A quick question for @limeygent, @SDAddick and any other Americans on here; what's the general response and sentiment to the #DNCLeaks scandal out in the US? I'm trying to gauge it via Twitter, but fear that's a bit of an echo-chamber for both ends of the spectrum with very little in between.
I'm currently hearing a lot about the Russian involvement, including some forensic analyses done by info-sec/net-sec bods on-line. The evidence looks fairly strong - but from what I can see the right are claiming "sour grapes - who cares where it came from?" and are really preventing any form of discussion as to whether there was foreign intervention to acquire the documents? Meanwhile, the actual contents don't seem to be very exciting - perhaps unfair advantages for Clinton over Bernie, and some off-colour remarks in emails?
I think all of that is pretty accurate. I've been traveling so haven't had a chance to talk to people I trust on cybersecurity, but it's clear it passed through Russian language computers. Whether it's part of some grand master tactical plan, or just throwing shit against a wall and seeing what sticks, who knows. I suspect the timing was intentional, but beyond that who knows. If Putin wants to fuck with our election, he can just say shit. I know he's ex-KGB and loves doing things properly dark arts-like, but he really doesn't need to go through all that work.
Regarding the contents of the emails, they should surprise no one. There are some pretty petty things in there, but shock surprise people who work in politics are petty. The now former DNC chair Wasserman-Schultz is clearly pro-Hillary. The comment about "Bernie talks about being Jewish but I read he's an Atheist" is a pretty shitty remark. You can't be an Atheist and run for major office in America, but you can be both Jewish and Atheist (which I identify as, so perhaps this one hits a bit close to home). Bernie supporters will have every right to point and say "see, see we're not crazy" but to be honest, some of the dodgy voting practices in Arizona and Nevada are far worse. It's all too late now anyway and for many will be water under the bridge.
It will be interesting to see if Sanders' form of "Socialism" (read Keynesianism) can be rekindled in mid-term elections in two years and presidential elections in four years. Basically, is this a cult of a personality, or is this a genuine revival of a leftist movement in America? I hope it's the latter. I think this country would be genuinely better of with a consistently Keynesian/Democratic Socialist party, just as we would be better off with a consistently Libertarian party. That said, given all the crying over spilled milk that's gone on from Bernie supporters, I'm not convinced.
It is worth pointing out that this is one of the many reasons why I am not a Democrat. That political party in particular is very loyal to its own. All are to some degree, but Hillary has wanted this for at least 25 years, and it was all but handed to her on a platter. From the party perspective, she and Bill have raised a ridiculous amount of money and have carried a very high profile for the party for the last 25 years, and this is them paying her back. And that makes sense if you are simply an organization of people who are politicians. But something that I think may well be challenged in the next few years is that for the last 2-3 decades, arguably more, the Democrats have been made up largely of personalities, not ideologies, and Hillary is an excellent representation of that.
You seem to have fully embraced the cartoon image of Hillary Clinton that has been carefully and relentlessly manufactured by the Republicans and their right wing media friends over the last 25 years. If you read about the many well documented cases of her activism from her earliest days in college and the real changes she has effected on the lives of many thousands of real people throughout her career in public service you cannot possibly dismiss her as a personality politician.
As from next week it becomes the race to the whitehouse rather than the race for nominations. At some stage Trump is going to have to stop chest thumping and actually come out with some policies. He'll get a sizeable minority on rhetoric alone, but probably not enough to win.
I think the face to face presidential debates will be key. If Trump can come across fairly level headed and not lose his temper he could pick up a lot of votes.
That, I'm sure, is something Clinton will focus on, rile him up a bit and he's liable to become shouty and sexist (still not sure how he got away with his repeated comments and tweets about the female Fox news presenter).
But Trump is SO thin skinned, and he has such an inflated ego, that attacking that with humor, with little jibes, must be a way to go at him in a debate.
Surely that's the worst way to attack someone like Trump, that will just add fuel to the us v the system mentality.
Surely the way to defeat him, is like an adult, with facts, highlighting how ridiculous 90%+ of his policies are.
A quick question for @limeygent, @SDAddick and any other Americans on here; what's the general response and sentiment to the #DNCLeaks scandal out in the US? I'm trying to gauge it via Twitter, but fear that's a bit of an echo-chamber for both ends of the spectrum with very little in between.
I'm currently hearing a lot about the Russian involvement, including some forensic analyses done by info-sec/net-sec bods on-line. The evidence looks fairly strong - but from what I can see the right are claiming "sour grapes - who cares where it came from?" and are really preventing any form of discussion as to whether there was foreign intervention to acquire the documents? Meanwhile, the actual contents don't seem to be very exciting - perhaps unfair advantages for Clinton over Bernie, and some off-colour remarks in emails?
I think all of that is pretty accurate. I've been traveling so haven't had a chance to talk to people I trust on cybersecurity, but it's clear it passed through Russian language computers. Whether it's part of some grand master tactical plan, or just throwing shit against a wall and seeing what sticks, who knows. I suspect the timing was intentional, but beyond that who knows. If Putin wants to fuck with our election, he can just say shit. I know he's ex-KGB and loves doing things properly dark arts-like, but he really doesn't need to go through all that work.
Regarding the contents of the emails, they should surprise no one. There are some pretty petty things in there, but shock surprise people who work in politics are petty. The now former DNC chair Wasserman-Schultz is clearly pro-Hillary. The comment about "Bernie talks about being Jewish but I read he's an Atheist" is a pretty shitty remark. You can't be an Atheist and run for major office in America, but you can be both Jewish and Atheist (which I identify as, so perhaps this one hits a bit close to home). Bernie supporters will have every right to point and say "see, see we're not crazy" but to be honest, some of the dodgy voting practices in Arizona and Nevada are far worse. It's all too late now anyway and for many will be water under the bridge.
It will be interesting to see if Sanders' form of "Socialism" (read Keynesianism) can be rekindled in mid-term elections in two years and presidential elections in four years. Basically, is this a cult of a personality, or is this a genuine revival of a leftist movement in America? I hope it's the latter. I think this country would be genuinely better of with a consistently Keynesian/Democratic Socialist party, just as we would be better off with a consistently Libertarian party. That said, given all the crying over spilled milk that's gone on from Bernie supporters, I'm not convinced.
It is worth pointing out that this is one of the many reasons why I am not a Democrat. That political party in particular is very loyal to its own. All are to some degree, but Hillary has wanted this for at least 25 years, and it was all but handed to her on a platter. From the party perspective, she and Bill have raised a ridiculous amount of money and have carried a very high profile for the party for the last 25 years, and this is them paying her back. And that makes sense if you are simply an organization of people who are politicians. But something that I think may well be challenged in the next few years is that for the last 2-3 decades, arguably more, the Democrats have been made up largely of personalities, not ideologies, and Hillary is an excellent representation of that.
You seem to have fully embraced the cartoon image of Hillary Clinton that has been carefully and relentlessly manufactured by the Republicans and their right wing media friends over the last 25 years. If you read about the many well documented cases of her activism from her earliest days in college and the real changes she has effected on the lives of many thousands of real people throughout her career in public service you cannot possibly dismiss her as a personality politician.
Here's the thing, I don't care what she did in the '60s or '70s. I have TREMENDOUS respect for her going before congress in the early '90s to promote Universal Healthcare and I know that she was slaughtered for it. I have a lot of respect for her work as a 2nd wave feminist. But I played this game with John Kerry. She's not running as who she was in the '60s or '70s, or even the early '90s, she's running as someone who is center left to center right on many things. That "who she was as an activist" shit is a way of making baby boomers nostalgic for an era when they were happier...because they were younger. Nostalgia is the opiate of the aged.
In the interim, she's become closely aligned with large banks, she voted for the illegal war in Iraq, to continue the Patriot act, she's spoken out against LGTBQ equal rights, she defends her husband's administration which repealed the Glass-Stiegel act, expanded prisons through support of mandatory sentencing, and cut off the poorest from welfare, basically casting them adrift. I attack her from the left.
I will be incredibly proud that we have a woman as a president, but I will be far less proud of who it is.
*Sorry, you may have gotten a bit of emotion on this that was lingering below the surface from past bad experiences (see Kerry, John). While I respect what she has done, she must be judged as the politician she has become.
A quick question for @limeygent, @SDAddick and any other Americans on here; what's the general response and sentiment to the #DNCLeaks scandal out in the US? I'm trying to gauge it via Twitter, but fear that's a bit of an echo-chamber for both ends of the spectrum with very little in between.
