US Election 2016

[Calax]

Bruce, let me pose a serious question to you. It is pretty much settled that Hillary Clinton used a private e-mail server to conduct State Dept. business. Even she admits that. The dispute is if she sent classified information that was later compromised. But put that aside for the moment. Have you wondered WHY she used a private server rather than the government's secure server? Why do that? Why even invite a problem that way? She is not stupid. She knows what server is for what.

 

Have you at least wondered about that? I believe I know the answer but I'd like to hear from you first.

This is from a few pages back, but I thought that this matter was already noted.

 

They specifically used a private email server because they couldn't get authorization to use mobile phones with the one provided by the government (as had been afforded to previous SecState, Rice).  Clinton preferred to use her phone for most correspondence, thus wouldn't have been able to perform the tasks that were required of her as SecState as effectively, without the phones being allowed as a part of their normal process.

 

 

Basically, that thing she's holding in her hand? That's the private email server's reason for existing.

[Guard Dog]

 

Bruce, let me pose a serious question to you. It is pretty much settled that Hillary Clinton used a private e-mail server to conduct State Dept. business. Even she admits that. The dispute is if she sent classified information that was later compromised. But put that aside for the moment. Have you wondered WHY she used a private server rather than the government's secure server? Why do that? Why even invite a problem that way? She is not stupid. She knows what server is for what.

 

Have you at least wondered about that? I believe I know the answer but I'd like to hear from you first.

This is from a few pages back, but I thought that this matter was already noted.

 

They specifically used a private email server because they couldn't get authorization to use mobile phones with the one provided by the government (as had been afforded to previous SecState, Rice).  Clinton preferred to use her phone for most correspondence, thus wouldn't have been able to perform the tasks that were required of her as SecState as effectively, without the phones being allowed as a part of their normal process.

 

 

Basically, that thing she's holding in her hand? That's the private email server's reason for existing.

 

You have some reading to catch up on!

[Calax]

 

 

Bruce, let me pose a serious question to you. It is pretty much settled that Hillary Clinton used a private e-mail server to conduct State Dept. business. Even she admits that. The dispute is if she sent classified information that was later compromised. But put that aside for the moment. Have you wondered WHY she used a private server rather than the government's secure server? Why do that? Why even invite a problem that way? She is not stupid. She knows what server is for what.

 

Have you at least wondered about that? I believe I know the answer but I'd like to hear from you first.

This is from a few pages back, but I thought that this matter was already noted.

 

They specifically used a private email server because they couldn't get authorization to use mobile phones with the one provided by the government (as had been afforded to previous SecState, Rice).  Clinton preferred to use her phone for most correspondence, thus wouldn't have been able to perform the tasks that were required of her as SecState as effectively, without the phones being allowed as a part of their normal process.

 

 

Basically, that thing she's holding in her hand? That's the private email server's reason for existing.

 

You have some reading to catch up on!

 

My point is that she set up the email because of the sercurity apparatus failure to provide for her the same functionalities and equipment that her predecessor had. The State Department wouldn't allow blackberries to access the secure server ANYMORE. 

 

What I'm seeing in this argument is basically people yelling at Joe Biden for having a Man sized safe in his office with redacted contained within, even though his predecessor had it. Because the NSA decided it could be a security breech.

 

And now her political opponents are wanting her to be punished for something she probably didn't even realize was illegal, while begging the DoJ to provide leniency for a child molester. 

 

 

 

Realistically, your question about the CFO/CEO coverup isn't quite the anology I'd use. From the wording I'd guess it was more akin to the CFO doing something that would get the SEC involved (using your analogy here), and the CEO being unaware of it until the SEC showed up asking questions. I mean, by law at my job I can't allow certain items to be left out in the open due to the fact that it's a bunch of credit card info. Technically if a cop shows up, I'm not even allowed to give out a customers information because of privacy issues without a subpoena. If my coworker does that, the CEO isn't going to loose his job over that. The local manager might, and his boss in the extreme, but beyond that it's not going to take down the entire chain of command over that person.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Calax

[Elerond]

 

Kididng right? She is as attractive as ever. btw, Funny people whine about  Trump beings exist yet the first real compliant about a female supporter of his ... is to attack her apprant loss of looks. LMAO

 

 

BTW, I have a ahrd time believing a strong independent woman 9whetehr you agree with her views or not) like Coulter would support  a serious sexist/hater of women. LMAO

 

Then again, we have Clinton supporters wanting her to name a sexist pig (Clinton's  truthism) like Sanders her running mate in an election. Then again, she does laugh at rape victims.

