skinsmarydu Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Hear, hear! Might as well embrace the current POTUS as well, we're better off than if he hadn't been there. Yes, specifically him, and specifically the last 7-ish years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 This story gets better and better. It almost has me chuckling... Because that is proper storage of classified information. Bravo Mrs. Clinton. Bravo. I don't know if Americans are that dumb though. I don't believe it and I'll tell you why. I like blue. I also like elephants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 God I love lawyers....lol. She protesteth too much http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/30/media/hillary-clinton-email-new-york-times/ Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is accusing The New York Times of "egregious" errors and the "apparent abandonment of standard journalistic practices." The campaign is angry over a story The Times published one week ago about fallout from Clinton's use of a private email server while serving as Secretary of State. It was originally headlined "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton's Use of Email." The Times' story, which was based on unnamed sources, quickly unraveled. Clinton herself was not the target, and the case was not criminal. Now the Clinton team, in a highly unusual move, is formally protesting the story. On Tuesday the campaign sent a letter to The Times executive editor Dean Baquet, and on Thursday it made the letter public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 As much as I think she should be punished for what she did, she has a legit gripe. A major paper publishing a headline (in a day where it seems like most people just read headlines to form their opinions...) that says she's being criminally investigated, when there is no proof she's actually being criminally investigated, is really messed up. There's nothing she can do. This is how the news works now. There's no real accountability in journalism anymore, they're too busy trying to save their field from the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Do we actually have a Trump apologist in here? More than one apparently. Considering that he's leading the GOP field, I figured they had to be somewhere. The trouble with democracy . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 As much as I think she should be punished for what she did, she has a legit gripe. A major paper publishing a headline (in a day where it seems like most people just read headlines to form their opinions...) that says she's being criminally investigated, when there is no proof she's actually being criminally investigated, is really messed up. There's nothing she can do. This is how the news works now. There's no real accountability in journalism anymore, they're too busy trying to save their field from the internet. It happens every day in every paper. I have posted on here before, took a class in college called the critical analysis of reading and writing. It was focused on bias in all journalism. Not sure putting her crack legal team on the case is going to make her look better was my point. Sue sue sue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I think her team wants these attacks to continue. Especially from the GOP on the hill. They want the narrative to be white guys like Reince and Walker and Bush attacking a woman. Even if its fair. Doesn't matter. The perception they want is that those people don't want a female President. We all know its because of who she is...and not her gender. But the Dems already have an advantage with females and minorities. They want to focus there to make their path easier for a Nov '16 win. It's complete bull****. But that's politics for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 It doesnt help the GOP that their policies make them easy targets for being labeled anti-women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 It doesnt help the GOP that their policies make them easy targets for being labeled anti-women. True. When Hispanics and Females are the faster growing voter block out there. Its not surprising to see this trending her way in National Elections. She might be a jerk. But she panders to them. The other side doesn't have a message to court them.....yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 When Hispanics and Females are the faster growing voter block out there. Its not surprising to see this trending her way in National Elections. She might be a jerk. But she panders to them. The other side doesn't have a message to court them.....yet. With all the Bernie Sanders talk..... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/hillary-clinton-has-a-white-liberal-problem-that-will-help-bernie-sanders_b_7910526.html The new talking point among political wonks who never imagined Bernie Sanders possibly winning Iowa and New Hampshire, or seriously battling Clinton for the Democratic nomination, is a belief that Vermont's Senator only appeals to "white liberals." Therefore, let's forget for a moment that Killer Mike, Lil B The Based God, Dr. Cornell West, African-Americans for Bernie, Black Women 4 Bernie, Blacks for Bernie, Latinos for Bernie, and so many other Americans of all ethnic backgrounds are voting for Sanders in 2016. Let's also omit Clinton's 3 AM political ad against Obama in 2008 from the equation, or the fact that Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson stated, "The ad could easily have removed its racist sub-message by including images of a black child, mother or father." Furthermore, before discussing Sanders's appeal to white liberals (noticed ominously by certain white liberals) or Hillary's charisma to everyone else, let's not mention the fact that Bill Clinton believes he made the issue of mass incarceration worse, or that Bill Clinton executed a mentally disabled black man named Ricky Ray Rector on his way to the presidency, or that the former president was forced in 2008 to say, "I am not a racist." