres kicking off a mutually supportive campaign tour for her.

Which is wrapped up and finished two days later with no charges; just several hours before her and the Pres get on his tax payer supported plane to go campaign.   

Any person who has the least common sense would be completely unable to reasonably connect any of those dots.  Of course.......................that's because they're not connected.     

As a former DoS sub contractor I was required to attend several IT security sessions to learn the various dos and don'ts of Gov data; including Confidential, SBU (Sensitive But Unclassified), and Classified (I still can't say what level my clearance was because that's illegal, and unlike my boss at the time; I know what the rules  are/were).  They also made it quite clear; if we transgressed ANYTHING and got caught (it's not a violation if you don't get caught!); at minimum we'd lose our security clearance; be black listed (which is ironic as the "black list" does not exist per DoS dogma), and get windburn on our asses from being fired through the door. Far more likely we'd be investigated, brought up on charges, lose our security clearance, be black listed, and sentenced to some quality Federal "Us" Time.  Have a nice day ***holes!  Did I mention the torture they threatened us with if we even THOUGHT about putting a CD/DVD in, or connecting a thumb drive of other removable storage media to a Gov Comp? 

I guess my biggest mistake was to NOT set up a private server on my property, who's security wasn't even up to snuff with commercial grade IT security protocols (per the FBI about Billary's hook up), to slide any and all my secret squirrel stuff over to; in lieu of those difficult to use Gov Comps and their fiddly security protocols and snoopy IT Security Techs.   Oh yea........................and use my own e mail address for Gov Business (in unfriendly foreign countries, no less) instead of that pesky .gov official address they gave me.

Stuff that happens to people NOT named Billary when they do illegal IT stuff similar to or less than she did:

http://heatst.com/politics/hillary-clinton-extremely-careless-classified/   

I do agree that any further investigation into the matter/s is a waste of tax payer money.  Only because the fix is in, and this horse is dead. 
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: _Xenu_ on July 05, 2016, 05:21:16 PM
Hillary is too well connected for that kind of thing to happen to her. She was extremely irresponsible to run that email server and anyone with less clout than her would be facing serious charges.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on July 05, 2016, 05:38:27 PM
So, she was found guilty, on the Internet.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: widdershins on July 05, 2016, 05:42:05 PM
Quote from: Flanker1Six on July 05, 2016, 05:17:40 PM
Actually they turned up more than enough to charge her with.  They simply didn't; based on political considerations, per the relevant conspirators within the Obamanation.   

For weeks; Admin Officials, including The Pres, have said either they were confidant no charges would be forth coming, or flat out; would not be forthcoming.   That's kinda hard to predict for an investigation that wasn't finished, and they "ostensibly" had no knowledge of the investigation details as it was fully independent, unbiased, professional, and all the other blah, blah, blah.
Yeah, and Mitt Romney is the next President of the United States.  And Ted Cruz.  And Chris Christie.  And Donald Trump.  And Hillary Clinton.  That's just how politicians talk.  They tell you how it's going to be with confidence because that makes you believe it.  It doesn't matter whether it's true or not.

Quote from: Flanker1Six on July 05, 2016, 05:17:40 PM
Then; Bill him self; walks onto Loretta Lynch's plane; after a number of security measures are undertaken to ensure "no one is around" to kick it about the grandkids, and golf.   Never mind the ongoing FBI probe into Billary's hinky **** that Loretta is in charge of, or the ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation; which Bill him self is likely to be a witness in, if not a defendent in the very unlikely event any charges are brought pertaining to the CF's conduct/business dealings.  Hard to believe that two experienced pros like L & B are/were so stupid as to NOT realize the ramifications of such a meeting under the aforementioned circumstances.   

Then Billary has a three hour tour; eeeeerrrrrrr...................I mean interview on a "holiday weekend"  just prior to her and the Pres kicking off a mutually supportive campaign tour for her.

Which is wrapped up and finished two days later with no charges; just several hours before her and the Pres get on his tax payer supported plane to go campaign.   

Any person who has the least common sense would be completely unable to reasonably connect any of those dots.  Of course.......................that's because they're not connected.
Meh.  People who want it to be something are going to make it something.  Big deal.  It was a dumb thing to do.  No doubt about that.  But as a computer technician who deals with "regular people" every day, I highly doubt she had the slightest clue how dumb it was until it blew up.  Just last week I talked a customer out of getting her own email server at the office.  She's very security conscious to the point of being paranoid and she knows a bit about computers, even writing her own software in the '80s which she still uses today and EVEN SHE didn't know what a security risk it was.  Stupid?  Yes.  Nefarious plot to undermine America?  Hardly.  If you could arrest people for doing something stupid you'd have to build Trump's fence to keep us all in because we're all guilty from time to time.

Quote from: Flanker1Six on July 05, 2016, 05:17:40 PM
As a former DoS sub contractor I was required to attend several IT security sessions to learn the various dos and don'ts of Gov data; including Confidential, SBU (Sensitive But Unclassified), and Classified (I still can't say what level my clearance was because that's illegal, and unlike my boss at the time; I know what the rules  are/were).  They also made it quite clear; if we transgressed ANYTHING and got caught (it's not a violation if you don't get caught!); at minimum we'd lose our security clearance; be black listed (which is ironic as the "black list" does not exist per DoS dogma), and get windburn on our asses from being fired through the door. Far more likely we'd be investigated, brought up on charges, lose our security clearance, be black listed, and sentenced to some quality Federal "Us" Time.  Have a nice day ***holes!  Did I mention the torture they threatened us with if we even THOUGHT about putting a CD/DVD in, or connecting a thumb drive of other removable storage media to a Gov Comp? 
Okay.  You had "not her job" and got some training on what not to do.  Great.  You should have told her it was stupid.

Quote from: Flanker1Six on July 05, 2016, 05:17:40 PM
I guess my biggest mistake was to NOT set up a private server on my property, who's security wasn't even up to snuff with commercial grade IT security protocols (per the FBI about Billary's hook up), to slide any and all my secret squirrel stuff over to; in lieu of those difficult to use Gov Comps and their fiddly security protocols and snoopy IT Security Techs.   Oh yea........................and use my own e mail address for Gov Business (in unfriendly foreign countries, no less) instead of that pesky .gov official address they gave me.
I'm sorry, but I'm "in the business".  When it comes to computers people are just stupid.  The older they are, the less they understand.  There is no doubt it was a huge security issue, but there was no "intent" there and intent is a HUGE part of the law.  Get busted with an ecstasy tablet and it's a often misdemeanor.  Get busted with 20 and you might get "intent to distribute", a felony.

Quote from: Flanker1Six on July 05, 2016, 05:17:40 PM
Stuff that happens to people NOT named Billary when they do illegal IT stuff similar to or less than she did:

http://heatst.com/politics/hillary-clinton-extremely-careless-classified/   

I do agree that any further investigation into the matter/s is a waste of tax payer money.  Only because the fix is in, and this horse is dead. 
I don't see any conspiracy.  I'm sorry, I just don't.  An old lady did something stupid with her computer.  If you only knew how many times a week I could describe a given situation with those words...  Yes, in the context it COULD HAVE BEEN (but hasn't been proven to have been) a very big deal.  It was a HUGE security risk and almost certainly she had classified information leaked.  But it's not like she set out to take down America.  It's not like she was told and said, "Good!  I hope the Chinese DO get all of my tasty American secrets!"  She's a stupid old lady who doesn't understand computers or emails or things with bytes who did a very dumb thing, not because she didn't care, but because she didn't know how dumb it was.  Big fucking deal.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Mike Cl on July 05, 2016, 06:04:42 PM
When will the investigation into the war crimes of Bush/Cheney and Co. start????  And when will Nixon go to prison for  his crimes?---Oh yeah, Ford took care of that. 
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Flanker1Six on July 05, 2016, 09:00:52 PM
Quote from: widdershins on July 05, 2016, 05:42:05 PM
Yeah, and Mitt Romney is the next President of the United States.  And Ted Cruz.  And Chris Christie.  And Donald Trump.  And Hillary Clinton.  That's just how politicians talk.  They tell you how it's going to be with confidence because that makes you believe it.  It doesn't matter whether it's true or not.
Meh.  People who want it to be something are going to make it something.  Big deal.  It was a dumb thing to do.  No doubt about that.  But as a computer technician who deals with "regular people" every day, I highly doubt she had the slightest clue how dumb it was until it blew up.  Just last week I talked a customer out of getting her own email server at the office.  She's very security conscious to the point of being paranoid and she knows a bit about computers, even writing her own software in the '80s which she still uses today and EVEN SHE didn't know what a security risk it was.  Stupid?  Yes.  Nefarious plot to undermine America?  Hardly.  If you could arrest people for doing something stupid you'd have to build Trump's fence to keep us all in because we're all guilty from time to time.

Not a nefarious plot to do anything.  Just the most recent and flagrant example of the Clintons being above the law, rules, regs, policy, and procedure.  Based on Director Comey's comments of today alone; she can no longer pass a basic clearance back ground check.   No clearance = No Presidency.  Why would anyone need, or want  to do what she did?  There's an entire Gov IT support system, as well as a secure/classified internet provided for free.  To whit: 

"Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach.

“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario â€" short of nuclear winter â€" where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.  While it's nice you're protecting your customers from their potentially hazardous actions and decisions; it has nothing to do with what Billary did, or did not do under a stringent Fed Gov set of IT security/classified info rules. 

   
Okay.  You had "not her job" and got some training on what not to do.  Great.  You should have told her it was stupid.
I'm sorry, but I'm "in the business".  When it comes to computers people are just stupid.  The older they are, the less they understand.  There is no doubt it was a huge security issue, but there was no "intent" there and intent is a HUGE part of the law.  Get busted with an ecstasy tablet and it's a often misdemeanor.  Get busted with 20 and you might get "intent to distribute", a felony.

Amongst Billary's many sins.....................stupidity is not on the list.   A more likely explanation is; she did what she did because she and Bill Him Self have spent four decades doing what they want, when they want, as often as they want.  It's simple...............the rules are for others; not them.  DoS (and Fed Gov IT/classified material rules for that matter) are quite clear "intent does not matter".  That is straight out of the Fed/Gov's rule book not mine.    Someone who is less "progressive" than myself might gather the mistaken impression you think "older" people are incapable of under standing IT, IT Security, or their organization's (that they are in charge of) rules.   Any IT capability stereotype you'd like to apply to blacks, gays, Jews, women, etc?   It's not any subordinates job to tell the CEO they're being/are doing stupid.  The higher you are in Management the more inherent the "higher standard" is; to set the example, and lead by it..  Unless, of course, you're above the rules.     

I don't see any conspiracy.  I'm sorry, I just don't.  An old lady did something stupid with her computer.  If you only knew how many times a week I could describe a given situation with those words...  Yes, in the context it COULD HAVE BEEN (but hasn't been proven to have been) a very big deal.  It was a HUGE security risk and almost certainly she had classified information leaked.  But it's not like she set out to take down America.  It's not like she was told and said, "Good!  I hope the Chinese DO get all of my tasty American secrets!"  She's a stupid old lady who doesn't understand computers or emails or things with bytes who did a very dumb thing, not because she didn't care, but because she didn't know how dumb it was.  Big fucking deal.

Need I say more about old people stereotyping?   Hasn't been proven to be a big deal?  It is a big deal................by Director's Comey's comments alone, based on Billary's actions (not motivations, or technical credentials), and Fed Gov clearance regs; she can no longer pass a clearance background check, and is therefore NOT QUALIFIED to be President.  Yet; there she is.    There are two conspiracies; one of omission, and one of commission. 

Omission: The several dozen to as many as 100 DoS emplyees who participated in Billary's private server classified info e mail chains were required by Fed Law to report any violations of it they knew of.  Policy, procedure, regulations, rules of employment-- very basic State or Fed chain of responsibility requirements.  Not ONE has been subject to any sanction of any kind for participating in blindingly obvious violations of multiple national security rules.   Now how the **** did that happen?  My guess?  They were either of like mind with Ms. Imperialist, or did not want to run the very real likely hood of retaliation and career death. 

Commission: This **** is a hook up.  Obama, Lynch, Bill Him Self, Billary, Comey----all coincidence; all day.  the Coincidence Channel.   

"It doesn't matter, and I don't care?"    Sound familiar?       

Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Atheon on July 05, 2016, 09:10:31 PM
She was found to have sent emails. The horror! What a criminal! What a desperado! Better lock me up, too... I have email accounts.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Poison Tree on July 05, 2016, 09:18:16 PM
Quote from: Flanker1Six on July 05, 2016, 09:00:52 PM
   and is therefore NOT QUALIFIED to be President. 
As far as I'm aware every qualification for being president is contained in Article II Section 1 of and the 22nd amendment to the US Constitution--all of which Hillary satisfies; unless you have a secret list somewhere?
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: FaithIsFilth on July 05, 2016, 09:43:34 PM
Quote from: Flanker1Six on July 05, 2016, 05:17:40 PM
Actually they turned up more than enough to charge her with.  They simply didn't; based on political considerations, per the relevant conspirators within the Obamanation.   

For weeks; Admin Officials, including The Pres, have said either they were confidant no charges would be forth coming, or flat out; would not be forthcoming.   That's kinda hard to predict for an investigation that wasn't finished, and they "ostensibly" had no knowledge of the investigation details as it was fully independent, unbiased, professional, and all the other blah, blah, blah.   

Then; Bill him self; walks onto Loretta Lynch's plane; after a number of security measures are undertaken to ensure "no one is around" to kick it about the grandkids, and golf.   Never mind the ongoing FBI probe into Billary's hinky **** that Loretta is in charge of, or the ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation; which Bill him self is likely to be a witness in, if not a defendent in the very unlikely event any charges are brought pertaining to the CF's conduct/business dealings.  Hard to believe that two experienced pros like L & B are/were so stupid as to NOT realize the ramifications of such a meeting under the aforementioned circumstances.   

Then Billary has a three hour tour; eeeeerrrrrrr...................I mean interview on a "holiday weekend"  just prior to her and the Pres kicking off a mutually supportive campaign tour for her.

Which is wrapped up and finished two days later with no charges; just several hours before her and the Pres get on his tax payer supported plane to go campaign.   

Any person who has the least common sense would be completely unable to reasonably connect any of those dots.  Of course.......................that's because they're not connected.     

As a former DoS sub contractor I was required to attend several IT security sessions to learn the various dos and don'ts of Gov data; including Confidential, SBU (Sensitive But Unclassified), and Classified (I still can't say what level my clearance was because that's illegal, and unlike my boss at the time; I know what the rules  are/were).  They also made it quite clear; if we transgressed ANYTHING and got caught (it's not a violation if you don't get caught!); at minimum we'd lose our security clearance; be black listed (which is ironic as the "black list" does not exist per DoS dogma), and get windburn on our asses from being fired through the door. Far more likely we'd be investigated, brought up on charges, lose our security clearance, be black listed, and sentenced to some quality Federal "Us" Time.  Have a nice day ***holes!  Did I mention the torture they threatened us with if we even THOUGHT about putting a CD/DVD in, or connecting a thumb drive of other removable storage media to a Gov Comp? 

I guess my biggest mistake was to NOT set up a private server on my property, who's security wasn't even up to snuff with commercial grade IT security protocols (per the FBI about Billary's hook up), to slide any and all my secret squirrel stuff over to; in lieu of those difficult to use Gov Comps and their fiddly security protocols and snoopy IT Security Techs.   Oh yea........................and use my own e mail address for Gov Business (in unfriendly foreign countries, no less) instead of that pesky .gov official address they gave me.

Stuff that happens to people NOT named Billary when they do illegal IT stuff similar to or less than she did:

http://heatst.com/politics/hillary-clinton-extremely-careless-classified/   

I do agree that any further investigation into the matter/s is a waste of tax payer money.  Only because the fix is in, and this horse is dead. 
Silly conspiracy theorist.

Nah, but really, it looks like we have several zombies in this thread who seem to be no different from the Trump zombies who think he can do no wrong. Hillary tried to wipe her server clean and was called extremely careless by the FBI, which to me is enough to disqualify her from the conversation of being President, but the Hillarybots see her being called extremely careless and take that as a win for her, and basically say that she never should have been investigated, and make up lies about her just being an old lady who didn't know any better, even though she was told that she should be using the government email and she said screw that, I'm doing things my way. You even have people in here defending  Bill Clinton's meeting with Lynch. Complete zombies just like the Trump supporters.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: widdershins on July 06, 2016, 03:55:42 PM
Quote from: Flanker1Six on July 05, 2016, 09:00:52 PM
Need I say more about old people stereotyping?
Hey, if your job experience completely unrelated to being Secretary of State is somehow relevant than my daily personal experience as a computer technician with old ladies not understanding computers certainly is.  Stereotypes exist for a reason.  It is a proven fact that the older you get, the harder it is to learn new things.  In another 25 years I'm going to be just as ignorant of the technology of the time to come.  It's a fact of life.  That is, of course, unless a vast majority of people here are going to claim they've never had to program their mom's TV or set up Netflix for the mother-in-law.  I've done both.  It's not a stereotype, it's a fact of life.  The older you get the less in-touch you are with current times and that includes technology.  Call me a dick all you want, it won't make it not true.

Quote from: Flanker1Six on July 05, 2016, 09:00:52 PM
Hasn't been proven to be a big deal?  It is a big deal................by Director's Comey's comments alone, based on Billary's actions (not motivations, or technical credentials), and Fed Gov clearance regs; she can no longer pass a clearance background check, and is therefore NOT QUALIFIED to be President.  Yet; there she is.    There are two conspiracies; one of omission, and one of commission.
Like I said, people who want it to be something are going to make it something.

Quote from: Flanker1Six on July 05, 2016, 09:00:52 PM
Omission: The several dozen to as many as 100 DoS emplyees who participated in Billary's private server classified info e mail chains were required by Fed Law to report any violations of it they knew of.  Policy, procedure, regulations, rules of employment-- very basic State or Fed chain of responsibility requirements.  Not ONE has been subject to any sanction of any kind for participating in blindingly obvious violations of multiple national security rules.   Now how the **** did that happen?  My guess?  They were either of like mind with Ms. Imperialist, or did not want to run the very real likely hood of retaliation and career death.
Fortunately you don't get to charge people with a crime based on what you "guess" happened.  The name-calling alone (Billary) that you are doing makes me dismiss your concerns outright as biased bullshit.  If you can't type "Hillary" without doing some juvenile wordplay with her name then, really, I don't care what you think.  You're hardly a bastion of objectivity here.

Quote from: Flanker1Six on July 05, 2016, 09:00:52 PM
Commission: This **** is a hook up.  Obama, Lynch, Bill Him Self, Billary, Comey----all coincidence; all day.  the Coincidence Channel.   

"It doesn't matter, and I don't care?"    Sound familiar?       
Yes it does sound familiar.  It's what went through my head just before I read "It doesn't matter, and I don't care", but just after I read the conspiracy theory "coincidence" crap before it which insinuates that because a bunch of things all happened at once there is some conspiracy to be found.  And frankly even if there were you and I both know full well that is just "business as usual" in politics.  It happens every fucking day that one powerful person covers for another.  Bush gave Pope Satan immunity from prosecution the MOMENT things started turning up about him.  Ford pardoned Nixxon.  Oliver North took the fall for Reagan.  The Oxford Dictionary added "refudiate".  I personally heard my local city council members joking about how drunk the sheriff at the time was when he hit the parked car and saw them get all straight faced and formal when they claimed that he "became fatigued at the wheel" once the cameras came on.  But you're acting like your "guess" is an absolute fact and this is the first time this type of shit ever went down.  Welcome to fucking <name a country>.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on July 06, 2016, 04:08:23 PM
They're all criminals. Some of them are just better at hiding it.


Fair and balanced (like Fox News).
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: FaithIsFilth on July 07, 2016, 02:50:55 AM
About the age excuse...

Just a month before the email issue arose, in November 2010, Abedin and Clinton discussed that department employees were not receiving emails sent by then-secretary, the newly-released emails indicate.

“We should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam,” Abedin wrote to Clinton on November 13, 2010.

In response, the secretary wrote: “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

https://www.rt.com/usa/347861-clinton-server-software-security/

If the Clinton email scandal was not something that you ever cared about and you thought it was not important enough to really look into, I get that, but if that's the case, why would you then try to put up a defense for Hillary when you haven't even taken fifteen minutes to find out the facts?
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on July 07, 2016, 06:19:11 AM
We're too used to stunts by the GOP to take them seriously anymore.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: SGOS on July 07, 2016, 07:47:52 AM
I'm not going to bother looking for the link now, but I noticed one headline this morning along the lines of "How the GOP Will Keep the Hillary Email Scandal Alive!"  Not that this should astound anyone.  I have no doubt that they will, although I didn't bother to read the article. 

I just think the Media is funny.  The day before, the headlines (paraphrased) were "Hillary Email Scandal Over!"  The following day it's, "Oops!  Not if We Can Help It!"  There's still money to be made, character to assassinate, agendas to be advanced using any means possible, and new ways to rewrite the same old articles over and over.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on July 07, 2016, 07:55:29 AM
The Right talks about "The Liberal Media" as if billionaires don't own all of it.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: SGOS on July 07, 2016, 08:25:38 AM
The liberal media meme is one of the most deluded contrivances the right wing ever devised.  Stephen Colbert nailed it with his quip about "reality having a liberal bias."  The Right whined about it for years.  And when they were able to effect the change they longed for, what did they come up with?  Rush Limbaugh, followed by a host of Limbaugh imitators, and the rest of the "fair and balanced" spokesmen for the lunatic fringe.  The right is very good at what they do, because they aren't afraid to whine or lie or say absurd things to get what they want, and there is a large frightened brain dead population to appeal to.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on July 07, 2016, 09:12:08 AM
Quote from: SGOS on July 07, 2016, 08:25:38 AM
The liberal media meme is one of the most deluded contrivances the right wing ever devised.  Stephen Colbert nailed it with his quip about "reality having a liberal bias."  The Right whined about it for years.  And when they were able to effect the change they longed for, what did they come up with?  Rush Limbaugh, followed by a host of Limbaugh imitators, and the rest of the "fair and balanced" spokesmen for the lunatic fringe.  The right is very good at what they do, because they aren't afraid to whine or lie or say absurd things to get what they want, and there is a large frightened brain dead population to appeal to.
They get really sullen when I point out that the second largest stock holder in Faux News is a Saudi Prince. And as for the largest stock holder...
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: stromboli on July 07, 2016, 09:32:15 AM
(http://www.prophecyplanet.com/images/news/media6_6.jpg)

6 Corporations own nearly all of it.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: widdershins on July 07, 2016, 05:52:39 PM
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 07, 2016, 02:50:55 AM
About the age excuse...

Just a month before the email issue arose, in November 2010, Abedin and Clinton discussed that department employees were not receiving emails sent by then-secretary, the newly-released emails indicate.

“We should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam,” Abedin wrote to Clinton on November 13, 2010.

In response, the secretary wrote: “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

https://www.rt.com/usa/347861-clinton-server-software-security/

If the Clinton email scandal was not something that you ever cared about and you thought it was not important enough to really look into, I get that, but if that's the case, why would you then try to put up a defense for Hillary when you haven't even taken fifteen minutes to find out the facts?
Look where the outrage came from.  How many Benghazi investigations were started before the email thing came up?  How many different birth certificates did Obama have to produce?  You can only scream "The sky is falling!" so many times before I just stop looking up.  When it comes from the right I do and will continue to simply assume it's hysterical bullshit about nothing until it is proved to be otherwise and "No charges" is a far cry from "proved to be otherwise".  It's the opposite, actually.  This is the same reason I just assume someone is an idiot when they try to present me with "evidence" of alien visitation or Bigfoot and why my eyes glaze over whenever someone talks about crop circles or 9/11 excitedly.

Even what you just posted is far from the damning "evidence" you seem to believe it to be.  "We should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam."  Yeah?  So?  "We should talk", not "Do you realize what you're doing!!??".  Not, "Think of the security risk!!!".  And what do they need to "talk about" without any hint of urgency?  SPAMMING!  Not security concerns, not state secrets, not hacking, just emails getting through.  And the "response"?  She was concerned about the security of her personal emails.  Why, just imagine the gall of one of the biggest political targets in America wanting to make sure that her personal communications, where she might speak like a human being instead of a politician, might fall into the hands of the opposition.  What was she thinking?  That if any of her personal stuff got released and wasn't 100% politically filtered the Republican party might blow it out of proportion and make something out of nothing?  No!  They would never do such a low-down, underhanded thing!  They have scruples.  Wait, is this real life or a movie from the 1950s?  Because that's the Leave it to Beaver reality I was just talking about there.

