Hillary Clinton is Done

[Bob001]

The issue isn't just true among the bat-crazy whack jobs on the right. Hillary alienates, and turns political interest off in a lot of centrist and leftist voters for reasons that have nothing to do with the idiocy about emails, Benghazi, vast rightwing conspiracies or sexism.

The real problem is not that a lot of moderates and liberals will vote for a Republican over Hillary. What's more likely is that some will just stay home on election day.

 

[Fudbucker]

Your post has absolutely nothing to do with my post which you quoted. Why did you bother to quote me?

BTW, do you want an avatar bet on your belief that HRC is on her way to the pokey? 10-1?

You still giving 10 to 1?

 

[SezMe]

Yep

 

[Fudbucker]

Yep

For indictment or conviction?

 

[Trakar]

The real problem is not that a lot of moderates and liberals will vote for a Republican over Hillary. What's more likely is that some will just stay home on election day.

Personally, I think a lot more conservatives take that approach of staying home and loudly complaining. Most liberals (conservative-lite) and moderates, as well as centrist progressive-lite people and even most Progressives, tend to hold their nose and choose the lessor of two evils. Or vote for candidates outside the two main parties. I vote in every election I'm eligible to vote in, I was brought up to understand that voting is a citizenship responsibility and if you aren't voting on election days, you are dishonoring the nation and your fellow citizens. Even without having a major party candidate to support at the top of a ballot, there are tens of issues and votes at the local, state and federal level that still need every citizen's input. I would never vote for a conservative, even if, as has been increasingly the case over the last several cycles, both of the two main party candidates were in my opinion "conservative," but, that doesn't stop me from fulfilling my responsibilities and voting.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The New York Times' Deceptive Suggestion That Hillary Clinton May Have Violated Federal Records Law

It Was Only After Clinton Left The State Department That The Law Concerning Private Emails Was Changed

Since the beginning of the FOIA, legislators of all stripes have found ways to shield some or all of their records from requests they be made publicly available. It's nothing new. The right wing has hidden many things, big things that actually have significance.

Here's an eye opening example:
ALEC's Latest "Transparency" Move: Asserting Immunity From Freedom of Information Laws

Shortly after the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) told the press "we really believe in transparency," new documents show the organization directing legislators to hide ALEC meeting agendas and model legislation from the public. This effort to circumvent state freedom of information laws is being called "shocking" and "disturbing" by transparency advocates.

GW Bush hid his DoJ election shenanigans by using the GOP email system instead of the government's.

The Bush White House email controversy was intended to cover up the dismissal of US Attorneys General that was done to install attorneys who would maliciously prosecute Democrats in key races among other things including voter caging (look it up). In WA state, where I am, John McKay was fired because he refused to investigate voter fraud that he knew didn't exist. It was when there was a hand-count of ballots in our governor's race.

These are things that were/are still being hidden from FOI requests which actually are truly outrageous and scandalous.

Unless there are some consequences of the supposed hidden emails (because there is no direct evidence any were indeed hidden, there is only an accusation) then let's hear it. If it was so outrageous, were you also outraged at GW Bush? At any of the right wing legislators who are involved in ALEC?

Those are the things I'm outraged about.

At the moment, I'm not falling for this rather relentless attempt by the GOP to make everyone think Clinton is evil. From Benghazi to the current email kerfuffle, take a look at how many GOP talking heads have inserted accusations and innuendo into the mass media discourse. This kind of character assassination is Karl Rove's specialty.

Is Clinton a usual politician? Yes, as is Obama, and all the rest of them. I have no problem with someone supporting Bernie Sanders in the belief he's been above this stuff his whole political career. I have no reason to doubt that is true. I've always admired Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich (for those who've forgotten, Kucinich was another legislator who was the victim of special GOP attention, in his case via gerrymandering).

If I thought Sanders had a chance in hell of winning, I might support him over Clinton. But reality is, running Bernie against whoever ends up as the GOP candidate is downright scary.

What I object to is that Clinton continues to be judged by a double standard. And if people are sure there's no gender bias involved on their part, are they sure they have not been influenced by a pervasive marketing campaign to make Clinton look like she's the devil incarnate?

The GOP so easily manipulates the news media and people even after this has been done time and time again, still don't notice.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Personally, I think a lot more conservatives take that approach of staying home and loudly complaining. Most liberals (conservative-lite) and moderates, as well as centrist progressive-lite people and even most Progressives, tend to hold their nose and choose the lessor of two evils. Or vote for candidates outside the two main parties. I vote in every election I'm eligible to vote in, I was brought up to understand that voting is a citizenship responsibility and if you aren't voting on election days, you are dishonoring the nation and your fellow citizens. Even without having a major party candidate to support at the top of a ballot, there are tens of issues and votes at the local, state and federal level that still need every citizen's input. I would never vote for a conservative, even if, as has been increasingly the case over the last several cycles, both of the two main party candidates were in my opinion "conservative," but, that doesn't stop me from fulfilling my responsibilities and voting.