I'm currently hearing a lot about the Russian involvement, including some forensic analyses done by info-sec/net-sec bods on-line. The evidence looks fairly strong - but from what I can see the right are claiming "sour grapes - who cares where it came from?" and are really preventing any form of discussion as to whether there was foreign intervention to acquire the documents? Meanwhile, the actual contents don't seem to be very exciting - perhaps unfair advantages for Clinton over Bernie, and some off-colour remarks in emails?
I think all of that is pretty accurate. I've been traveling so haven't had a chance to talk to people I trust on cybersecurity, but it's clear it passed through Russian language computers. Whether it's part of some grand master tactical plan, or just throwing shit against a wall and seeing what sticks, who knows. I suspect the timing was intentional, but beyond that who knows. If Putin wants to fuck with our election, he can just say shit. I know he's ex-KGB and loves doing things properly dark arts-like, but he really doesn't need to go through all that work.
Regarding the contents of the emails, they should surprise no one. There are some pretty petty things in there, but shock surprise people who work in politics are petty. The now former DNC chair Wasserman-Schultz is clearly pro-Hillary. The comment about "Bernie talks about being Jewish but I read he's an Atheist" is a pretty shitty remark. You can't be an Atheist and run for major office in America, but you can be both Jewish and Atheist (which I identify as, so perhaps this one hits a bit close to home). Bernie supporters will have every right to point and say "see, see we're not crazy" but to be honest, some of the dodgy voting practices in Arizona and Nevada are far worse. It's all too late now anyway and for many will be water under the bridge.
It will be interesting to see if Sanders' form of "Socialism" (read Keynesianism) can be rekindled in mid-term elections in two years and presidential elections in four years. Basically, is this a cult of a personality, or is this a genuine revival of a leftist movement in America? I hope it's the latter. I think this country would be genuinely better of with a consistently Keynesian/Democratic Socialist party, just as we would be better off with a consistently Libertarian party. That said, given all the crying over spilled milk that's gone on from Bernie supporters, I'm not convinced.
It is worth pointing out that this is one of the many reasons why I am not a Democrat. That political party in particular is very loyal to its own. All are to some degree, but Hillary has wanted this for at least 25 years, and it was all but handed to her on a platter. From the party perspective, she and Bill have raised a ridiculous amount of money and have carried a very high profile for the party for the last 25 years, and this is them paying her back. And that makes sense if you are simply an organization of people who are politicians. But something that I think may well be challenged in the next few years is that for the last 2-3 decades, arguably more, the Democrats have been made up largely of personalities, not ideologies, and Hillary is an excellent representation of that.
You seem to have fully embraced the cartoon image of Hillary Clinton that has been carefully and relentlessly manufactured by the Republicans and their right wing media friends over the last 25 years. If you read about the many well documented cases of her activism from her earliest days in college and the real changes she has effected on the lives of many thousands of real people throughout her career in public service you cannot possibly dismiss her as a personality politician.
Here's the thing, I don't care what she did in the '60s or '70s. I have TREMENDOUS respect for her going before congress in the early '90s to promote Universal Healthcare and I know that she was slaughtered for it. I have a lot of respect for her work as a 2nd wave feminist. But I played this game with John Kerry. She's not running as who she was in the '60s or '70s, or even the early '90s, she's running as someone who is center left to center right on many things. That "who she was as an activist" shit is a way of making baby boomers nostalgic for an era when they were happier...because they were younger. Nostalgia is the opiate of the masses.
In the interim, she's become closely aligned with large banks, she voted for the illegal war in Iraq, to continue the Patriot act, she's spoken out against LGTBQ equal rights, she defends her husband's administration which repealed the Glass-Stiegel act, expanded prisons through support of mandatory sentencing, and cut off the poorest from welfare, basically casting them adrift. I attack her from the left.
I will be incredibly proud that we have a woman as a president, but I will be far less proud of who it is.
I don't see how you can dismiss what she did in the 60s and 70s. She actually worked to seek out, highlight and correct injustices. She did not simply talk about it or write about it like most of us on this forum. She went out and actually did things to make disadvantaged peoples' lives better. She did not care where her actions could be located on the childish, and completely irrelevant in today's world, Left - Right spectrum or what equally irrelevant and outdated slogans and labels could be applied to those actions. These empty and meaningless labels and slogans are the opiate of today's Sanders and Corbyn supporters who think the world is the same one their baby boomer parents protested against in the 60s.