So, show me some intent.  Show me that she knew AND UNDERSTOOD that it was a security risk and just didn't care.  Show me blatant disregard for government secrets instead of just an aging person who doesn't know the difference between a "computer" and a "monitor", a "tower" and a "hard drive", a "router" and a "modem".  Yes, the RESULTS could have been bad (far from the catastrophe Clinton haters are making it out to be, but bad).  But there was no intent there.  There was no disregard.  There was no understanding.  And, most importantly, there is no actual EVIDENCE that it was bad, just "could have been".  How do I know that without delving through Faux News for my "facts" on how evil Hillary Clinton is?  If it existed half the people here and the ENTIRE Republican party would have flaunted it all over the headlines already.  If there was anything to this I am 100% certain, WITHOUT DOUBT, that information would simply come to me, whether I want it or not.  It would be the subject of many a headline and multiple threads here.  If there was any actual evidence of wrongdoing it would be IMPOSSIBLE for me not to find out without moving to a remote mountaintop cabin.  Even then I might have to kill myself to keep from finding out.

So, you suggesting that I can't have an opinion if I haven't dug deeply into it, all I hear is Randy Carson telling me that I can't dismiss the Miracle and Fatima if I haven't read this book or that.  Yes, I can, and I will, and I do.  As with any subject which gets people worked up, any actual facts tend to surface in an unavoidable way, yet you're relegated to quoting conversations about avoiding being blocked by spam blockers.  A biased opinion does not sway me and, frankly, doesn't even merit my consideration.  People hate Hillary.  I get it.   There's a lot there to rub people the wrong way.

I'm sorry, but I don't think she's any more crooked than any other politician.  Do I think she's genuine?  No more than any other politician and less than many.  Bernie was the only one in recent memory that I would have considered might POSSIBLY be genuine.  Before that, Obama and Biden, before taking office...maybe....somewhat.  Do I think she's beholden to corporations?  Aren't we all, politicians doubly so?  Do I think she'll always do what's right for the country instead of herself?  Of course not!  She's a politician!  Do I think she vamped out and personally killed those people in Benghazi then used the terrorist thing to cover it up?  Probably not, but it'll probably be the lead story on Faux News tomorrow and the reason for the millionth Benghazi investigation.  Do I think she intentionally endangered national security so she could...what?  Claim she had her own server as a status symbol?  Illegally delete emails from her political account to erase records of criminal activity instead of just using an anonymous fucking Gmail account for her criminal enterprise?  What, exactly, is the nefarious thing she was trying to do here?  Was she smuggling coke in her emails and didn't want the government "cocaine in emails detection system" to pick it up?  Is she a criminal mastermind who, despite being aware of the Patriot Act, used her email to run her vast criminal empire?  Did she go to China and, instead of the "Oops!  I dropped my pen!" maneuver pulling the, "Oops!  I got a classified email from the President on my server which is completely naked of any kind of security measures!" maneuver?  What, exactly, was the criminal intent here?  Because everyone keeps trying to make it into this big thing where she is GUILTY...of...um...something...  Guilty of WHAT?  Being an idiot?  Have you ever checked out "the Internet"?  It's actually not as uncommon as you might think.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Flanker1Six on July 07, 2016, 06:36:03 PM
Quote from: stromboli on July 07, 2016, 09:32:15 AM
(http://www.prophecyplanet.com/images/news/media6_6.jpg)

6 Corporations own nearly all of it.

Thanks!  Now I am paranoid!    :surprise:
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Flanker1Six on July 07, 2016, 06:47:46 PM
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 05, 2016, 09:43:34 PM
Silly conspiracy theorist.

Nah, but really, it looks like we have several zombies in this thread who seem to be no different from the Trump zombies who think he can do no wrong. Hillary tried to wipe her server clean and was called extremely careless by the FBI, which to me is enough to disqualify her from the conversation of being President, but the Hillarybots see her being called extremely careless and take that as a win for her, and basically say that she never should have been investigated, and make up lies about her just being an old lady who didn't know any better, even though she was told that she should be using the government email and she said screw that, I'm doing things my way. You even have people in here defending  Bill Clinton's meeting with Lynch. Complete zombies just like the Trump supporters.

Spot on.  When you do it; you're dumping............................when I do it; I'm "delegating".   :headscratch:
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: FaithIsFilth on July 07, 2016, 06:57:52 PM
So Widdershins, you admit that you don't have time for stories that you consider to be "biased" before you even look into them, but you put forth a specific defense for Hillary when you admit that you don't even know what's going on? Look, I'm not telling you not to post what you want to post, when you want to post it. I'm the last person that would do that. I'm simply saying that it's not a good look for the Hillary supporters when they make specific arguments for her that can be disproven by anyone who's done just a tiny bit of research on the email scandal. I'm guilty of being lazy at times myself and not doing the proper research before I make a post, but when I do that and someone points it out, I usually own up to my error/ laziness rather than trying to defend it and telling the person not to call me out for not knowing the facts.

The only reason Hillary was not indicted was because she didn't show signs of intentional disloyalty to the United States and because she didn't intentionally help the enemy by sacrificing security, which is a ridiculously stupid standard to have to meet. Hillary would pretty much have to be a spy to meet that unreasonable standard. The results of the investigation also showed that Hillary has been lying through her teeth about everything concerning the email scandal for the past year.

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

“Certainly she should have known not to send classified information,” Comey said. “As I said, that's the definition of negligent. I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can't establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-testimony-clinton-email-225224
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: PickelledEggs on July 07, 2016, 07:41:37 PM
Let's just vote Trump. Okay? Okay.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: FaithIsFilth on July 07, 2016, 07:56:45 PM
If you want to convince the Bernie supporters to vote Clinton, it's best that the arguments used to persuade them are not ones that are going to just completely insult their intelligence. Insulting the intelligence of people who are hesitant to vote for Clinton is not a good strategy for keeping Trump out of office. Instead, you might want to try a more honest approach. Something like, "Yeah, Hillary was negligent here and she f'd up, but she has probably learned her lesson so you should be willing to look past that because Trump is the more frightening possibility." If I see that type of response, I can at least respect that the person is not trying to insult my intelligence/ treat me like a child who will believe anything.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Hydra009 on July 07, 2016, 07:57:52 PM
Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 07, 2016, 07:41:37 PMLet's just vote Trump. Okay? Okay.
This whole election is shaping into the biggest trainwreck the US has ever known.  Let's just call off the election and appoint Obama's dog to the presidency for 4 years.  That seems like a fair compromise.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Gawdzilla Sama on July 07, 2016, 09:24:37 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 07, 2016, 07:57:52 PM
This whole election is shaping into the biggest trainwreck the US has ever known.  Let's just call off the election and appoint Obama's dog to the presidency for 4 years.  That seems like a fair compromise.
What did the dog do to make you hate him so much?
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Jannabear on July 08, 2016, 09:27:15 AM
Quote from: Atheon on July 05, 2016, 09:10:31 PM
She was found to have sent emails. The horror! What a criminal! What a desperado! Better lock me up, too... I have email accounts.
You literally dont know anything about this...
Literally do a google search before you post.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Jannabear on July 08, 2016, 09:28:30 AM
The hillary clinton dick sucking contest here is ridiculous.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: drunkenshoe on July 08, 2016, 09:50:24 AM
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 07, 2016, 07:57:52 PM
This whole election is shaping into the biggest trainwreck the US has ever known.  Let's just call off the election and appoint Obama's dog to the presidency for 4 years.  That seems like a fair compromise.

Title: LOL
Post by: drunkenshoe on July 08, 2016, 10:09:45 AM
(http://www.kentucky.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/joel-pett/dphqrj/picture88275337/ALTERNATES/FREE_960/20160708pettRGB)

(http://www.kentucky.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/joel-pett/6h08fe/picture81438142/ALTERNATES/LANDSCAPE_1140/20160603pettRGB)
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: widdershins on July 08, 2016, 04:18:52 PM
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 07, 2016, 06:57:52 PM
So Widdershins, you admit that you don't have time for stories that you consider to be "biased" before you even look into them, but you put forth a specific defense for Hillary when you admit that you don't even know what's going on?
Do you feel the need to investigate every supernatural claim presented to you?  Do you feel the need to read every book Randy wants you to read?  If I claimed some vast conspiracy but offered NO compelling reason to believe it, no actual evidence, would you feel the need to look into every detail of what I claimed?  Neither do I.

I have read a few stories.  I have read the comments here.  I have enough information to form an opinion.  And what is this "information" that makes me able to form an opinion?  Those who think something nefarious is going on are INCREDIBLY sparse on the details of exactly what that "nefarious thing" might be.  Those who think something is nefarious is going on tend to be people who already hated Hillary Clinton before the email scandal.  Those who think something nefarious is going on never seem to give any actual evidence of this nefarious activity.  Instead what they say sounds more like an argument against evolution from a Jehovah's Witness.  "Don't you think that's a little strange?" and "That's a pretty big coincidence!"

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 07, 2016, 06:57:52 PM
Look, I'm not telling you not to post what you want to post, when you want to post it. I'm the last person that would do that.
We don't "know" each other, but I very much respect you.  That you were suggesting I shut the hell up never crossed my mind.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 07, 2016, 06:57:52 PM
I'm simply saying that it's not a good look for the Hillary supporters when they make specific arguments for her that can be disproven by anyone who's done just a tiny bit of research on the email scandal. I'm guilty of being lazy at times myself and not doing the proper research before I make a post, but when I do that and someone points it out, I usually own up to my error/ laziness rather than trying to defend it and telling the person not to call me out for not knowing the facts.
Why the hell does everyone think I'm a "Hillary supporter"?  I don't hate her, but my interest is in the truth, not some out of touch career politician who couldn't find the truth with sodium thiopental.  I am obsessive about "truth".  I DO hate Donald Trump, but if I catch you saying something bad about him that I don't think is true I will defend his racist ass too. 

And I'm unclear about what specific argument I made which is easily disproved.  I assume that's something you or someone else has pointed out to me and I missed it.  As I said, I am obsessive about "truth".  If I have said something untrue, believe me, I want to know about it more than you do.  As I said, I respect you and I have no reason to doubt that you at least believe that I said something untrue.  So either I need to clear something up or I have something to learn.  Please let me know what that thing is, in all sincerity.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 07, 2016, 06:57:52 PM
The only reason Hillary was not indicted was because she didn't show signs of intentional disloyalty to the United States and because she didn't intentionally help the enemy by sacrificing security, which is a ridiculously stupid standard to have to meet. Hillary would pretty much have to be a spy to meet that unreasonable standard.
That is incorrect.  I read an article just yesterday or the day before where someone compared what she did to someone (I forget who) who did intentionally release classified information.  He released it, not to our enemies, but to, I believe, his publicists turned lover.  And this is exactly why I simply assume you have nothing factual to say.  This is a subconscious attempt at oversimplification by making the matter black and white and eliminating all shades of gray.  In this way the ONLY way it could have been worse than what it was is if she were a traitor.  This is simply bullshit.

You also call the standard unreasonable, but don't point out that is your untrained opinion.  As I have already stated, intent is a VERY big part of our law.  Intent can mean the difference between murder and manslaughter.  It can mean the difference between misdemeanor and felony.  And it CAN mean the difference between charges and no charges.  Destroying a mailbox is a federal offense.  If you use a baseball bat, you go to jail.  If you lose control of your car, you aren't charged.  Intent plays a HUGE and INTEGRAL role in our legal system.  Just because it doesn't ALWAYS play a roll (it doesn't matter if you thought she was 18, usually) doesn't mean that it NEVER plays a roll.

And just that little bit right there shows a HUGE bias on your part.  Why would I bother looking into your claims after that?  Seriously, this is no different to me than Randy Carson constantly telling me that I needed to read this book or that book because if I didn't look into his dumbass claims that magic was real I wasn't qualified to say it wasn't.  The argument is the EXACT SAME.  I can see the extreme bias you have in your wording.  If you had some actual evidence we both know damned well you would have presented it by now.  You haven't because you can't because there is none.  It is valid for me to come to that conclusion based on what you and other "String her up!" proponents are saying without having to research your every factless claim.


Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 07, 2016, 06:57:52 PM
The results of the investigation also showed that Hillary has been lying through her teeth about everything concerning the email scandal for the past year.
Okay.  I am not aware what you are talking about.  Can you give some evidence for this?  And I DO mean actual "lies" which were "proved", not something which could have been "mistaken" or something she "misunderstood" or something you "believe" to have been a lie.  And when you're done with that, are these lies "chargeable" offenses?  Was she proved to have lied under oath?  And when you're done with THAT, is it in any way unusual for a powerful person to get more leeway than you and I would in such a situation?  Does it NEVER happen in politics?

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 07, 2016, 06:57:52 PM
There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.



https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
[/quote]
Okay.  And what is that saying to you?  Why did you feel it was important to quote that to me?  What I read is that she "should have" known better.  Not that she did and didn't care, but that she "should have".  He's calling her an idiot.  And perhaps she is.  But what he's not saying is that she knew better and did it anyway.  What he's not saying is that she's guilty of being anything more than stupid.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 07, 2016, 06:57:52 PM
“Certainly she should have known not to send classified information,” Comey said. “As I said, that's the definition of negligent. I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can't establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-testimony-clinton-email-225224
Again, "should have known", not "did know".  She was "careless".  She was "negligent".  These words certainly sound bad, but are they actually "criminal"?  Once again you're quoting things that "sound bad", but aren't really evidence of anything.  It just sounds really juicy, and you know she's vile, so THIS is your proof that she was criminal!  But the quote actually says that they found no evidence that she acted with the "necessary" criminal intent.  The FBI director is saying that criminal intent is "necessary" to bring criminal charges, people on the Internet are saying, "She is guilty because I hate her!"  Who the hell do you think I'm going to listen to?  WHY would I feel the need to look into this further?  And when would it stop?  When would you FINALLY feel that I knew enough about this to form an opinion?  Because obviously I haven't been living under a rock.  I HAVE been exposed to at least some of the facts, and you have no idea how much of it I do or don't know.  All you know is that I said I didn't feel the need to research it intently.  So WHEN have I done enough research to make you happy?  You don't know how much I know, but you know I don't know enough.  That tells me that I will have done enough research to make YOU happy when I agree with you.  That's not how it works.

Look, the FBI director, who I'm going to assume knows a thing or two about the law, says that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case.  I just have this gut feeling that the dude knows what he's talking about.  He probably went to college and everything, I bet.  Then there's YOU quoting HIM to...what?  To prove that she should have been charged?  You're quoting the FBI director, who says she shouldn't be charged, to prove that she should be charged?  Do you think he just might not be saying what you think he's saying when you quote it from the reason he's not charging her?

I get it.  You guys hate Hillary.  Good for you.  Tell me about all the bad shit she's actually done and I'll chime in.  That bit about knowing what it's like to be flat broke because they almost had to sell one of their mansions to make the mortgage on the others, that pissed me the hell off.  In one of her debates with Obama she made me hate her by showing just how much a politician she was.  I have no love for the woman and, trust me, there's plenty there not to like for realsies.  But if you're just going to make shit up and pretend she's the devil who killed Jimmy Hoffa it's really your own damned fault when I disagree with you.  It's nothing I did wrong or failed to do, you're just spouting bullshit.  There is PLENTY of actually, factually REAL stuff to hate about her.  Start spouting that and I'll chime in.  But start pretending that you know more about the legality of what she did than the FBI director who actually investigated her and I'll keep dismissing your arguments.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: FaithIsFilth on July 08, 2016, 07:50:58 PM
Quote from: widdershins on July 08, 2016, 04:18:52 PM
Do you feel the need to investigate every supernatural claim presented to you?  Do you feel the need to read every book Randy wants you to read?  If I claimed some vast conspiracy but offered NO compelling reason to believe it, no actual evidence, would you feel the need to look into every detail of what I claimed?  Neither do I.
I wouldn't say the possibility of ghosts existing is anywhere close to the possibility that a corrupt politician did something corrupt. Even her biggest supporters like MSNBC and CNN have been talking about how bad this looks for Hillary. You've had "liberals" on MSNBC calling Hillary's defense of the email scandal an embarrassment. This was NOT a witch hunt.

QuoteAnd I'm unclear about what specific argument I made which is easily disproved.  I assume that's something you or someone else has pointed out to me and I missed it.  As I said, I am obsessive about "truth".  If I have said something untrue, believe me, I want to know about it more than you do.  As I said, I respect you and I have no reason to doubt that you at least believe that I said something untrue.  So either I need to clear something up or I have something to learn.  Please let me know what that thing is, in all sincerity.
The age argument. Abedin brought it up to Clinton, and surely many others brought it up to her as well, whether that can be proven or not. Hillary sent and received materials marked classified, secret, and top secret. The materials were MARKED. Now either she didn't care, or Hillary never took the time to learn about the classification system, which would make her an extremely incompetent person. Do you really believe that Hillary never took the time to learn the classification system when she was in such an important and high position?

QuoteThat is incorrect.  I read an article just yesterday or the day before where someone compared what she did to someone (I forget who) who did intentionally release classified information.  He released it, not to our enemies, but to, I believe, his publicists turned lover.  And this is exactly why I simply assume you have nothing factual to say.  This is a subconscious attempt at oversimplification by making the matter black and white and eliminating all shades of gray.  In this way the ONLY way it could have been worse than what it was is if she were a traitor.  This is simply bullshit.
I did say "pretty much", but I'll admit my error here. You don't have to be a spy. You just have to knowingly let classified, secret, or top secret information get into the hands of someone who should not have it. Just because it can't be proven that Clinton did that, that doesn't mean that this is not a big deal. I don't really care if Clinton gets in legal trouble or not. Comey said that if Clinton were working for the FBI, she could lose her security clearance, and that might not mean much to you, but to me it says a lot about Hillary and how unfit she is to be President.

QuoteYou also call the standard unreasonable, but don't point out that is your untrained opinion.  As I have already stated, intent is a VERY big part of our law.  Intent can mean the difference between murder and manslaughter.  It can mean the difference between misdemeanor and felony.  And it CAN mean the difference between charges and no charges.  Destroying a mailbox is a federal offense.  If you use a baseball bat, you go to jail.  If you lose control of your car, you aren't charged.  Intent plays a HUGE and INTEGRAL role in our legal system.  Just because it doesn't ALWAYS play a roll (it doesn't matter if you thought she was 18, usually) doesn't mean that it NEVER plays a roll.
Yes, the standard is certainly unreasonable. Every left leaning news outlet I've gone to (Secular Talk, The Humanist Report, The Young Turks, etc.) all agree that this shows that Hillary is above the law, and that rules don't apply to her. Every single one of these news outlets agree on this point, so yeah, I'm not a trained expert, but many, many people are interpreting the findings to mean the same thing that I think they mean. Pretty much all media that actually leans to the left. Of course the FBI was not going to find a Clinton email saying "yes, I know that I am sacrificing security here and that people might get a hold of classified, secret, or top secret information because of my actions." They were never going to find that kind of email. Does that mean that Clinton didn't do anything wrong? Hell no.

QuoteOkay.  I am not aware what you are talking about.  Can you give some evidence for this?  And I DO mean actual "lies" which were "proved", not something which could have been "mistaken" or something she "misunderstood" or something you "believe" to have been a lie.  And when you're done with that, are these lies "chargeable" offenses?  Was she proved to have lied under oath?  And when you're done with THAT, is it in any way unusual for a powerful person to get more leeway than you and I would in such a situation?  Does it NEVER happen in politics?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-testimony-clinton-email-225224

To Clinton’s assertion that she never sent or received information marked classified on her private email, Comey pointed to the investigation’s findings to the contrary.
"That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents,” Comey said. (The State Department on Wednesday said that two of those documents were inadvertently marked.)
On Clinton’s statement that she did not email classified material to anyone, Comey responded, “There was classified email.”

“Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?” Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”
Asked about Clinton’s claim that all work-related emails were returned to State, Comey said that was not true.
As far as Clinton’s statement that neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account, Comey said that was “a harder one to answer,” as investigators found traces of work-related emails “on devices or in slack space, whether they were deleted or on a server that was changed out or something else happened to them.”
"Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?" Gowdy asked. Comey responded, "No."

Edit: And yes, she did lie under oath, at the Benghazi hearing. Hillary said that she had no email marked classified, either sent or received. The FBI findings of course showed that to be untrue. She did have email marked classified, both sent and received.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: widdershins on July 11, 2016, 11:47:18 AM
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 08, 2016, 07:50:58 PM
I wouldn't say the possibility of ghosts existing is anywhere close to the possibility that a corrupt politician did something corrupt. Even her biggest supporters like MSNBC and CNN have been talking about how bad this looks for Hillary. You've had "liberals" on MSNBC calling Hillary's defense of the email scandal an embarrassment. This was NOT a witch hunt.
When go go from "this LOOKS bad" to "She should be arrested!" it very much IS a witch hunt.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 08, 2016, 07:50:58 PM
The age argument. Abedin brought it up to Clinton, and surely many others brought it up to her as well, whether that can be proven or not.
I'm not making an "argument" to in any way prove she did no wrong, merely stating that based on my experience a person that age is not well-versed in Internet technologies or security.  In the absence of evidence of criminal wrongdoing I would assume age to be a factor.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 08, 2016, 07:50:58 PM
Hillary sent and received materials marked classified, secret, and top secret. The materials were MARKED. Now either she didn't care, or Hillary never took the time to learn about the classification system, which would make her an extremely incompetent person. Do you really believe that Hillary never took the time to learn the classification system when she was in such an important and high position?
False dichotomy.  Surely there are more than two possible choices for why it happened, but narrowing it to these two allows you to call her incompetent, once again showing a heavy bias on your part.  I get it.  You hate Hillary.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 08, 2016, 07:50:58 PM
I did say "pretty much", but I'll admit my error here. You don't have to be a spy. You just have to knowingly let classified, secret, or top secret information get into the hands of someone who should not have it. Just because it can't be proven that Clinton did that, that doesn't mean that this is not a big deal. I don't really care if Clinton gets in legal trouble or not. Comey said that if Clinton were working for the FBI, she could lose her security clearance, and that might not mean much to you, but to me it says a lot about Hillary and how unfit she is to be President.
Comparing apples and oranges.  Working for the FBI has VASTLY different job requirements and responsibilities than Secretary of State.  They are specifically trained in security.  They have to earn their security clearance in the FBI.  Secretary of State simply gets clearance out of necessity to perform the job.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 08, 2016, 07:50:58 PM
Yes, the standard is certainly unreasonable. Every left leaning news outlet I've gone to (Secular Talk, The Humanist Report, The Young Turks, etc.) all agree that this shows that Hillary is above the law, and that rules don't apply to her. Every single one of these news outlets agree on this point, so yeah, I'm not a trained expert, but many, many people are interpreting the findings to mean the same thing that I think they mean. Pretty much all media that actually leans to the left. Of course the FBI was not going to find a Clinton email saying "yes, I know that I am sacrificing security here and that people might get a hold of classified, secret, or top secret information because of my actions." They were never going to find that kind of email. Does that mean that Clinton didn't do anything wrong? Hell no.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-testimony-clinton-email-225224
Argument from authority.  They are "left leaning" and that makes them credible or their opinions authoritative?  No news site, no matter how left-leaning, had access to any but a small fraction of the evidence uncovered in the FBI investigation.  Comey said, "No reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case.  So on the one hand I have what the lead investigator said, on the other hand I have what "left leaning news organizations" said.  News organizations are looking at a very small fraction of the story and forming an opinion.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 08, 2016, 07:50:58 PM
To Clinton’s assertion that she never sent or received information marked classified on her private email, Comey pointed to the investigation’s findings to the contrary.
"That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents,” Comey said. (The State Department on Wednesday said that two of those documents were inadvertently marked.)
On Clinton’s statement that she did not email classified material to anyone, Comey responded, “There was classified email.”
So you assume she "lied".  There are 30,000 "missing" emails alone.  So how many more are not "missing"?  When you've sent your 30,000th email to me I'll grill you about the specifics of 3 of them and see how much you remember.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 08, 2016, 07:50:58 PM
“Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?” Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”
Asked about Clinton’s claim that all work-related emails were returned to State, Comey said that was not true.
As far as Clinton’s statement that neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account, Comey said that was “a harder one to answer,” as investigators found traces of work-related emails “on devices or in slack space, whether they were deleted or on a server that was changed out or something else happened to them.”
"Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?" Gowdy asked. Comey responded, "No."

