welshbairn Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 I was banking on Hillary having to stand down for betting purposes, but I don't think it will happen. The rule about not using a private email address for Government business wasn't brought in till after she left office, nobody's found an email containing classified information when she sent it, and the secret service were tasked with making sure her personal email server was secure. The Republicans have been all over it, and Whitewater etc and still haven't found a smoking gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 I was banking on Hillary having to stand down for betting purposes, but I don't think it will happen. The rule about not using a private email address for Government business wasn't brought in till after she left office, nobody's found an email containing classified information when she sent it, and the secret service were tasked with making sure her personal email server was secure. The Republicans have been all over it, and Whitewater etc and still haven't found a smoking gun. Its benghazi all over again, nothing in it but they'll pursue it like a dog with a bone. If I was hillary one line I'd be saving for the debates with trump is to thank him for donating to her campaign in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yank Mike Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 I was banking on Hillary having to stand down for betting purposes, but I don't think it will happen. The rule about not using a private email address for Government business wasn't brought in till after she left office, nobody's found an email containing classified information when she sent it, and the secret service were tasked with making sure her personal email server was secure. The Republicans have been all over it, and Whitewater etc and still haven't found a smoking gun. This is all wrong. Obama had a rule at the start of his administration after running on creating a 100% transparent government. Two different judges have said that Clinton acted in bad faith and was trying to circumvent Freedom of Information Act requests. Intelligence experts have said it's very likely that every foreign government which tried would have gained access to her email. She did send information which would have been classified as a policy in her emails. Whether they were marked as such is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 This is all wrong. Obama had a rule at the start of his administration after running on creating a 100% transparent government. Two different judges have said that Clinton acted in bad faith and was trying to circumvent Freedom of Information Act requests. Intelligence experts have said it's very likely that every foreign government which tried would have gained access to her email. She did send information which would have been classified as a policy in her emails. Whether they were marked as such is irrelevant. Your 100% transparent government is clearly not a rule or Manning and Snowdon would be heroes of the Republic. Practically every Government department, here as well as the US, has been accused of trying to circumvent FoI requests, and I don't believe she's been charged with any offence. Who are these Intelligence experts? And nobody accuses her of sending classified information in her emails, only that some were judged to be after they were sent presumably because of the authors name. If the Republicans haven't got anything to stick by now they never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yank Mike Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Your 100% transparent government is clearly not a rule or Manning and Snowdon would be heroes of the Republic. Practically every Government department, here as well as the US, has been accused of trying to circumvent FoI requests, and I don't believe she's been charged with any offence. Who are these Intelligence experts? And nobody accuses her of sending classified information in her emails, only that some were judged to be after they were sent presumably because of the authors name. If the Republicans haven't got anything to stick by now they never will. Obviously there are national security exceptions, but Obama instituted many new rules regarding transparency when he took office. These were not laws, just directives from a boos, but Hillary flagrantly violated all of these rules. Yes, governments try to drag their feet on FOI. Clinton set up an entire record system outside of the normal system so that people would not know what to request. On this system she ran an off the books intelligence operation regarding Libya. The people she was relying on were old Clinton hacks who Obama had banned her from hiring at the State Dept because he has ethical standards, unlike the Clintons. These people had business interests in reconstruction and gave her false and incorrect info. Clinton convinced Obama to participate in the bombing of Libya over the objections of the Secretary of Defense and all the top generals. Clinton has also been caught it about 20 different obvious lies over the course of this scandal. For instance, she claimed that many of the emails she deleted were of a personal nature, such as emails with Bill about Chelsea's wedding. Bill is on record multiple times as having sent two emails in his entire life. She said she didn't want to carry two devices and her email setup was just about convenience. She's been photographed on multiple times with two different phones and using them both for business. But for some dumb luck we would never have found out about her private email. She almost got away with it. Clinton was told repeatedly that her system was a national security risk by people who did not even know the full extent of her setup. She chose keeping info away from Congress, the President, and the American people over keeping info away from foreign governments. Re foreign intelligence: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-email-server-hacked-china-south-korea-germany-214546 Clinton server faced hacking from China, South Korea and Germanyhttp://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2015/10/20/doj-officials-fear-foreign-telecoms-intercepted-clinton-emails-server.html FBN Exclusive: DOJ Officials Fear Foreign Telecoms Hacked Clinton Emails, Serverhttp://gawker.com/how-unsafe-was-hillary-clintons-secret-staff-email-syst-1689393042 How Unsafe Was Hillary Clinton's Secret Staff Email System? Regarding the sending of classified email: People in the government are given training about what type of information is always considered classified. She sent information over her email that contained such information. Whether the documents were marked classified is irrelevant, and people have been convicted for mishandling of classified info that was not necessarily marked classified. Reuters has confirmed that dozens of emails she sent had information that all government officials would recognize as classified. Her secret server also meant that the officials responsible for marking documents as classified would not have had access to many of her emails. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Why is Sarah Palin still a thing? She is dreadful. She's the last person I'd want endorsing my campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Why is Sarah Palin still a thing? She is dreadful. She's the last person I'd want endorsing my campaign. Because she is batshit mental and the press love reporting a nutter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Why is Sarah Palin still a thing? She is dreadful. She's the last person I'd want endorsing my campaign. Trump just needs to get the endorsement of a savage Christian southerner who is opposed to women voting (or opposed to women in general, I suppose) to collect the full set. I hope he does get the nomination now - he could end up with less than 40% of the vote, which would be a monumental achievement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 I was banking on Hillary having to stand down for betting purposes, but I don't think it will happen. The rule about not using a private email address for Government business wasn't brought in till after she left office, nobody's found an email containing classified information when she sent it, and the secret service were tasked with making sure her personal email server was secure. The Republicans have been all over it, and Whitewater etc and still haven't found a smoking gun. She is now very much the establishment candidate, so a lot of leading Republicans probably prefer her to Trump and Cruz even if they don't say so publicly. Bill Clinton worked closely with Republicans in the latter stages of his presidency and was a long way away from being a New Deal Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 She is now very much the establishment candidate, so a lot of leading Republicans probably prefer her to Trump and Cruz even if they don't say so publicly. Bill Clinton worked closely with Republicans in the latter stages of his presidency and was a long way away from being a New Deal Democrat. I do find it funny how many of the 9/11 inside job fruit loops regard Trump as some kind of anti-Establishment figure. Bernie is the only one you could make that claim for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 You are clearly clueless about what is happening in the USA right now but laugh away if it keeps you amused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Are you claiming Trump is somehow the outsider in this campaign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Yes, and so is the mainstream media, so don't try to make out it is some kind of fringe looney opinion and don't try to call me a "9/11 inside job fruit loop" or whatever when I have actively argued against 9/11 conspiracy theories on here. You are the one that needs to explain why you see Trump as part of the mainstream way of doing things in US politics and the floor is yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Donald J. Trump â€@realDonaldTrump Apr 2 Wisconsin has suffered a great loss of jobs and trade, but if I win, all of the bad things happening in the U.S. will be rapidly reversed! 7,106 retweets19,846 likes Reply Retweet 7.1K Like 20K More Donald J. Trump â€@realDonaldTrump Apr 1 I will be in Wisconsin until the election. Jobs, trade and immigration will be big factors. I will bring jobs back home - make great deals! Classic Trump. Make great deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Also I see that Trump has predicted a 'very massive recession' and said he will wipe out the US's debt in 8 years. Surely people don't believe him anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Yes, and so is the mainstream media, so don't try to make out it is some kind of fringe looney opinion and don't try to call me a "9/11 inside job fruit loop" or whatever when I have actively argued against 9/11 conspiracy theories on here. You are the one that needs to explain why you see Trump as part of the mainstream way of doing things in US politics and the floor is yours. I wasn't referring to you at all... And in fact my post really didn't refer to what you posted at all. That said... Trump is every bit a part of the Wall Street elite which largely dictates US domestic policy. His position on tax and health care reform indicate he would do nothing at all to detract from the corporate-dominated financial set up which, for all his good intentions, Obama was forced to kow-tow to. Only Sanders seems prepared to antagonise corporate America... Which is precisely what it takes to be anything close to unorthodox in US presidential politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Also I see that Trump has predicted a 'very massive recession' and said he will wipe out the US's debt in 8 years. Surely people don't believe him anymore. Those stupid/desperate enough to have believed him up to now will believe anything. Don't underestimate the power of self delusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kejan Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Favourite Trump moment has to be a few victories ago, cannae mind now, but he was on stage at one of those long-winded press conferences he holds and described a phone call to Paul Ryan as "A great call. A tremendous call." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Those stupid/desperate enough to have believed him up to now will believe anything. Don't underestimate the power of self delusion. A lot of Americans basically yearn to return to the world of the 1950s when the USA was the dominant global economic power, but don't seem to realise that because North America wasn't bombed flat like most of Europe and large swathes of Asia were in WWII in the 1940s, it enjoyed a decade or two of a level of economic dominance that can never be repeated. Having said that there are some aspects of Trump's stated agenda that do fit the interests of poorer Americans over the elite. The powers that be in the USA are happy to have 11 million illegal immigrants or whatever the number is hanging around with no huge effort to enforce immigration laws because they depress wage demands, and are also happy for globalist free trade deals to happen in a manner that fits their multinational corporation related interests over those of ordinary people working in the manufacturing sector. The so called "Reagan Democrats" are the ones that are looking for something different now that the economics of the Reagan-Thatcher era no longer make sense to them post-credit crunch, because it's now clear that there isn't much of a trickle down effect going on. If it wasn't Trump somebody else would be doing much the same. There is a niche on the right for his kind of politics at the moment. In the UK it would be interesting to see what would happen on the right if a similar set of primaries had been held between Farage and Cameron to decide who should represent the "right wing" at the last general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weejack Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 See when a candidate drops out and endorses someone else, do the delegates the resigning candidate has won revert to whoever he or she endorses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.