US and NA Politics (General)

[Deleted]

Nov 20, 2018 11:55:43 GMT -5 ouze said:

Beto with Biden as VP would be I guess sort of sellable. Still, Beto seems to be all hat and no cattle to me. 

I do feel like we really should be able to do better. As much as I like Biden he's pretty old. He was a good VP, he didn't take his shot, and now it's too late. Sorry, but it is what it is. 

I like Warren, but I don't think she can win.

I don't really like Cory Booker for reasons I find difficult to articulate well. He just comes off as super, super phoney to me. I mean, what politician really is authentic, right? But I don't think he sells it well. 

I guess I'm in the Kamala Harris camp. She doesn't have a much more meaty record then Beto, but I am a good match with her policy positions, and statistically senators are a hell of a lot better at getting elected to the presidency than congressmen. 

What about Amy Klobuchar (sp?).

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

Nov 20, 2018 14:47:45 GMT -5 whembly said:

Nov 20, 2018 0:09:59 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

Great, and the investigations say no wrong doing was committed.

No... the investigations did NOT say "no wrong doing".

Furthermore, congressional committees only investigate... they don't prosecute. That's under the pervue of DOJ...which... guess who ran that department during the 2016 election?

Again, the point of my "lock her up!" wasn't to scream until she was locked up, but to make fun of the republican's hypocrisy. You're more than happy to bang on and on and on about Hillary, but you're dead silent about Kushner and Ivanka.

-There was never an email server in Ivanka's house.
-Classified information was never created/sent as there's no evidence. If there are, then yes she should be prosecuted
-Prior to fixing her emailing practices, she still sent emails to proper accounts per government regulations
-She also didn't delete any SUBPOENAED emails without any oversight
-Nor did she order a bleaching (Bleach Bit) of any personal harddrives to obstruct any future investigations
-Nor did she smash phones used for government communications to pieces to obstruct any future investigations
-Nor did she repeated LIE at every step of the way (remember, it was drip, drip, drip that exposed her lies)
-The takes are tendentious and lazy
-What Clinton did was orders of magnitude worst than what Ivanka did in 2017.
-This was a repeat of an old 2017 story. So... why repeating it again?

So, why did the WashPo repeat the old story? Is it to:
a) Defray it some more in the hopes that HRC tries to run for POTUS again? I really, really doubt it.

OR

b) There's an ongoing civil FOIA case where the judge is forcing HRC to answer some tough questions.... maybe for some "pre-spin".

I don't know... this story is odd and the time is odd.

Also, from your own source (huffpost one)

She literally had classified information on her private email system. It was the ONLY emailing infrastructure she used during her SoS tenure.

Someone had to illegally get the information from the classified infrastructure and transcribed it into her private email system.

There's so much wrong there that's been explained over and over to you, I'm not gonna bother. You're exposing your hypocrisy and you don't even realize it.

Oh, and it's not a repeat of a 2017 story, that was kushner who, while being just as much of a scumbag, is a slightly different kind of business failure than ivanka.

In fact, to top this off, the FBI cleared Hillary of any criminal charges, maybe you missed that.


I'm sure you'll stop spouting "Lock her up!" any day now, unless you're referring to Ivanka of course. It'd be hypocritical to not go after her the same way you've been after Hillary for years now...

[Deleted]

Nov 20, 2018 15:03:52 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

Nov 20, 2018 14:47:45 GMT -5 whembly said:

No... the investigations did NOT say "no wrong doing".

Furthermore, congressional committees only investigate... they don't prosecute. That's under the pervue of DOJ...which... guess who ran that department during the 2016 election?
-There was never an email server in Ivanka's house.
-Classified information was never created/sent as there's no evidence. If there are, then yes she should be prosecuted
-Prior to fixing her emailing practices, she still sent emails to proper accounts per government regulations
-She also didn't delete any SUBPOENAED emails without any oversight
-Nor did she order a bleaching (Bleach Bit) of any personal harddrives to obstruct any future investigations
-Nor did she smash phones used for government communications to pieces to obstruct any future investigations
-Nor did she repeated LIE at every step of the way (remember, it was drip, drip, drip that exposed her lies)
-The takes are tendentious and lazy
-What Clinton did was orders of magnitude worst than what Ivanka did in 2017.
-This was a repeat of an old 2017 story. So... why repeating it again?

So, why did the WashPo repeat the old story? Is it to:
a) Defray it some more in the hopes that HRC tries to run for POTUS again? I really, really doubt it.