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I think her team wants these attacks to continue. Especially from the GOP on the hill. They want the narrative to be white guys like Reince and Walker and Bush attacking a woman. Even if its fair. Doesn't matter. The perception they want is that those people don't want a female President. We all know its because of who she is...and not her gender. But the Dems already have an advantage with females and minorities. They want to focus there to make their path easier for a Nov '16 win. It's complete bull****. But that's politics for you. Her campaign has been setting this up for over a year. She started doing her town hall meeting stuff and there were obviously planted questions about Benghazi. It gave her the ability to write the narrative, just like you're saying. That the republicans are after he because she's a woman. I don't believe republicans hate women, I just believe the democrats have been very successful in painting the picture. The GOP stance on abortion (kilmer is dead on in terms of fixing the GOP in this regard), and the way the complaints about contraception with ACA went down, have made the democrat's job pretty easy in that regard. But I saw it coming from a mile away. If stupid me can see it, then the fact that the GOP can't and hasn't adjusted their game plan should say a lot about them... And the general public? *sigh* The thing that gets me about the supposed hatred of republicans for anything not white and not male, is that I know plenty of democrats (self identified, verified by voting track record) that say racist and sexist things. I mean I've heard them say in one sentence how racist/sexist the republicans are, and in a following sentence say something racist/sexist... hate knows no political affiliation, and it's unfortunate so many people are blind to that. The GOP has been playing checkers and the Clinton campaign has been playing chess since January of 2014. The GOP still hasn't figured it out. Maybe they'll get their act together after the clown-car that is the GOP primary comes to an end. I doubt it. I'm hoping someone like Jim Webb or Bernie Sanders wins the D nomination, because at this point I'm willing to forgo most policy issues I have with them if they turn out to be a real, genuine leader that can get the government out of its current state of ****upery. I don't see that type of candidate in the GOP right now, and even if he/she existed I have serious doubts they could get through the GOP primary system which seems to only care about the very extreme and, from what I can tell, completely ignorant group of their supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 With all the Bernie Sanders talk..... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/hillary-clinton-has-a-white-liberal-problem-that-will-help-bernie-sanders_b_7910526.html We'll see. I feel like this Bernie stuff looks a lot like Ron Paul. Clinton basically can and should keep a low profile as long as possible. Its simply strategic. The next few months are going to be GOP debates on who can out-do each other in their attacks on her. Meanwhile, that is what she wants. BTW, note that most if not all of those 4-Bernie groups aren't going to vote GOP is he isn't in the general. Difference is that he is probably pulling more from the middle and indy ranks right now. The next step if he's done won't be Trump or Bush or Huckabee. It'll be the dem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 The difference between Paul and Sanders, is that Sanders doesn't have bat **** crazy ideas. You may not like his political/social philosphy, but it's not rooted in ignorance/insanity. I say that as someone who supported both Pauls, and in many ways respect them and like them. They do have a lot of important ideas, and above all they stand up for their beliefs even when politically inconvenient (which says a lot about a politician these days.) On that note, I cannot believe that Ron Paul chose now to launch his website about this new financial crisis he's so concerned about, and is running the ads on Fox News. It's not going to help his sons campaign to have the gold standard nonsense associated with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I think her team wants these attacks to continue. Especially from the GOP on the hill. They want the narrative to be white guys like Reince and Walker and Bush attacking a woman. Even if its fair. Doesn't matter. The perception they want is that those people don't want a female President. We all know its because of who she is...and not her gender. But the Dems already have an advantage with females and minorities. They want to focus there to make their path easier for a Nov '16 win. It's complete bull****. But that's politics for you. Oh, I think, if I'm running her campaign, I do things slightly differently. I leave the "they're attacking me because I'm a woman" (a claim which, I'll point out, I have not seen a single Clinton supporter actually say. Only Republicans claiming that she's doing it.) completely out of the mix. If I'm Hillary, my position is "It's deja vu all over again." This is simply what Republicans do, when they get power. They did it to Bill. They start with accusing him of murdering staff members, then move from there to raping women, and after four years of "investigation" which actually consist of simply demanding everything in the world, in the hopes that the investigation will dig up something which they can use to justify the infestigation, they eventually find something, or manufacture something. They start with charges of murdering staff members, then go from there to raping women, then use the claim of harassment to justify demanding testimony under oath about whether he's ever cheated on his wife, to "He said no! Now we've got something! Finally!" And eventually we're impeaching a sitting President for not admitting thast he cheated on his wife. Here they start with claims of murdering diplomats. And, after four years of Congressional "investigations", in which they simply demand everything in the world, and yell "cover up" when they don't get everything in the world, they conclude that well, gee, there actually was no scandal to begin with. But look, they've discovered that some email wasn't handeled in accordance with government guidelines. And there's rumors that maybe some of the email might have been classified, but wasn't marked that way. (In the email that never would have left the server, if not for the "investigation".) Were some things done wrong? Absolutely. It this entire outrage nothing but a political theater that should have closed down years ago, if it weren't being subsidized by the theater's patron? Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 More than one apparently. Considering that he's leading the GOP field, I figured they had to be somewhere. The trouble with democracy . . . This sounds more like the trouble Democracy must face. Like him or hate him, he has a right to run. The numbers are what they are. Just a few years ago, these numbers would not reflect what they do today because Americans would have just turned away. What we are seeing is the backlash of current policy. We saw it when Obama got elected and we are now seeing it again. The pendulum swings and we all know that or should know that. The further right or left you govern, the futher right or left it swings. If you were good with what you've seen these past 7 years, then you should not be surprised at what you are seeing in the populace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 Politico - How Debt Tamed the Donald http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/donald-trump-debt-120830.html#.VbuRyPkpksI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 We'll see. I feel like this Bernie stuff looks a lot like Ron Paul. Clinton basically can and should keep a low profile as long as possible. Its simply strategic. The next few months are going to be GOP debates on who can out-do each other in their attacks on her. Meanwhile, that is what she wants. She needs to start raising that profile. She doesn't need to start attacking the Republicans yet but she does need to go out there more and give her vision. She can't keep out of the spotlight forever. In terms of strategy, she needs to get Dems excited about her now, Squelch that talk of anybody getting into the race. Al Gore would beat her. Elizabeth Warren would beat her. I think even Joe Biden would beat her because he's Obama's real heir. I'm not sure about John Kerry, but he would give her a good race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 Looks like Jim Gilmore entered the race yesterday. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/30/former-virginia-gov-gilmore-enters-white-house-race/ Damn, can't keep up with the Trump rise. He now leads Iowa. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iowa-poll-trump-walker/2015/07/31/id/664826/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 She needs to start raising that profile. She doesn't need to start attacking the Republicans yet but she does need to go out there more and give her vision. She can't keep out of the spotlight forever. In terms of strategy, she needs to get Dems excited about her now, Squelch that talk of anybody getting into the race. Al Gore would beat her. Elizabeth Warren would beat her. I think even Joe Biden would beat her because he's Obama's real heir. I'm not sure about John Kerry, but he would give her a good race. She needs to hand over the info that whe was specifically ordered to do. The problem for her is not the fact that she has a story to tell and she needs to be able to do that to the American People IMO. That has already happened and now, there are holes in the story she told. This is why Americans, in both parties, don't trust her. The only thing that can save her now, IMO, is if she turns over the info and nothing is found. I suspect, though I don't know for sure, that she knows this. She is not dumb, her problem is that she is over confident in her onw abilities and that she thinks everybody else is dumb. Because of this, she has now painted herself into a corner and it's going to be difficult for her to reverse opinion unless she hands over the info. Until she does that and until the info is found to be innocuous, she is going to be on the wrong side of the opinion polls in both parties. This conversation is mainly about the GOP and what they think of Hillary but what is more disconcerting are the numbers in her own party of what they think. That's the problem for Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 She needs to hand over the info that whe was specifically ordered to do. The problem for her is not the fact that she has a story to tell and she needs to be able to do that to the American People IMO. That has already happened and now, there are holes in the story she told. This is why Americans, in both parties, don't trust her. The only thing that can save her now, IMO, is if she