Volo do you think Coulter makes sense?

 

 

Coulter has never made sense, but that isn't because of her looks. imo nobody asked my opinion but you get it any way 

Edited May 7, 2016 by Elerond

[BruceVC]

 

 

Kididng right? She is as attractive as ever. btw, Funny people whine about  Trump beings exist yet the first real compliant about a female supporter of his ... is to attack her apprant loss of looks. LMAO

 

 

BTW, I have a ahrd time believing a strong independent woman 9whetehr you agree with her views or not) like Coulter would support  a serious sexist/hater of women. LMAO

 

Then again, we have Clinton supporters wanting her to name a sexist pig (Clinton's  truthism) like Sanders her running mate in an election. Then again, she does laugh at rape victims.

Volo do you think Coulter makes sense?

 

 

Coulter has never made sense, but that isn't because of her looks. imo nobody asked my opinion but you get it any way 

 

I always value your opinion

 

I dont know why we are debating her looks....once again women get judged on something irrelevant 

 

I said she is irritating and uninformed about what Trump can deliver on ...her looks are not part of the equation ?

[Leferd]

Let's not kid ourselves. Coulter originally came into national prominence precisely because of her looks combined with her inflammatory commentary.

[Guard Dog]

Let's not kid ourselves. Coulter originally came into national prominence precisely because of her looks combined with her inflammatory commentary.

I think it's more of the latter than the former. Michelle Malkin is way better looking and does not have Coulter's profile because she is less inflammatory while still being just as conservative. 

[BruceVC]

Let's not kid ourselves. Coulter originally came into national prominence precisely because of her looks combined with her inflammatory commentary.

 

 

 

Let's not kid ourselves. Coulter originally came into national prominence precisely because of her looks combined with her inflammatory commentary.

I think it's more of the latter than the former. Michelle Malkin is way better looking and does not have Coulter's profile because she is less inflammatory while still being just as conservative. 

 

Okay, she has always irritated me and I haven't noticed her looks 

 

 

Yet I did think Megyn Kelly is hot and intelligent ...am I a hypocrite 

Edited May 8, 2016 by BruceVC

[Guard Dog]

@Calax, I made Hillary the CFO in my example only to differentiate her position from the President. In other words, the error did not originate at the top. 

 

She is definitely guilty of violating the Federal Records Act of 2009. She has admitted as much. This is not a criminal offense so much as a procedural one. The remedy would probably dismissal as SecState. But she was alrady long gone so the remedy is "don't let it happen again" to the State Department. Now the hullabaloo is about her violating (unwittingly) the Espionage Act on 1917 and US Code Title 18 Part I, Chapter 37, sub paragraph 793 about transmitting classified information from an unsecured server. Those would be criminal acts. Espionage thing is a Rush Limbaugh pipe dream. It would take so real mental gymnastics to make that work. The other might have some teeth to it. 

 

For the record I don't think she will or should be indicted but to my thinking her actions and more importantly her effort to cover it up rather than just say "this was an unintentional mistake" means she does not have the character to be President. People will forgive and overlook an honest mistake. But lying and demonizing all the while denying what is obviously true only makes her look worse... if that was possible.

[Calax]

@Calax, I made Hillary the CFO in my example only to differentiate her position from the President. In other words, the error did not originate at the top. 

 

She is definitely guilty of violating the Federal Records Act of 2009. She has admitted as much. This is not a criminal offense so much as a procedural one. The remedy would probably dismissal as SecState. But she was alrady long gone so the remedy is "don't let it happen again" to the State Department. Now the hullabaloo is about her violating (unwittingly) the Espionage Act on 1917 and US Code Title 18 Part I, Chapter 37, sub paragraph 793 about transmitting classified information from an unsecured server. Those would be criminal acts. Espionage thing is a Rush Limbaugh pipe dream. It would take so real mental gymnastics to make that work. The other might have some teeth to it. 

