Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Slings and Arrows said:
Crooked Hillary can't be trusted to safeguard classified information. And it's now looking more and more likely that she will be indicted for criminal "gross negligence" under the Espionage Act:

U.S. Code 18 section 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Click to expand...


"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed--
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
 
Notice how Sling and Arrows ignores all the shady deals Trump has been involved in....and how he will respond if,as I think likely,the **** hits the fan about Trump U.

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited breach of rule 10. Please do not disguise swear words in the public sections by the use of alternate spellings or replafement characters. Type all such words out in full and correctly spelled and allow the autocensor to work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dudalb said:
Notice how Sling and Arrows ignores all the shady deals Trump has been involved in....and how he will respond if,as I think likely,the **** hits the fan about Trump U.
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to comply with rule 10
Click to expand...

Notice how dudalb expertly employs the tu quoque fallacy to divert attention from Corrupt Hillary's gross misconduct.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob001 said:
The argument is that the Libertarian ticket -- two generally respected ex-governors -- might draw votes from moderate Republicans who would otherwise hold their noses and vote for Clinton against Trump. Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham are two prominent Repubs who have announced that Trump will never get their votes. Whether that's enough to swing some of the swing states is a reasonable question.
Click to expand...

How is splitting the GOP vote an argument against Clinton?
 
Bob001 said:
I don't remember the media collectively calling it "too close to call." After all, 538 is part of "the media." The Republicans certainly thought they were coasting to victory. Surprise, surprise.

But I think it's a mistake to say compare today to 2008 and 2012. In those elections, a charismatic black candidate new on the scene drew supporters and increased turnout. A lot of people actively voted for Obama. But Hillary's primary asset is that she's not Trump. I don't think Hillary can take all of those Obama voters for granted, and if some frustrated blue-collar workers in swing states go for Trump, and if some moderates stay home, the race really could be competitive.
Click to expand...

You underestimate a large proportion of the female and the black vote. And given CA results probably the Hispanic vote as well. Not surprising for you anti-Clinton folks that don't get it other people don't all see Clinton as negatively as you think.

As for the polls, there's a problem with a poll that is reported, "people don't like Clinton" and the second result, "Hillary will make a good POTUS" is not mentioned.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You underestimate a large proportion of the female and the black vote. And given CA results probably the Hispanic vote as well. Not surprising for you anti-Clinton folks that don't get it other people don't all see Clinton as negatively as you think.
....
Click to expand...

And not everyone in America is as enthralled with Hillary as you are. Not all women will support Hillary by virtue of gender alone, any more than all women support Carly Fiorina or Kelly Ayotte, and a certain percentage of African Americans feels as threatened and frustrated by economic and immigration issues as working class whites.

I think Trump would be catastrophic for the U.S. and the world, and I think he could beat Hillary, just as he beat 16 Republican candidates who didn't take him seriously.
 
Bob001 said:
And not everyone in America is as enthralled with Hillary as you are.
Click to expand...
Why yes, I happen to know that.

Bob001 said:
Not all women will support Hillary by virtue of gender alone,
Click to expand...
Nor do I.

Bob001 said:
I think Trump would be catastrophic for the U.S. and the world, and I think he could beat Hillary, just as he beat 16 Republican candidates who didn't take him seriously.
Click to expand...
At this point, he's not doing so well.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
The day after Crooked Hillary took the oath of office to become Secretary of State (January 22, 2009), she received a security briefing and signed the "Sensitive Compartmented Information Non-Disclosure Agreement:"

“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation.

"I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of SCI by me may constitute violations of United States criminal laws, including provisions of Sections 793, 794, 798, and 952, Title 18, United States Code, and of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code. Nothing in this agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation."

https://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/intel/sf4414.pdf​
Click to expand...


U.S. Code 18 section 794 - Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government:

"Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life."​


Which begs the question: What did Saudi Arabia get in exchange for their $25 million donation to The Clinton Foundation during Crooked Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State?

"You asked me about the Clinton Foundation. Do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of state and a foundation run by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign governments, governments which are dictatorships? You don't have a lot of civil liberties, democratic rights in Saudi Arabia. You don't have a lot of respect there for divergent, opposition points of view, for gay rights, for women's rights. Yeah — do I have a problem with that? Yeah, I do," Bernie Sanders said.

Sanders: 'I have a problem' with Clinton Foundation donation practices (June 5, 2016)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows said:
Which begs the question: What did Saudi Arabia get in exchange for their $25 million donation to The Clinton Foundation during Crooked Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State?
Click to expand...

I don't know, it's your claim so why not provide some evidence that there was a quid-pro-quo ?
 
Slings and Arrows said:
That's FBI Director James Comey's job, not mine. However, I trust that he'll do a thorough and meticulous investigation of the matter.
Click to expand...
What will you say when she is not charged for any of the crimes you believe she committed? Perhaps President Obama ordered them to cover it up or some conspiracy theory like that?
 
Slings and Arrows said:
That's FBI Director James Comey's job, not mine. However, I trust that he'll do a thorough and meticulous investigation of the matter.
Click to expand...
Ah, so you admit you're just slinging random mud in the desperate hope some will stick.
Kinda pathetic really.
 
Argumemnon said:
I guess, like the haters, they think calling something by a different word somehow changes its nature.
Click to expand...

It's quite a common linguistic understanding that the choice of descriptors changes the perception of the thing being described. I'm surprised that would have to be explained.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom