US Election 2016, part II

[Meshugger]

No, but it's rather mind-boggling to watch this all unfold.

 

Trump could not make it any more obvious he's completely in over his head and by no means qualified to be president, whereas Hillary may as well be openly taunting anyone that opposes her while wearing god damned corporate logos instead of American flags.

 

What do you mean? How?

Edited June 9, 2016 by Meshugger

[Longknife]

 

No, but it's rather mind-boggling to watch this all unfold.

 

Trump could not make it any more obvious he's completely in over his head and by no means qualified to be president, whereas Hillary may as well be openly taunting anyone that opposes her while wearing god damned corporate logos instead of American flags.

 

What do you mean? How?

 

 

He rarely comments on policies, and even when he does, he's typically extremely vague in a manner that suggests he knows next to nothing about finer details of the subject matter at hand. Hell, even ideas as well known as "making Mexico pay for it" are absolutely absurd and showcase his ignorance of what he can and cannot do. In general though, the issue is that he makes rather bold, empty statements with no methodology explained ("“I will...quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS, will rebuild our military and make it so strong no one -- and I mean, no one -- will mess with us" or “I would end Obamacare and replace it with something terrific, for far less money for the country and for the people,”) and despite a number of Trump supporters telling me "his policies are spelled out in great detail on his website/if you look," apparently I'm blind because I've failed to locate this great detail.

 

He's also blissfully ignorant (or apathetic) to the effect his manner of speech has on crowds of people. The guy is a walking race riot waiting to happen, whether he intends that to be the case or not. I don't wish to argue if you can hold him personally responsible or not, because frankly I don't care. I don't want an authority figure that seems blissfully unaware to just how many idiots will start beating the **** out of each other if you handle your speeches in a certain style, because regardless of who is at fault or who is to blame, that's a serious problem. I have a swearing habit, and if I were to give a speech to the UN about global climate change, you better believe I have enough common sense to put a cap on it and make my case rather than to swear like a sailor while making sound arguments and then state "you can't blame me for the UN being too shortsighted to look past my constant swearing." No, you're supposed to be a leader; be concious of your speech habits and general tone and the effect it can have on people.

 

Overall most of his campaign has been spent pointed at other people telling them how much they suck, but where he fails is that his attacks don't sound akin to "Hillary wants to do A,B and C and that's stupid. If I were president we'd do X, Y, and Z instead because Reasons 1, 2 and 3," but rather it's "Hillary is a pinhead." He's done little to make a case for his own campaign and has spent the bulk of his time on TV just ranting about why other people's campaigns are flawed. That may be so, but at some point you have to state why yours is better.

[HoonDing]

[Meshugger]

 

 

No, but it's rather mind-boggling to watch this all unfold.

 

Trump could not make it any more obvious he's completely in over his head and by no means qualified to be president, whereas Hillary may as well be openly taunting anyone that opposes her while wearing god damned corporate logos instead of American flags.

 

What do you mean? How?

 

 

He rarely comments on policies, and even when he does, he's typically extremely vague in a manner that suggests he knows next to nothing about finer details of the subject matter at hand. Hell, even ideas as well known as "making Mexico pay for it" are absolutely absurd and showcase his ignorance of what he can and cannot do. In general though, the issue is that he makes rather bold, empty statements with no methodology explained ("“I will...quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS, will rebuild our military and make it so strong no one -- and I mean, no one -- will mess with us" or “I would end Obamacare and replace it with something terrific, for far less money for the country and for the people,”) and despite a number of Trump supporters telling me "his policies are spelled out in great detail on his website/if you look," apparently I'm blind because I've failed to locate this great detail.

 

He's also blissfully ignorant (or apathetic) to the effect his manner of speech has on crowds of people. The guy is a walking race riot waiting to happen, whether he intends that to be the case or not. I don't wish to argue if you can hold him personally responsible or not, because frankly I don't care. I don't want an authority figure that seems blissfully unaware to just how many idiots will start beating the **** out of each other if you handle your speeches in a certain style, because regardless of who is at fault or who is to blame, that's a serious problem. I have a swearing habit, and if I were to give a speech to the UN about global climate change, you better believe I have enough common sense to put a cap on it and make my case rather than to swear like a sailor while making sound arguments and then state "you can't blame me for the UN being too shortsighted to look past my constant swearing." No, you're supposed to be a leader; be concious of your speech habits and general tone and the effect it can have on people.