 

For the record I don't think she will or should be indicted but to my thinking her actions and more importantly her effort to cover it up rather than just say "this was an unintentional mistake" means she does not have the character to be President. People will forgive and overlook an honest mistake. But lying and demonizing all the while denying what is obviously true only makes her look worse... if that was possible.

 

 

Right, and you (to a lesser extent than others) are trying to have her prosecuted under a rule set that was devised and kept on the books when Stealing a Horse was a justifiably hangable offense. When women couldn't vote and renting a room at a hotel as a married couple (when you're not) meant you were married.

 

This whole "She's a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad, criminal!" schtick is getting stupid. Yes, she broke the law, technically, but in the same way you or I do when we drive down the freeway, or roll through a stop sign at 2 mph. And yes, That was sensative information that could have been used (we think, maybe) to kill somebody. But then when you roll through a stop sign, that's also putting other people at risk, theoretically. And when you speed you put yourself and others at risk. The only reason people are reacting so significantly to this is because of 25 year smear campaign that's been ramped up recently.

 

Before this, she was being accused of deliberately ignoring Benghazi and "committing Treason!".

 

 

That's why I really don't give two flying ****s about how she's so "Criminal". Because you *******s (not you specifically GD, but others in the thread) have been screaming your heads off about her being criminal for so long, and for such stupid reasons, that it's laughable.

 

Again, I remind you, this is the long term product of a smear campaign run by a group of people who were asking for leniency for their former leader... who raped boys. And they want to have Hillary metaphorically lynched for her "treason" while asking that Dennis Hastert be taken easy on because of his former political position and accomplishments...

Edited May 8, 2016 by Calax

[Guard Dog]

I haven't heard of anyone asking or suggesting Hastert get a pass. I'd lock that b-----d in a cell with a man twice his size that would teach him a new meaning to the word "rape".

 

 

Actually Hastert is another example of the libertarian argument that we need to keep the government small and weak. Look at the human garbage that gets collected there. It's a good idea to keep the amount of power they are able to wield small.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Calax]

I haven't heard of anyone asking or suggesting Hastert get a pass. I'd lock that b-----d in a cell with a man twice his size that would teach him a new meaning to the word "rape".

 

 

Actually Hastert is another example of the libertarian argument that we need to keep the government small and weak. Look at the human garbage that gets collected there. It's a good idea to keep the amount of power they are able to wield small.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ex-congressmen-send-letters-asking-for-leniency-for-hastert/2016/04/22/45642b5e-08f0-11e6-bfed-ef65dff5970d_story.html

[Namutree]

 

I haven't heard of anyone asking or suggesting Hastert get a pass. I'd lock that b-----d in a cell with a man twice his size that would teach him a new meaning to the word "rape".

 

 

Actually Hastert is another example of the libertarian argument that we need to keep the government small and weak. Look at the human garbage that gets collected there. It's a good idea to keep the amount of power they are able to wield small.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ex-congressmen-send-letters-asking-for-leniency-for-hastert/2016/04/22/45642b5e-08f0-11e6-bfed-ef65dff5970d_story.html

 

Just another reason to hate Tom Delay, and a reminder that most people who claim to be, "In touch with God" are just worthless frauds.

[Calax]

 

 

I haven't heard of anyone asking or suggesting Hastert get a pass. I'd lock that b-----d in a cell with a man twice his size that would teach him a new meaning to the word "rape".

 

 

Actually Hastert is another example of the libertarian argument that we need to keep the government small and weak. Look at the human garbage that gets collected there. It's a good idea to keep the amount of power they are able to wield small.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ex-congressmen-send-letters-asking-for-leniency-for-hastert/2016/04/22/45642b5e-08f0-11e6-bfed-ef65dff5970d_story.html

 

Just another reason to hate Tom Delay, and a reminder that most people who claim to be, "In touch with God" are just worthless frauds.

 

And he's also the same person who was saying "Feds are ready to indite!" on Hillary.

[Volourn]

"Volo do you think Coulter makes sense?"
 

On some of things yes on some things no.

 

 

"once again women get judged on something irrelevant"

 

Again, you make it sound like that only happens to women. That's bullcrap. It happens to both men and women or how many times do we need to see some pic making fun of Trump and the other male republican's looks.  Not to mention the constant **** size jokes that target males. LMAO

[Valsuelm]

Let's not kid ourselves. Coulter originally came into national prominence precisely because of her looks combined with her inflammatory commentary.

