Farid
Well-Known Member
If we're being that semantic we cannot discuss issues. It's a fact that Hillary Clinton's emails are being investigated, that is why she has had to respond to criticism relating to the issue.
The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
@Gunky - FBI confirms one of the world’s worst-kept secrets: It is looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.
If the FBI said they were looking into His_Highness' use of a private email server....I would conclude that I am being investigated by the FBI and call my lawyer. I can also assure you that I would be fielding questions from people and they'd be posed as 'Why is the FBI investigating how you used your email server'?
Until the investigation is over the perception remains a problem. Hopefully when the investigation concludes she will be exonerated. I just hope it occurs before the general.
If the FBI said they were looking into His_Highness' use of a private email server....I would conclude that I am being investigated by the FBI and call my lawyer. I can also assure you that I would be fielding questions from people and they'd be posed as 'Why is the FBI investigating how you used your email server'?
Until the investigation is over the perception remains a problem. Hopefully when the investigation concludes she will be exonerated. I just hope it occurs before the general.
howie105
Well-Known Member
When the email torpedo went into the water two things came to mind. First was, how many upper echelon employees of the fed actually have a handle on Internet security and why aren't the real top tier folks assigned security to look after sensitive data and communications. We give them physical security so why not protect communications too. Second was the "Wow, who cares" if that was the best card they had the follow on stuff was going to be weak too. So I was expecting more later but it hasn't happened, maybe they are waiting for the general or we haven't seen all the cards on the email hand yet.
Gunky
Well-Known Member
There are several things they could investigate:
a) the security of the server hardware (little or nothing to do with Clinton)
b) software issues (trojans, spyware etc on the server, ditto)
b) breaches involving employees of the private company maintaining the server
c) issues around the email contents, recipients, who got cc'd, security clearances, etc (1000's of people involved; many, perhaps most of the emails are things she received, not stuff she sent)
d) other
Months ago the FBI stated they were not investigating her personally. So if they said they were investigating matters related to His Highness' server but also said 'he is not the target' that would be a reason not to think His H was being investigated, wouldn't it? They have not said anything since to contradict it. All new articles are basically repeating facts published months ago. Hillary is being tried in the court of innuendo.
a) the security of the server hardware (little or nothing to do with Clinton)
b) software issues (trojans, spyware etc on the server, ditto)
b) breaches involving employees of the private company maintaining the server
c) issues around the email contents, recipients, who got cc'd, security clearances, etc (1000's of people involved; many, perhaps most of the emails are things she received, not stuff she sent)
d) other
Months ago the FBI stated they were not investigating her personally. So if they said they were investigating matters related to His Highness' server but also said 'he is not the target' that would be a reason not to think His H was being investigated, wouldn't it? They have not said anything since to contradict it. All new articles are basically repeating facts published months ago. Hillary is being tried in the court of innuendo.
Last edited:
Chill Dude
Well-Known Member
Exactly right, in politics the perception of the people is what matters not the validity of the accusation. Bernie has his own problems, it's just that trustworthiness has not been one of them. I might mention gun control, one area where Clinton has been fairly consistent. Bernie doesn't have quite as strong record on gun control. Personally, I give him a pass on that one and here's why. Bernie is from a very low crime hunting state and he voted the way that represented the values of his constituents. Hillary was a senator from NYC with a high level of crime and gun violence.. That said, if the people's perception is that Sanders is weak on gun control, it doesn't matter what you or I think, it's a problem if the majority of voters think that..
Very true. That's exactly the way I think..
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
@Gunky - C'mon now. I'm not quoting the FBI from months ago. The quote from 2/8 said Hillary's use....... I don't think it's a stretch to conclude Hillary's use is the focus/target of the investigation. Not Trump's use, not Bernie's use not even Bill Gate's use.
You can play with the words as much as you like but it doesn't change the noun, verb relationship in that sentence.
You can play with the words as much as you like but it doesn't change the noun, verb relationship in that sentence.
CuckFumbustion
Lo and Behold! The transformative power of Vapor.
Did a simple search of 'FBI confirms Clinton probe'. 227 articles. If I sifted the more recent titles alone. It seems more in line with the amount of emails and that the update letter neither confirming or denying an investigation. from James A. Baker. Trying to take what I can from face value. Then get to know the cast of characters. Then don the tin foil hat of speculation. In that order. 
Still going on my first presumption that this is more of a screening than anything. They can talk to her differently on the matter that she is an ex SOS and a candidate that needs to shift security interest. So as not to cause blow back on the F.B.I at the bare thread minimum. They need to cover there own dept's cred. Which appears to be the impetus. Anything else political drawn from this will only lead to frustration. 