OR

b) There's an ongoing civil FOIA case where the judge is forcing HRC to answer some tough questions.... maybe for some "pre-spin".

I don't know... this story is odd and the time is odd.
She literally had classified information on her private email system. It was the ONLY emailing infrastructure she used during her SoS tenure.

Someone had to illegally get the information from the classified infrastructure and transcribed it into her private email system.

There's so much wrong there that's been explained over and over to you, I'm not gonna bother. You're exposing your hypocrisy and you don't even realize it.

You are arguing either from IT/Classification ignorance or you'd just want to hand-wave away because HRC is on your team.
<shrugs>
The political hackery is strong within you.

Oh, and it's not a repeat of a 2017 story, that was kushner who, while being just as much of a scumbag, is a slightly different kind of business failure than ivanka.

...pretty sure it was both of them in 2017.

In fact, to top this off, the FBI cleared Hillary of any criminal charges, maybe you missed that.

FBI doesn't "clear" you of criminal charges... they're expressed job is to investigate and gather evidence. Then to send it to the DOJ for prosecutors to decide whether or not to bring charges.

What you're thinking of, since Loretta Lynch recused herself, James Comey publically announced that *he* wasn't going to indict by erroneously interpreting that statute in question, that other career prosecutors disagreed.

It was a total whitewash.

How do you square General David Patraeus' plea deal for showing copies of classified-SAP documents to his mistress... and yet give HRC and her staff a pass for orchestrating non-approved, unsecured private email system that contained classified documents?

I'm sure you'll stop spouting "Lock her up!" any day now, unless you're referring to Ivanka of course. It'd be hypocritical to not go after her the same way you've been after Hillary for years now...

"Lock her up!" doesn't mean, arrest her now, throw her in a cell and lose the key.

"Lock her up!" is a euphemism to apply the laws equally and prosecute her accordingly.

If you keep framing that as the former... you'll just continue to look like a giant douche.

Stop being a douche.

[CommieCanUCK]

Uh-huh. And BUILD THAT WALL! just means to more judiciously apply border controls and crack down on businesses hiring illegals, right?

Trump can barely speak a coherent sentence at the best of times. He doesn't do euphemisms.

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

Comey himself stated Hillary was cleared of any criminal charges. And no, I'm not thinking of Loretta, here's what I'm thinking about:
www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-no-charges-against-hillary-clinton-are-appropriate-for-email-server-use/

The full article is there, but:

Comey said that the FBI "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them in some way." Therefore, Comey said the FBI has "reasonable confidence" that there was "no intentional misconduct" in connection to the sorting of Clinton's emails.

The FBI director, however, slammed Clinton for her general use of the email server.

"There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," he said, adding that anyone in Clinton's position or in the positions of people she communicated with "should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

That's what you seem to be missing. Did she do something stupid? Yes. Did she do it intentionally? According to the investigations, no. Did she commit a crime? As she hasn't been found guilty except by trumptards, legally, no. I'd also point out I've always been in favor of prosecuting her, just as I am in favor of anyone else being prosecuted when they have evidence to do so. Everything else you're just making up in an effort to project your political bias onto me.

Unlike you, some of us actually life fair trials that aren't political hit jobs on our enemies.

Also, you're assuming I'm taking the "lock her up!" shtick seriously, and I'm not. I'm using it to poke fun at the idiots who whine and whine and whine about Hillary, but are mysteriously silent when the trumps do the same thing. Stop strawmanning me, and read what the fuck I'm typing:

I'm not "defending" Hillary because she's "my team" (I despise her and her going to jail would have made me fairly happy), but because 8 investigations by republicans and democrats couldn't find enough to prosecute her. If republicans say there's not enough there to attempt to prosecute their enemy in this time of their hyper-partisanship, then there's probably nothing there. Hell, I'm not even defending her. If they found piles and piles of evidence tomorrow to support prosecuting her, do it I say.

But that's not what they found, and you spewing talking points without any actual knowledge of the incident doesn't change that.

As for Ivanka (and Kushner for that matter), yes, it's from 2017 but the article (and review of this incident) is new. What's your point? Why shouldn't they investigate it, because it's a year old? Because you sure as hell aren't yelling "lock her up!" (which, according to most trumptards means LOCK HER UP and throw away the key, not "a fair investigation (or eight) followed by a fair trial" or whatever you want to claim it means) even though she did the same thing as Hillary did (classified emails on an unsecured email is what Ivanka is being accused of, just like Hillary. having a server or not doesn't matter in that regard, and doesn't make that issue more or less of a crime)

You're making a dangerous mistake trying to apply euphemisms or attribute hidden meanings to what trump says when he can barely finish a thought.

