If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
The people not voting for her are not put in the position of being tasked to defend this particular nugget of ignorance.
You're mistaking “defending” from making a judgement on what is and isn't important in the grand scheme of things. This doesn't just impact how you judge Clinton, but also impacts what the topics du jour are not. If the media spends their viewers' attention spans on the umpteenth Benghazi report, then this means less time for other topics that are more important. Ditto for things like barring transwomen from using women's bathrooms: just picture how much media time this took up, it really had the flavor of “bread and games” for the masses. It's not as if in that particular moment, hordes of transwomen invaded women's bathroom on an unprecedented scale. Social conservatives got all riled up because they pictured some perv with hairy legs getting a hard on while they were watching their young daughter take a leak. Socially liberal people on the other hand protested on the violation of civil liberties. What didn't get coverage were things like the situation in the Middle East, Turkey's purported connections to ISIS in addition to the aforementioned issues.
Even if you want to find fault with Clinton, these are much more important issues to focus on: question her support for the NSA's blanket collection of private information. Hammer her on her not giving Bin Laden a trial (I reckon he might have had useful information). Keep in mind, though, that many of these issues equally indict many Republican leaders as well. Instead the things she is most criticized for in the public are things that do not involve policies which are also supported by large swaths of the Republican party. That's pretty transparent. IMHO the reason is clear: they want to hide as best they can the fact that she could pass for a moderate conservative in many areas. (Democrats and Republicans used to have an overlap at the center where the most conservative Democrat was more conservative than the most moderate Republican.)
In a nutshell that is the reason why I care less about her email servers. Especially if you believe that “established politicians” (which certainly includes the Clintons) are the reason for much of what is wrong with the current state of the political system, especially then should you be extra careful about not accepting the topics which main stream Republicans (in this case) try to steer your attention towards.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
There's a list from up-thread of Trump's [X]ist behavior from before he ran for office.
The list contains:
A few anecdotes
His opinions on the Central Park Jogger incident
A close to 40-year-old lawsuit
I maintain someone who is [X]ist, and is so throughly hated as Trump, would manage to have more evidence pile up after being a public figure for as long as he has.
I don't think one can claim to be looking at the totality if they ignore the lack of evidence from before he ran for office.
To repeat what I said above, the relevance of his father's involvement in the lawsuit is that contrition would have required throwing said father under the bus. Is it incorrect to argue this may have factored into his motivations?
I think this goes back to can indifference be considered being racist.
But I must concede, I don't have much evidence prior to his campaign.
On the other hand, since Trump is the king of projection, I think him calling Hillary a bigot tonight is the nail in that coffin.
So its not that argument specifically then. Are there other examples in your opinion?
I'm not 100% sure where I'm being asked to go.
I don't have a ready example of something that brazen, or the target being a non-combatant, like CompSci.
Most of her lies fit the more pedestrian model, like continuing to claim "no emails were classified at the time", even though the ICIG had already determined that wasn't the case.
He says he doesn't have them not turned them over. Like Hillary he says the emails he sent to state.gov addresses should have been captured by the system.
(I just looked this up)
Having been involved in making sure the emails of a Gov't assistant Admin was archived correctly, when Mac's were just starting to be used by the Agency, I had to make 4 DVD copies and then create a file on the server and put the same data in a folder to be locked by agency IT folks. They were not allowed to have their own copies of any emails as they were gov't property.
He says he doesn't have them not turned them over. Like Hillary he says the emails he sent to state.gov addresses should have been captured by the system.
(I just looked this up)
Well, he most certainly should have handed those over, but I'm less inclined to call shenanigans because he was willing to give an independent organization the keys to the castle.
Well, he most certainly should have handed those over, but I'm less inclined to call shenanigans because he was willing to give an independent organization the keys to the castle.
I'm haven't heard his reasoning and I'm not going to speculate in this thread as its too far off topic. What Hillary did stands alone, whether or not past SOS engaged in similar behavior.
Powell said he used AOL for private email, and a .gov account/computerfor State department emails
That's not accurate, Powell used his AOL account for official state purposes as well:
Originally Posted by Arstechnica
Secretary Powell has publicly stated that, during his tenure as Secretary, he installed a laptop computer on a 'private line' and that he used the laptop to send e-mails via his personal e-mail account to his 'principal assistants, individual ambassadors, and foreign minister colleagues.' Secretary Powell's representative advised the Department in 2015 that he did not retain those e-mails or make printed copies. Secretary Powell has also publicly stated that he generally sent e-mails to his staff via their State Department e-mail addresses but that he personally does not know whether the Department captured those e-mails on its servers.
Since these emails were not retained, we don't know if and what kind of state secrets were mishandled. The reasons for doing so were not malicious, and I don't ascribe bad faith to Powell:
Originally Posted by Arstechnica
Powell explained to State Department OIG investigators that upon his arrival at State, the official e-mail system only connected to others at State.
Put another way, without the workaround, he wouldn't have been able to use email as a communication tool, the State Department is perpetually late to adapting to new technologies. Clinton encountered the same problems. And just like Powell she worked around the problem after trying to find a solution within the system.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
"Toward the end of the evening, over dessert, Albright asked all of the former secretaries to offer one salient bit of counsel to the nation's next top diplomat," Conason wrote. "Powell told her to use her own email, as he had done, except for classified communications, which he had sent and received via a State Department computer ... [Powell] confirmed a decision she had made months earlier – to keep her personal account and use it for most messages."
