Donald vs Hillary

bush_cheney2004 · October 30, 2016

Just now, Argus said:

And obviously, that's all it took, a few minutes chat with Clinton, to convince her to endanger her career, her freedom and reputation in order to decide not to charge his wife.

I believe the political description of such a thing in Canada speak is....how do you say....."bad optics".

Argus · October 30, 2016

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

I believe the political description of such a thing in Canada speak is....how do you say....."bad optics".

And I believe the description of what you and the other Trumpites are doing is called, how you say... 'a smear campaign'.

bush_cheney2004 · October 30, 2016

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

...Second of all, I'm still waiting to hear from one of you guys about anyone in history who has ever been charged, never mind convicted for mishandling classified information.

Lots of people have been investigated and charged for such actions. Easy to find with Google....did several UCMJ investigations myself for sailors so charged back in the 1980's. What's so special about Hillary Clinton ?

bush_cheney2004 · October 30, 2016

1 minute ago, Argus said:

And I believe the description of what you and the other Trumpites are doing is called, how you say... 'a smear campaign'.

I won't be voting for Trump or Clinton, and neither will you. It's just another U.S. presidential election, complete with smear campaign(s).

Argus · October 30, 2016

19 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Lots of people have been investigated and charged for such actions. Easy to find with Google....did several UCMJ investigations myself for sailors so charged back in the 1980's. What's so special about Hillary Clinton ?

I said before I'm excluding the military. The military has entirely different standards of discipline, such as arresting and charging people for adultery or insubordination, or being a sloppy dresser. The military charges people for making mistakes all the time. Not so in civilian life.

To put it more simply. If you deliberately set your house on fire you will be charged with Arson. If you simply mishandle your stove and that sets fire to your house there's no charge. What you people on the far right are screaming for Clinton to be jailed for is that she mishandled her stove, but didn't actually cause a fire, but might have under some circumstances.

Aside: When we see these wackos at Trump rallies yelling "Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!" are people not reminded of the movies about the Salem witch trials, and all the ignorant peasants screaming "Burn her! Burn her! Burn the Witch!"

bush_cheney2004 · October 30, 2016

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

To put it more simply. If you deliberately set your house on fire you will be charged with Arson. If you simply mishandle your stove and that sets fire to your house there's no charge. What you people on the far right are screaming for Clinton to be jailed for is that she mishandled her stove, but didn't actually cause a fire, but might have under some circumstances.

Bad analogy....Clinton went out of her way to divert emails to a private server. And she knew that her staff was forwarding State email traffic to unsecure email domains for simple convenience. Other poor slobs get charged, maybe plead down to a lesser offense, or get prison/fines.

Why should Clinton be held to a lower standard than the military ?

Derek 2.0 · October 30, 2016

1 hour ago, Argus said:

First of all she didn't delete anything. Her staff did that.

.......just following orders

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Second of all, I'm still waiting to hear from one of you guys about anyone in history who has ever been charged, never mind convicted for mishandling classified information.

In keeping with the (Bill) Clinton theme......Sandy Berger, President Clinton's former NSA (two years with an ankle bracelet and a big fine)......John Deutch, Clinton's director of the CIA (Pardoned by Bubba Clinton just prior to being sent to the can).....And (Bill) Clinton State Department staffer Donald Keyser, who brought home classified documents on memory cards to his home, which were later lifted by a Chinese spy (He did one year in prison)......thats off the top of my head

Derek 2.0 · October 30, 2016

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Why should Clinton be held to a lower standard than the military ?

There isn't, as Secretary of State, Clinton (and those under her with security clearances) are expected of the same standard as the military etc.......The State Department even has its own mini CIA/FBI found within the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, which is tasked, within many areas, counterintelligence and internal security of the State Department.....which includes training programs, for staff holding security clearances, with regards to the protection of State secrets. :lol:

Derek 2.0 · October 30, 2016

1 hour ago, Argus said:

To put it more simply. If you deliberately set your house on fire you will be charged with Arson. If you simply mishandle your stove and that sets fire to your house there's no charge. What you people on the far right are screaming for Clinton to be jailed for is that she mishandled her stove, but didn't actually cause a fire, but might have under some circumstances.

But that is out of context.......in this case the "homeowner" might have been negligent of starting a fire, or even just "mishandling her stove", but the far more concerning part is that she and her staff weren't/aren't forthcoming with all the details to the fire inspector and insurance adjuster......

