Hillary Clinton is Done

[Belz...]

I've known the problem for some time. You get involve with the most ridiculous arguments with posters on this forum. It couldn't be any clearer why her poll numbers are down except to you.

This is just a dodge, logger. You admit that it's just your opinion. Ergo you don't know. Now you try to imply that I'm an idiot, but really, why don't we poll the other participants in this thread?

 

[Belz...]

Belz, you simply lack the courage to admit it.

And now you pretend to know me better than I know myself based on brief internet exchanges. I presume you are an American? It seems a lot of you don't know that centrism exists, and that to the rest of the world, it is what you call 'liberal'.

Your continued use of insults, implied or otherwise, do nothing to help your case.

 

[Trebuchet]

What's amusing to me is the use of "liberal" and "progressive" as insults. I'm quite proud of being both of those things.

 

[xjx388]

Waitaminute . . . is there seriously argument about whether or not the email scandal has hurt Clinton? Really? Look at what the polls indicate: While she is still leading most polls, that lead has eroded greatly over the last month. Fudbucker posted a recent poll indicating that most Americans think she lied about her emails. It is her number one problem and everyone but a few posters on this board seems to know it.

The open question is if this means she is "done." I wouldn't go that far quite yet . . . she is still leading the polls. But if Biden enters the race, I think it will be very difficult to overcome his rise AND the email scandal.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Waitaminute . . . is there seriously argument about whether or not the email scandal has hurt Clinton? Really? ....

I don't think so. The argument is about how much.

I said earlier this was more about reviewing emails before releasing them to the public and that's what the State Department said yesterday with the release of another batch:

The department initially said it had redacted information from roughly 150 emails because they contained sensitive information, then reduced that estimate to 125.

The information was deleted because “confidential” materials — the lowest classification of government intelligence — had been discovered in the correspondence. None of the documents were marked classified at the time they were sent, said Mark Toner, a spokesman for the State Department.

Of course the GOP is going to try to twist reality to keep the campaign of personal destruction going with this ignorant statement:

Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said the latest information about the classifications underscored concerns about Mrs. Clinton’s conduct. “On hundreds of occasions, Hillary Clinton’s reckless attempt to skirt transparency laws put sensitive information and our national security at risk,” he said.

That's just crap. And sadly the uncritically thinking sheeple eat it up even though these redactions from FOIA requests are mundane standard operating procedure and using outside of government email is a practice the GOP started.


The emails themselves, by the way are quite fascinating and from the sample in the NYT article, look like they may have a positive impact on Clinton not a negative one.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

You say the same thing with every post! Lol

And the Ironic Post of the Year Award goes to...

 

[Belz...]

Waitaminute . . . is there seriously argument about whether or not the email scandal has hurt Clinton? Really?

Nope. Not really.

 

[BenBurch]

What's amusing to me is the use of "liberal" and "progressive" as insults. I'm quite proud of being both of those things.

Ditto!

 

[Dr. Keith]

What I find funny about this is the like of critical thought about how we treat confidential information in the US. Something like 5 Million people have security clearance in the US. And we are upset that some documents may have been stored on an unofficial, but apparently secure, server that was not breached in any way while the government has had breaches on their servers. OK.

But this is a political discussion, not a practical one. And I don't think she has handled the political aspect very well.

 

[plague311]

What I find funny about this is the like of critical thought about how we treat confidential information in the US. Something like 5 Million people have security clearance in the US. And we are upset that some documents may have been stored on an unofficial, but apparently secure, server that was not breached in any way while the government has had breaches on their servers. OK.

But this is a political discussion, not a practical one. And I don't think she has handled the political aspect very well.

This. I'll even admit she was at fault for not doing everything in her power and trying to cut corners. Which is something every politician does at every possible opportunity.

The funny thing is that opponents only see two possible options. Either she's guilty, needs to be imprisoned, shot and quartered, or you're a Hillary hugger that accepts everything she does no matter what.

I'm of the middle ground. I recognize she's done stupid ****, and I've read through the threads. That being said, I don't think anything she's done should\would disqualify her from being the POTUS or put her in prison.

I've also seen a weird opinion stating that, despite the person voting for her, she's the most evil, corrupt, satan worshiper ever, but she's better than the Repubs. Which is, as I said, weird to me.

 

[Bob001]

What I find funny about this is the like of critical thought about how we treat confidential information in the US. Something like 5 Million people have security clearance in the US. And we are upset that some documents may have been stored on an unofficial, but apparently secure, server that was not breached in any way while the government has had breaches on their servers. OK.

But this is a political discussion, not a practical one. And I don't think she has handled the political aspect very well.

The issue isn't really the handling of classified information at this point, although it could be down the road. The real issue is that HC went to great lengths to conduct the business of the United States on a private server that allowed her to evade FOIA requests, Congressional investigators, and federal records-retention policies (that later became actual laws). We know that she was promoting her private foundation to international governments at the same time she was representing the U.S. government in the international arena. And we know that she killed 31,000 emails that she -- not anyone else -- deemed personal without any independent review. She resisted giving up her server until the FBI started investigating. And she insulted us by telling us that she did it only so she could carry just one Blackberry when we know she (or more likely an aide) carries a bag of her multiple electronic gadgets. Sure, this could all be entirely innocent. But when somebody acts like she's hiding something, it's not wildly unreasonable to ask "What's she hiding?" Do we want a president who is as secretive and sneaky as Richard Nixon?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The issue isn't really the handling of classified information at this point, although it could be down the road. The real issue is that HC went to great lengths to conduct the business of the United States on a private server that allowed her to evade FOIA requests, Congressional investigators, and federal records-retention policies (that later became actual laws). ...

As do a whole slew of legislators.