Edit: And yes, she did lie under oath, at the Benghazi hearing. Hillary said that she had no email marked classified, either sent or received. The FBI findings of course showed that to be untrue. She did have email marked classified, both sent and received.
You keep presenting me with all this "Hillary is the biggest bitch EVER" shit but what you aren't giving me is any actual evidence of criminal intent.  At this point I'm not even sure what your argument is.  That she's a bitch?  I'm not overly fond of her myself.  That she's criminal?  In what way?  What is the actual crime you are accusing her of?  This discussion is going nowhere.  What IS your actual argument?  That the email scandal was bad?  Yeah, looks that way.  That Secretary of State should have known better?  One would think, but I've never been Secretary of State, so I don't really know the training or lack thereof involved or what type of security resources they are assigned.

What I DO know is that most people know next to NOTHING about computer security, so there should be some training involved or at least some sort of security expert assigned to have regular meetings with those who have access to sensitive information because they got a job rather than having to earn access to sensitive information in order to get that job.  There should be regular security audits in place which should have caught this issue years ago, BEFORE it became a big deal.  People who know security should be handling security and it should be out of the hands of the people who may or may not know security.  But apparently this isn't the case.  It sounds like a policy failure to me.  You can't simply assume that because someone is Secretary of State they simply know all there is to know about the security of the technologies they use.  And it doesn't make a person an "idiot" to not understand a particular technology.  Every unique individual has a different skill set.  I can barely change my oil, but I can kill a virus using Notepad.  Want me to drill a hole?  I am very meticulous in my measuring and lining up the drill, but it STILL won't be in the right place when it's done.  I never have figured out why.  But I can write a program to test your keyboard.  There is no such thing as information which "everybody" should have or knowledge which "everybody" should know.  There just isn't.

So here's my argument.  The FBI found no reason to file charges, case closed.  Is there politics involved?  Isn't there always?  Is there a conspiracy to cover up for Clinton?  Given that it's absolute FACT that there have been MULTIPLE conspiracies to thwart her presidential aspirations, I doubt it.  Republicans have more power in Washington right now than Democrats.  If they can't make trumped up charges stick I highly doubt Democrats can make real charges disappear.  Should charges have been filed?  The FBI director says no.  He says there was no evidence of criminal intent, thus, no charges.  Do YOU or your "left-leaning news outlets" have access to evidence the FBI does not?  Quite the opposite, actually.  The FBI has access to VASTLY MORE information.  Was it a big fuck-up?  Absolutely, and I would like to think we had better security measures in place, but clearly we don't.  But whose fault is that?  Is it Clinton's fault for not taking the time to learn the ins and outs of security?  People spend literal lifetimes on that.  There are college degrees specifically for computer security.  Security is not something you "take the time to learn", it's something you go to college for.  In my opinion it is a failure of the government itself.  There should be regular security audits.  It should be impossible for someone who doesn't know what they're doing to say, "I don't want to use your vastly more secure server.  I'd rather have...let's see....THAT guy set up one at my house."  Law enforcement has a set of rules known as the "chain of evidence" which would apply well here.  At all times the evidence, or in this case classified material, is meticulously monitored and always under the control of those charged with its safety and integrity.  But apparently our government hasn't set up simple security measures for our classified information that every podunk police station in the nation has for making sure a joint gets to trial intact and unaltered.  I do see a failure here, but I see a failure in the system.  The system should protect the security ignorant from themselves and, in doing so, protect our nation from them.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Atheon on July 11, 2016, 12:10:27 PM
Hillary has been the target of irrational hatred since 1992. And the "crimes" she has been accused of range from the mind-bogglingly absurd (murdering Vince Foster and countless others) to the utterly trivial (saying she's not like Tammy Wynette's song) to being a strong, ambitious woman (can't have that; however, strong, ambitious men are fine). So when she's accused of sending private emails or not being supernaturally clairvoyant about Benghazeeeeee, I rightly dismiss them as just more anti-Hillary fluff.

In all the years that I've watched Hillary (having been a Bill Clinton supporter through the 90s), I've seen her accused of being everything from a serial murderer to an emotionless bitch, but never has there been any evidence.

Her husband likewise was followed by scandal after scandal, all completely manufactured. He was accused of getting a haircut, and of wearing the wrong color tie. The only scandal that ended up having any truth behind it was that he did get a BJ from a young intern, but that's not illegal.

The hatred of the Clintons is born in Republican irrationality, because the Republicans are AFRAID of the Clintons. They're afraid of the Clintons because they are able to get liberal things done, and they hate that.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: widdershins on July 11, 2016, 01:26:12 PM
Quote from: Atheon on July 11, 2016, 12:10:27 PM
Hillary has been the target of irrational hatred since 1992. And the "crimes" she has been accused of range from the mind-bogglingly absurd (murdering Vince Foster and countless others) to the utterly trivial (saying she's not like Tammy Wynette's song) to being a strong, ambitious woman (can't have that; however, strong, ambitious men are fine). So when she's accused of sending private emails or not being supernaturally clairvoyant about Benghazeeeeee, I rightly dismiss them as just more anti-Hillary fluff.

In all the years that I've watched Hillary (having been a Bill Clinton supporter through the 90s), I've seen her accused of being everything from a serial murderer to an emotionless bitch, but never has there been any evidence.

Her husband likewise was followed by scandal after scandal, all completely manufactured. He was accused of getting a haircut, and of wearing the wrong color tie. The only scandal that ended up having any truth behind it was that he did get a BJ from a young intern, but that's not illegal.

The hatred of the Clintons is born in Republican irrationality, because the Republicans are AFRAID of the Clintons. They're afraid of the Clintons because they are able to get liberal things done, and they hate that.
You know, the only thing that actually made me "want" Clinton to be the nominee was that it was the Republican's worst nightmare.  I actually wanted a Clinton/Trump fight because it scared the shit out of Republicans and I do so love to see them squirm and try to cheat each other instead of the country for a change.  Though nobody is paying attention, it is putting their usual slimy tactics on full display as they try over and over again to get something on Hillary and, when it fails, bitch and whine about how unfair it is and how the party with the most power right now is so persecuted and cheated.  And on the Trump side, they're trying repeatedly to change the rules, not accepting "this is the bed you made", wanting SOME concession, at this point ANY concession, to allow the people's idiotic votes to count.  Today the news is all about them trying to choose Trumps VP pick for him because they're unlikely to get rid of him, which they're also still trying to do.  The Republican philosophy is and has for years been, "If you can't beat 'em, cheat 'em" and that is on full display right now.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: FaithIsFilth on July 11, 2016, 04:11:34 PM
I'm happy that your tone has changed at least a bit, Widdershins, and you are now at least admitting that Clinton did some pretty bad things. Even if you think they were all unintentional, at least you admit they were bad. You can't seriously think the entire media is out to get her, on a witch hunt, and every news outlet is being unreasonable with their response, whether it be Fox News (I have no idea what they're saying about this. Haven't watched Fox in years), left leaning outlets like TYT, or even Clinton's biggest fans in CNN and MSNBC. Just watch this short clip below and see how MSNBC tears into her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maVuOWDOHL8

In the clip, they bring up another case where someone did not have intent to distribute classified material, yet they were charged and convicted anyways. This shows that Hillary is indeed above the law, and that rules do not apply to her. I'm certainly not giving an argument from authority here, because I personally think MSNBC is one of the worst news outlets in existence, but they are correct when it comes to this. I should have pointed out the case they pointed out, but I didn't think to do that previously. There you go. Now you know about it. Clinton got special treatment and she is above the law.

You want to know what Clinton actually DID that was so bad? It was revealed that Clinton was likely hacked, which would mean that those hostile actors would have access to classified info, since she had classified info on there. Like MSNBC points out, there have been convictions without intent being there to give others access to the classified material. Because of Clinton, hackers likely did gain access to her server. The FBI of course says that that can't be proven, but saying that doesn't really mean anything, because if hackers gained access to classified information, that's not something that would be provable. And yeah, if foreign countries gained access to that classified information, they're obviously not going to come out and admit it. Hillary Clinton sacrificed security. That's what it comes down to. She was extremely careless and extremely wreckless. If you don't think hackers gaining access to classified material is a big deal, then fine, but I would certainly disagree.

No, I don't hate Clinton. I don't believe in hate. Hate accomplishes nothing. I just think that Hillary is corrupt to the bone, and I think the people deserve better. I like that Hillary has embraced Bernie's college plan. I applaud her for that, even if that's a position she didn't want to take, and was only forced to take because of pressure from Bernie and to try to soften the blow from the email scandal. Whatever made her change her position, I'm just glad she changed it. I've already accepted that Hillary is going to be President of the United States. I actually think your line of reasoning when it comes to the email scandal is probably a good line of reasoning, if you are trying to make a case to the average idiot American voter. You can probably convince millions of them that this is not a big deal, just by arguing that it is not a big deal, and that this whole thing was just about the right wingers going after Hillary in some witch hunt. The average idiot American voter will probably buy that, just like the average Trump voter will buy just about anything, but when you are on a board like atheistforums.com, or you are talking specifically to Bernie/ Jill Stein supporters, the arguments you are making are going to blow up in your face and are not going to get any far left voters to budge.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: widdershins on July 11, 2016, 05:23:24 PM
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 11, 2016, 04:11:34 PM
I'm happy that your tone has changed at least a bit, Widdershins, and you are now at least admitting that Clinton did some pretty bad things.
No, I said "sounds" bad.  That doesn't mean "is" bad.  I never denied that it was potentially a real issue.  "Is" bad was for the FBI to decide, and they decided "not that bad", from a legal standpoint.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 11, 2016, 04:11:34 PM
Even if you think they were all unintentional, at least you admit they were bad.
I never intended to give the impression that I "think" anything about it other than I didn't see anything obviously nefarious.  I'm not sure how you're defining "bad" here.  I certainly never thought it was a "good" thing or an "indifferent" thing to happen.  I've never argued that it was in any way good or indifferent, only that I saw no evidence she did anything "bad" intentionally.  Though I do still think it was a Republican witch hunt, which it very much was.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 11, 2016, 04:11:34 PM
You can't seriously think the entire media is out to get her, on a witch hunt, and every news outlet is being unreasonable with their response, whether it be Fox News (I have no idea what they're saying about this. Haven't watched Fox in years), left leaning outlets like TYT, or even Clinton's biggest fans in CNN and MSNBC. Just watch this short clip below and see how MSNBC tears into her.
I can and do think EXACTLY that.  Controversy brings revenue.  Doom and gloom brings revenue.  ALL news media tends to report news from the darker side.  We don't want to see a happy puppy.  We want to see people fall and burn and die!  Virtually ALL media is tainted by this reality.  Remember the big shark scare from a few years ago when ALL the media was warning everyone to be especially careful of sharks that year?  Do you know where the number of shark attacks fell on the scale for that year compared to others?  Exactly AVERAGE.  But you wouldn't know it to watch the news.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 11, 2016, 04:11:34 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maVuOWDOHL8

In the clip, they bring up another case where someone did not have intent to distribute classified material, yet they were charged and convicted anyways.
She did not "distribute" classified material to ANY unauthorized person.  She sent it directly and only to "authorized" people.  She did it in a way which was insecure, meaning that it would be easier for unauthorized people to get it, but she DID NOT "distribute" it to unauthorized people.  Once again your language makes it sound worse than it actually was.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 11, 2016, 04:11:34 PM
This shows that Hillary is indeed above the law, and that rules do not apply to her. I'm certainly not giving an argument from authority here, because I personally think MSNBC is one of the worst news outlets in existence, but they are correct when it comes to this. I should have pointed out the case they pointed out, but I didn't think to do that previously. There you go. Now you know about it. Clinton got special treatment and she is above the law.
I had to look that up and I think they were talking about Kristian Saucier.  Once again this case has NOTHING to do with the Clinton case.  The two cases aren't even comparable.  Saucier, who was trained by the military about his security responsibilities before ever being given security, took pictures of a classified submarine with his personal phone.  That, itself, is a crime.  He CREATED unauthorized classified "documents".  Then when he found out he was being investigated he dumped the cell phone in a dumpster, not even bothering to wipe it first.  So KNOWING FULL WELL that he had classified information in his possession that he was not supposed to have he then INSECURELY DISPOSED OF IT, not accidentally, but in an attempt to make evidence disappear.  In that case he WAS NOT ignorant of the classified nature of the information and, in fact, that's why he got rid of it.

Once again you're comparing apples and plastic apple replicas to show an unfair double standard.  Why do you only ever eat the apples and never the plastic replicas?  Do you have something against plastic?