Derek 2.0 · October 30, 2016

2 hours ago, kimmy said:

If you guys had picked a normal nominee

What's with the "you guys"......not my circus, not my monkeys.

2 hours ago, kimmy said:

If Hillary were facing a real candidate, maybe people would want to have a serious conversation about her email issues.

I don't disagree.......A Rubio, a Bush, a Kasich, at this point, would have been a slam dunk.

2 hours ago, kimmy said:

But since you picked the worst major-party candidate in American history, voters outside the "Trump Revolution" are more concerned about keeping the senile orange clown out of office than about Hillary's shortcomings. Come back in 4 years with a real alternative for voters instead of this novelty candidate or protest candidate or whatever the hell this was supposed to be.

According to some recent polls, polls held before the FBI bombshell, "we" might not have to wait four years.........

bush_cheney2004 · October 30, 2016

57 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

What's with the "you guys"......not my circus, not my monkeys.

Agreed....what's up with that ?

Quote

I don't disagree.......A Rubio, a Bush, a Kasich, at this point, would have been a slam dunk.

Especially now.....Rubio could skate in for the score.

betsy · October 30, 2016

12 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said:

This is a stunning and irresponsible move by the FBI with just 11 days before election and even now while advance voting is taking place. To announce an investigation but be so vague that it plays right into the hands of Trump.

it leaves you wondering if the Republicans are in on it and it could very well backfire. Another attempt to destroy Hillary. Enough with the dam emails.

More like a "revolt" of some sort against the Justice Dept. It was Comey who'd cleared up Hillary in July (apparently it's not his job to do that, too)....and now, this.

I read somewhere that Comey is trying to "save his butt." From what, I have no idea. Who knows.....maybe something is about to get leaked.......

There must be more to this that we don't know about.

Edited October 30, 2016 by betsy

Argus · October 30, 2016

14 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Bad analogy....Clinton went out of her way to divert emails to a private server. And she knew that her staff was forwarding State email traffic to unsecure email domains for simple convenience. Other poor slobs get charged, maybe plead down to a lesser offense, or get prison/fines.

Why should Clinton be held to a lower standard than the military ?

What other 'poor slobs' got charged? Name a single case. Of the tens of thousands of emails the FBI have looked over they have found something like a hundred that should have been but weren't classified. These were mostly sent TO Clinton, not by her, and had no warnings they were classified. Apparently John Kerry is the first secretary of state to rely almost entirely on the state department's email system, so what she did is hardly that unusual.

If you want to go by military standards then Trump and all his senior male supporters should be in jail for adultery and conduct unecoming, along with a significant percentage of Republican governors, senators and congressmen.

Argus · October 30, 2016

14 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

In keeping with the (Bill) Clinton theme......Sandy Berger, President Clinton's former NSA (two years with an ankle bracelet and a big fine)......John Deutch, Clinton's director of the CIA (Pardoned by Bubba Clinton just prior to being sent to the can).....And (Bill) Clinton State Department staffer Donald Keyser, who brought home classified documents on memory cards to his home, which were later lifted by a Chinese spy (He did one year in prison)......thats off the top of my head

None of which are anything like this case. And no, I don't believe for a second that's 'off the top of your head'. More likely it's from Alex Jones or Brietbart. But no matter, the cases you cite have little in common with Clinton's email. Berger stole documents, hiding them under his jacket. Keyser stole information at the behest of a Taiwanese intelligent agent he was havingng an affair with and lied about it to the FBI. Deutch took away laptops with classified documents after he quit office. He was never charged with anything, but Clinton pardoned him because he wanted to end the 'unseemliness' of what he regarded as a petty investigation, even though he didn't actually like the man and had forced him out.

Argus · October 30, 2016

13 hours ago, Derek 2.0 said:

But that is out of context.......in this case the "homeowner" might have been negligent of starting a fire, or even just "mishandling her stove", but the far more concerning part is that she and her staff weren't/aren't forthcoming with all the details to the fire inspector and insurance adjuster......

And how does the homeowner get thrown in prison for that?

Argus · October 30, 2016

12 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Agreed....what's up with that ?

Might be related to the two of you putting in so many hours on this site desperately defending Trump.

Argus · October 30, 2016

12 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Especially now.....Rubio could skate in for the score.

Trump made Rubio look like a helpless, defenseless wimp and hypocrite.

