Hillary's Campaign Kickoff

[Juror#8]

 

I think the most interesting part of the Trump scam is that people like myself and JSP, who were always considered here far right wing partisans, have shaken that label off of us, if for no other reasons than because we consider Trump a bridge too far...mostly because while he's a lot of things, a Republican ain't one of them.

I'll give it to you bro, we've had our disagreements before, but I can't ever say that you're a blind puppet for the party or will simply "fall in line," candidate notwithstanding. I'll add Gg into that mix with you and jsp.

 

I completely respect that.

 

While I agree on the recklessness of the statements, it wouldn't be an issue if the emails hadn't been created and stored on a private server in a blatant violation of the law. THAT is the bottom line.

This is true and I 100% agree. It's her feckless actions which put the scenario in place initially.

 

So I'm basically like, this is a comedy of errors. One person puts us in this sensitive national security situation and the other asks a volatile nation to exploit it and potentially cause us harm.

 

How did we end up with these candidates? Like really, how? How can anyone support either of them?

 

Where are the normal people to vet? Where is Kasich, Biden, and Romney. What happened to the days when talking about Bill Richardson's campy commercials or Kusinich's alien sightings or Giuliani's political paradigm consisting of a noun, a verb, and some 9/11 mention were the highlights of the campaign season? Those used to be the detours from actual serious political conversations.

 

What happened to that?

 

**** I would take John Edwards over both Clinton and Trump. Yea so he got some trim on the side a few years back ... that to me is mild compare to these bumble heads.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Juror#8

[Juror#8]

 

While I agree on the recklessness of the statements, it wouldn't be an issue if the emails hadn't been created and stored on a private server in a blatant violation of the law. THAT is the bottom line.

This is 100% true and I agree. It's her feckless actions which put the scenario in place initially.

 

So I'm basically like, this is a comedy of errors. One person put us into this sensitive national security situation and the other asks a volatile nation to exploit the situation and potentially cause us harm.

 

Wtf!?!

 

How did we end up with these candidates? Like really, how? How can anyone support either of them?

 

Where are the normal people to vet? Where is Kasich, Biden, and Romney. What happened to the days when talking about Bill Richardson's campy commercials or Kusinich's alien sightings or Giuliani's political paradigm consisting of a noun, a verb, and some 9/11 mention were the highlights of the campaign season? Those used to be the detours from actual serious political conversations.

 

What happened to that?

 

**** I would take John Edwards over both Clinton and Trump. Yea so he got some trim on the side a few years back ... that to me is mild compare to these bumble heads.

[IDBillzFan]

 

Labels are useless. I have a number of positions that would be considered leftist.

 

Yes, but I suspect one of them is only because you prefer the hand soap in the ladies' room.

[Doc]

Emails are never really "deleted." Fairly certain they can be "grave dug up" by enterprising hackers.

And either way, whether he is saying "see if you can resurrect them" or "check to see if there actually deleted because I don't believe her claim," the effectuation and accomplishment of either option would be an action against our (read: United States) interests.

And even the attempt to do so could potentially involve finding or discovering things that is sensitive in nature.

It's treasonous. Very treasonous.

If the emails are truly still out there, why hasn't the FBI tried to find them? They were investigating her after all.

 

And I still have no idea why you would consider it treasonous. If those emails truly are benign, then there is nothing to see there. If they do contain something important in them, that would be argue formtreason on her part. And it's not like they haven't tried to hack everyone else's computers, including hers.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Doc

[Deranged Rhino]

[Juror#8]

If that's true, then why doesn't the FBI do that?

If the emails are truly still out there, why hasn't the FBI tried to find them? They were investigating her after all.

 

And I still have no idea why you would consider it treasonous. If those emails truly are benign, then there is nothing to see there. If they do contain something important in them, that would be argue formtreason on her part. And it's not like they haven't tried to hack everyone else's computers, including hers.

I'm of the opinion that you don't tell Russia "access potential State Department communications for me; just dig around and see what you can find in there. She said that about 30,000 emails were deleted because they were personal but see if you can rummage those up and determine for yourself."

 

That's my issue. It's someone who wants to be president. So telling a foreign country, that is a nuclear nation, and that's been flying warplanes in aggressive maneuvers within feet of our battleships in international waters as recently as two months ago, that they should access emails - some of which could be of profoundly sensitive national security moment - is a really really really bad idea.

 

Clinton claims to have done a word search to separate the personal from professional. And wholesale deleted the the ones that fell into that "personal" category. That means then there is a margin of error there that even a handful of those emails could have been work related and therefore sensitive. Even if only .00001 of those emails were work-related, which would be incredibly accurate and a reasonable margin of error to assume based on the same person not re-reading everyone to be sure of their classification, that's still 3 emails that you're encouraging he Russians to read.