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 11, 2016, 04:11:34 PM
You want to know what Clinton actually DID that was so bad? It was revealed that Clinton was likely hacked, which would mean that those hostile actors would have access to classified info, since she had classified info on there.
Read that back to yourself.  You were going to tell me what "Clinton" DID.  And what do you tell me?  What "NOT Clinton" "LIKELY did".

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 11, 2016, 04:11:34 PM
Like MSNBC points out, there have been convictions without intent being there to give others access to the classified material. Because of Clinton, hackers likely did gain access to her server.
There have been convictions without intent for DIFFERENT THINGS.  She didn't make unauthorized copies of those emails and then throw them in a dumpster when she found out she was being investigated.  That is NOT EVEN CLOSE to what she did.  But yes, there were convictions for completely unrelated things.  That much, at least, is true.

And this is why I don't bother looking into claims without evidence to back them.  First, I had to scan through a more than 9 minute video which I, personally, was not interested in to find what you referenced.  THEN I had to look up who the fuck they were talking about.  And once I've done all that, what do I find?  The two are completely unrelated.  Not even close.  Someone who had to earn security clearance vs someone who got it with the job.  Someone who personally made unauthorized classified documents vs someone who corresponded as part of her job.  Someone who, upon finding out they were being investigated, then disposed of that classified information without taking the 10 seconds to even insecurely delete that information, leading to a third party finding and viewing that classified information through no specific intent on their part vs someone who turned it all over upon request and cooperated, but was LIKELY "hacked" by a nefarious third party who had to personally go out of their way to get the information.  So, I go out of my way to look into your claim and what do I find?  The reason your claim was not specific was because the specifics don't match your claim.  This is why I feel no need or duty to look into these claims unless those who want me to first present me with some specific information OTHER than simply an argument showing why I should bother.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 11, 2016, 04:11:34 PM
The FBI of course says that that can't be proven, but saying that doesn't really mean anything, because if hackers gained access to classified information, that's not something that would be provable.
So?  What if it was proved?  Is Hillary responsible for the actions of a hacker?  Again, this is STILL completely different than the case I believe they were mentioning.  Here, a hacker MIGHT HAVE come to her with the intention of committing a crime and this is somehow Hillary's crime.  In the other case the guy DID commit a crime when he took the pictures AND THEN disposed of the material without so much as a rudimentary attempt to destroy it, DELIVERING IT TO the third party through gross negligence.  "Hackers came and got it because my security sucked" is very much not the same as "I illegally took pictures of a classified submarine and then, without so much as deleting those pictures, disposed of that phone in a manner so insecure that the classified information did not require specific intent to intercept, but rather was happened upon by a garbage man with no criminal intent".

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 11, 2016, 04:11:34 PM
And yeah, if foreign countries gained access to that classified information, they're obviously not going to come out and admit it. Hillary Clinton sacrificed security. That's what it comes down to. She was extremely careless and extremely wreckless. If you don't think hackers gaining access to classified material is a big deal, then fine, but I would certainly disagree.
I do think it's a big deal.  But I would argue that maybe she wasn't reckless and careless, but possibly clueless.  I see this as a definite failure, not of one person, but of our entire system.  If this was such a bad thing to do, why was it allowed?  Why was there no security expert assigned to this server?  If a "reasonable person" would see a problem with this then why did NOBODY say, "Noooo, you can't do that!"?  Why would she not have "known"?  Because the "system" never considered it before.  You're expecting her to have known and accounted for what the ENTIRE security infrastructure of the US government did not anticipate.  I see this as a systemic failure, not a failure with an individual.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 11, 2016, 04:11:34 PM
No, I don't hate Clinton. I don't believe in hate. Hate accomplishes nothing. I just think that Hillary is corrupt to the bone, and I think the people deserve better.
We who are less touchy-feely would instead say simply, "I hate her."  You describe it differently than I would, but we're talking about the same thing.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 11, 2016, 04:11:34 PM
I like that Hillary has embraced Bernie's college plan. I applaud her for that, even if that's a position she didn't want to take, and was only forced to take because of pressure from Bernie and to try to soften the blow from the email scandal. Whatever made her change her position, I'm just glad she changed it. I've already accepted that Hillary is going to be President of the United States. I actually think your line of reasoning when it comes to the email scandal is probably a good line of reasoning, if you are trying to make a case to the average idiot American voter. You can probably convince millions of them that this is not a big deal, just by arguing that it is not a big deal, and that this whole thing was just about the right wingers going after Hillary in some witch hunt. The average idiot American voter will probably buy that, just like the average Trump voter will buy just about anything, but when you are on a board like atheistforums.com, or you are talking specifically to Bernie/ Jill Stein supporters, the arguments you are making are going to blow up in your face and are not going to get any far left voters to budge.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.  But most of this absolutely was a right wing witch hunt.  It has been one thing after another, all timed to coincide with dates which might cause her the most political harm.  The GOP is really good at making unreasonable things "sound" reasonable.  In this case they even have you convinced.  But this very much was a witch hunt.  Even if they had found something serious and she had been charged that still wouldn't have made it "not a witch hunt".

You talk as if my position is factually untenable.  Come on.  I expect more of you than that!  It's politics, not mathematics.  There is no "right and wrong", there is only opinions.  I am not now nor have I EVER BEEN trying to get anyone to vote anything for anyone.  I don't care how you vote.  Hillary is not my girl.  I have no love for the woman.  But it is YOUR argument which is short on facts.  Hell, at some points you compare apples to motorcycles, the differences are so extreme.  I still have no clue what your argument is.  My argument is that your argument is dishonest.  That's all.  I want "facts", no more, no less.  If you give me "facts" which support...whatever it is you want me to say, then I guarantee you I will change my mind.  But you have yet to give me a single "fact" to support the presumed claim, "Bad!  Bad Hillary!"  What she DID that was so bad is the SOMEONE ELSE PROBABLY hacked her?  Come on.  What she did was the same thing as illegally taking photos of a classified submarine on a personal phone and then throwing that phone into the garbage without the slightest attempt to secure the information on it in an attempt to avoid prosecution?  Come on.

I think now what I thought in the beginning.  She did a stupid thing because she didn't know it was stupid because she's an old lady with a computer.  What is it that you think?  What is it you're trying to convince me of?  Do you think she was aware of the risks and didn't care?  That's kind of how you come off, and that would, indeed, be a VERY bad thing.  But you can't honestly think that.  Or do you think she was unaware of the risk, but should have been aware?  This seems to be what you're actually suggesting, but that is, as I said, a systemic failure, not a personal failure.  After all this I still really don't know where you're coming from other than that you really don't like Hillary and seem to really want this to be something.  I almost get the sense that you were wishing as hard as the Republicans that this would be something, presumably so you could get Bernie instead.  Admittedly, that's just a wild guess on my part.  Like I said, I really don't know where you're coming from.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Baruch on July 11, 2016, 06:44:56 PM
A bunch of bohemians claiming how their hatred of Trump or hatred of Hillary is rational ... bwahahah

Can any of you, any of you, step back and see what you look like to a neutral party?  Love you all.

Re-reading Plato's Republic ... I have to agree that the whole Enlightenment politics of republicanism and democracy is a complete bust.  Frankly, even though I don't like him either, I would rather have Obama declare a dictatorship, cancel all elections, and not let any more inexorable candidates and their moron supporters any more fun.

I do hear that the next PM might be a woman.  GB is so much far ahead of the Colonies!
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on July 11, 2016, 08:52:27 PM
Quote from: Baruch on July 11, 2016, 06:44:56 PM
Can any of you, any of you, step back and see what you look like to a neutral party?  Love you all.
And who would that be?
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: FaithIsFilth on July 11, 2016, 09:56:32 PM
Quote from: widdershins on July 11, 2016, 05:23:24 PM
I had to look that up and I think they were talking about Kristian Saucier.
Nope. Kristian Saucier is not the name. It's Bryan Nishimura. You are ignorant and proud of it. You ask me to do your research for you, and then when I do, you don't even look at it and whine that you had to watch something you clearly never watched, or didn't pay attention to. Your head is so far up Hillary's ass that you can't be reasoned with. The discussion between you and I is over. I do not respect ignorance, and I'm clearly not going to get anywhere arguing with someone who sees ignorance not as a bad thing, but as something to be proud of.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: widdershins on July 12, 2016, 11:03:41 AM
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 11, 2016, 09:56:32 PM
Nope. Kristian Saucier is not the name. It's Bryan Nishimura. You are ignorant and proud of it.
That's a  little fucking harsh given that I made an attempt to look up who the hell you were talking about and simply came up with the wrong name.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 11, 2016, 09:56:32 PM
You ask me to do your research for you, and then when I do, you don't even look at it and whine that you had to watch something you clearly never watched, or didn't pay attention to.
I never asked you to do shit other than back your claims.  How about this, next time give me some damned FACTS.  All you had to do was give me the NAME of the person you were talking about.  Instead you gave me a link to a video, which was more than 9 minutes of commentary with that name in there somewhere.  I know that video interests YOU, but it didn't interest me.  You are the one trying to convince me of whatever the fuck you're saying.  How fucking hard is it to type "Bryan Nishimura" instead of "some guy"?

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 11, 2016, 09:56:32 PM
Your head is so far up Hillary's ass that you can't be reasoned with. The discussion between you and I is over. I do not respect ignorance, and I'm clearly not going to get anywhere arguing with someone who sees ignorance not as a bad thing, but as something to be proud of.
Now you're just being an ass.  I've fucking told you repeatedly that I am not a Hillary supporter.  I could care less.  I'm interested in TRUTH.  You are not.  You love you some witch hunt.  I looked up Bryan Nishimura.  He copied classified materials to his personal device.  He took those materials with him.  He kept them after his deployment ended.  He made additional copies.  He purposely and illegally maintained copies of those materials.  ONCE AGAIN, you're talking apples and oranges, copying and keeping copies of classified materials vs sending a fucking email.

Your head is so far up Bernie's ass you can't get over your butthurt that he lost.  How do I know you're a Bernie support.  I fucking don't.  Apparently we are just to the point where we are making ludicrous claims about each other and pretending they're fucking true.  I realize we're talking the religion of politics here, but in all seriousness you were the last person I expected to have a conversation with which degraded into this.  You were also the last person I ever suspected would ever confuse opinion, and this conversation is VERY MUCH nothing but our political "opinions", with what is truly right and wrong.  Seriously, you need to get YOUR head out of your own ass and see this for what it is, a difference in OPINION which you should have no expectation of changing because neither yours nor mine is "right", as is the nature of "opinions".
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: widdershins on July 12, 2016, 11:13:30 AM
This should help you out a bit:

Opinion - a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily (but possibly <- my addition) based on fact or knowledge

Fact - a thing that is indisputably the case

Learn the difference or all our conversations are going to go the same way.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: FaithIsFilth on July 12, 2016, 01:34:19 PM
QuoteHow do I know that without delving through Faux News for my "facts" on how evil Hillary Clinton is?
This was something you posted earlier in the thread. You were trying to make it out that this was nothing but a Republican/ Fox witch hunt. I posted that video to show that you couldn't be any more wrong about that. In this thread, you've sounded like someone who works for the Clinton campaign. You should have known what you were talking about at least a little bit when you jumped into the debate and started putting forth a defense for Hillary, just like a creationist should probably brush up on the non-creationist point of view and know what he's actually arguing against before he jumps into a discussion on evolution, because when you have a creationist who doesn't even understand his opponent's position, the creationist can't really have anything useful to say, because he just doesn't know much about the topic he is discussing. If you had come in saying "I don't know anything about this so I have no position right now... I want to learn." that would have been one thing, but you came in and acted like you knew all too well what was going on... A Faux News and Republican witch hunt.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Jack89 on July 12, 2016, 01:40:30 PM
Quote from: Baruch on July 11, 2016, 06:44:56 PM
A bunch of bohemians claiming how their hatred of Trump or hatred of Hillary is rational ... bwahahah

Can any of you, any of you, step back and see what you look like to a neutral party?  Love you all.

Re-reading Plato's Republic ... I have to agree that the whole Enlightenment politics of republicanism and democracy is a complete bust.  Frankly, even though I don't like him either, I would rather have Obama declare a dictatorship, cancel all elections, and not let any more inexorable candidates and their moron supporters any more fun.