I've never really understood this perspective. What difference does it make if you have a pool of 100 voters voting a certain way, or 1 million voters voting a certain way? The outcome is the same. And generally, the fewer people voting, the better informed the ones that do vote are.
"Getting out the vote" seems likely to encourage the dispassionate and uninformed to show up at the ballot.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

The New York Times' Deceptive Suggestion That Hillary Clinton May Have Violated Federal Records Law


Since the beginning of the FOIA, legislators of all stripes have found ways to shield some or all of their records from requests they be made publicly available. It's nothing new. The right wing has hidden many things, big things that actually have significance.

Here's an eye opening example:
ALEC's Latest "Transparency" Move: Asserting Immunity From Freedom of Information Laws

GW Bush hid his DoJ election shenanigans by using the GOP email system instead of the government's.

The Bush White House email controversy was intended to cover up the dismissal of US Attorneys General that was done to install attorneys who would maliciously prosecute Democrats in key races among other things including voter caging (look it up). In WA state, where I am, John McKay was fired because he refused to investigate voter fraud that he knew didn't exist. It was when there was a hand-count of ballots in our governor's race.

These are things that were/are still being hidden from FOI requests which actually are truly outrageous and scandalous.

Unless there are some consequences of the supposed hidden emails (because there is no direct evidence any were indeed hidden, there is only an accusation) then let's hear it. If it was so outrageous, were you also outraged at GW Bush? At any of the right wing legislators who are involved in ALEC?

Those are the things I'm outraged about.

At the moment, I'm not falling for this rather relentless attempt by the GOP to make everyone think Clinton is evil. From Benghazi to the current email kerfuffle, take a look at how many GOP talking heads have inserted accusations and innuendo into the mass media discourse. This kind of character assassination is Karl Rove's specialty.

Is Clinton a usual politician? Yes, as is Obama, and all the rest of them. I have no problem with someone supporting Bernie Sanders in the belief he's been above this stuff his whole political career. I have no reason to doubt that is true. I've always admired Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich (for those who've forgotten, Kucinich was another legislator who was the victim of special GOP attention, in his case via gerrymandering).

If I thought Sanders had a chance in hell of winning, I might support him over Clinton. But reality is, running Bernie against whoever ends up as the GOP candidate is downright scary.

What I object to is that Clinton continues to be judged by a double standard. And if people are sure there's no gender bias involved on their part, are they sure they have not been influenced by a pervasive marketing campaign to make Clinton look like she's the devil incarnate?

The GOP so easily manipulates the news media and people even after this has been done time and time again, still don't notice.

I agree with you. This email scandal has no substance, but unfortunately it's not just conservatives going after her. Even people in her own party are referring to it in serious tones and imbuing it with power. Liberal Governor Jerry Brown, who may enter the race, refers to it as a vampire that must be destroyed, which, while remaining ostensibly neutral, still serves to sustain it as an "important matter" that must be addressed. If he'd actually wanted to help her, he would have scoffed at it and said people were making mountains out of molehills or something like that.

I also don't think it's just the GOP manipulating the news media. I was actually really surprised to read the New York Times piece, because generally it distances itself from the GOP. I think there are forces on both sides trying to suck the life and energy (to use Brown's vampire metaphor) out of Hillary's campaign. I don't quite understand all of the motives behind it.

Brown is right, though, in that Hillary needs to somehow put this to rest or show people that it's irrelevant, or she's through, not because there was anything to it, but because enough people thought there was, or because it was just too much of a drag on her momentum. As more democratic candidates enter the fray, they may use it against her and snowball it further. There's certainly precedent for a candidate to be brought down by nothing. If this drags on, it's going to sink her campaign out of sheer inertia.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I was brought up to understand that voting is a citizenship responsibility and if you aren't voting on election days, you are dishonoring the nation and your fellow citizens

This. I feel the nation would benefit from making Voting Day a national holiday with balloons and parades. November isn't very good for ice cream and picnics, but we have other yummies.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

This. I feel the nation would benefit from making Voting Day a national holiday with balloons and parades. November isn't very good for ice cream and picnics, but we have other yummies.