She is not closely aligned with the big banks. That is another manufactured falsehood.
Many people supported the Iraq war. I did. With hindsight it was wrong.
Like many people 20 odd years ago she was not fully supportive of LGTBQ rights. The world has moved on and so has she. Nobody could make the case that she does not genuinely support these rights today.
She supported the USA PATRIOT Act. This is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. Quite frankly, the way Islamic terrorism is spreading across Europe and the USA I don't see how anyone can argue against providing the people whose job it is to protect us with all the tools necessary to do so and I am not interested in Liberals protesting about their civil liberties being affected by providing those tools.
Again with hindsight you could claim the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act was wrong. But the argument that ithe repeal caused the 2008 crash has not been proven.
The criminal act and mandatory sentencing introduced by her husband that you refer to was voted for by Bernie Sanders in 1994. She has defended it in the past but she now says many aspects did not work and were wrong.
Here's a Facebook post by a sixty something Middle-American woman I know, who I've never heard say "boo" before. I hear this kind of sentiment all over the place, and with good reason. "It is a tragic and depressing day in America when a pathological liar, criminal, murdering slime ball is a candidate for President. God help us if this scum and her slimeball sex addict husband get in the White House to steal more national treasures Sanders ought to be ashamed of himself for endorsing this witch."
Here's a Facebook post by a sixty something Middle-American woman I know, who I've never heard say "boo" before. I hear this kind of sentiment all over the place, and with good reason. "It is a tragic and depressing day in America when a pathological liar, criminal, murdering slime ball is a candidate for President. God help us if this scum and her slimeball sex addict husband get in the White House to steal more national treasures Sanders ought to be ashamed of himself for endorsing this witch."
What lie? What crime? What murder?
Despite 25 years of trying, and spending many millions of dollars, including Tax payer's dollars, every single attempt by Republican right wing groups to try and convict her of any crime has been proved to be completely baseless.
The woman you quote sounds like a Fox viewer. I wonder what she thinks of the slimeball sexist behaviour of Roger Ailes, the disgraced founder and head of Fox News?
A woman has recently gone on record saying she was sexually attacked by Trump in his office in the 90s.
I think Trump and Fox News have got to be a bit circumspect now about attacking Clinton on the behaviour of her husband when he was in office.
Here's a Facebook post by a sixty something Middle-American woman I know, who I've never heard say "boo" before. I hear this kind of sentiment all over the place, and with good reason. "It is a tragic and depressing day in America when a pathological liar, criminal, murdering slime ball is a candidate for President. God help us if this scum and her slimeball sex addict husband get in the White House to steal more national treasures Sanders ought to be ashamed of himself for endorsing this witch."
This really is David Icke territory, isn't it?
Big Bill is a pussy hound, no doubt about that, but murder? Yeah, righto.
Stealing national treasures? How much American blood and treasure did the alcoholic, coke snorting Smirking Chimp blow in Iraq again?
Here's a Facebook post by a sixty something Middle-American woman I know, who I've never heard say "boo" before. I hear this kind of sentiment all over the place, and with good reason. "It is a tragic and depressing day in America when a pathological liar, criminal, murdering slime ball is a candidate for President. God help us if this scum and her slimeball sex addict husband get in the White House to steal more national treasures Sanders ought to be ashamed of himself for endorsing this witch."
This really is David Icke territory, isn't it?
Big Bill is a pussy hound, no doubt about that, but murder? Yeah, righto.
Stealing national treasures? How much American blood and treasure did the alcoholic, coke snorting Smirking Chimp blow in Iraq again?
Limeygent, did you challenge this alleged 'poster'? I note you have actually quoted the person so no doubt you will be happy to share with us your response to her, challenging such nonsense. Murder? That one seems to have escaped me (and EVERY commentator including the barking madmen from Fox.) I hope you forgive me for saying that your post quoting an unknown person is one I have come across frequently in court. It is a device for hiding one's own views behind an unknown (and in most instances non-existent) person. I'm sure you are not in that category. As for Trump. 4 times bankrupt (how many poor people lost their jobs? Trump doesn't care, claiming it was good business practice.) Defrauded poor people who believed his lies over Trump 'University'). Supporter of the Iraq war (changed sides when he saw it was going wrong.) Advocate of torture (regardless of efficacy) and murder of the families of alleged terrorists and (shades of Boris Johnson) beating up opponents. And countless other charges too many to set out here. Is he your President of choice? I'm no lover of Hillary Clinton but jeez, Trump????