 

Overall most of his campaign has been spent pointed at other people telling them how much they suck, but where he fails is that his attacks don't sound akin to "Hillary wants to do A,B and C and that's stupid. If I were president we'd do X, Y, and Z instead because Reasons 1, 2 and 3," but rather it's "Hillary is a pinhead." He's done little to make a case for his own campaign and has spent the bulk of his time on TV just ranting about why other people's campaigns are flawed. That may be so, but at some point you have to state why yours is better.

 

 

I am not trying argue that much, i was more interested in your POV.

 

My impression of him is of a different matter. I see that he gambled on treating the whole election cycle as a joke and treated everyone around it as such, which caused all his opponents collapse as they were completely unprepared for such barrage that he wrought and of course it didn't help that they were way more loonier or simply mentally weak to handle his psychological warfare. He knows how the media works and uses it to his advantage completely, as can be seen about the "leaked" tape by his unknown "publicist". It has paid off, and he doesn't even need to talk about the finer points at all, as those are not why people like him to begin with.

 

Bear in mind, i do not think that the same tactic would've worked with people like Biden or Webb, as they can handle that kind of banter with a laugh and strike back the same in a jovial manner. Sanders is a bit of wild card there, as i think he would've come off as unhinged against Trump (in a positive way) as he would not be shackled by the gentlemanny niceness which is expected to exist when you debate your fellow peers or elderly women.

 

Anyway, based on his speeches about America First, the border, anti-TPP and anti-globalism, i would say that he runs in paleo-conservative principles with like-minded people like Pat Buchanan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism).

 

While people like Pat have written books and talked alot in detail on what they believe in, they haven't had much to say in the national elections. Here i think, based on my own speculation, that Trump has understood this and simply just focuses on keeping a good show instead, as that is what a disillusioned constituence usually likes more.

[HoonDing]

The American Wilders.

[Meshugger]

They are already ****posting at each other!

 

Hillary:

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/740973710593654784

 

Trump's retort:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/741007091947556864

 

I hope this ride never ends.

[Leferd]

This should be fun.

[Malcador]

Twitter. Mankind's worst invention

[BruceVC]

 

It was pointed out that even in the Democratic primary, Bernie won more states: 22 to Hillary's 20, alongside 8 that were close enough to count as ties. It's also worth noting that Bernie's losses to Hillary were far closer than Hillary's losses to Bernie.

 

The Signal and the Noise...

 

Talking about creative interpretation of data. But hey, the Golden State Warriors broke the all time wins record at 73 this past season. But you know what, they won 22 games where they didn't blow out their opponent by 10 points. Let's move those victories into the tie column since they were so close. So in essence, the Warriors only won 51 games this year...

 

Here are the facts and my noteworthy interpretation of the data.

• Hillary Clinton currently has 2,203 pledged delegates to Bernie Sanders's 1,828. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 400.
• Clinton won  33 contests. Sanders won 23. It's worth noting that this is a double digit victory.
• Clinton received 16,015,681 votes. Sanders 12,287,030 votes. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 4 million votes.
• Clinton won 55.6% of the vote. Sanders won 42.7%. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 13%.

 

Guys these are the facts, can we focus on the Clinton victory and at least try to recognize the historical victory?

 

Very few people on this forum have celebrated the fact the Clinton nomination has set  a historical precedent. This is the first time a women has been nominated for a  major US political party, I may need to repeat this for maximum emphasis

 

" This is the first time a women has been nominated for the US president " .....  

 

This is a huge and visible step for gender equality amongst other things, I can't speak for other white males but I have to say when I look at who represents us in the current US system and I see Trump I get embarrassed that Trump somehow has become the person who is " going to make the US great again " ..

 

Anyway I would be supporting Hilary anyway even if I was  a US citizen  and I look forward to her 4 years  as president 

 

But guys back to the original point...can we show a little enthusiasm for the Clinton nomination and what its represents for the positive social changes we are seeing throughout the USA?

[Namutree]

 

 

It was pointed out that even in the Democratic primary, Bernie won more states: 22 to Hillary's 20, alongside 8 that were close enough to count as ties. It's also worth noting that Bernie's losses to Hillary were far closer than Hillary's losses to Bernie.

 

The Signal and the Noise...