I guess that would probably boost morale and might be healthy (well, not the treats). But people stay home from the polls sometimes as a show of dissatisfaction with the candidates, and I think that's a valid decision. Not everyone has time to go out and fight for political change to get candidates they approve of on the ballot. There's room for someone to find out why people stayed home, and to try to present a platform that brings those people to the polls. And as far as all the other issues to be voted on, I sometimes have a hard enough time getting to the bottom of things to make an informed decision. Sometimes I find myself having to abstain out of a lack of understanding. What good does it do to have some misinformed, not particularly intelligent people come and play multiple choice on the ballot?

 

[The Big Dog]

The New York Times' Deceptive Suggestion That Hillary Clinton May Have Violated Federal Records Law


Here's an eye opening example:
ALEC's Latest "Transparency" Move: Asserting Immunity From Freedom of Information Laws

GW Bush ...

The GOP so easily manipulates the news media and people even after this has been done time and time again, still don't notice.

wait, you cite actual bona fide propaganda websites and you complain that the GOP is manipulating the media?

That is ridiculous. If you want people to take you seriously, you should really stop reading and posting garbage from hack websites like media matters. Cripes, Hillary's emails showed that her cronies were actively working for that site while on her payroll.

Further, talking about GW Bush in a thread about Hillary is a derail and a tu quoque fallacy.

 

[Bob001]

...
Since the beginning of the FOIA, legislators of all stripes have found ways to shield some or all of their records from requests they be made publicly available. It's nothing new. The right wing has hidden many things, big things that actually have significance.
...

Sure, a lot of people have done a lot of bad things. But when somebody gets caught, it's not much of a defense to say "well, I'm not the only one." Clinton was not a "legislator." She was Secretary of State representing the United States around the world at the same time she helped operate her family foundation, with private associations and interests around the world. She set up her own email server in her basement to evade the federal system and federal reporting and preservation requirements. We don't know what she said to whom because she killed more than 30,000 emails that she claimed were personal. And instead of answering basic questions responsibly, she has resorted to her sneering "everybody's out to get me" attitude. Some things she has said just can't be true, like when she claimed she set up her private system so she would only have to carry one gadget, when she has said on other occasions that she has to carry a purse big enough for her many gadgets. Her own supporters have doubts about her claims, and her attitude is an early warning about how she would run a Clinton presidency.

I post again Slate's detailed summary of the issues:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/20/hillary_clinton_email_scandal_explained.html

And commentary by writers who have generally been on her side:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...40c684-4824-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...bc9c7c-c1cb-11e4-9ec2-b418f57a4a99_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...853068-4514-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html

It's just way too early to say "there's no there there."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree with you. This email scandal has no substance, but unfortunately it's not just conservatives going after her. Even people in her own party are referring to it in serious tones and imbuing it with power. Liberal Governor Jerry Brown, who may enter the race, refers to it as a vampire that must be destroyed, which, while remaining ostensibly neutral, still serves to sustain it as an "important matter" that must be addressed. If he'd actually wanted to help her, he would have scoffed at it and said people were making mountains out of molehills or something like that.

I also don't think it's just the GOP manipulating the news media. I was actually really surprised to read the New York Times piece, because generally it distances itself from the GOP. I think there are forces on both sides trying to suck the life and energy (to use Brown's vampire metaphor) out of Hillary's campaign. I don't quite understand all of the motives behind it.

Brown is right, though, in that Hillary needs to somehow put this to rest or show people that it's irrelevant, or she's through, not because there was anything to it, but because enough people thought there was, or because it was just too much of a drag on her momentum. As more democratic candidates enter the fray, they may use it against her and snowball it further. There's certainly precedent for a candidate to be brought down by nothing. If this drags on, it's going to sink her campaign out of sheer inertia.

Yes, and seeing Democrats being just as manipulated by the talking points injected in the news is infuriating, especially when the news media feeds the frenzy.

But, there are a few people with cool heads speaking out, like Howard Dean making a good case for proper perspective. Of course in news interviews he has to go up against the most forceful GOP reps that shout their arguments drowning him out.

Today for example, the GOP talking head was shouting that a judge ruled Clinton broke the rules (a red flag in itself calling it a policy rule rather than a law). Dean pointed out the truth, it wasn't a ruling. It took him a while to get past the GOP lie that it was some kind of conviction of a crime.

We're still a long way out. If nothing is found and the Democrats don't chicken out, this will reveal itself to be as gutless as Benghazi.

I do hope the Clinton campaign gets a little more Howard Dean like talking heads out there. James Carville's been out there too: strong voices that can drown out the GOP news media manipulation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

wait, you cite actual bona fide propaganda websites and you complain that the GOP is manipulating the media?