turns over the info and nothing is found. I suspect, though I don't know for sure, that she knows this. She is not dumb, her problem is that she is over confident in her onw abilities and that she thinks everybody else is dumb. Because of this, she has now painted herself into a corner and it's going to be difficult for her to reverse opinion unless she hands over the info. Until she does that and until the info is found to be innocuous, she is going to be on the wrong side of the opinion polls in both parties. This conversation is mainly about the GOP and what they think of Hillary but what is more disconcerting are the numbers in her own party of what they think. That's the problem for Hillary. I suspect she can't hand over the info because her counsel is sifting through the data and coming up with a road map of all things incriminating and a plan to combat what comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 There is a part of me that thinks Clinton has all the emails, that there's nothing bad in them at all, and is just letting this drag out as far as possible. So she can eventually hand them all over and the GOP will be looked at as drumming up another story about nothing because they hate her. Oh, and of course because she's a woman, and we all know the GOP hates women or something. But majority of me thinks she's just another politician that did this so she could remove information as she sees fit if need be. Sometimes the obvious and simple answer is the right one. Would be funny if this was all a big setup to make the GOP look stupid. Wouldn't surprise me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 There is a part of me that thinks Clinton has all the emails, that there's nothing bad in them at all That is like suggesting when a politician speaks, there can be nothing bad derived from the speech. Regardless, the simple fact that there is classified data on the server says enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I suspect she can't hand over the info because her counsel is sifting through the data and coming up with a road map of all things incriminating and a plan to combat what comes out. This would be my guess as well but I can't say this for sure because I have no proof, which is the problem right? This is why I do not believe HIllary can win. Right now, her plan is to stay out of the lime light as much as possible in an attempt to get the nomination. Her staff probably believes that if she can do this, this Administration will have no choice but to try and cover her. She probably feels as if the Democratic Party will support her, no matter what. The numbers don't suggest this but that's probably what she is thinking. I, for one, hope this is not true. While I do not agree with Democrats on how best to Govern, I do believe that they are Americans and as such, better then just a body of people who would support a candidate regardless of circumstances. JMO There is a part of me that thinks Clinton has all the emails, that there's nothing bad in them at all, and is just letting this drag out as far as possible. So she can eventually hand them all over and the GOP will be looked at as drumming up another story about nothing because they hate her. Oh, and of course because she's a woman, and we all know the GOP hates women or something. But majority of me thinks she's just another politician that did this so she could remove information as she sees fit if need be. Sometimes the obvious and simple answer is the right one. Would be funny if this was all a big setup to make the GOP look stupid. Wouldn't surprise me. Well, I understand this but the reality is that they have already confirmed that she had classified material in her email in her personal e-mail account. The question is not if but how much at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 This would be my guess as well but I can't say this for sure because I have no proof, which is the problem right? This is why I do not believe HIllary can win. Right now, her plan is to stay out of the lime light as much as possible in an attempt to get the nomination. Her staff probably believes that if she can do this, this Administration will have no choice but to try and cover her. She probably feels as if the Democratic Party will support her, no matter what. The numbers don't suggest this but that's probably what she is thinking. I, for one, hope this is not true. While I do not agree with Democrats on how best to Govern, I do believe that they are Americans and as such, better then just a body of people who would support a candidate regardless of circumstances. JMO Well, I understand this but the reality is that they have already confirmed that she had classified material in her email in her personal e-mail account. The question is not if but how much at this point. Why would she attempt to "enter the limelight" so early on? She has not being majorly attacked from the left. The GOP field is tripping over themselves trying to stuff their foot in their mouth. The only mistake she's made is acknowledging the email "scandal" at all. If history has proven anything, minor scandals wain and rarely loses elections. Not being partisan. I lean left but could equally care less about Trump University, Rand Paul's plagerism, or Christie's bridgegate in viewing them as potential candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I really wish the Dems had a deeper bench at the moment. I can live with Hillary as president. But the Clinton penchant for falling into these low-level scandals is annoying as is the Right's incessant need to turn the Clinton's low level scandals into capital crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.