guess what chuckles......i already read that.
i will explain this to you once again...i can find humor in something that criticises someone i like.....and i will fucking post it...
2016 speculation thread
- Thread starter Pesqueeb
- Start date
i will explain this to you once again...i can find humor in something that criticises someone i like.....and i will fucking post it...
#soangry. but it's more about repub congressional obstruction than obama gwumps...duh.
a clinton scorned.....not so sure...
does anyone see the problem with having the only impeached president within the last hundred years campaigning for someone?
He really isn't interested in those pesky lil things like;
Facts
logic
reality
is he?!?!?!?!
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35906493
If he got his way for starters expect Saudi to start buying several billion a year in Euroweapons instead I think!
Facts
logic
reality
is he?!?!?!?!
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35906493
If he got his way for starters expect Saudi to start buying several billion a year in Euroweapons instead I think!
if bill being impeached didn't matter to you before......why bitch about it now?
Wait, did Dick Nixon return from the grave to campaign on behalf of pant suit donkey witch? Wow, the GOP really is desperate to stop Drumpf.
Bernie: We'd like to do the April debate in NY, before the primary
Hillary's Campaign: We're not going to have one until your tone changes
Internet: But you said for the toughest job in the world you should be "willing to debate anytime, anywhere". Plus he's only talking policy, not about your FBI investigation or other questionable activities. What tone are you referring to and how are you going to respond to Trump's attacks if you can't handle Bernie? #tonedownforwhat
(Less than 2 days later)
Hillary's Campaign: We'd gladly have a debate with Bernie in NY before the primary there. #whichHillary
Hillary's Campaign: We're not going to have one until your tone changes
Internet: But you said for the toughest job in the world you should be "willing to debate anytime, anywhere". Plus he's only talking policy, not about your FBI investigation or other questionable activities. What tone are you referring to and how are you going to respond to Trump's attacks if you can't handle Bernie? #tonedownforwhat
(Less than 2 days later)
Hillary's Campaign: We'd gladly have a debate with Bernie in NY before the primary there. #whichHillary
so word on the street is that clinton is gonna be interviewed by the FBI, possibly within the next week.
long read, but H-dawg sounds like she's hosed:
https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/
https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/
Came here to post this. Took me 2+ hours to read last night. If she doesn't get indicted at the minimum, I have lost all faith (what little I had left) in our legal system. What she's done is appallingly illegal, at best on the very dark grey side of illegal/legal. One thing to point out is that this was put together by a Hillary supporter, so it's not politically motivated. It was some guy that wanted to see what the big fuss was about.
There is a snowball's chance in hell that I will vote for her now. If the election is close, I might actually vote Republican to keep her out of office. If it's not close, I will be most likely voting for Jill Stein, as that will still take away from her but stay in line with my beliefs (mostly).
Can you give me the Coles Notes version in bullet form?
I be quite interested, but it is just too much to wade through with this damn brain-ache.
Cheers!
I be quite interested, but it is just too much to wade through with this damn brain-ache.
Cheers!
She's a pretty angry liar: http://www.salon.com/2016/03/31/watch_clinton_goes_off_on_greenpeace_activist_i_am_so_sick_of_you_bringing_up_my_fossil_fuel_money/
https://news.vice.com/article/fossil-fuel-investors-are-pumping-millions-of-dollars-into-hillary-clintons-campaign
More from Vice News in early March:
https://news.vice.com/article/fossil-fuel-investors-are-pumping-millions-of-dollars-into-hillary-clintons-campaign
Last edited:
Without pulling the individual items, basically her NDA was broken multiple times with talking with people from the Clinton Foundation. He usage of a private server, while not illegal, stepped her around FOIA, which is illegal. The fact that her server was not secure violated a few laws. In summary, what she did should open her up to large fines and upwards of 10+ years in prison. It's ugly.
This. It's Watergate level shit for sure.
The fact that she didn't have the email for the ambassador in Benghazi is scary, because they have emails (including proof that a few were deleted) of her talking about the attack as it's occurring, with a Clinton Foundation employee via their AOL account. Totally unsecured and proof that she had deleted, not delivered State business emails, despite the supeona to do such.
in a way its kind of a good thing that this is starting to come to light now before the general election is underway, because it would pretty much guarantee the GOP. still a chance to get a *ahem* proper candidate the dem nomination.