That is ridiculous. If you want people to take you seriously, you should really stop reading and posting garbage from hack websites like media matters. Cripes, Hillary's emails showed that her cronies were actively working for that site while on her payroll.

Further, talking about GW Bush in a thread about Hillary is a derail and a tu quoque fallacy.

So you got nothing but red herrings to throw out?

It's your opinion Media Matters is the tu quoque equivalent of lying sources like Breitbart. Media Matters and the Center for Media and Democracy support their claims and conclusions with evidence.

And of course you are unable to see that my point was not that the Pubbies are just as bad. It wasn't a tu quoque at all. It was contrasting the claims Clinton is covering up some nebulous thing, with the evidence the Pubbies actually were covering up serious things.

There's nothing here but a contrived scandal.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sure, a lot of people have done a lot of bad things. But when somebody gets caught, it's not much of a defense to say "well, I'm not the only one." Clinton was not a "legislator." She was Secretary of State representing the United States around the world at the same time she helped operate her family foundation, with private associations and interests around the world. She set up her own email server in her basement to evade the federal system and federal reporting and preservation requirements. We don't know what she said to whom because she killed more than 30,000 emails that she claimed were personal. And instead of answering basic questions responsibly, she has resorted to her sneering "everybody's out to get me" attitude. Some things she has said just can't be true, like when she claimed she set up her private system so she would only have to carry one gadget, when she has said on other occasions that she has to carry a purse big enough for her many gadgets. Her own supporters have doubts about her claims, and her attitude is an early warning about how she would run a Clinton presidency.

I post again Slate's detailed summary of the issues:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/20/hillary_clinton_email_scandal_explained.html

And commentary by writers who have generally been on her side:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...40c684-4824-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...bc9c7c-c1cb-11e4-9ec2-b418f57a4a99_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...853068-4514-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html

It's just way too early to say "there's no there there."

What pray tell is Clinton covering up?

I've already alluded to the fact the GOP manipulation of the media is a successful tactic.

But I ask again, just what is the crime here? Didn't find it with Benghazi, and now there is again, more innuendo than substance. That only goes so far before the lack of a payoff (aka a real crime) results in the matter fading away.

 

[Bob001]

What pray tell is Clinton covering up?

We have no idea, in part because she killed 30,000+ emails and wiped her server (and not "with a cloth," as she joked).

But I ask again, just what is the crime here? Didn't find it with Benghazi, and now there is again, more innuendo than substance. That only goes so far before the lack of a payoff (aka a real crime) results in the matter fading away.

That's her defense: "I didn't do anything illegal." But that's a pretty low bar. There are reasonable questions to be asked about her judgment and potential conflicts of interest, apart from whether she knowingly mishandled secrets. The standard for all government officials is that they transact official business through official channels and preserve their records. The fact that she chose not to do that raises questions that deserve to be answered.

You haven't read any of the links I've provided, have you?

 

[The Big Dog]

So you got nothing but red herrings to throw out?

It's your opinion Media Matters is the tu quoque equivalent of lying sources like Breitbart. Media Matters and the Center for Media and Democracy support their claims and conclusions with evidence.

And of course you are unable to see that my point was not that the Pubbies are just as bad. It wasn't a tu quoque at all. It was contrasting the claims Clinton is covering up some nebulous thing, with the evidence the Pubbies actually were covering up serious things.

There's nothing here but a contrived scandal.

Pubbies? Oh for ***** sake... Are you eight?

Your claims the Hillary's scandals are contrived is partisan drivel.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We have no idea, in part because she killed 30,000+ emails and wiped her server (and not "with a cloth," as she joked).



That's her defense: "I didn't do anything illegal." But that's a pretty low bar. There are reasonable questions to be asked about her judgment and potential conflicts of interest, apart from whether she knowingly mishandled secrets. The standard for all government officials is that they transact official business through official channels and preserve their records. The fact that she chose not to do that raises questions that deserve to be answered.

You haven't read any of the links I've provided, have you?

There's nothing magical in your links.

And you prove my point. There's nothing here, just scandal for the news media to sell and innuendo for the Pubbies to promote.

 

[Bob001]

There's nothing magical in your links.

And you prove my point. There's nothing here, just scandal for the news media to sell and innuendo for the Pubbies to promote.

Magical? Certainly not. But elucidating and illuminating, yes. And I repeat that some of us expect our officials to maintain a higher standard than "I can do anything I want if it's not illegal!"

 

[DavidJames]

Magical? Certainly not. But elucidating and illuminating, yes. And I repeat that some of us expect our officials to maintain a higher standard than "I can do anything I want if it's not illegal!"

I'm not sure why you put that in quotes as I don't think she ever said that.