I do hear that the next PM might be a woman.  GB is so much far ahead of the Colonies!
President Obama's a wet noodle, we need someone with backbone like Vladimir Putin.  Sure, he's just a little bit evil, but he's got balls of steel. 
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: widdershins on July 12, 2016, 02:06:49 PM
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 12, 2016, 01:34:19 PM
This was something you posted earlier in the thread. You were trying to make it out that this was nothing but a Republican/ Fox witch hunt. I posted that video to show that you couldn't be any more wrong about that. In this thread, you've sounded like someone who works for the Clinton campaign. You should have known what you were talking about at least a little bit when you jumped into the debate and started putting forth a defense for Hillary, just like a creationist should probably brush up on the non-creationist point of view and know what he's actually arguing against before he jumps into a discussion on evolution, because when you have a creationist who doesn't even understand his opponent's position, the creationist can't really have anything useful to say, because he just doesn't know much about the topic he is discussing. If you had come in saying "I don't know anything about this so I have no position right now... I want to learn." that would have been one thing, but you came in and acted like you knew all too well what was going on... A Faux News and Republican witch hunt.

Yeah, yeah, I'm stupid because I don't agree with you and the only reason I don't agree with you is that I don't know what I'm talking about.  It has been your argument all along.  I disagree.  I see a very clear and very large bias on your part.  And, like a creationist, I see a very angry response when I disagree with you.  You call me stupid, you call me uninformed and you keep presenting "evidence" without actually saying anything.  And I STILL don't know exactly what it is you are arguing.  I doubt even you do.  If you did some soul-searching I think you would find the root of your argument is "Hillary bad!"  Your failure to articulate a clear message and deliver a pointed argument is not due to my ignorance.  It is due to the fact that the only reason you are even arguing is because you really dislike Hillary.  I, on the other hand, don't have a horse in this race.  If she did something bad, okay.  If you can show that I really don't have a problem with accepting it.  I do have precisely ONE reason for wanting her to be innocent of any wrongdoing, and it's not because I have any love for her.  It's because I love to see Republicans flail and scream and bitch and whine when they don't get their way.

I am very happy to see that you are once again responding with a cooler head.  As I have said, I very much respect you.  That has not changed.  But I don't respect what you're doing here.  I don't respect you calling me stupid because I disagree with you, which is very much what you are doing.  You have not yet presented one scrap of actual fact to back your point, much less told me what your point actually is.  And your demand that I watch 9 minutes of commentary which doesn't interest me to pick out the single mystery fact you claimed to be in there is really no different than Randy Carson telling me that I have to read some book which doesn't interest me to find the facts to back his claims.  It's YOUR claim.  YOU prove it.

Contrary to what you seem to believe, it is actually very easy to tell a factual case from wishful thinking in these discussions.  It can be easily done without doing a shitload of research and becoming an expert in the field.  You just have to go through the argument and pick out any "facts".  You do have to double-check these supposed facts, but that's it.  I learned long ago that if an argument is all argument and no fact then there are no facts to be had.  I don't need to go looking for them any more than I need to go looking for facts to prove unicorns never existed.  If we had ever found evidence of a unicorn it would likely be big news (yes, I am aware of the recent find, case in point).  This is even more true for current events.  But if you look back at everything you've posted it has been almost exclusively arguments.  The few facts you did post were very vague.  And saying, "Watch this video", yes, that is very vague.  That is not "presenting a fact", that is trying to get me to look at some source other than the claimant, you, and it is a VERY prominent method used by those who have no facts.  Randy used it CONSTANTLY.  If you are trying to make a point, then make it.  Don't send me to some third party to make the point for you.  Make it yourself.  MSNBC is not on this forum, you and I are.

Finally, I have not once "defended Hillary".  If you look you'll see that all I have done is pointed out that there were no "facts".  If you say she was "negligent" I point out that you haven't proved she wasn't just "ignorant".  If you say this case is "the same" I point out the VERY big differences.  I am not defending Hillary and I never was.  That's how you see it because you are blinded by your own bias.  I don't care if she's guilty of something, other than that Republicans would love it.  Yes, I would love to see our first woman president, but she wouldn't necessarily be my first choice.  I've seen her as dishonest and disingenuous since one of her debates with Obama, and that has only been reinforced over the years.  I don't love the woman.

I think at this point you really need to think about your argument and decide what it is.  What are you arguing?  What is your claim?  What are you trying to say?  Is it that she's evil?  Is it that she should have been arrested?  Is it that there's a double standard with her?  Is it just that she's a bad person?  Once you've figured that out, figure out WHY you think that.  Is it your opinion or is it based in some real fact?

And just because thar be witches in them thar hills doesn't mean the guys with the torches and pitchforks aren't on a witch hunt.  This WAS a Republican witch hunt.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: widdershins on July 12, 2016, 02:09:27 PM
Quote from: Jack89 on July 12, 2016, 01:40:30 PM
President Obama's a wet noodle, we need someone with backbone like Vladimir Putin.  Sure, he's just a little bit evil, but he's got balls of steel. 
You can't really blame the state of the country on Obama.  There's only so much the President can do.  Even Republicans, with their majority, can't get anything done with the Freedom Caucus blocking anything and everything that isn't extreme right-wing.  Obama has to deal with both that AND the rest of the Republicans.  The dude is doing what he can, which in this poisonous political climate, isn't much.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: pato15 on July 12, 2016, 09:43:43 PM
To be honest, it could turn out that Hillary is running an illegal cockfighting ring in the back of the Capitol building and using the funds to finance a Menudo reunion tour. I would still vote for her over Donald Trump because, well, Donald Trump.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: FaithIsFilth on July 13, 2016, 02:33:14 AM
I certainly don't think you are stupid, widdershins. There is a big difference between being stupid and accepting corruption. Yes, I was an asshole in that post, but it seemed appropriate at the time. I should have posted the name, and you shouldn't have assumed earlier that anyone thinking this email scandal was a big deal was getting their facts from Fox News.

The numbers show that Hillary is the most unlikeable Democrat to ever win the nomination. That's not because we're all just a bunch of irrational haters, or sexist Bernie bros, or whatever other insult the Clinton supporters want to throw our way (I know you don't want to be lumped in with the other Hillary supporters, but unless you are voting for someone else, Hillary has your support. Your vote is how you show your support). Hillary only has herself to blame for her poor numbers, and should be thanking god for Donald Trump, because without him in the race, any other Republican would have smoked Clinton and been a shoe-in.

When you have an excuse for pretty much everything messed up Clinton does, to outsiders, that starts looking like you are of the opinion that your candidate can do no wrong. Hillary didn't see the need to follow the rules and likely allowed hackers to access her server and classified information, but I'm told that she didn't hack herself, so move on, there's nothing to see here. I bring up Hillary's neoconservatism and her support for the Iraq war, and the response I got from another Hillary voter was that lots of other people voted for the war as well, so move on, there's nothing to see here. I guess that makes it ok that she supported a war that caused over a million deaths. Whoops, a million people dead and American veterans committing suicide daily, but anyone could have made such a mistake I guess. Other people voted for the war too, so that excuses Clinton's vote. Hillary was in favour of treating gays like second class citizens and refused to support equality for gay until she pretty much had no choice but to switch over, but no big deal. She didn't think the country was ready for gay marriage, so that excuses her being ok with them not having the same rights everyone else had. Hillary is owned by Wall Street, but so what, you can't win if you don't play the game, right? There's always an excuse.

Yes, for the most part, Hillary is not that different/ worse than the average politician, but that's not a good thing, that's the problem. Hillary is the definition of the establishment, and so many people are sick of establishment politicians and think the people deserve better. So yeah, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that. You and I see the world very differently.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: widdershins on July 13, 2016, 02:15:26 PM
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 13, 2016, 02:33:14 AM
I certainly don't think you are stupid, widdershins. There is a big difference between being stupid and accepting corruption. Yes, I was an asshole in that post, but it seemed appropriate at the time. I should have posted the name, and you shouldn't have assumed earlier that anyone thinking this email scandal was a big deal was getting their facts from Fox News.
I actually assumed that everyone here would know that was tongue-in-cheek.  I did not literally mean that.  I would be highly surprised if there are a lot of Faux watchers here, and I absolutely never even imagined you were one.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 13, 2016, 02:33:14 AM
The numbers show that Hillary is the most unlikeable Democrat to ever win the nomination. That's not because we're all just a bunch of irrational haters, or sexist Bernie bros, or whatever other insult the Clinton supporters want to throw our way (I know you don't want to be lumped in with the other Hillary supporters, but unless you are voting for someone else, Hillary has your support. Your vote is how you show your support). Hillary only has herself to blame for her poor numbers, and should be thanking god for Donald Trump, because without him in the race, any other Republican would have smoked Clinton and been a shoe-in.
No "unlikable", THAT I can get behind.  I don't particularly "like" her myself.  Politically, I think she's ruthless and disingenuous, but frankly I think that about a great many politicians.  Her, however, perhaps more so than most.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 13, 2016, 02:33:14 AM
When you have an excuse for pretty much everything messed up Clinton does, to outsiders, that starts looking like you are of the opinion that your candidate can do no wrong.
I didn't give an "excuse" for anything.  All I did was point out other possibilities less nefarious than the ones given.  And frankly it is FAR more likely that she simply didn't understand the implications than that she did understand that she was potentially compromising national security and just didn't care.  That is not an excuse, it's a realistic view.  Do you REALLY think that she had any clue that she was potentially compromising national security?  One of the biggest political targets in America said to herself, "Yeah, this is DEFINITELY a security risk, but fuck America.  What could go wrong?"  Even Trump is just barely THAT stupid.  So what you see as "giving excuses for Hillary" I see only as a more realistic view than the unrealistic and demonizing claims being made.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 13, 2016, 02:33:14 AM
Hillary didn't see the need to follow the rules and likely allowed hackers to access her server and classified information, but I'm told that she didn't hack herself, so move on, there's nothing to see here.
And that's just the type of "demonizing claims" I'm talking about.  She "didn't see the need to follow the rules"?  Really?  Do you REALLY think she said, "Fuck the rules!  I want my own server because REASONS!"  You talk as if she blatantly disregarded the "rules" with full knowledge of what she was doing.  Your makes the very overt claim that this was purposeful, that she had the "intent" to ignore the rules.  This is an assumption on your part.  You don't know that and, in fact, to believe that is a little ignorant because who would do that and why?  What possible motive would she have for knowing disregarding the "rules", thus exposing herself to YET ANOTHER investigation?  Do you REALLY think that she believed nobody was watching?  That she believed she could do anything and nobody would notice wrongdoing on her part when Republicans are so anxious for wrongdoing on her part they are simply making it up left and right?  The idea is ludicrous fantasy.  Say what you want about her, but "stupid" is one thing you can't seriously expect to claim, and knowingly and blatantly disregarding the "rules" would be stupid.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 13, 2016, 02:33:14 AM
I bring up Hillary's neoconservatism and her support for the Iraq war, and the response I got from another Hillary voter was that lots of other people voted for the war as well, so move on, there's nothing to see here.
That wasn't me.  The American public knew before the war that there were no WMDs.  I knew it BEFORE the vote, and likely so did you.  So there's no fucking way that THEY didn't know it.  It was a vote to kill people for political reasons and a black mark on the records of every asshole that voted for it, including Hillary.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 13, 2016, 02:33:14 AM
I guess that makes it ok that she supported a war that caused over a million deaths. Whoops, a million people dead and American veterans committing suicide daily, but anyone could have made such a mistake I guess. Other people voted for the war too, so that excuses Clinton's vote.
I believe I addressed that above.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 13, 2016, 02:33:14 AM
Hillary was in favour of treating gays like second class citizens and refused to support equality for gay until she pretty much had no choice but to switch over, but no big deal.
Okay, I have to take a little exception to that one.  Replace "Hillary" with "Obama" and the statement is just as factual.  And it is absolutely common place for politicians to "evolve" on issues.  Remember, their FIRST priority is to get elected.  It doesn't matter what you actually stand for, if you don't get elected you don't change shit.  The very nature of the position absolutely REQUIRES that they lie to us.  We, as Americans, fucking demand it, actually.  When Biden was asked if he would allow his family to ride the train given some threat he answered like a fucking moron, honestly.  The backlash was immediate and the next day our Vice President had to take public transportation because he was too stupid to lie when asked a question.  It's the nature of the business.  I now Bernie was different.  I actually believed what came out of his mouth.  But that probably made him unelectable.

