Ed clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham?

[The Big Dog]

Sad thing is, I really really don't want Hillary for prez.
I mean, not as bad as you, but I really don't want her.


But you know, for real reasons, and I am not ......

Deranged? You have been reading way too many posts from the shilaries.

 

[beren]

Deranged? You have been reading way too many posts from the shilaries.

Nope. Reading your posts.

 

[The Big Dog]

Nope. Reading your posts.

Really, and the links to the mainstream media sources?

Deranged.

Say, thanks for checking in!

 

[beren]

Really, and the links to the mainstream media sources?

Deranged.

Say, thanks for checking in!

Anytime.

I do enjoy interacting with the less fortunate than me.

 

[davefoc]

delete

 

[davefoc]

delete

 

[davefoc]

Jeb Bush said:

“I would have [authorized the invasion], and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody. And so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got,” Bush told Fox News' Megyn Kelly in an interview scheduled to air Monday.

How does this kind of lunacy stack up against whatever scandal you want to think that Clinton is guilty of?

The single stupidest, most harmful foreign policy decision of my life and Jeb Bush says he'd do it again. What a friggin moron. Although, in his defense I'm pretty sure he's lying.

So now there are lots of pages devoted to trying to decide whether Clinton did something kind of sleazy or really sleazy. How does that stack up against the possibility that a likely Republican opponent of hers would get the US involved in another vastly damaging middle east war? Maybe if you could point to some Republican candidate that wasn't on the take, this stuff about how bad Clinton is would be relevant. Alas money drives politics in the US and all prominent politicians are on the take in one way or another today.

Maybe Elizabeth Warren is one that is less on the take than most. Good for her. Maybe if she had some power she could reel in the wall street criminals. But I might not vote for her over Clinton anyway. Warren seems to be a true believer in some of the Democratic Party's wacky economic ideas (as opposed to a lot of them that cynically take the special interest union money in exchange for favors). The problem with the true believer Warren is that I think she's wrong. I think Detroit and Baltimore are two empirical examples of what happens when Democrats gain complete control to implement their bogus economic theories. Warren may not be as corrupt as most but that doesn't make some of her ideas any less destructive.

 

[The Big Dog]

Jeb Bush said:.

That is one of the most off topic derailing attempts in the history of this forum.

We have already discussed at length that Hillary voted for the Iraq War Resolution, tho.

On topic? Query, did Hillary destroy emails regarding her Iraq war power vote?

Discuss.....

 

[beren]

That is one of the most off topic derailing attempts in the history of this forum.

We have already discussed at length that Hillary voted for the Iraq War Resolution, tho.

On topic? Query, did Hillary destroy emails regarding her Iraq war power vote?
Discuss.....

Wow. You are not even pretending you are not a troll anymore.

 

[The Big Dog]

Wow. You are not even pretending you are not a troll anymore.

That seems a bit rude.

You call the guy who was trying to keep the thread on topic a "troll" while ignoring the guy who bizarrely brought in the Iraq war into the thread.

I figured that he wanted to talk about Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution and whether she discussed Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution in her emails.

Like if someone asked her about Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution and she answered in an email about Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

I mean why else bring up Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution in the thread about her destroying emails, you know?

 

[davefoc]

That is one of the most off topic derailing attempts in the history of this forum.

We have already discussed at length that Hillary voted for the Iraq War Resolution, tho.

On topic? Query, did Hillary destroy emails regarding her Iraq war power vote?

Discuss.....

Of course it's relevant. You've regaled us with your theories about what bad things Clinton might have in her emails for forty pages.

And what you've been told by several of us is that you might be right that Clinton might have bad things in her emails. So are we all of a sudden going to have purely moral candidates whose integrity is above question to vote for?

A likely candidate just said that he'd repeat the same idiotic mistakes his brother did that cost the lives of thousands of US soldiers, tens of thousands of Iraqis, destabilized the entire region, disabled tens of thousands of American soldiers, and will have cost over 2 trillion dollars before all is said and done on the fiasco. Do you think I give a crap about a little Clinton corruption compared to that? And it's a little Clinton corruption that you have yet to prove after forty pages.

I've already said that even if you found a candidate with more integrity than Clinton I might not vote for them if I considered their beliefs more destructive than Clinton's. If Ted Cruz was a perfect human being with respect to his integrity would I all of a sudden think, oh goody I'm going to vote for him despite his anti-science, anti-gay, pro-war, childish ideas about governance. Of course not.

My question to you from the start has been why do you think this is so important? Benghazi is obviously Republican made up clap trap and even if it wasn't you'd have Clinton on trying to hide a mistake. Oh my god, she must be the first politician to do that. You've got her on having a private email account that turned out to not be illegal and something that was done by lots of Republicans. You've got her on not turning over emails in a timely way, something that is also a thing that has been done by prominent Republicans. And you probably have her on not wanting to turn her political emails over to a bunch of Republicans who would leak and twist them for their own political purposes. I think most of us think that she'd be stupid if she did turn over those kind of emails to the Republicans.