 

Talking about creative interpretation of data. But hey, the Golden State Warriors broke the all time wins record at 73 this past season. But you know what, they won 22 games where they didn't blow out their opponent by 10 points. Let's move those victories into the tie column since they were so close. So in essence, the Warriors only won 51 games this year...

 

Here are the facts and my noteworthy interpretation of the data.

• Hillary Clinton currently has 2,203 pledged delegates to Bernie Sanders's 1,828. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 400.
• Clinton won  33 contests. Sanders won 23. It's worth noting that this is a double digit victory.
• Clinton received 16,015,681 votes. Sanders 12,287,030 votes. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 4 million votes.
• Clinton won 55.6% of the vote. Sanders won 42.7%. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 13%.

 

Guys these are the facts, can we focus on the Clinton victory and at least try to recognize the historical victory?

 

Very few people on this forum have celebrated the fact the Clinton nomination has set  a historical precedent. This is the first time a women has been nominated for a  major US political party, I may need to repeat this for maximum emphasis

 

" This is the first time a women has been nominated for the US president " .....  

 

This is a huge and visible step for gender equality amongst other things, I can't speak for other white males but I have to say when I look at who represents us in the current US system and I see Trump I get embarrassed that Trump somehow has become the person who is " going to make the US great again " ..

 

Anyway I would be supporting Hilary anyway even if I was  a US citizen  and I look forward to her 4 years  as president 

 

But guys back to the original point...can we show a little enthusiasm for the Clinton nomination and what its represents for the positive social changes we are seeing throughout the USA?

 

Hillary being a nominee isn't symbolic of any burgeoning social changes in the US. We've been socially ready for a female president for at least 16 years. There just wasn't a female candidate until now due to happenstance. 

Edited June 10, 2016 by Namutree

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

 

It was pointed out that even in the Democratic primary, Bernie won more states: 22 to Hillary's 20, alongside 8 that were close enough to count as ties. It's also worth noting that Bernie's losses to Hillary were far closer than Hillary's losses to Bernie.

The Signal and the Noise...

 

Talking about creative interpretation of data. But hey, the Golden State Warriors broke the all time wins record at 73 this past season. But you know what, they won 22 games where they didn't blow out their opponent by 10 points. Let's move those victories into the tie column since they were so close. So in essence, the Warriors only won 51 games this year...

 

Here are the facts and my noteworthy interpretation of the data.

• Hillary Clinton currently has 2,203 pledged delegates to Bernie Sanders's 1,828. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 400.
• Clinton won 33 contests. Sanders won 23. It's worth noting that this is a double digit victory.
• Clinton received 16,015,681 votes. Sanders 12,287,030 votes. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 4 million votes.
• Clinton won 55.6% of the vote. Sanders won 42.7%. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 13%.

Guys these are the facts, can we focus on the Clinton victory and at least try to recognize the historical victory?

 

Very few people on this forum have celebrated the fact the Clinton nomination has set a historical precedent. This is the first time a women has been nominated for a major US political party, I may need to repeat this for maximum emphasis

 

" This is the first time a women has been nominated for the US president " .....

 

This is a huge and visible step for gender equality amongst other things, I can't speak for other white males but I have to say when I look at who represents us in the current US system and I see Trump I get embarrassed that Trump somehow has become the person who is " going to make the US great again " ..

 

Anyway I would be supporting Hilary anyway even if I was a US citizen and I look forward to her 4 years as president

 

But guys back to the original point...can we show a little enthusiasm for the Clinton nomination and what its represents for the positive social changes we are seeing throughout the USA?

Greens have nominated a woman twice before. This is only historically significant for the Democrats.

[Namutree]

 

 

 

It was pointed out that even in the Democratic primary, Bernie won more states: 22 to Hillary's 20, alongside 8 that were close enough to count as ties. It's also worth noting that Bernie's losses to Hillary were far closer than Hillary's losses to Bernie.

The Signal and the Noise...

 

Talking about creative interpretation of data. But hey, the Golden State Warriors broke the all time wins record at 73 this past season. But you know what, they won 22 games where they didn't blow out their opponent by 10 points. Let's move those victories into the tie column since they were so close. So in essence, the Warriors only won 51 games this year...

 

Here are the facts and my noteworthy interpretation of the data.

