Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[malbec]

I love Putin's dilemma . He wants to follow Bortnklov's plan of releasing everything whereas the SVR want to use all the E-mails and private phone calls as blackmail weapons once the Witch is installed .However , he is enraged since finding out how much Russia has paid the Clinton's indirectly through continuing with the latter route .

 

[The Big Dog]

And again, explain to me how is that any different than ...

It is not.... wait for it folks, he"ll get it in a minute.... MIND BLOWN.

Oh man! I hope he gets it! although there is in fact a difference:

Hillary's despicable pay for play is confirmed, and it is actually on topic.

Tu quoque fallacies are such terrible arguments! Thanks acb!

 

[Fudbucker]

No, I care about both. But I know how the system works. I've seen it from the inside. It's a disgrace. It's a pox on the entire system. But the GOP doesn't give a damn about good government or ethics. So you'll excuse me if I don't care about the Clinton Foundation. What I'm not, is a pansy ass liberal who will disarm while the Republicans have no intention of ever slowing down their fire.

But the GOP thinks money is speech and money is how you play. Two things Republicans don't care about is "money in politics" and "democracy". This is why they purge voter rolls and demand voter IDs and prevent college students from voting on campuses.

So you'll excuse me that donors of a charity used that charity to get access to the SecState. And again, explain to me how is that any different than AETNA or Group Health donating to some Congressman or Senator to get a meeting and lobbying some piece of legislation?

Doesn't it bother you, though, that that's the way things are? Or have you resigned yourself to the fact that that's always the way things will be? I'm not saying either one (cynism/idealism) is correct. It may be that with people in power, there will always be quid-pro-quo's. I'm curious if you agree with that.

 

[acbytesla]

It is not.... wait for it folks, he"ll get it in a minute.... MIND BLOWN.

Oh man! I hope he gets it! although there is in fact a difference:

Hillary's despicable pay for play is confirmed, and it is actually on topic.

Tu quoque fallacies are such terrible arguments! Thanks acb!

There is no difference and it isn't a fallacy. Tell your story to some political virgin . Cause its crap. 535 Congressman and Senators play this game and somehow Clinton is worse than the rest of them? And this includes holier than thou Bernie Sanders.

YAWN !

 

[acbytesla]

Doesn't it bother you, though, that that's the way things are? Or have you resigned yourself to the fact that that's always the way things will be? I'm not saying either one (cynism/idealism) is correct. It may be that with people in power, there will always be quid-pro-quo's. I'm curious if you agree with that.

It does bother me. But I know damn well that electing Republicans will never change it. NEVER...NEVER..EVER.

"Money is speech" is a Republican party mantra. The SCOTUS majority that passed Citizens United was 100 percent Republican appointed justices. The only party speaking about overturning it is the Democratic party. Hillary Clinton has said that overturning Citizens United is a priority. Has Trump uttered a single phrase about this court decision during the entire campaign? If he has, I missed it.

I'm really not sure there are as many quid pro quos as people think they're are. Most of these people are too smart for that. I personally know of a Senator who has no problem soliciting and accepting large donations right before a vote from both sides of an issue and then votes her conscience, usually the way she was going to vote before the donations.

There is no doubt at all that money buys access. But as long as money equals speech, it will be that way. Freshman orientation for Congressman is a bit of a shock when they find out once they are elected that their number one job is to raise money for themselves and the party. 25K a day. Lunches are always fundraisers.

These guys dial for dollars constantly. They're as bad as stock brokers.

I'm not crazy about Clinton never slowing in her fundraising. But there is a reason the Clintons have succeeded. They play the game effectively. But they want to change the game. The GOP's outrage about the Clintons is that these are Democrats beating them at their own game.

 

[The Big Dog]

There is no difference and it isn't a fallacy.

YAWN !

Hee hee!

 

[acbytesla]

Hee hee!

Whatever turns you on.

 

[Shalamar]

Whatever turns you on.

That would be Hillary that turns him on.

 

[Brainster]

Not getting much notice around here is the State Department revelation that they found 14,900 additional Hillary emails.

The 14,900 Clinton documents are nearly 50 percent more than the roughly 30,000 emails that Clinton’s lawyers deemed work-related and returned to the department in December 2014.

Will we get to see those documents? I'm guessing not before the election:

The FBI’s year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned.

Hey, 30,000 versus 44,900? A rounding error in any well-paid corporate accountant's opinion, right?

 

[Megalodon]

Here we go again... I'm sure this time around is the hangman's noose for her.

Just wait and see...

 

[Darat]

What's surprising about that? Surely the FBI had access to government departments?