Limeygent, did you challenge this alleged 'poster'? I note you have actually quoted the person so no doubt you will be happy to share with us your response to her, challenging such nonsense. Murder? That one seems to have escaped me (and EVERY commentator including the barking madmen from Fox.) I hope you forgive me for saying that your post quoting an unknown person is one I have come across frequently in court. It is a device for hiding one's own views behind an unknown (and in most instances non-existent) person. I'm sure you are not in that category. As for Trump. 4 times bankrupt (how many poor people lost their jobs? Trump doesn't care, claiming it was good business practice.) Defrauded poor people who believed his lies over Trump 'University'). Supporter of the Iraq war (changed sides when he saw it was going wrong.) Advocate of torture (regardless of efficacy) and murder of the families of alleged terrorists and (shades of Boris Johnson) beating up opponents. And countless other charges too many to set out here. Is he your President of choice? I'm no lover of Hillary Clinton but jeez, Trump????
I've heard it argued that his multiple bankruptcy experience will come in useful. The jist is that the next president is going to have to steer the country through the biggest default in history and who better to do so than the Teflon Hairpiece. I'm not sure if I take the theory seriously but it certainly gave me pause for thought.
I thought that it was interesting of Limeygent to show the sheer naked hate towards Clinton... the fact that she can cause such visceral emotions in the same way that Trump can
As I've said before, a lot of people will be holding their noses when they vote, on both sides of the aisle, and had either party nominated a less controversial candidate it would be no contest. The person I quoted is real, and none of my dealings with her have ever suggested that she had particularly strong political leanings. The FBI should have indicted Hillary, as they would have any of the rest of us. There should be no difficulty researching why. I'm always surprised by the anger expressed on this forum when anybody suggests a political point of view other than that of the "left of centers", I have taken to avoiding putting myself in the middle of the discussions as much as I can, as there seems to be far fewer of us who are "right of center", and none of us are as vehement when expressing our views. It's often "just not worth it". I don't know why there can't be discussion, rather than angry "put-downs." We are, after all, of the same community, and have our football club's woes in common.
I thought that it was interesting of Limeygent to show the sheer naked hate towards Clinton... the fact that she can cause such visceral emotions in the same way that Trump can
As I've said before, a lot of people will be holding their noses when they vote, on both sides of the aisle, and had either party nominated a less controversial candidate it would be no contest. The person I quoted is real, and none of my dealings with her have ever suggested that she had particularly strong political leanings. The FBI should have indicted Hillary, as they would have any of the rest of us. There should be no difficulty researching why. I'm always surprised by the anger expressed on this forum when anybody suggests a political point of view other than that of the "left of centers", I have taken to avoiding putting myself in the middle of the discussions as much as I can, as there seems to be far fewer of us who are "right of center", and none of us are as vehement when expressing our views. It's often "just not worth it". I don't know why there can't be discussion, rather than angry "put-downs." We are, after all, of the same community, and have our football club's woes in common.
What's the crime for which Hillary should have been indicted? And why wasn't she?
Limeygent, did you challenge this alleged 'poster'? I note you have actually quoted the person so no doubt you will be happy to share with us your response to her, challenging such nonsense. Murder? That one seems to have escaped me (and EVERY commentator including the barking madmen from Fox.) I hope you forgive me for saying that your post quoting an unknown person is one I have come across frequently in court. It is a device for hiding one's own views behind an unknown (and in most instances non-existent) person. I'm sure you are not in that category. As for Trump. 4 times bankrupt (how many poor people lost their jobs? Trump doesn't care, claiming it was good business practice.) Defrauded poor people who believed his lies over Trump 'University'). Supporter of the Iraq war (changed sides when he saw it was going wrong.) Advocate of torture (regardless of efficacy) and murder of the families of alleged terrorists and (shades of Boris Johnson) beating up opponents. And countless other charges too many to set out here. Is he your President of choice? I'm no lover of Hillary Clinton but jeez, Trump????
My response to her was "Tell us how you really feel."