Republicans stand down for FBI investigation of Clinton server
Still going on my first presumption that this is more of a screening than anything. They can talk to her differently on the matter that she is an ex SOS and a candidate that needs to shift security interest. So as not to cause blow back on the F.B.I at the bare thread minimum. They need to cover there own dept's cred. Which appears to be the impetus. Anything else political drawn from this will only lead to frustration. Republicans stand down for FBI investigation of Clinton server
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
What I'm trying to point out is the perception aspect not the validity of the perception. The articles being referenced contain word based land mines. 'Hillary's use', 'FBI confirms Clinton probe'.
My hope is that all this gets cleared up before the general election because if she does win the primary I'm gonna vote for her. I'm worried that the 'up-for-grabs-voters' who will not have as strong a reason as I to look beyond the perception and will use it as another excuse not to vote for her.
I'm not saying she's guilty or will be found guilty. What I am saying is that ..... if she were a stock I wouldn't buy her and if she were a potential employee I wouldn't hire her .... with this BS hanging over her. Unless, as is the case for me, come the general election and she's all I got to work with.
My hope is that all this gets cleared up before the general election because if she does win the primary I'm gonna vote for her. I'm worried that the 'up-for-grabs-voters' who will not have as strong a reason as I to look beyond the perception and will use it as another excuse not to vote for her.
I'm not saying she's guilty or will be found guilty. What I am saying is that ..... if she were a stock I wouldn't buy her and if she were a potential employee I wouldn't hire her .... with this BS hanging over her. Unless, as is the case for me, come the general election and she's all I got to work with.
grokit
well-worn member
That's exactly what this article addresses; I agree wholeheartedly.
“It’s the corruption, stupid”: Hillary’s too compromised to see what Donald Trump understands
The key 2016 issue is outrage over a rigged system by special interests. There's a reason Hillary doesn't get it.
Hillary Clinton (Credit: AP/Matt Rourke)
In 1992, James Carville, Bill Clinton’s senior campaign strategist, scribbled a terse memo containing three instructions. Two are long forgotten. The third may live forever. “It’s the economy, stupid” became a meme because it nailed the issue that drove that election. One overarching issue drives this election, but neither Hillary Clinton’s campaign nor the Democratic Party got the memo. Any swing voter could tell them what it says: It’s the corruption, stupid.
Donald Trump got the memo. What you notice first about Trump is his xenophobia, but he also speaks more about corruption than immigration. For example: when he falsely claims to self-fund his campaign, blames Bush’s donors when he gets booed, shames his opponents for crooking the knee to the Kochs, or belittles the Clintons for attending his wedding. He brags of buying influence as if buying it were less corrupt than selling it. He gets away with it because few in the press see the issue’s centrality to the race — or would know what questions to ask if they did.
Deep in their unconscious, even Trump’s most ardent fans must know that such a colossal liar couldn’t possibly be a reformer. Asked to explain their enthusiasm, they invariably cite his independence. Doubtless many are also drawn to his racism — but corruption is what Trump and his backers talk most about. In any event, the only real reformer in the race is Bernie Sanders. Even he must broaden his message beyond cracking down on Wall Street and repealing Citizens United. All Democratic candidates call for repealing Citizens United. Democratic audiences cheer when they do. Other audiences doze off, and for good reasons.
One reason is that people don’t know what they mean. If you talk about Citizens United or Glass Steagall, you must tell us what they are. The key to campaign finance is discussing how much money flows into the system, where it comes from and how it’s spent. For financial regulation, talk about how without it, banks can bet their depositors’ money — and if they lose big enough, even with Dodd Frank, we taxpayers end up bailing them out.
Another reason is that Democrats who bewail Citizens United so often depict corruption as a right-wing plot of which they themselves are mere victims. Not even the base buys that. Citizens United arrived in 2010. Pay-to-play politics took off in the mid-’70s, right about the time the middle class stopped getting raises. The sad truth is elite Democrats like the current system a lot. Here’s a well-guarded secret: They even see a lot to like in Citizens United.
Poorly written and atrociously reasoned, Citizens United rests on three simple, absurd precepts: Money is speech; corporations are people; and corruption is OK so long as it is sanctioned. OK, the third one isn’t so simple, but it sure is absurd. It pertains to what Justice Kennedy, the opinion’s author, calls “soft” corruption, by which he means the entire system: big donors, lobbyists, lush retreats, revolving doors, exorbitant speaking fees. The whole shebang.