But politicians often have to bide their time, often for years or even decades, until the public is "ready".  That's just how it is.  Right now you and I really can't claim to have any fucking clue what she "actually" believes.  Only the right-wing hate-mongers get to actually speak their mind because that's what the people who will elect them want to hear.  To believe that what a politician "says" and "believes" are necessarily the same thing is naive.  Yes, she spent a long time on the wrong side, but it's only today, in the world we live in NOW that people on the "right side" are even electable.  Bill signed DoMA, a piece of shit law not thankfully dead.  And today I'm betting he's glad it's dead.  It's just the nature of the business.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 13, 2016, 02:33:14 AM
She didn't think the country was ready for gay marriage, so that excuses her being ok with them not having the same rights everyone else had. Hillary is owned by Wall Street, but so what, you can't win if you don't play the game, right? There's always an excuse.
I addressed much of that above.  As for the, "If you can't win, don't play the game" comment, don't be naive.  If you can't win you can't change a thing.  Yes, Bernie found a way to lose and STILL change things, but when have you EVER heard of that before?  He's the exception, not the rule, and it remains to be seen how much things will actually change based on what he's done.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 13, 2016, 02:33:14 AM
Yes, for the most part, Hillary is not that different/ worse than the average politician, but that's not a good thing, that's the problem. Hillary is the definition of the establishment, and so many people are sick of establishment politicians and think the people deserve better. So yeah, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that. You and I see the world very differently.
I don't disagree that the establishment very much is the problem.  I don't disagree that Hillary is very much establishment.  I don't disagree that Bernie was a better choice, idealistically.  Realistically, however, you simply can't win an election, get in office and shake things up.  It just doesn't happen.  Do you know what profession overwhelmingly encompasses most politicians?  Lawyers.  Congress is so full of rules and loopholes that there are ten thousand more ways to kill something than to pass something.  Politics in American are actually, literally designed to make it very hard to get anything done.  The political system is designed to allow for maximum opportunity to stab each other in the back.  The system is designed to be slow and corrupt and open to gaming the system because it was designed by lawyers.  One politician is completely useless alone.  One idealistic politician has no balls.

Let me tell you a story.  I used to work with a state representative.  At the time he was 3rd or 4th term.  He had been at the office for a long time, as had many others there.  I was told that when he first took office he was adamant about getting term limits.  3 or 4 terms later, not so much.  He once proudly told me the story about how he and another fellow Republican killed an education bill by themselves which otherwise would have passed by adding a solid gold statue of the governor to the bill during a blizzard when nobody else showed up, so there was nobody to oppose the amendment.  Motion, second, nobody opposed, done.  This is politics.  It is a snake pit.  It is a den of thieves.  It is filled with the most vile people on the planet.  What do you think happens when you put a puppy in a snake pit?  One of two things; He becomes a snake or he gets shit out by snakes.  Politics isn't pretty and it isn't idealistic.  I really, really wish that weren't true.  I really, really wish that good people could get elected and do good things.  But they can't.  The system isn't designed to work for good people.  It's designed by bad people for bad people.  That is the cold, hard reality.  That is why you hear all the politicians saying, "We need to get the money out of politics!", but there are no bills to get the money out of politics.  SAYING it gets them elected.  DOING it gets them "not paid".  So they're going to SAY it all day long, but they're never actually going to fucking do something about it.  It sucks very, very hard, but that is our reality.  The system is designed by corrupt people for corrupt people and people in the system either start corrupt, become corrupt or get chewed up with very few exceptions.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Mike Cl on July 13, 2016, 04:45:00 PM
Quote from: Jack89 on July 12, 2016, 01:40:30 PM
President Obama's a wet noodle, we need someone with backbone like Vladimir Putin.  Sure, he's just a little bit evil, but he's got balls of steel.
Balls..............you want our president to have balls.  Putin is "a little bit evil"--but has balls???  Hitler had balls; Stalin had balls; the great Khan had balls; Al Capone had balls.  I would much rather our president had brains and knew how to use them.  Most of the Popes had balls or they would not have gotten as far as the popehood.  They are also more than a little bit evil--I bet you just love those guys to pieces!  Much rather have a leader who knows how to think and talk to negotiate for peace rather than one who has balls an knows how to use force and violence.  But then, GW Bush knew how to use force and violence and in his rather stupid way, and see what wonders he did for the world.  You have some interesting role models for a born again theist.   
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Atheon on July 14, 2016, 12:14:16 AM
"We need a strong leader who stands by his convictions" = a recipe for dictatorship.

"We need someone who is not a politician." Sorry, but if you assume political office, you are a politician by definition. If you're anti-government and you assume a government position, you ARE government. I'd much rather have someone with lot of political experience attain high office than someone with absolutely none.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Atheon on July 14, 2016, 12:24:50 AM
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on July 13, 2016, 02:33:14 AMThe numbers show that Hillary is the most unlikeable Democrat to ever win the nomination.
You do realize that this "unlikeability" is the result of illusion? It's the result of 25 years of Republican lies. I've watched her since 1992, and when I see HER speak (rather than others commenting on her), I see a likeable person who supports liberal causes.

The numbers show that of all the combinations of candidates, a Hillary vs. Trump contest is the most likely one to put a Democrat in the White House.

And I voted for Bernie in the primaries. Because his policies are 97% in agreement with my beliefs, while Hillary's are 93% in agreement with mine. 97% to 93%... vs. 20% for Trump. The choice is clear.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: widdershins on July 14, 2016, 11:51:29 AM
Quote from: Atheon on July 14, 2016, 12:24:50 AM
You do realize that this "unlikeability" is the result of illusion? It's the result of 25 years of Republican lies. I've watched her since 1992, and when I see HER speak (rather than others commenting on her), I see a likeable person who supports liberal causes.

The numbers show that of all the combinations of candidates, a Hillary vs. Trump contest is the most likely one to put a Democrat in the White House.

And I voted for Bernie in the primaries. Because his policies are 97% in agreement with my beliefs, while Hillary's are 93% in agreement with mine. 97% to 93%... vs. 20% for Trump. The choice is clear.
While that may be partially or even substantially true it's certainly not completely true.  I've seen her in some truly unlikable moments.  I don't remember which debate it was any more, or the exact issue or wording used, but there was one point in a Clinton/Obama debate where she was just talking like a lawyer and trying to twist reality to make Obama look bad and he shot her down in a way that just made her look petty and stupid.  She had accused him of something along the lines of "disagreeing, but not condemning" and my mind just had a moment to process that this was a dirty trick, not a real issue before he responded something along the lines of, "Okay, I also condemn it".  My vague recollection doesn't do the moment justice, but I remember it because it was the MOMENT that I decided that I didn't like Hillary Clinton.  I got the impression that she was talking like a lawyer, he was talking like a human being.  I still have the impression today that he is the first person to at least enter the Presidency as a human being instead of a politician, fully intending to keep every campaign promise, just too naive to know what wasn't possible.

So, yes, the lion's share of her "unlikability" is utterly manufactured, hence my earlier "Faux News" comment which FaithIsFilth misinterpreted as an accusation, but not all of her unlikability is manufactured.  Some of it, like the quote about knowing what it's like to struggle financially because they almost had to sell a mansion after the presidency, that shit is all her.  That was a stupid thing to say to try to connect to a populous, a large majority in the country these days, with which she has never had anything in common.  The first rule of being an author is "Write about what you know".  And being an author isn't that much different than giving a political speech.  Both are just making shit up and hoping it sounds good enough to sell.  And struggling financially, that is NOT something she knows.  She has some very real likability issues which are all her own.  Voting for the war in Iraq is another.

Like I've said all along, I am not "defending" Clinton.  And neither am I attacking her.  My only interest is the unbiased truth.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: SGOS on July 14, 2016, 12:21:01 PM
Quote from: widdershins on July 14, 2016, 11:51:29 AM
Voting for the war in Iraq is another.

I was so opposed to that war that I have a hard time forgiving her for that one too.  I even try to justify her voting for that war by believing that since she was a senator from New York, it would have been political suicide not to support it.  The people of New York were probably more impacted by 9-11, and lost more loved ones, or knew more people who lost loved ones in that attack than any other state in the nation.  And while Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and while Saddam was just as brutal to Al-Qaeda as the US, more of the people living in New York were probably ready to buy the propaganda that Saddam was behind the whole thing, or that he, as an Arab, was getting ready to launch an all out attack on the west with his stockpiles of WMDs.  Actually, I don't know what most New Yorkers thought, but I'll even stretch my imagination to justify Clinton's vote, which still bothers me today.

Political expedience or bad judgment?  I don't know what it was, but that vote was a bad vote, a really bad vote, and it should haunt anyone who supported that war for the rest of their lives.  OK, so she made a mistake, but the underlying justifications for that war were as logically unsound 15 years ago as they are today.  It's a tough one for me to get past.  On other things, she maybe OK, but she's still a long ways from what we need.  And of course, she's still better than Trump, but Good God; What a low standard there.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: widdershins on July 14, 2016, 01:55:25 PM
Quote from: SGOS on July 14, 2016, 12:21:01 PM
I was so opposed to that war that I have a hard time forgiving her for that one too.  I even try to justify her voting for that war by believing that since she was a senator from New York, it would have been political suicide not to support it.  The people of New York were probably more impacted by 9-11, and lost more loved ones, or knew more people who lost loved ones in that attack than any other state in the nation.  And while Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and while Saddam was just as brutal to Al-Qaeda as the US, more of the people living in New York were probably ready to buy the propaganda that Saddam was behind the whole thing, or that he, as an Arab, was getting ready to launch an all out attack on the west with his stockpiles of WMDs.  Actually, I don't know what most New Yorkers thought, but I'll even stretch my imagination to justify Clinton's vote, which still bothers me today.

Political expedience or bad judgment?  I don't know what it was, but that vote was a bad vote, a really bad vote, and it should haunt anyone who supported that war for the rest of their lives.  OK, so she made a mistake, but the underlying justifications for that war were as logically unsound 15 years ago as they are today.  It's a tough one for me to get past.  On other things, she maybe OK, but she's still a long ways from what we need.  And of course, she's still better than Trump, but Good God; What a low standard there.
Wonderfully said.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: FaithIsFilth on July 14, 2016, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: Atheon on July 14, 2016, 12:24:50 AM
You do realize that this "unlikeability" is the result of illusion? It's the result of 25 years of Republican lies.
Sure. Just like SJW cucks and Democrat lies are to blame for Trump's unlikeable numbers, which aren't too much different from Hillary's unlikeable/ untrustworthy numbers. Always an excuse. Hillary is certainly not to blame for being one of the most corrupt politicians out there, and for being an absolutely terrible politician who doesn't have what it takes to get people excited for her run. Her corruptness and shitty public speaking is on her. Not those who see her for what she is. She's probably just pretending that she's actually adopting some of Bernie's policy positions as well. Is she really going to fight for free college? Does she really give a shit if that happens or not? Is she really going to fight for a 15 dollar minimum wage? This all seems too little, too late, and I wouldn't trust her to actually follow through with trying to make these things happen.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Baruch on July 16, 2016, 11:56:42 AM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 11, 2016, 08:52:27 PM
And who would that be?

Neutrality is impossible?  We are either Nazis or Stalinists?  But not me,  I hate Hillary's guts.  Consci0ousness is the ability to step outside the immediate situation and see yourself as a third person ... try it sometime ;-)
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on July 16, 2016, 11:16:05 PM
Quote from: Baruch on July 16, 2016, 11:56:42 AM
Neutrality is impossible?  We are either Nazis or Stalinists?  But not me,  I hate Hillary's guts.  Consci0ousness is the ability to step outside the immediate situation and see yourself as a third person ... try it sometime ;-)
Have you? I've often seen many "objective" analyses that have turned out to have a strongly subjective bent. A truly neutral viewpoint may be impossible to achieve. IE, D&D got it right.
Title: Re: No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation
Post by: widdershins on July 19, 2016, 12:02:46 PM
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 16, 2016, 11:16:05 PM
Have you? I've often seen many "objective" analyses that have turned out to have a strongly subjective bent. A truly neutral viewpoint may be impossible to achieve. IE, D&D got it right.
I agree that it's pretty much impossible to know that you are truly neutral when it comes to anything that matters to you.  That's why I bothered to point out that I liked a Hillary/Trump ticket because it scared the shit out of Republicans.  I assume that has to influence me on some level because I like whatever Republicans hate most of the time, just on principal.