• Hillary Clinton currently has 2,203 pledged delegates to Bernie Sanders's 1,828. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 400.
• Clinton won 33 contests. Sanders won 23. It's worth noting that this is a double digit victory.
• Clinton received 16,015,681 votes. Sanders 12,287,030 votes. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 4 million votes.
• Clinton won 55.6% of the vote. Sanders won 42.7%. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 13%.

Guys these are the facts, can we focus on the Clinton victory and at least try to recognize the historical victory?

 

Very few people on this forum have celebrated the fact the Clinton nomination has set a historical precedent. This is the first time a women has been nominated for a major US political party, I may need to repeat this for maximum emphasis

 

" This is the first time a women has been nominated for the US president " ..... :dancing:

 

This is a huge and visible step for gender equality amongst other things, I can't speak for other white males but I have to say when I look at who represents us in the current US system and I see Trump I get embarrassed that Trump somehow has become the person who is " going to make the US great again " ..

 

Anyway I would be supporting Hilary anyway even if I was a US citizen and I look forward to her 4 years as president

 

But guys back to the original point...can we show a little enthusiasm for the Clinton nomination and what its represents for the positive social changes we are seeing throughout the USA?

Greens have nominated a woman twice before. This is only historically significant for the Democrats.

 

Third parties don't count.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

It was pointed out that even in the Democratic primary, Bernie won more states: 22 to Hillary's 20, alongside 8 that were close enough to count as ties. It's also worth noting that Bernie's losses to Hillary were far closer than Hillary's losses to Bernie.

 

The Signal and the Noise...

 

Talking about creative interpretation of data. But hey, the Golden State Warriors broke the all time wins record at 73 this past season. But you know what, they won 22 games where they didn't blow out their opponent by 10 points. Let's move those victories into the tie column since they were so close. So in essence, the Warriors only won 51 games this year...

 

Here are the facts and my noteworthy interpretation of the data.

• Hillary Clinton currently has 2,203 pledged delegates to Bernie Sanders's 1,828. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 400.
• Clinton won  33 contests. Sanders won 23. It's worth noting that this is a double digit victory.
• Clinton received 16,015,681 votes. Sanders 12,287,030 votes. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 4 million votes.
• Clinton won 55.6% of the vote. Sanders won 42.7%. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 13%.

 

Guys these are the facts, can we focus on the Clinton victory and at least try to recognize the historical victory?

 

Very few people on this forum have celebrated the fact the Clinton nomination has set  a historical precedent. This is the first time a women has been nominated for a  major US political party, I may need to repeat this for maximum emphasis

 

" This is the first time a women has been nominated for the US president " .....  

 

This is a huge and visible step for gender equality amongst other things, I can't speak for other white males but I have to say when I look at who represents us in the current US system and I see Trump I get embarrassed that Trump somehow has become the person who is " going to make the US great again " ..

 

Anyway I would be supporting Hilary anyway even if I was  a US citizen  and I look forward to her 4 years  as president 

 

But guys back to the original point...can we show a little enthusiasm for the Clinton nomination and what its represents for the positive social changes we are seeing throughout the USA?

 

Being female does not qualify her for President. I'm not going to vote for her because of her gender. I didn't vote against Barack Obama because of his skin color. I voted against him because he is an ideologue and he scared the bejesus out of me. No he has not turned out to the the tyrannical horror I was afraid of him being but he has definitely harmed the cause of federalism, individual liberty and personal freedom in the country. He has changed the relationship of the federal government and the citizens in a way that will last long after he has left office. That is not a good thing. Now a power hungry self confessed "government junkie" (her own words) is promising more of the same, more war, more government, less freedom and all you can think about is the fact it's a woman?

 

No thank you. There are plenty of women how would make outstanding Presidents. Nikki Haley and Susanne Martinez would get my vote today over Trump. Joni Earnst & Mia Love would be excellent choices once they get a little more experience. Bruce you need to get past this whole "identity politics" b------t.  

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

It was pointed out that even in the Democratic primary, Bernie won more states: 22 to Hillary's 20, alongside 8 that were close enough to count as ties. It's also worth noting that Bernie's losses to Hillary were far closer than Hillary's losses to Bernie.

 

The Signal and the Noise...

 

Talking about creative interpretation of data. But hey, the Golden State Warriors broke the all time wins record at 73 this past season. But you know what, they won 22 games where they didn't blow out their opponent by 10 points. Let's move those victories into the tie column since they were so close. So in essence, the Warriors only won 51 games this year...

 

Here are the facts and my noteworthy interpretation of the data.

• Hillary Clinton currently has 2,203 pledged delegates to Bernie Sanders's 1,828. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 400.
• Clinton won  33 contests. Sanders won 23. It's worth noting that this is a double digit victory.
• Clinton received 16,015,681 votes. Sanders 12,287,030 votes. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 4 million votes.
• Clinton won 55.6% of the vote. Sanders won 42.7%. It's worth noting that the margin of victory is almost 13%.

 

Guys these are the facts, can we focus on the Clinton victory and at least try to recognize the historical victory?

 

Very few people on this forum have celebrated the fact the Clinton nomination has set  a historical precedent. This is the first time a women has been nominated for a  major US political party, I may need to repeat this for maximum emphasis

 

" This is the first time a women has been nominated for the US president " .....  

 

This is a huge and visible step for gender equality amongst other things, I can't speak for other white males but I have to say when I look at who represents us in the current US system and I see Trump I get embarrassed that Trump somehow has become the person who is " going to make the US great again " ..

 

Anyway I would be supporting Hilary anyway even if I was  a US citizen  and I look forward to her 4 years  as president 

 

But guys back to the original point...can we show a little enthusiasm for the Clinton nomination and what its represents for the positive social changes we are seeing throughout the USA?

 

Being female does not qualify her for President. I'm not going to vote for her because of her gender. I didn't vote against Barack Obama because of his skin color. I voted against him because he is an ideologue and he scared the bejesus out of me. No he has not turned out to the the tyrannical horror I was afraid of him being but he has definitely harmed the cause of federalism, individual liberty and personal freedom in the country. He has changed the relationship of the federal government and the citizens in a way that will last long after he has left office. That is not a good thing. Now a power hungry self confessed "government junkie" (her own words) is promising more of the same, more war, more government, less freedom and all you can think about is the fact it's a woman?

 

No thank you. There are plenty of women how would make outstanding Presidents. Nikki Haley and Susanne Martinez would get my vote today over Trump. Joni Earnst & Mia Love would be excellent choices once they get a little more experience. Bruce you need to get past this whole "identity politics" b------t.  

O

Of course no one is suggesting she should be president because she is a women,  she should be president because she has the experience, she is qualified and she represents a better future for the US than Trump and she is nomination from the Democratic party 

 

You have some perfectly understandable criticism, even if I don't personally support it,  towards Hilary. For example the significance of the email scandal which we have discussed. But IMO many people on this forum seem to spend a lot attacking Hilary and her policies yet Trumps constant divisive  comments and overall destabilizing views on the how to " make the USA  great "  again get ignored or justified 

 

And to be honest I have waited for this nomination to become more vocal about my support for Hilary but it would be a refreshing change if we could refrain from comments like " Clinton will be never be the next president " or " she is a criminal , she cannot be the next president " 

 

Its just the unsubstantiated  " anti-Clinton" rhetoric that gets tiresome and is surprising considering the actual reality of the voting results and what the  majority of the citizens want 

[Guard Dog]

Well for my part I've made it clear I despise both of them and would not and will not vote for either.

[BruceVC]

Well for my part I've made it clear I despise both of them and would not and will not vote for either.

Yes, I have found your general disdain for both candidates to be consistent

[HoonDing]

Vote for stronk dependant wymyn

[BruceVC]

Vote for stronk dependant wymyn

No, we vote for any candidate that can do the job..its just as additional bonus Hilary is a women

 

And yes being a  strong and independent person who is a president matters on certain levels 

[Meshugger]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/09/hillary_clinton_sanders_brought_passion_but_hasnt_gotten_me_to_move_on_any_policies.html

 

uniting the party

 

I am still have a laugh at Trump being more active and welcoming of Bernie supporters than Hillary.

[Longknife]

I like how we're just writing off her email scandal like it's no biggie. I've said before that indictment or no, this is ABSOLUTELY going to bite her in the ass. You do not move forward without problem if half your own staff and colleagues condemn what you've done. Plus wtf is this:

 

Edward Snowden happens across some classified info he thinks the people have a right to know, releases it, and gets called terms as dramatic as "terrorist." He cannot return to the USA without facing serious charges that'd see him behind bars for life.

Hillary Clinton sets up a private server with the direct intent of circumventing the law while also negligently doing so knowing the National Security servers are subjected to dozens of break-in attempts per day and in doing so jeoprodizes - amongst other things - the names and identities of FBI and CIA agents, and she's running for president.