Hiding shenanigans with the Foundation is one thing, but you also have to consider how since Bill was first elected, the two of them have been pursued relentlessly by that right wing conspiracy. (Formal or informal it's ludicrous to pretend the Clintons haven't been under constant GOP personal attacks.) Look at how the GOP is distorting this, outright claiming she gave out state secrets when there's no evidence anything even close occurred.

If your political enemies are constantly scrutinizing anything they can use against you, and that enemy will distort the innocuous to hype it up as the most diabolical, it's logical one would keep as much close to the vest as possible.

 

[xjx388]

As do a whole slew of legislators.

Hiding shenanigans with the Foundation is one thing, but you also have to consider how since Bill was first elected, the two of them have been pursued relentlessly by that right wing conspiracy.

Is that the "vast right wing conspiracy," that forced Bill to NOT have sex with that woman? Or is this a different right wing conspiracy? I get them all mixed up...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is that the "vast right wing conspiracy," that forced Bill to NOT have sex with that woman? Or is this a different right wing conspiracy? I get them all mixed up...

Paula Whatsherface was paid $600,000 by the GOP to bring a sexual harassment suit against Clinton. That seems a tad suspicious.

You probably don't want to get me started. Clinton was hounded long before his infamous BJ. Then the GOP obsession with scandal and entrapped perjury wasted 6.2 million dollars and interfered with Clinton's ability to address Bin Laden given every time Clinton acted he was accused of wagging the dog.

If you read Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, that same attack on anything Clinton resulted in GW rejecting everything that was in progress including Clinton's war on terror. While it may not have prevented 911 given the FBI's screw up not investigating the computer of the guy taking flying lessons but not wanting to learn landing or takeoffs, we'll never know. But we do know GW's dropped the ball he was handed by that demon Clinton.

I mean really, did you want a handicapped President all in the name of a sex scandal? Monica was over 21 and she never said she felt manipulated.

His behavior should have been addressed outside of the house.

 

[logger]

This is just a dodge, logger. You admit that it's just your opinion.

There isn't a peer reviewed study to prove it but again its so painfully obvious why her numbers are down.

Ergo you don't know.

Again, yes I do know why her numbers are down, it is directly due to the grievances you mentioned.

Now you try to imply that I'm an idiot,

I expect to have a realistic conversation with smart people on this subject, not argue what "is" is.

but really, why don't we poll the other participants in this thread?

Lets ask them why her numbers are down.

 

[logger]

And now you pretend to know me better than I know myself based on brief internet exchanges. I presume you are an American? It seems a lot of you don't know that centrism exists, and that to the rest of the world, it is what you call 'liberal'.

When you make the first case for anything centrist or slightly to the right, I'll then call you a moderate, so far I've only seen you lockstep with libs. I also do have a very good idea of what you're about.

Your continued use of insults, implied or otherwise, do nothing to help your case.

Maybe, but its fun calling a spade a spade.

 

[logger]

Ditto!

Ben I salute you for not hiding from it.

 

[Fudbucker]

The issue isn't really the handling of classified information at this point, although it could be down the road. The real issue is that HC went to great lengths to conduct the business of the United States on a private server that allowed her to evade FOIA requests, Congressional investigators, and federal records-retention policies (that later became actual laws). We know that she was promoting her private foundation to international governments at the same time she was representing the U.S. government in the international arena. And we know that she killed 31,000 emails that she -- not anyone else -- deemed personal without any independent review. She resisted giving up her server until the FBI started investigating. And she insulted us by telling us that she did it only so she could carry just one Blackberry when we know she (or more likely an aide) carries a bag of her multiple electronic gadgets. Sure, this could all be entirely innocent. But when somebody acts like she's hiding something, it's not wildly unreasonable to ask "What's she hiding?" Do we want a president who is as secretive and sneaky as Richard Nixon?

Succinctly put.

 

[Belz...]

There isn't a peer reviewed study to prove it

I'm not asking you for something so formal, but between your gut feeling and mathematical proof, there must be some middle ground.

its so painfully obvious why her numbers are down.

"Obvious" is just another word for "my opinion".

Again, yes I do know why her numbers are down, it is directly due to the grievances you mentioned.

Repetition does not reality make.

I expect to have a realistic conversation with smart people on this subject, not argue what "is" is.

Have I done anything even approaching that level of discourse?

Lets ask them why her numbers are down.

You're very much aware that this isn't what I was saying. You are deliberately avoiding the answers that logically follow from your lack of evidence and instead using rhetorical means to appear correct.

 

[Belz...]

When you make the first case for anything centrist or slightly to the right

I have repeatedly in the past. It's neither my fault nor my problem if you're not aware of them. I agree with conservatives on a number of issues, at least partially, and with liberals with other issues, at least partially. I find extreme viewpoints ridiculous, however, and since the right in the US is very, very far-right, it stands to reason that I will disagree with them most of the time. But don't fool yourself: the United States isn't the world standard for political ideology.

so far I've only seen you lockstep with libs.

Two things. First of all, has it occured to you that this may be because you only participate in issues where you have far-right positions, with which I will disagree? Second, has it occured to you that you may be so far-right yourself that I will seem left-leaning by comparison? Perhaps it would be better if you didn't assume that your position is so legitimate before judging other viewpoints. And third, just to pull a Spanish Inquisition, here, I don't lockstep with anyone. Lockstep is pretty much the opposite of me.

I also do have a very good idea of what you're about.

That sentence is meaningless. It's a veiled insult that also means nothing so as to give you plausible deniability. Pray tell, what am I about?

Maybe, but its fun calling a spade a spade.

No, I think it much more likely that you prefer to categorize people into easy-to-label groups so that you can dismiss their arguments without having to address them. Just like ElfGrinder3000 who thinks calling people "liberals" somehow makes a case by itself. Don't be that guy. Make a case.