 

[The Big Dog]

Of course it's relevant. You've regaled us with your theories about what bad things Clinton might have in her emails for forty pages.
snip....

But THIS thread is about Hillary's use of a cowboy server and her destruction of emails.

There are probably other threads about all the other bad things Clinton did, like Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

However, unless you can think of a nexus between Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution and her destruction of emails, it seems like it is off topic.

So to conclude, Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution? Off topic.

Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution discussed in her emails? On topic.

Just my thoughts.

 

[davefoc]

But THIS thread is about Hillary's use of a cowboy server and her destruction of emails.

...

Then this thread should have been over a long time ago. There isn't a single person participating that thinks Clinton's use of a private email server for public work was a good practice. It turns out that it wasn't illegal and was somewhat ambiguously not against the rules at the time she did it. ETA: And I think many if not most of us aren't real keen on the non-transparent way she decided which emails to delete.

Then there is your endless speculation about bad things that might have been on the server that she didn't turn over. Except if she pushed the envelope too far there she could run into trouble because other people could produce emails that she didn't turn over to the government. So far that hasn't happened so there isn't much left to say about that except that you think she might not have turned over all relevant emails anyway. And nobody disagrees with you that you might be right. And everybody except you think that without some evidence there isn't anything more to talk about with regard to that.

Which brings me back to my original question. What do you think the point of this thread is? The Republicans are awash in money from mining interests, pharmaceutical interests, military supplier interests, oil interests, etc. Some Republicans seem pretty determined to get the US into another Mideast war. Compared to that stuff whatever sleaze you manage to dig up or imagine about the Clinton email scandal seems pretty minor. So what point are we supposed to take away from all this in your mind?

 

[The Big Dog]

snip?

No offense, as you can tell I'm not really impressed with your attempt to create a "republicans are bad too" derail.

You are not really forced to post in this thread you know?

 

[davefoc]

No offense, as you can tell I'm not really impressed with your attempt to create a "republicans are bad too" derail.

You are not really forced to post in this thread you know?

No offense taken.

My question still stands. Why is this important enough for you to have pushed on for these forty pages? What do you think of significance this will prove? Not that Clinton is less pure than some Republican she might be running against, I assume.

If your point was that changes should be made with regard to what is allowed with regard to government email practices, everybody agreed with you long ago and in fact changes seem to have been made since Clinton left office. If your point is that Clinton could have hidden all kinds of malfeasance on her email server, then I, at least, agree with you on that. But then how does that compare with other candidates and the malfeasance hidden in their private emails? Without evidence there's not much to talk about is there?

 

[The Big Dog]

how does that compare with other candidates and the malfeasance hidden in their private emails. Without evidence there's not much to talk about is there?

It doesn't compare because Hillary's conduct was intentional, pervasive, dishonest and in my view demonstrates that she is not fit for the position as dog catcher let alone President.

Hope that clears up any lingering confusion.

 

[DavidJames]

No offense, as you can tell I'm not really impressed with your attempt to create a "republicans are bad too" derail.

Yet in a thread about Eric Hoteham, you felt the need to bring up, many times, HRC's vote. While it's clear in a thread with a very specific title, those afflicted with HDS are helpless but to include anything negative about HRC, avid readers will face palm again at the hypocrisy.

 

[davefoc]

It doesn't compare because Hillary's conduct was intentional, pervasive, dishonest and in my view demonstrates that she is not fit for the position as dog catcher let alone President.

Hope that clears up any lingering confusion.

And you were going to vote for Clinton except for this email scandal? Is it possible that your views of the importance of the email scandal have been formed with your confirmation biases about Clinton in control?

 

[The Big Dog]

1. And you were going to vote for Clinton except for this email scandal? 2. Is it possible that your views of the importance of the email scandal have been formed with your confirmation biases about Clinton in control?

1. Lord no, many years ago I decided that I was not going to vote for anyone who voted for the Iraq war resolution.

2. No

 

[wareyin]

But then how does that compare with other candidates and the malfeasance hidden in their private emails? Without evidence there's not much to talk about is there?

It doesn't compare because Hillary's conduct was intentional, pervasive, dishonest and in my view demonstrates that she is not fit for the position as dog catcher let alone President.

Hope that clears up any lingering confusion.

Are you claiming that the Republican candidates who committed the same email ...irregularities, did not intend to, weren't being dishonest while doing so, or that somehow their equal actions weren't pervasive? Because quite literally these things do compare, and it sure looks equal to me.