Clearly not if you were informed. Bernie announced a year ago. People have been pointing out these issues long before even on left:
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/10/clinton-tips-hand-favor-transcanadas-massive-pipeline
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron
Also Clinton's ties to Monsanto were well noted 16-17 years ago, I read it back then whilst researching food safety and genetic engineering at Cornell. I posted about that here in 2008: http://ridemonkey.bikemag.com/threads/cloned-meat-and-disease.195356/#post-2798923
Jesus Christ. This is another pure nothingburger. She is as likely to be indicted for killing Vince Foster as she is for this.
Read it before you make your decision.
I can't believe I'm doing this:
That's a pretty one-sided article, one-sided as in many assumptions are made and the issue is far from obvious based on my knowledge of both the computer systems and proof that is required for such things. Some of the descriptions about how gov email works are wrong. I honestly think she did it for convenience and didn't think fully about the implications, but it's more of a mess than it is a good prosecution case. Many assumptions or "facts" are stated, but when fully researched and arranged into to "proof", I have serious doubts whether they would line up like the author claims. Maybe the FBI can sort something out that is enforceable, but there may be a bigger failure of the system too. There may be expectations of being briefed, available and able to receive emails that are just not realistic given the systems they use. That wouldn't surprise me based on my experience and waiting for the government to reach the technology level of 2000, which by the way just takes moar $$$. Many of the document rules and classification rules are impossible to follow. I can tell you I take cyber security courses that completely contradict reality, not in a subjective way, but in an objective logic-fallacy type way.
In all honestly, I hope this can leverage Bernie to the forefront, I think he's a far better candidate with far less baggage, but I also don't think the email issue or Benghazi are really what the opposition wishes they are. I think their strategy is to repeat them over and over enough times so that they can be...
I agree with most of this. The biggest distinction is that I don't think the article comes any where near showing criminal intent which would be necessary.
I like Bernie but he isn't going o win. I'm honestly not convinced that is a bad thing. I do appreciate his pulling Hillary to the left and I think the next President needs to address the concerns he taps into. I'd love to see him as Vice President.
I made a good stab at reading it. It's turgid and makes a lot of assertions and fails to include a clearly stated summary beyond "she's toast".
I decided without deep research that the article's quite likely to be paid for agitprop.
IIRC Mitttens and ¡Jeb!, among others, already set the precedent for private email servers. I totally agree it's a bad idea for security and is designed to make an end run around FOIA but unfortunately there's precedent. It's not like Hillary was being an evil genius here.
... because of the ongoing FBI criminal investigation, not because she's exonerated.
Talked with a buddy who is an atty in Congress and he agrees that a lot of the assertions are off, but the end summary is correct. See the below Washington Post article:
Congressional Attorney Friend said:
Fool me once, shame on you (Bush); fool me twice, shame on me (Obama); fool me thrice, let's not go there (Clinton):
"The Panama Papers illuminate a key aspect of why the system isn't working–because globalization has allowed the capital and assets of the 1 % (be they individuals or corporations) to travel freely, while those of the 99 % cannot. Globalization is supposed to be about the free movement of people, goods, and capital. But in fact, the system is set up to enable that mobility mainly for the rich (or for large corporations). The result is global tax evasion, the offshoring of labor, and an elite that flies 35,000 feet over the problems of nation states and the tax payers within them."
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/04/472985787/heres-what-you-need-to-know-so-far-about-panama-papers
http://www.ibtimes.com/panama-papers-obama-clinton-pushed-trade-deal-amid-warnings-it-would-make-money-2348076
Not foolin: http://usuncut.com/politics/panama-papers-bernie-sanders-white-house/
"The Panama Papers illuminate a key aspect of why the system isn't working–because globalization has allowed the capital and assets of the 1 % (be they individuals or corporations) to travel freely, while those of the 99 % cannot. Globalization is supposed to be about the free movement of people, goods, and capital. But in fact, the system is set up to enable that mobility mainly for the rich (or for large corporations). The result is global tax evasion, the offshoring of labor, and an elite that flies 35,000 feet over the problems of nation states and the tax payers within them."
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/04/472985787/heres-what-you-need-to-know-so-far-about-panama-papers
http://www.ibtimes.com/panama-papers-obama-clinton-pushed-trade-deal-amid-warnings-it-would-make-money-2348076
Not foolin: http://usuncut.com/politics/panama-papers-bernie-sanders-white-house/
Last edited:
where did i say it mattered to my? just something to point out
and will end up dead in a park like vince foster before hillary lets a man cut in line again.....
"Like many of his voters, he sees the Republican Party as a threat, but he sees the Democratic Party as a failure. Sanders thinks the Democratic Party is meant to be the party of the working class but has instead become a party captured by the donor class, and he's not alone in that."
Like a repeal of that will ever happen....