No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation

[Jack89]

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. 

[widdershins]

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.

[widdershins]

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.

[pato15]

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.

[FaithIsFilth]

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.

[widdershins]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Mike Cl]

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.   

[Atheon]

"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.

[Atheon]

The 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.

[widdershins]

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.

[SGOS]

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.

[widdershins]

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.

[FaithIsFilth]

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.

[Baruch]

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 ;-)

[Hakurei Reimu]

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.