As I've said before, a lot of people will be holding their noses when they vote, on both sides of the aisle, and had either party nominated a less controversial candidate it would be no contest. The person I quoted is real, and none of my dealings with her have ever suggested that she had particularly strong political leanings. The FBI should have indicted Hillary, as they would have any of the rest of us. There should be no difficulty researching why. I'm always surprised by the anger expressed on this forum when anybody suggests a political point of view other than that of the "left of centers", I have taken to avoiding putting myself in the middle of the discussions as much as I can, as there seems to be far fewer of us who are "right of center", and none of us are as vehement when expressing our views. It's often "just not worth it". I don't know why there can't be discussion, rather than angry "put-downs." We are, after all, of the same community, and have our football club's woes in common.
What's the crime for which Hillary should have been indicted? And why wasn't she?
The crime was allowing her subordinates, who didn't have the proper level of security clearance, to go through her emails, some of which were "top-secret". Roughly equivalent to breaching the O.S.A. She wasn'y indicted because the Attorney General is a Democrat, and likely to be retained if Clinton is elected President. Bill Clinton met the Attorney General a couple of days before, on an airport runway, "to discuss their grandchildren":. http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/07/watch-rep-trey-gowdy-rip-apart-fbi-director-james-comey-about-hillary-clinton/
As I've said before, a lot of people will be holding their noses when they vote, on both sides of the aisle, and had either party nominated a less controversial candidate it would be no contest. The person I quoted is real, and none of my dealings with her have ever suggested that she had particularly strong political leanings. The FBI should have indicted Hillary, as they would have any of the rest of us. There should be no difficulty researching why. I'm always surprised by the anger expressed on this forum when anybody suggests a political point of view other than that of the "left of centers", I have taken to avoiding putting myself in the middle of the discussions as much as I can, as there seems to be far fewer of us who are "right of center", and none of us are as vehement when expressing our views. It's often "just not worth it". I don't know why there can't be discussion, rather than angry "put-downs." We are, after all, of the same community, and have our football club's woes in common.
What's the crime for which Hillary should have been indicted? And why wasn't she?
The crime was allowing her subordinates, who didn't have the proper level of security clearance, to go through her emails, some of which were "top-secret". Roughly equivalent to breaching the O.S.A. She wasn'y indicted because the Attorney General is a Democrat, and likely to be retained if Clinton is elected President. Bill Clinton met the Attorney General a couple of days before, on an airport runway, "to discuss their grandchildren":. http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/07/watch-rep-trey-gowdy-rip-apart-fbi-director-james-comey-about-hillary-clinton/
Apart from "because I'm a Democrat", were there any other reasons the Attorney General decided against indicting her?
As I've said before, a lot of people will be holding their noses when they vote, on both sides of the aisle, and had either party nominated a less controversial candidate it would be no contest. The person I quoted is real, and none of my dealings with her have ever suggested that she had particularly strong political leanings. The FBI should have indicted Hillary, as they would have any of the rest of us. There should be no difficulty researching why. I'm always surprised by the anger expressed on this forum when anybody suggests a political point of view other than that of the "left of centers", I have taken to avoiding putting myself in the middle of the discussions as much as I can, as there seems to be far fewer of us who are "right of center", and none of us are as vehement when expressing our views. It's often "just not worth it". I don't know why there can't be discussion, rather than angry "put-downs." We are, after all, of the same community, and have our football club's woes in common.
What's the crime for which Hillary should have been indicted? And why wasn't she?
The crime was allowing her subordinates, who didn't have the proper level of security clearance, to go through her emails, some of which were "top-secret". Roughly equivalent to breaching the O.S.A. She wasn'y indicted because the Attorney General is a Democrat, and likely to be retained if Clinton is elected President. Bill Clinton met the Attorney General a couple of days before, on an airport runway, "to discuss their grandchildren":. http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/07/watch-rep-trey-gowdy-rip-apart-fbi-director-james-comey-about-hillary-clinton/
Apart from "because I'm a Democrat", were there any other reasons the Attorney General decided against indicting her?
As I've said before, a lot of people will be holding their noses when they vote, on both sides of the aisle, and had either party nominated a less controversial candidate it would be no contest. The person I quoted is real, and none of my dealings with her have ever suggested that she had particularly strong political leanings. The FBI should have indicted Hillary, as they would have any of the rest of us. There should be no difficulty researching why. I'm always surprised by the anger expressed on this forum when anybody suggests a political point of view other than that of the "left of centers", I have taken to avoiding putting myself in the middle of the discussions as much as I can, as there seems to be far fewer of us who are "right of center", and none of us are as vehement when expressing our views. It's often "just not worth it". I don't know why there can't be discussion, rather than angry "put-downs." We are, after all, of the same community, and have our football club's woes in common.