Powell's office later released a statement to NBC News, saying he "has no recollection of the dinner conversation." However, "He did write former Secretary Clinton an email memo describing his use of his personal AOL email account for unclassified messages and how it vastly improved communications within the State Department."
All of these problems really make me wish we had an end-to-end encrypted version of emails that is unbreakable (in the sense that a brute force attack would take longer than the heat death of the universe).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Meanwhile Hillary supporters show thier tolerance by sporting shirts like this.
yeah, that's pretty bad too. Idiots on both sides... although, as an aside about insults... I always inferred that this insult has less to do with an actual mother and more about the person being told to.
So, Hillary sits on pillows and therefore must be at death's door, despite releasing her medical history and having a letter from a real doctor. This letter from Trump seems completely made up: badly written, using Trump-isms, doctor's website is domain unregistered/spambot central, doctor is gastroenterologist not internist/GP... Then as a topper, it claims that Trump would be healthiest president ever. I'm sure Obama and Kennedy were healthier, younger, fitter, men. What a silly claim.
So, Hillary sits on pillows and therefore must be at death's door, despite releasing her medical history and having a letter from a real doctor. This letter from Trump seems completely made up: badly written, using Trump-isms, doctor's website is domain unregistered/spambot central, doctor is gastroenterologist not internist/GP... Then as a topper, it claims that Trump would be healthiest president ever. I'm sure Obama and Kennedy were healthier, younger, fitter, men. What a silly claim.
Actually, JFK had some serious back problems as a result of his PT boat getting blown out of the water by a Japanese sub. He wore a back brace and it's been speculated had he not been wearing it in Dallas, he might have survived with just a neck wound.
Remove Hillary from the equation, if you can. Is Trump's letter believable? Trustworthy? Could he have submitted a letter from the Krusty The Klown medical college and you'd be ok with it?
Even if you want to make the comparison (but this is Trump's thread) why would she bother faking medical testimony, when there are bigger lies to fry?
Thanks Chongo for the JFK bit... I didn't know he wore a brace. Regardless, I'm sure there are several POTUS who were young and healthy upon entering office. Carter wasn't that old.
Man has my brain been fried lately. I guess I better lay off the cold chai.
My cynicism thinks getting your boat cut in half may side more with "dereliction of duty" than "unbridled heroism", and it's no accident the details which argue the first aren't as well remembered by the general public.
What's funny is Hillary's banner is her showing off how big her rallies are.
She has the biggest balls* of them all.
(*The fancy-dress variety, not the ones held for pleasure.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Mother Teresa supports Trump? I can't even click on that. Haha we've seen it all now.
St. Mother Teresa addressed the National Prayer Breakfast. This was part of her remarks. While the audience applauded, the Clintons and gores sat on thier hands, well at least Bubba clapped once.
But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself.
And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.
By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems.
And, by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.
Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.
Many people are very, very concerned with the children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today - abortion which brings people to such blindness.
And for this I appeal in India and I appeal everywhere - "Let us bring the child back." The child is God's gift to the family. Each child is created in the special image and likeness of God for greater things - to love and to be loved. In this year of the family we must bring the child back to the center of our care and concern. This is the only way that our world can survive because our children are the only hope for the future. As older people are called to God, only their children can take their places.
But what does God say to us? He says: "Even if a mother could forget her child, I will not forget you. I have carved you in the palm of my hand." We are carved in the palm of His hand; that unborn child has been carved in the hand of God from conception and is called by God to love and to be loved, not only now in this life, but forever. God can never forget us.
I will tell you something beautiful. We are fighting abortion by adoption - by care of the mother and adoption for her baby. We have saved thousands of lives. We have sent word to the clinics, to the hospitals and police stations: "Please don't destroy the child; we will take the child." So we always have someone tell the mothers in trouble: "Come, we will take care of you, we will get a home for your child." And we have a tremendous demand from couples who cannot have a child - but I never give a child to a couple who have done something not to have a child. Jesus said. "Anyone who receives a child in my name, receives me." By adopting a child, these couples receive Jesus but, by aborting a child, a couple refuses to receive Jesus.
Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child.
From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3000 children from abortion. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents and have grown up so full of love and joy.
I know that couples have to plan their family and for that there is natural family planning.
The way to plan the family is natural family planning, not contraception.
In destroying the power of giving life, through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self and so it destroys the gift of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other as happens in natural family planning, and not to self, as happens in contraception. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily.
I also know that there are great problems in the world - that many spouses do not love each other enough to practice natural family planning. We cannot solve all the problems in the world, but let us never bring in the worst problem of all, and that is to destroy love. And this is what happens when we tell people to practice contraception and abortion.
The poor are very great people. They can teach us so many beautiful things. Once one of them came to thank us for teaching her natural family planning and said: "You people who have practiced chastity, you are the best people to teach us natural family planning because it is nothing more than self-control out of love for each other." And what this poor person said is very true. These poor people maybe have nothing to eat, maybe they have not a home to live in, but they can still be great people when they are spiritually rich.
Then as a topper, it claims that Trump would be healthiest president ever. I'm sure Obama and Kennedy were healthier, younger, fitter, men. What a silly claim. 
Top