 

You're comfortable with that?

 

Russians were circling a war plane 20 feet from the Uss Donald Cook in April/May.

 

You're comfortable with that?

 

You think it's ok for a candidate for president to tell an aggressive nuclear nation, who is no friend of the United States, to basically "just see what you can find." You think that that's "making America great" to take that risk? You think that's presidential? Prudent? Worthy of your vote?

 

No, it's at best reckless and profoundly stupid and at worst treasonous. Neither of those has any business getting your vote or mine for an office that demands competency, foresight, and intelligence.

 

And it violates the Logan Act.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Juror#8

[keepthefaith]

Emails are never really "deleted." Fairly certain they can be "grave dug up" by enterprising hackers.

 

And either way, whether he is saying "see if you can resurrect them" or "check to see if there actually deleted because I don't believe her claim," the effectuation and accomplishment of either option would be an action against our (read: United States) interests.

 

And even the attempt to do so could potentially involve finding or discovering things that is sensitive in nature.

 

It's treasonous. Very treasonous.

No it's exactly as Ginreaper stated.

[boyst]

Juror. That you believe Putin or the Russians have a care in the world about what trump says wrt to this you're a fool.

 

They want to disrupt Murika anyway they can

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

Yes, but I suspect one of them is only because you prefer the hand soap in the ladies' room.

 

Quiet you.

[Chef Jim]

No, Trump did not call for Russia to hack anything. If the 30,000 emails have already been deleted they can't be hacked. He sarcastically said that if they already had them they should release them.

 

America lost it's sarcasm button a long time ago.

[Juror#8]

Juror. That you believe Putin or the Russians have a care in the world about what trump says wrt to this you're a fool.

 

They want to disrupt Murika anyway they can

I'm more concerned about what that portends for our foreign policy over the next 4-8 years.

 

If our consideration around not doing stupid stuff started and stopped with "did any foreign actor care and did it end up ultimately causing a problem," then we would not keep lambasting Hilly about the email stuff.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Juror#8

[keepthefaith]

I'm of the opinion that you don't tell Russia "access potential State Department communications for me; just dig around and see what you can find in there. She said that about 30,000 emails were deleted because they were personal but see if you can rummage those up and determine for yourself."

 

 

 

Hillary's communication traveled through a personal civilian server so I doubt that treason or the Logan act covers her server or mine or yours for that matter.

[Deranged Rhino]

I'm more concerned about what that portends for our foreign policy over the next 4-8 years.

 

 

Trump isn't a real candidate, thus worrying about his theoretical foreign policy shouldn't be as alarming as the foreign policy Clinton has actually implemented and will further when she's in office.

 

HRC means more war. More cost. More loss of life. Less stability globally.

 

She's a continuation of everything that's been wrong about our nation's foreign policy for the past 16 years and counting.

imo

And, if it is indeed Russia behind the DNC hack (I happen to think they're just one of many who hacked the DNC), here's a flashback to your motivation:

 

Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin accused Secretary of StateHillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday of inciting unrest in Russia, as he grappled with the prospect of large-scale political protest for the first time in his more than decade-long rule.

In a rare personal accusation, Mr. Putin said Mrs. Clinton had sent “a signal” to “some actors in our country” after Sunday’s parliamentary elections, which were condemned as fraudulent by both international and Russian observers. Anger over the elections prompted a demonstration in which thousands chanted “Putin is a thief” and “Russia without Putin,” a development that has deeply unnerved the Kremlin.

Speaking to political allies as he announced the formation of his presidential campaign, Mr. Putin said that hundreds of millions of dollars in “foreign money” was being used to influence Russian politics, and that Mrs. Clinton had personally spurred protesters to action. The comments indicate a breakdown in the Obama administration’s sputtering effort to “reset” the relationship between the United States and Russia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/world/europe/putin-accuses-clinton-of-instigating-russian-protests.html?_r=0

Greenwald addresses the DNC hack:

 

[GG]

 

No, it's at best reckless and profoundly stupid and at worst treasonous. Neither of those has any business getting your vote or mine for an office that demands competency, foresight, and intelligence.

 

And it violates the Logan Act.

 

This really belongs in the Trump thread. But among the litany of reasons to hate a Trump candidacy is that he's elevated the noise to signal ratio beyond comprehensible numbers that it's impossible to ascertain where the red line is on unacceptable commentary.

 

In my book, he should have been tossed off the top of Trump Tower for suggesting that US should default on its debt. But that rolled off as if it was an ignorant comment, so he gets license to carry on with reckless statements, because ... Well, you know.

[grinreaper]

Emails are never really "deleted." Fairly certain they can be "grave dug up" by enterprising hackers.

 

And either way, whether he is saying "see if you can resurrect them" or "check to see if there actually deleted because I don't believe her claim," the effectuation and accomplishment of either option would be an action against our (read: United States) interests.