 

[caveman1917]

And therein lies your problem and Nader's problematic philosophy. It's not a realistic scenario.

You sure are doing everything you can to make it so, leading us back to the self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[catsmate]

Strawman accusation ad hominem with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response "your hero Hillary" doesn't apply in my case, but thanks for playing.

Exactly.

 

[catsmate]

For real.

Does anyone really think this would have been viewed better if she had just used a hotmail or gmail account?

Oh please. No, in that case, it would have been an even bigger outrage, because she used a PUBLIC server, instead of a private server.

"She didn't even have the smarts to at least make it a private server on her own computer. She used a friggin HOTMAIL account for pete's sake!"

Exactly. This isn't about "national security" or "freedom of information" it's more pathetically mindless Clinton bashing by the terminally desperate.

 

[catsmate]

Which is a good thing, not a more evil thing.

Well yes, to rational people. But quite a lot of Clinton's critics are anything but rational.

 

[catsmate]

Here is the thing: you really are not representative of US voters. Your "if all voters decide to vote third party" fantasy is entirely unrelated to what will happen, or even to what has any chance whatsoever of happening. No third party candidate has even 1% chance of winning.

Yeah, a dead gorilla is doing as well as Stein.

 

[caveman1917]

Here is the thing: you really are not representative of US voters. Your "if all voters decide to vote third party" fantasy is entirely unrelated to what will happen, or even to what has any chance whatsoever of happening. No third party candidate has even 1% chance of winning.

Aren't you actually one of those people telling all voters that "it's not realistic" to vote third party? This is still in self-fulfilling prophecy land.

Oh and here's yet another choice available to anyone whereby neither Trump nor Clinton would become president: kill both Trump and Clinton.

Such an overload of choices available to anyone, yet somehow the "realists" can only see two.

 

[Foolmewunz]

You sure are doing everything you can to make it so, leading us back to the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Look, if you want to vote third party, you are free to do so. There are members here who agree with you and feel that their self-respect is at stake or that they cannot with a clear conscience support either of the major candidates.

But these threads are "politics" and there is a certain pragmatism. The US system is not going to allow for a third party candidate to come in and capture the Presidency. Period. The "well, we can't win if you keep putting us down" is all just fantasy; sort of a counter-culture version of "every man a king - you, too could grow up to be President". Well, yeah.... it's about 330,000,000:6 against you, so let's consider it a realistic possibility? No. My kid being President and Jill Stein winning the Presidency in 2016 are both pretty low on the probability scale.

I've said this to others who want to take this approach: Take the moral high ground. I, and others, may feel you're tilting at windmills but who are we to argue with you for standing up for your own moral convictions. But don't try to gloss it over as it being anything else. It's a gesture. Maybe an important gesture to you, but still a gesture.

And just as you are free to vote your heart, the rest of us are free to believe that if you're in a swing state, you're essentially voting for "the other party". This isn't limited to Stein supporters. Might as well include Johnson's posse.

 

[caveman1917]

Well, yeah.... it's about 330,000,000:6 against you, so let's consider it a realistic possibility?

How many of those 330 million[*] are voting this way because of their conviction that "there is no other realistic possibility"? Judging by this thread, it's a majority of them. This entire line of reasoning is just a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's also an easy cop-out for promoting a candidate without actually having to defend said candidate on their own terms.

Also, it's only a numbers game in as much as you choose to accept the terms of the game - see for instance the choice of killing both Clinton and Trump, no numbers required, yet still having the effect of neither becoming president.

* How are you getting that 330 million figure? Many Americans don't even vote at all.

 

[wareyin]

Aren't you actually one of those people telling all voters that "it's not realistic" to vote third party? This is still in self-fulfilling prophecy land.

Oh and here's yet another choice available to anyone whereby neither Trump nor Clinton would become president: kill both Trump and Clinton.

Such an overload of choices available to anyone, yet somehow the "realists" can only see two.

Essentially, this appears to be a "what if they held an election but nobody voted" argument, which ignores the law (advocating murder? really?) as well as the culture and population of the US. Every election, around 40% of voters vote for Democrats and 40% of voters vote for Republicans, because those voters either strongly identify with that party, or because they always have voted for that party. Third party voters have a disproportionately loud voice on social media, but when it comes time to vote, they are a drop in the bucket. You have essentially 1-5% of the vote for third party candidates (and they've only reached 5% in 12 out of the 58 presidential elections). Even if every single independent and third party all combined to choose one candidate, that candidate will max out at 20%. That won't win you the presidency, and there is no way that these third party and independents will all agree on one candidate.