 

Imagine how inflamed many would be if Trump made that statement. A statement far more sexist than anything he actually has said.

 

 

 

Note: I really don't care. I don't find her attractive, but no doubt in the modern western world how good looking someone is (male and female) plays a part in them getting hired as a TV person more than ever. That said, she is much more than just a TV person (like Megyn Kelly for example). She's an author of many books, and it's those books that get her on TV more than anything else I'd say (at least at this point).

 

In other words, it is not sexist to point out facts, as you did.

 

The vast majority of X that many modern people decry as 'sexist', 'racist', etc are in fact not those things. Rather ,it more often than not is those modern people pointing out just how out of touch with facts and reality they actually are, when they make those false allegations.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Namutree]

 

Let's not kid ourselves. Coulter originally came into national prominence precisely because of her looks combined with her inflammatory commentary.

 

Imagine how inflamed many would be if Trump made that statement. A statement far more sexist than anything he actually has said.

 

 

 

Note: I really don't care. I don't find her attractive, but no doubt in the modern western world how good looking someone is (male and female) plays a part in them getting hired as a TV person more than ever. That said, she is much more than just a TV person (like Megyn Kelly for example). She's an author of many books, and it's those books that get her on TV more than anything else I'd say (at least at this point).

 

In other words, it is not sexist to point out facts, as you did.

 

The vast majority of X that many modern people decry as 'sexist', 'racist', etc are in fact not those things. Rather ,it more often than not is those modern people pointing out just how out of touch with facts and reality they actually are, when they make those false allegations.

 

 

 

I never found her attractive either.

 

Kinda pasty looking and overly pronounced features. A skeleton face if you will.

 

Now, if her face was a bit less pale and rounder she'd be a lot better looking. Example:

 

 

 

 

[BruceVC]

"Volo do you think Coulter makes sense?"

 

On some of things yes on some things no.

 

 

"once again women get judged on something irrelevant"

 

Again, you make it sound like that only happens to women. That's bullcrap. It happens to both men and women or how many times do we need to see some pic making fun of Trump and the other male republican's looks.  Not to mention the constant **** size jokes that target males. LMAO

Actually I have never ever judged Trump on looks ....I dont judge politicians or celebrities on looks. You can prove me wrong but I doubt you will find any post like that from me 

 

I judge them on there actions and opinions ....

 

Also Trump will obviously never say " I'm sexist " and he probably thinks he isn't. The type of sexism Im talking about is not your normal   " women shouldnt be allowed to vote "...its more subtle and is more about his general reactions 

[Raithe]

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

[Volourn]

"Actually I have never ever judged Trump on looks"

 

I NEVER claimed YOU did. But, ti doesn'tt ake much to find  memes and pics making fun of Trump and other males' looks or mocking their **** size. People always go after  the guy's ****. LMAO

 

 

"I dont judge politicians or celebrities on looks."

 

That isn't true. EVERYONE judges people by their looks. Eveyrone makes  assumptions absed on looks. That is proven fact. And, I've seen you say x celebrity is hot or not so, yeah, there you go.. so don't pretend you don't. It is embarassing.   Humans have eyes. We judge everything intially at the very least by looks. It is one of the 5 senses for a reason.

[Hurlshort]

I judge everybody on their eyebrow density.  It is foolproof.

[Guard Dog]

Going a little OT here but I found this too interesting not to post. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?ref=opinion

 

It's an opinion piece about political bias in colleges but it really works everywhere. Basically the take is racial prejudice has been replaced with intellectual prejudice. A lot of folks seem to think it is a far greater sin to think different than it ever was be different. Ideally it would be better if neither were held against anyone but I guess that is unrealistic. It seems it's in our nature to organize ourselves into tribes.