What's the crime for which Hillary should have been indicted? And why wasn't she?
The crime was allowing her subordinates, who didn't have the proper level of security clearance, to go through her emails, some of which were "top-secret". Roughly equivalent to breaching the O.S.A. She wasn'y indicted because the Attorney General is a Democrat, and likely to be retained if Clinton is elected President. Bill Clinton met the Attorney General a couple of days before, on an airport runway, "to discuss their grandchildren":. http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/07/watch-rep-trey-gowdy-rip-apart-fbi-director-james-comey-about-hillary-clinton/
Wrong!
She wasn't indicted because the head of the FBI after many months of investigations by hundreds of FBI agents could not make a case against her that stood any chance of being successful. The Attorney General had already recused herself from making the decision and committed to following whatever the FBI recommended.
As I've said before, a lot of people will be holding their noses when they vote, on both sides of the aisle, and had either party nominated a less controversial candidate it would be no contest. The person I quoted is real, and none of my dealings with her have ever suggested that she had particularly strong political leanings. The FBI should have indicted Hillary, as they would have any of the rest of us. There should be no difficulty researching why. I'm always surprised by the anger expressed on this forum when anybody suggests a political point of view other than that of the "left of centers", I have taken to avoiding putting myself in the middle of the discussions as much as I can, as there seems to be far fewer of us who are "right of center", and none of us are as vehement when expressing our views. It's often "just not worth it". I don't know why there can't be discussion, rather than angry "put-downs." We are, after all, of the same community, and have our football club's woes in common.
What's the crime for which Hillary should have been indicted? And why wasn't she?
The crime was allowing her subordinates, who didn't have the proper level of security clearance, to go through her emails, some of which were "top-secret". Roughly equivalent to breaching the O.S.A. She wasn'y indicted because the Attorney General is a Democrat, and likely to be retained if Clinton is elected President. Bill Clinton met the Attorney General a couple of days before, on an airport runway, "to discuss their grandchildren":. http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/07/watch-rep-trey-gowdy-rip-apart-fbi-director-james-comey-about-hillary-clinton/
Wrong!
She wasn't indicted because the head of the FBI after many months of investigations by hundreds of FBI agents could not make a case against her that stood any chance of being successful. The Attorney General had already recused herself from making the decision and committed to following whatever the FBI recommended.
As I've said before, a lot of people will be holding their noses when they vote, on both sides of the aisle, and had either party nominated a less controversial candidate it would be no contest. The person I quoted is real, and none of my dealings with her have ever suggested that she had particularly strong political leanings. The FBI should have indicted Hillary, as they would have any of the rest of us. There should be no difficulty researching why. I'm always surprised by the anger expressed on this forum when anybody suggests a political point of view other than that of the "left of centers", I have taken to avoiding putting myself in the middle of the discussions as much as I can, as there seems to be far fewer of us who are "right of center", and none of us are as vehement when expressing our views. It's often "just not worth it". I don't know why there can't be discussion, rather than angry "put-downs." We are, after all, of the same community, and have our football club's woes in common.
What's the crime for which Hillary should have been indicted? And why wasn't she?
The crime was allowing her subordinates, who didn't have the proper level of security clearance, to go through her emails, some of which were "top-secret". Roughly equivalent to breaching the O.S.A. She wasn'y indicted because the Attorney General is a Democrat, and likely to be retained if Clinton is elected President. Bill Clinton met the Attorney General a couple of days before, on an airport runway, "to discuss their grandchildren":. http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/07/watch-rep-trey-gowdy-rip-apart-fbi-director-james-comey-about-hillary-clinton/
Wrong!
She wasn't indicted because the head of the FBI after many months of investigations by hundreds of FBI agents could not make a case against her that stood any chance of being successful. The Attorney General had already recused herself from making the decision and committed to following whatever the FBI recommended.
I'm waiting for Limeygent's 'friend' (and indeed him also) to express outrage at a Presidential candidate openly encouraging Russia to spy on his political opponents and provide the emails to the media for financial reward. As Limeygent would say: "Incredible."