[Deleted]

Nov 20, 2018 16:36:21 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

Comey himself stated Hillary was cleared of any criminal charges. And no, I'm not thinking of Loretta, here's what I'm thinking about:
www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-no-charges-against-hillary-clinton-are-appropriate-for-email-server-use/

The full article is there, but:

Comey said that the FBI "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them in some way." Therefore, Comey said the FBI has "reasonable confidence" that there was "no intentional misconduct" in connection to the sorting of Clinton's emails.

The FBI director, however, slammed Clinton for her general use of the email server.

"There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," he said, adding that anyone in Clinton's position or in the positions of people she communicated with "should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

That's what you seem to be missing. Did she do something stupid? Yes. Did she do it intentionally? According to the investigations, no. Did she commit a crime? As she hasn't been found guilty except by trumptards, legally, no. I'd also point out I've always been in favor of prosecuting her, just as I am in favor of anyone else being prosecuted when they have evidence to do so. Everything else you're just making up in an effort to project your political bias onto me.

Unlike you, some of us actually life fair trials that aren't political hit jobs on our enemies.

So... a whitewash.

The Obama Administration and James Comey at the FBI was never going to indict and prosecute a leading Presidential Candidate, much less a candidate from that administration's political party.

I would LOVE for HRC and her flunkies to have their day in court with all the due process afforded to us plebs.

Also, you're assuming I'm taking the "lock her up!" shtick seriously, and I'm not. I'm using it to poke fun at the idiots who whine and whine and whine about Hillary, but are mysteriously silent when the trumps do the same thing. Stop strawmanning me, and read what the fuck I'm typing:

They're not doing the same thing!*
*unless there's evidences of classified documents, purposely deleting subpoenaed emails, purpose bleachbit hard drives or destroying devices.

I'm not "defending" Hillary because she's "my team"

Yeah... you are.

(I despise her and her going to jail would have made me fairly happy),

She'd need her day in court first.

but because 8 investigations by republicans and democrats couldn't find enough to prosecute her. If republicans say there's not enough there to attempt to prosecute their enemy in this time of their hyper-partisanship, then there's probably nothing there. Hell, I'm not even defending her. If they found piles and piles of evidence tomorrow to support prosecuting her, do it I say.

Again... Congressional Committees only investigates... they don't prosecute.

DOJ does the prosecution.

Do you think Loretta Lynch (and Obama for that matter) would allow the DOJ to indict a HRC?

But that's not what they found, and you spewing talking points without any actual knowledge of the incident doesn't change that.

You're still coming from such a ignorant position this is child's play.

As for Ivanka (and Kushner for that matter), yes, it's from 2017 but the article (and review of this incident) is new. What's your point? Why shouldn't they investigate it, because it's a year old?

Sure investigate it. I'm sure the Democrat House would do that. I have ZERO problems with that.

Because you sure as hell aren't yelling "lock her up!"

Because I never chanted that.

(which, according to most trumptards means LOCK HER UP and throw away the key, not "a fair investigation (or eight) followed by a fair trial" or whatever you want to claim it means)

I disagree... but, this is what political hackery takes the worst of the worst, and try to use it as a bully club to their opposition.

I know I've been guilty of doing that for other things, but I'm trying not to... maybe you should too.

even though she did the same thing as Hillary did

NO. It's more synonomous to Gen. Colin Powell and Condi Rice who had only a handful of non-classified, business emails being found via FOIA research.

(classified emails on an unsecured email is what Ivanka is being accused of,

Still not corroborated.

just like Hillary.

Hey! You now agree that HRC did have classified emails on her private, person email server?

having a server or not doesn't matter in that regard, and doesn't make that issue more or less of a crime)

Yes it does. That's de facto mishandling classified information and breaks the letter of the law.

You're making a dangerous mistake trying to apply euphemisms or attribute hidden meanings to what trump says when he can barely finish a thought.

LOL...probably... but, that's how it's always understood in my neck of the woods.

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

Saying "lock her up!" means a fair investigation and then trial" is a perfect example of that, and if your head wasn't up your ass, you'd be able to see that. Those trumptards at the rallies want herlocked up!That's not the "worst of the worst," that's the average trump supporter.

And yeah, they're doing the same thing, you're just trying to desperately find an excuse as to why you're not screaming "lock her up" without being a hypocrite.