 

And even the attempt to do so could potentially involve finding or discovering things that is sensitive in nature.

 

It's treasonous. Very treasonous.

Then why hasn't the State Department or FBI done so? Do you actually think that the Russians need to be prodded by Trump to hack U.S. government accounts? If they weren't already deleted then they already have been hacked.

[Doc]

I'm of the opinion that you don't tell Russia "access potential State Department communications for me; just dig around and see what you can find in there. She said that about 30,000 emails were deleted because they were personal but see if you can rummage those up and determine for yourself."

That's my issue. It's someone who wants to be president. So telling a foreign country, that is a nuclear nation, and that's been flying warplanes in aggressive maneuvers within feet of our battleships in international waters as recently as two months ago, that they should access emails - some of which could be of profoundly sensitive national security moment - is a really really really bad idea.

Clinton claims to have done a word search to separate the personal from professional. And wholesale deleted the the ones that fell into that "personal" category. That means then there is a margin of error there that even a handful of those emails could have been work related and therefore sensitive. Even if only .00001 of those emails were work-related, which would be incredibly accurate and a reasonable margin of error to assume based on the same person not re-reading everyone to be sure of their classification, that's still 3 emails that you're encouraging he Russians to read.

You're comfortable with that?

Russians were circling a war plane 20 feet from the Uss Donald Cook in April/May.

You're comfortable with that?

You think it's ok for a candidate for president to tell an aggressive nuclear nation, who is no friend of the United States, to basically "just see what you can find." You think that that's "making America great" to take that risk? You think that's presidential? Prudent? Worthy of your vote?

No, it's at best reckless and profoundly stupid and at worst treasonous. Neither of those has any business getting your vote or mine for an office that demands competency, foresight, and intelligence.

And it violates the Logan Act.

Are you comfortable with the fact that Hillary deleted 30,000 emails without the FBI seeing them first? Are you comfortable with the fact that some of the emails she didn't delete had classified information in them, pretty much proving that the one she didn't delete head stuff that was even worse in them ? For personal gain no less? I'm not and those are big reasons why she should never be president. Period. So that means I'll have to vote for Trump because we only have a choice of two.

[Ozymandius]

[Ozymandius]

Shannon Bream

✔@ShannonBream

Crowd chanting "USA! USA!" Delegate in front of me stands up and yells, "Stop that! That's a Trump chant!" #DNCinPHL

7:58 PM - 27 Jul 2016

PFTCommenter @PFTCommenter

Tim Kaine mails in the warranty card on his wifes vibrator

9:41 PM - 27 Jul 2016

[Juror#8]

Are you comfortable with the fact that Hillary deleted 30,000 emails without the FBI seeing them first? Are you comfortable with the fact that some of the emails she didn't delete had classified information in them, pretty much proving that the one she didn't delete head stuff that was even worse in them ? For personal gain no less? I'm not and those are big reasons why she should never be president. Period. So that means I'll have to vote for Trump because we only have a choice of two.

Not in the slightest. There is nothing about what she did that I'm ok with. Again, as I've said numerous times in this thread, what she did was feckless and irresponsible and potentially jeopardized national security.

 

I'm just saying that what Trump has done has its own share of irresponsibilities, and stupidity, and I have an issue with the fact that he is communicating with the Russians to say what he said. You just don't use the pre-presidential pulpit (he and Hillary have one foot in the door and their media coverage, because of the campaigns, is ubiquitous) to make statements like that.

 

That was like a "black Bush" skit from the Chappelle show. Seriously, you can't invite the Russians to commit espionage and then laugh it off. People just don't do that ****. It's not funny. It's not a joke. Its not cool. It's not "hindsight sarcasm."

 

And if a Hillary would have done that, it would be ww3. And you know it.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Juror#8

[keepthefaith]

Not in the slightest. There is nothing about what she did that I'm ok with. Again, as I've said numerous times in this thread, what she did was feckless and irresponsible and potentially jeopardized national security.

 

I'm just saying that what Trump has done has its own share of irresponsibilities, and stupidity, and I have an issue with the fact that he is communicating with the Russians to say what he said. You just don't use the pre-presidential pulpit (he and Hillary have one foot in the door and their media coverage, because of the campaigns, is ubiquitous) to make statements like that.

 

That was like a "black Bush" skit from the Chappelle show. Seriously, you can't invite the Russians to commit espionage and then laugh it off. People just don't do that ****. It's not funny. It's not a joke. Its not cool. It's not "hindsight sarcasm."

 

And if a Hillary would have done that, it would be ww3. And you know it.

So you really took Trump's comments as an invitation to commit espionage? Didn't see/hear it immediately as sarcasm? Time for new batteries in your perception meter.