To double down, Hillary Clinton condemns Edward Snowden. In her own words:

 

 

“He broke the laws of the United States,” she said. “He could have been a whistleblower, he could have gotten all the protections of a whistleblower. He chose not to do that. He stole very important information that has fallen into the wrong hands so I think he should not be brought home without facing the music.”

 

 

Please explain how her words apply to Snowden but not to herself. Did she break the law? Yes. She blatantly mishandled classified documents in a manner that should've been painfully obvious to her, and she did so with what appears to be the direct intent of circumventing laws regarding documentation and processing of such documents. Has information fallen into the wrong hands? Russia sure insists it did.

 

But this hypocrite is apparently a super qualified person to lead this country because hot damn she has a vagina. Yeah ok.

[HoonDing]

You're talking about a country that managed to re-elect Dubya.

[Guard Dog]

He didn't say a lot but by God this man has my vote: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/opinions/why-running-for-president-johnson/index.html

[BruceVC]

I like how we're just writing off her email scandal like it's no biggie. I've said before that indictment or no, this is ABSOLUTELY going to bite her in the ass. You do not move forward without problem if half your own staff and colleagues condemn what you've done. Plus wtf is this:

 

Edward Snowden happens across some classified info he thinks the people have a right to know, releases it, and gets called terms as dramatic as "terrorist." He cannot return to the USA without facing serious charges that'd see him behind bars for life.

 

Hillary Clinton sets up a private server with the direct intent of circumventing the law while also negligently doing so knowing the National Security servers are subjected to dozens of break-in attempts per day and in doing so jeoprodizes - amongst other things - the names and identities of FBI and CIA agents, and she's running for president.

 

To double down, Hillary Clinton condemns Edward Snowden. In her own words:

 

 

“He broke the laws of the United States,” she said. “He could have been a whistleblower, he could have gotten all the protections of a whistleblower. He chose not to do that. He stole very important information that has fallen into the wrong hands so I think he should not be brought home without facing the music.”

 

 

Please explain how her words apply to Snowden but not to herself. Did she break the law? Yes. She blatantly mishandled classified documents in a manner that should've been painfully obvious to her, and she did so with what appears to be the direct intent of circumventing laws regarding documentation and processing of such documents. Has information fallen into the wrong hands? Russia sure insists it did.

 

But this hypocrite is apparently a super qualified person to lead this country because hot damn she has a vagina. Yeah ok.

Snowden is a  traitor and deserves to spend the rest of his life in jail but he can live out the rest of his days is his " Russian heaven"  ..by now he would have realized the false image Putin has been projecting is nothing compared to the reality of actually living in Russia compared to the USA. So I say  never  let him be able to return home...having to live in countries like Russia is fitting punishment

 

And the two examples are NOTHING  alike, I am genuinely  surprised you can find commonality between them,  this just demonstrates your bias towards Hilary as you are using such a low bar

 

 

Hilary had her own email domain for convenience reasons around using things like certain devices. It should have been addressed by White House security but it was allowed to continue

 

She didnt do it to attack or undermine the entire USA

 

Snowden worked  at the NSA and deliberately stole confidential  information and then shared it with foreign countries who have numerous reasons to undermine the USA . He knowingly did this and knew this had serious consequences in an attempt to undermine the entire security system of the USA. He is a traitor, this should be unequivocal. Hilary Clinton is nothing like Snowden, she is no traitor and is a  patriot and cares for the well being of the USA    

[IndiraLightfoot]

He didn't say a lot but by God this man has my vote: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/opinions/why-running-for-president-johnson/index.html

 

I had never heard of him, and barely of the Libertarian party neither. But, if I would face the choice of either Trump or Clinton, I'd definitely pick this guy. He seems level-headed, smart and fit for all sorts of endeavours. He seems to have the capacity for a safe and sound presidency, and that's just my getting taken in by a first impression.

Edited June 10, 2016 by IndiraLightfoot

[Guard Dog]

Bruce Hillary Clinton cares about furthering the political ambitions of Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton cares about having as much control over the apparatus of government in the furtherance of that goal. Hillary Clinton does not give a rats bitten a-s about the people of the United States who want nothing more than to just live their lives in peace and just be left alone. 

Edited June 10, 2016 by Guard Dog