And again, if the DOJ doesn't want to prosecute because there's not enough evidence, what's your fucking problem? Actually, let me type big so you'll understand the point:


if eight investigations by republicans and democrats together couldn't find enough evidence for the DOJ to prosecute (as I've been implying, and you've been hiding behind "but x only INVESTIGATES") then there's probably nothing there. And if there was, and Obama/Lynch covered it up, then why hasn't trump with his CONSTANT "lock her up!" since he became president, done something about it?

Maybe because there's nothing there? Maybe because it's a political hit job you fell for like the easily mislead trumper you are?

Once again there's no real point in this. You deflect, strawman me, or flat out lie and misread what I write (i.e. the server is a separate matter from whether or not someone is sending classified info over unclassified channels, but you portray it as having to do one to do the other) and will never EVER admit you or team might be w-w-w-wrong.

[Deleted]

I think the point was that 'But her Emails' just became positively comic.

[Deleted]

Nov 20, 2018 17:29:46 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

Saying "lock her up!" means a fair investigation and then trial" is a perfect example of that, and if your head wasn't up your ass, you'd be able to see that. Those trumptards at the rallies want herlocked up!That's not the "worst of the worst," that's the average trump supporter.

Disagree. Again, this is you taking something to mean as the worst thing possible just to make it fit within your own misguide narrative.

And yeah, they're doing the same thing, you're just trying to desperately find an excuse as to why you're not screaming "lock her up" without being a hypocrite.

Because I can intelligently look at two different events and clearly understand that HRC's actions is orders of magnitude worst.

And again, if the DOJ doesn't want to prosecute because there's not enough evidence, what's your fucking problem? Actually, let me type big so you'll understand the point:

Because it was a total whitewash.

wolfie said ~stuff~ using large fonts believing it makes his points stronger...when, rather it makes him look impotent.

Maybe because there's nothing there? Maybe because it's a political hit job you fell for like the easily mislead trumper you are?

Disagree.

Again... you tell me a story how classified information made it to HRC's private server.

I'll wait.

Once again there's no real point in this. You deflect, strawman me, or flat out lie and misread what I write (i.e. the server is a separate matter from whether or not someone is sending classified info over unclassified channels, but you portray it as having to do one to do the other) and will never EVER admit you or team might be w-w-w-wrong.

Believe it or not, I'm actually trying to educate you.

When this story broke last year that Kushner/Ivanka used private emails for government business... that makes them hypocritical given the ordeal HRC went through.

But, to equivocate the two simply shows you have no idea what you're arguing.

Again, for maybe the 5TH time on this forum, if Kushner/Ivanka were found to have sent classified information via private email account last year (hell, up to this point really), they should be prosecuted. At the very least sanctioned or given the Gen. David Patraeus treatment (which I'd argued as a weaksauced slap on the wrist).

[Deleted]

Oooooooh... Trump answered Mueller's question and submitted them:
www.cnbc.com/2018/11/20/trump-has-submitted-answers-to-written-questions-from-special-counsel-mueller.html

How quickly do you think this'll leak?  (50/50 that Guilliani or Mueller's staffer would leak)

Anyone wanna wager?

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

[Insert eye_roll.gif of your choice]

Okaaaay sure whem. Keep living in your fantasy land. Don't actually respond to what I said in the large text. Especially don't reply to the part about why has trump not done anything if Obama or Lynch had covered it up now that he's president. Just keeping drinking the look aid...

Also baron is right. That was the entire point, but you're so defensive over this you freaked out and started going down this "but her emails are different than her emails!" shit.

Emails are emails, you don't need a private server to purposefully or accidently discuss classified material on an unsecure channel.

[hatoflords]

I feel like maybe we should refrain from the big text. It hurts my eyes...

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

Fair enough. I was wondering if it was too much to be honest.

But even with it being bigger text, whem still won't actually respond to my point, and keeps dancing around the subject. (And living in his own world about what "lock her up!" means)

[CommieCanUCK]

Nov 20, 2018 17:43:37 GMT -5 whembly said:

Oooooooh... Trump answered Mueller's question and submitted them:
www.cnbc.com/2018/11/20/trump-has-submitted-answers-to-written-questions-from-special-counsel-mueller.html

How quickly do you think this'll leak?  (50/50 that Guilliani or Mueller's staffer would leak)

Anyone wanna wager?

Pretty sure Mueller's ship is 100% leak-proof. Whereas ol' Rudy-toot is absolutely insane.

[Deleted]

I agree. I think the only time you've seen stuff leaked from "Mueller's camp" has actually been when they've had to give anything to Congress, in which case it's leaked immediately.