Kennedy says that unlike “hard” corruption (bribery, mainly), “soft” corruption harms and offends no one, so Congress can’t regulate it. The issue hadn’t come up at trial, so there was nothing about it in pleadings. There’s tons of data about how evil it is and how much we hate it, but Kennedy ignored it. He offered no proof to support his “finding.” He just said it was so and now it’s the law.
I’d rate Citizens United the second most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history after Bush v. Gore. Blind partisanship drove Bush v. Gore. Right-wing ideology informs both decisions. But Citizens United’s key findings, that our politics isn’t really corrupt and we don’t care anyway, is neither partisan nor extreme. It is in fact the bipartisan consensus of Washington’s soul-sick, brain-dead establishment.
If you doubt it, consider Barack Obama. In 2008, America was almost as angry at its government as it is today. Then as now, the media and political consultants to both parties were blind to the issue. But Obama and strategist David Axelrod sort of got it. Axelrod wasn’t much for specificity. He preached the “politics of biography” (sell the person, not the policy). So Obama spoke of transforming “Washington’s culture.” It was powerful stuff, but not quite powerful enough.
Voters knew the problem wasn’t “partisan gridlock” but a hammerlock of special interests. They could abide politicians’ incivility but not their corruption. Obama added some policy meat to the metaphorical bone of his message. He called whistle-blowers heroes and vowed to strengthen freedom of information, to let C-SPAN cameras film healthcare negotiations, end no-bid contracts, close revolving doors and never hire lobbyists to handle matters of special concern to their ex-clients. By late fall, nearly every speech he gave ended in a rousing call for reform.
Breaking those vows was the original sin of the Obama administration. No C-SPAN cameras ever filmed a meeting. He didn’t treat whistle-blowers as heroes; he broke records prosecuting them. He didn’t end no-bid contracts; he increased them. He didn’t ban lobbyists; he recruited them. (Healthcare industry consultants drove that team; he even hired a defense lobbyist to oversee Pentagon procurement policy.) Revolving doors kept swinging; every ex-Obama staffer you ever heard of now sits on some comfy corporate perch. Republicans didn’t kill the reforms. Obama had the power to implement each one by executive order, but chose not to.
In 2008, Obama raised more money from big business than any candidate in either party’s history and in 2009 he hired the most conservative economic team of any Democratic president since Grover Cleveland. He then sided with insurers against a public option, with banks against rescuing homeowners and with business against raising the minimum wage. If you’re highly educated and care more about cultural than economic issues, you may not have noticed. If you’re financially pressed, you may be torn between Sanders and Trump, or have given up on politics altogether.
much more...
https://www.salon.com/2016/02/23/it...t_donald_trump_understands/?source=newsletter
CuckFumbustion
Lo and Behold! The transformative power of Vapor.
I found the words more flat and less assuming in nature. But if you really want to step further away from drawing anything loaded language, then read his letter first. Then back to the mine field and logic twists needed to sort the severity.
I do think they have their eye on her. Can I be safe to speculate that? There is nothing I've found leading to a special case other then the main breach. atm Which is a topic I don't wish to conflate, if their is no other red flags found along the way by the F.B.I at a critical juncture of the campaign.
Good luck finding a news article that is 100% un-biast. The words get in the way, for one thing.
Trying to grab someones attention in 10 words or less requires brevity. I read the article headlines with that tone in mind and try not to be put off right away by the title. 'Hillary's use' seems more neutral than 'FBI confirms Clinton probe'. But neither seemed politically charged or overly assertive. IMHO. Not seeing the word based land mines on their own.
Probe? Just means they are examining it. Not even as charged of a word as if they actually used the word 'examine'. I try not to get bogged down with semantics and read too much power into the words. Forget about watching news anchors. Done with that noise.It pays to read more than one article on a subject to break from the buzzwords and try not to read into an article more conveyance than it was intended. At first glance anyway. Then the skepticism kicks in.
Trick question - What is the difference between being politically connected and being politically compromised?
Answer -I was inferring a cheap joke to grab your attention at the expense of the political process, if you want to cross examine my question for being politically motivated or perhaps using overly assertive language. 
Last edited:
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
@CuckFumbustion - I'm told that I am overly literal in terms of how I read or interpret things. It's a blessing in terms of what I do for a living and a curse for those who I'm close to sometimes. I will occasionally miss a nuance to something because I've interpreted something 'dryly' and make my wife nuts. It usually goes like this....Her: Answer me. Me: You told me to shut the fuck up. Her: It was a figure of speech.
Trick question: IMO...A person who is politically connected means they have some political power they can bring to bear. A person who is politically compromised is beholding to someone politically and can be coerced to do something that might not want to. Politically connected ins't derogatory while politically compromised is.