 

Not to pick on Bruce but he made a comment during the earlier discussion about Gun Control that I found very telling. One that I've heard the left wing SJW types say before. When commenting on why so many Americans opposed gun control his words were something to the effect of "they need to have it explained to them better"

 

The arrogance of the left is is such that at times it truly believes it is so "right" that the only way anyone could disagree is if they didn't/couldn't understand the position.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Guard Dog

[BruceVC]

Going a little OT here but I found this too interesting not to post. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?ref=opinion

 

It's an opinion piece about political bias in colleges but it really works everywhere. Basically the take is racial prejudice has been replaced with intellectual prejudice. A lot of folks seem to think it is a far greater sin to think different than to actually be different. Ideally it would be better if neither were held against anyone but I guess that is unrealistic. It seems it's in our nature to organize ourselves into tribes.

 

Not to pick on Bruce but he made a comment during the earlier discussion about Gun Control that I found very telling. One that I've heard the left wing SJW types say before. When commenting on why so many Americans opposed gun control he words were something to the effect of "they need to have it explained to them better"

 

The arrogance of the left is so strong at times it truly believes it is so "right" that the only way anyone could disagree is if they didn't/couldn't understand the position.

GD !!!! That's rude ....I'm never arrogant, I just want to share information 

 

But on a serious notel, lets forget the words " "they need to have it explained to them better" because it probably seems condescending  in fact  lets leave any assumptions  or emotional views about what you think I mean....so lets say you have no opinion on gun control

 

You don't need as many guns generally or need to fight certain legislation that makes owning certain guns illegal . The  world knows this, the UN knows this, American Democrats know this ....it has been proven  in several countries that stricter gun control reduces gun violence. Many of your fellow Americans on this forum think gun control is a good idea?

 

So this is not really a  view of the left but more based on science and real evidence ...it still surprises me someone like yourself who is technically minded, not   unreasonable or erratic like Vals rejects this logic ?

 

Silly question but is your dismissal of gun control not based on some subconscious opinion that it is coming from the left so its wrong?

[Guard Dog]

 

Going a little OT here but I found this too interesting not to post. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?ref=opinion

 

It's an opinion piece about political bias in colleges but it really works everywhere. Basically the take is racial prejudice has been replaced with intellectual prejudice. A lot of folks seem to think it is a far greater sin to think different than to actually be different. Ideally it would be better if neither were held against anyone but I guess that is unrealistic. It seems it's in our nature to organize ourselves into tribes.

 

Not to pick on Bruce but he made a comment during the earlier discussion about Gun Control that I found very telling. One that I've heard the left wing SJW types say before. When commenting on why so many Americans opposed gun control he words were something to the effect of "they need to have it explained to them better"

 

The arrogance of the left is so strong at times it truly believes it is so "right" that the only way anyone could disagree is if they didn't/couldn't understand the position.

 

 

You don't need as many guns generally or need to fight certain legislation that makes owning certain guns illegal . The  world knows this, the UN knows this, American Democrats know this ....it has been proven  in several countries that stricter gun control reduces gun violence. Many of your fellow Americans on this forum think gun control is a good idea?

 

 

Right there Bruce. That is EXACTLY the arrogance I'm talking about. In just one half sentence you are presuming you know better than me what I need.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Going a little OT here but I found this too interesting not to post. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?ref=opinion

 

It's an opinion piece about political bias in colleges but it really works everywhere. Basically the take is racial prejudice has been replaced with intellectual prejudice. A lot of folks seem to think it is a far greater sin to think different than to actually be different. Ideally it would be better if neither were held against anyone but I guess that is unrealistic. It seems it's in our nature to organize ourselves into tribes.

 

Not to pick on Bruce but he made a comment during the earlier discussion about Gun Control that I found very telling. One that I've heard the left wing SJW types say before. When commenting on why so many Americans opposed gun control he words were something to the effect of "they need to have it explained to them better"

 

The arrogance of the left is so strong at times it truly believes it is so "right" that the only way anyone could disagree is if they didn't/couldn't understand the position.

 

 

You don't need as many guns generally or need to fight certain legislation that makes owning certain guns illegal . The  world knows this, the UN knows this, American Democrats know this ....it has been proven  in several countries that stricter gun control reduces gun violence. Many of your fellow Americans on this forum think gun control is a good idea?

 

 

Right there Bruce. That is EXACTLY the arrogance I'm talking about. In just one half sentence you are presuming you know better than me what I need.

 

Well I wouldnt see that part of the overall point in such a negative and direct way...think of it as a way to encourage debate 

 

Also what if someone else like  a Police Chief of London made the same point to you how would you feel?