Comments
Trumpton.
In the interim, she's become closely aligned with large banks, she voted for the illegal war in Iraq, to continue the Patriot act, she's spoken out against LGTBQ equal rights, she defends her husband's administration which repealed the Glass-Stiegel act, expanded prisons through support of mandatory sentencing, and cut off the poorest from welfare, basically casting them adrift. I attack her from the left.
I will be incredibly proud that we have a woman as a president, but I will be far less proud of who it is.
*Sorry, you may have gotten a bit of emotion on this that was lingering below the surface from past bad experiences (see Kerry, John). While I respect what she has done, she must be judged as the politician she has become.
She is not closely aligned with the big banks. That is another manufactured falsehood.
Many people supported the Iraq war. I did. With hindsight it was wrong.
Like many people 20 odd years ago she was not fully supportive of LGTBQ rights. The world has moved on and so has she. Nobody could make the case that she does not genuinely support these rights today.
She supported the USA PATRIOT Act. This is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. Quite frankly, the way Islamic terrorism is spreading across Europe and the USA I don't see how anyone can argue against providing the people whose job it is to protect us with all the tools necessary to do so and I am not interested in Liberals protesting about their civil liberties being affected by providing those tools.
Again with hindsight you could claim the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act was wrong. But the argument that ithe repeal caused the 2008 crash has not been proven.
The criminal act and mandatory sentencing introduced by her husband that you refer to was voted for by Bernie Sanders in 1994. She has defended it in the past but she now says many aspects did not work and were wrong.
"It is a tragic and depressing day in America when a pathological liar, criminal, murdering slime ball is a candidate for President. God help us if this scum and her slimeball sex addict husband get in the White House to steal more national treasures
Sanders ought to be ashamed of himself for endorsing this witch."
What crime?
What murder?
Despite 25 years of trying, and spending many millions of dollars, including Tax payer's dollars, every single attempt by Republican right wing groups to try and convict her of any crime has been proved to be completely baseless.
The woman you quote sounds like a Fox viewer. I wonder what she thinks of the slimeball sexist behaviour of Roger Ailes, the disgraced founder and head of Fox News?
A woman has recently gone on record saying she was sexually attacked by Trump in his office in the 90s.
I think Trump and Fox News have got to be a bit circumspect now about attacking Clinton on the behaviour of her husband when he was in office.
Big Bill is a pussy hound, no doubt about that, but murder? Yeah, righto.
Stealing national treasures? How much American blood and treasure did the alcoholic, coke snorting Smirking Chimp blow in Iraq again?
I hope you forgive me for saying that your post quoting an unknown person is one I have come across frequently in court. It is a device for hiding one's own views behind an unknown (and in most instances non-existent) person. I'm sure you are not in that category.
As for Trump. 4 times bankrupt (how many poor people lost their jobs? Trump doesn't care, claiming it was good business practice.) Defrauded poor people who believed his lies over Trump 'University'). Supporter of the Iraq war (changed sides when he saw it was going wrong.) Advocate of torture (regardless of efficacy) and murder of the families of alleged terrorists and (shades of Boris Johnson) beating up opponents. And countless other charges too many to set out here. Is he your President of choice?
I'm no lover of Hillary Clinton but jeez, Trump????
The FBI should have indicted Hillary, as they would have any of the rest of us. There should be no difficulty researching why.
I'm always surprised by the anger expressed on this forum when anybody suggests a political point of view other than that of the "left of centers", I have taken to avoiding putting myself in the middle of the discussions as much as I can, as there seems to be far fewer of us who are "right of center", and none of us are as vehement when expressing our views. It's often "just not worth it". I don't know why there can't be discussion, rather than angry "put-downs." We are, after all, of the same community, and have our football club's woes in common.
She wasn'y indicted because the Attorney General is a Democrat, and likely to be retained if Clinton is elected President. Bill Clinton met the Attorney General a couple of days before, on an airport runway, "to discuss their grandchildren":.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/07/watch-rep-trey-gowdy-rip-apart-fbi-director-james-comey-about-hillary-clinton/
She wasn't indicted because the head of the FBI after many months of investigations by hundreds of FBI agents could not make a case against her that stood any chance of being successful. The Attorney General had already recused herself from making the decision and committed to following whatever the FBI recommended.