Trick question: IMO...A person who is politically connected means they have some political power they can bring to bear. A person who is politically compromised is beholding to someone politically and can be coerced to do something that might not want to. Politically connected ins't derogatory while politically compromised is.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
It comes down to the public's perception. Some people think there are some unanswered questions. You know they are wondering what were on Hilary's emails. They can't be released. It could very well be all a crock and just to keep that cloud over her head. Wondering voters want their questions and their minds set at ease. I don't know if that can be done?
I'm voting for her if Bernie doesn't succeed but there will be those that aren't die hard democrats. I'm very worried if she has the support to win?
When the debates with the 2 presidential candidates start I don't know if Donald Trump can compete with Hilary's knowledge base. I hope she can out debate him, that shouldn't be too hard. He doesn't have much substance, just a few statements he keeps throwing out there repeatedly.
I'm voting for her if Bernie doesn't succeed but there will be those that aren't die hard democrats. I'm very worried if she has the support to win?
When the debates with the 2 presidential candidates start I don't know if Donald Trump can compete with Hilary's knowledge base. I hope she can out debate him, that shouldn't be too hard. He doesn't have much substance, just a few statements he keeps throwing out there repeatedly.
Chill Dude
Well-Known Member
Hillary is by far more experienced and knowledgable on the issues than Trump. However, as you know, Trump doesn't win debates based on substance or knowledge; he wins by bullying and character assassination. IMO, Clinton is tough as nails and can handle anything thrown at her. She's been hit hard over the decades and always comes out fine.. I think Trump will have a hard time going after her without appearing to be unfairly aggressive and nasty. There's a fine line on how aggressive you can be debating a woman without ailinating women voters. The problem is Trump has crossed that line so many times and it has not stopped his momentum one bit. IMO, I don't think his tactics will come off so well in the general. There comes a point where a candidate needs to carry himself presidential and show the electorate he has a command of the issues and articulates a detailed and realistic plan on how he would govern. Will Trump be able to do this? I don't think he can.
CuckFumbustion
Lo and Behold! The transformative power of Vapor.
At least you are self aware if it enough and have a sense of humor about it. I try to keep more than one mind on a subject. But occasionally Mr. Literal will get in the driver's seat when I should be a little more discerning and filtering what I'm reading in more than one fashion. Not as bad as Ms. Technical. or Madam Grammatical Error. Be glad of that.
Hope I have helped you in some way or least got you to laugh more on the subject of interpenetrating and discerning what you read.
Other land mines. I do speculate what the intended audience of an article is intended for. The amount of dry content that can be distilled. Filler paragraphs, branching sources and just plain old fashioned lazy reporting. The internet has made it easier for journalists to repeat each other as often as TV reporting but with a higher word count.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Washington (CNN)Director Spike Lee endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders in an ad telling South Carolina voters to "Wake up!"
"This is your dude, Spike Lee. And you know that I know that you know that the system is rigged! For too long we've given our votes to corporate puppets. Sold the okie doke. Ninety-nine percent of Americans were hurt by the Great Recession of 2008, and many are still recovering," Lee said in the ad released Tuesday. "That's why I am officially endorsing my brother, Bernie Sanders."
Spike Lee
"This is your dude, Spike Lee. And you know that I know that you know that the system is rigged! For too long we've given our votes to corporate puppets. Sold the okie doke. Ninety-nine percent of Americans were hurt by the Great Recession of 2008, and many are still recovering," Lee said in the ad released Tuesday. "That's why I am officially endorsing my brother, Bernie Sanders."
Spike Lee
Last edited:
KimDracula
Well-Known Member
While there is a lot of talk about this email "scandal" there's really nothing there (still). Those that don't like her are going to keep taking it as some sort of proof, however. Enough ginned up fake scandals eventually leaves a mark. Not everyone pays close attention to the news; they just get a feeling they can't explain that she's not trustworthy. Many just call her a liar without bothering to back it up with examples or raising positions with which they disagree. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, of course, but some seem to think this assumption is an actual argument with facts. If Bernie looks like he's gonna get the nomination we'll start hearing some BS about him, too, no doubt.
On another front, I read this piece by Ezra Klein that's pretty interesting. It's mostly about Sanders but there is a parenthetical reference to the Clinton e-mail thing that made me remember. It's about why Bernie's honest certainty about his policies along with a similar certainty about his ability to bring them to reality might be a bad thing.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/2/22/11086292/bernie-sanders-political-revolution-wonks
It's the height of absurdity to imply that Obama is responsible for dividing our government and creating historical gridlock because he doesn't golf or isn't willing to make deals. That's coming straight from the GOP establishment that vowed to stop everything he tried to do including the regular upkeep of government and payment of debts. The Republicans after their stupid Tea Party insurgency are entirely responsible for this and it's quite obvious.