Derek 2.0 · October 30, 2016

12 minutes ago, Argus said:

None of which are anything like this case.

You're right, Clinton's appears far worse.

13 minutes ago, Argus said:

And no, I don't believe for a second that's 'off the top of your head'. More likely it's from Alex Jones or Brietbart.

Huh? These were all heavily publicized cases at the time.......no conspiracies needed......all examples of civilians, below the level of Secretary of State (fourth inline to be president) facing legal problems for the "mishandling" of classified government documents.

15 minutes ago, Argus said:

And how does the homeowner get thrown in prison for that?

Fraud and/or obstruction.

Derek 2.0 · October 30, 2016

12 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Especially now.....Rubio could skate in for the score.

Hell, maybe even "Lying Ted".......

Derek 2.0 · October 30, 2016

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

Might be related to the two of you putting in so many hours on this site desperately defending Trump.

:lol:

Pot, this is kettle, over.....

Argus · October 30, 2016

1 hour ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Pot, this is kettle, over.....

Why don't you just admit you're a Trump supporter? Embarrassed?

betsy · October 30, 2016

17 minutes ago, Argus said:

Why don't you just admit you're a Trump supporter? Embarrassed?

So Argus......looks like when it comes to the Clintons, you got no problem with their cash for access schemes, huh? You don't see anything corrupt, or unethical about it....

Edited October 30, 2016 by betsy

Derek 2.0 · October 30, 2016

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Why don't you just admit you're a Trump supporter? Embarrassed?

I'm not a Trump "supporter", my opinion of him is widespread throughout the countless GOP primary threads, as I've said though, if forced to choose between Trump or Clinton, I'd vote Trump, namely because the next president (assuming two terms) is going to likely select upwards of 3-5 Supreme Court justices.......Trump has listed his 20 prospective picks, from a list that the majority of the GOP is supportive of and Trump has said he won't deviate from.

The fact that Trump isn't being investigated by the FBI is but the cherry on top..........despite the media narrative (and his own words and actions) Trump isn't the scary choice, fore assuming the GOP keeps the Congress (likely) and the Senate (too close to call), or if the Democrats take the Senate, any "scary Trump proposals" would be nixed by the prescribed checks and balances, the separation of powers, ingrained in the US Constitution.

Argus · October 30, 2016

1 hour ago, betsy said:

So Argus......looks like when it comes to the Clintons, you got no problem with their cash for access schemes, huh? You don't see anything corrupt, or unethical about it....

The entire US political system is based on cash for access. Every congressman, senator, governor, state representative, mayor and city councilor sells access and favors for donations. Corporations alone spend $2 billion a year lobbying just the federal government. Where do you think all that money goes, and do you actually think they'd be spending it all for nothing in return?

In this case what you are actually talking about is donations to a charity, as opposed to the norm, which is donations to the party or individual politician.

Argus · October 30, 2016

36 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

I'm not a Trump "supporter", my opinion of him is widespread throughout the countless GOP primary threads, as I've said though, if forced to choose between Trump or Clinton, I'd vote Trump, namely because the next president (assuming two terms) is going to likely select upwards of 3-5 Supreme Court justices.......Trump has listed his 20 prospective picks, from a list that the majority of the GOP is supportive of and Trump has said he won't deviate from.

Thanks for admitting you're a Trump supporter. So it's more important to you that the incoming president appoint judges who will get rid of abortion, perhaps, rather than judges who will put limits on campaign financing and spending? You don't care if every politician in the country is controlled by corporations and the billionaires as long as they ban abortion? Have I got that right?

Quote

The fact that Trump isn't being investigated by the FBI is but the cherry on top.....

Trump's corrupt practices are being investigated by just about everyone else. And the fact the Russians desperately want him as president ought to be a pretty clear signal that he ought not be one. When your enemies want someone to be your leader an intelligent person asks what's wrong with that person.

Quote

.....despite the media narrative (and his own words and actions) Trump isn't the scary choice, fore assuming the GOP keeps the Congress (likely) and the Senate (too close to call), or if the Democrats take the Senate, any "scary Trump proposals" would be nixed by the prescribed checks and balances, the separation of powers, ingrained in the US Constitution

Really? What check and balances are there on the president launching nuclear weapons? I'll save you some research. There are none. If the president says launch there is no legal mechanism in place to stop or refuse him.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Argus