On another front, I read this piece by Ezra Klein that's pretty interesting. It's mostly about Sanders but there is a parenthetical reference to the Clinton e-mail thing that made me remember. It's about why Bernie's honest certainty about his policies along with a similar certainty about his ability to bring them to reality might be a bad thing.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/2/22/11086292/bernie-sanders-political-revolution-wonks
It's the height of absurdity to imply that Obama is responsible for dividing our government and creating historical gridlock because he doesn't golf or isn't willing to make deals. That's coming straight from the GOP establishment that vowed to stop everything he tried to do including the regular upkeep of government and payment of debts. The Republicans after their stupid Tea Party insurgency are entirely responsible for this and it's quite obvious.
grokit
well-worn member
Dubya didn't feel the need to articulate much; some think he dumbed it down on purpose.
Last edited:
KimDracula
Well-Known Member
Capitulating to GOP obstruction is the worst way out of gridlock and will not give you greater cooperation in Washington. It will just provide unity between the Congressional majority and the White House which won't mean anything good for someone who could like Bernie. I say punish the party responsible for the problem.
The Republican party's constant use of racist populist rhetoric is what created Trump's opportunity. They have been telling poor white people forever that their plight is the fault of some "other" while conning them into voting for their social program and tax cuts for rich people. Instead of waking up these people are just ditching the rest of the GOP platform and going for the xenophobic new American National Front strongman that is what Trump represents instead. They're keeping all the anger but ditching the old agenda, giving us Evangelicals who don't care if this fool is even a Christian.
The Republican party's constant use of racist populist rhetoric is what created Trump's opportunity. They have been telling poor white people forever that their plight is the fault of some "other" while conning them into voting for their social program and tax cuts for rich people. Instead of waking up these people are just ditching the rest of the GOP platform and going for the xenophobic new American National Front strongman that is what Trump represents instead. They're keeping all the anger but ditching the old agenda, giving us Evangelicals who don't care if this fool is even a Christian.
Chill Dude
Well-Known Member
Would you rather have gridlock with Bernie or Hillary, or would you rather vote for Trump? If Trump is elected are you okay with a republican majority voting to deport 11 million Hispanics, ban all Muslims, lower tax rates for the rich. Trump is also against gay marriage, against a women's right to choose, against common sense gun control measures, believes that global warming is a hoax and is absolutely clueless on foreign policy and fighting terrorism.
If Trump represents your values then vote for him.. I'm on board with Bernie or Hillary!
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Trump sounds so stupid when he talks. He says he loves the evangelicals, he says he's bonded with them. He just said he loves the poorly educated. He just loves everybody tonight, he's so happy about winning Nevada Relublican Caucus, Trumps walking on air - unbelievable.
@steama you just ran out of candidates to vote for. Not much of a choice.
The Republican Party is imploding.
Bernie is looking old and tired, I still like some of his ideas. Hillary did better at the CNN Towning Meeting tonight.
He just loves everybody tonight, he's so happy about winning Nevada Relublican Caucus, Trumps walking on air - unbelievable.@steama you just ran out of candidates to vote for. Not much of a choice.
The Republican Party is imploding.
Bernie is looking old and tired, I still like some of his ideas. Hillary did better at the CNN Towning Meeting tonight.
Last edited:
grokit
well-worn member
^ I respect your passion @steama, even if I don't agree with your choice. Having said that, I am noticing trump support coming from some unexpected places lately. I do not relish the prospect of having to choose between trump and hillary myself, and since my state's electoral vote will never go to a clinton anyhow I don't have to -- I will write bernie in, even if he's not on the ballot. He's only 5 years older than trump!
Last edited:
Farid
Well-Known Member
If you think an Egyptian woman in her 60s is a threat then I feel sorry for you. Trump has taken advantage of people's fears big time, and seeing it in action makes me sick. If you think I need to "get my house in order", then I'm sorry for you. It's blatant xenophobia, no matter how you frame it.
howie105
Well-Known Member
Sometimes when the motorcycle back tire breaks loose and the rear starts coming around you know you are going down, that is where I fear we are heading now. The edge candidates are pulling very well and both party mainline candidates aren't responding with much more then the same old lines and presentations. Gaming the system or running on ones brand recognition has its limits so if lessons aren't grasped this time around the next national election will be an even bigger cluster fuck. With even fewer people willing buy in to the process. I just hope that the high side crash isn't too painful and destructive.