But her emails!
-
What is she doing in any position of government anyway, has that actually been clarified? I don't think your dad being president necessarily qualifies you to work on government business. There's so much nepotism in American politics (on all sides, your ex-husband once being president doesn't make you qualified either, neither for your son and so on).
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
your dad being president necessarily qualifies you to work on government business.
There is a word for that.
-
What is she doing in any position of government anyway, has that actually been clarified? I don't think your dad being president necessarily qualifies you to work on government business. There's so much nepotism in American politics (on all sides, your ex-husband once being president doesn't make you qualified either, neither for your son and so on).
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
I don't think your dad being president necessarily qualifies you to work on government business.
FTFY
Socialism is the Axe Body Spray of political ideologies: It never does what it claims to do, but people too young to know better keep buying it anyway. (Glenn Reynolds)
-
Stop pretending you care about national security. Two years ago you didn't.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
It looks like you woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
Nathan Minier wrote:
Stop pretending you care about national security.
When Cadet Bonespurs revealed classified information to the Russian ambassador, he probably got some people killed and he definitely made it less likely that foreign intelligence services would cooperate with the US, knowing that our idiot president* might at any time reveal their sources and methods. That is a real threat to our national security. As far as him blabbing to Sean Hannity on an unsecure phone while the Russians and Chinese listen in, it is theoretically possible that they might learn something but, for once, Il Douche's ignorance and incompetence makes it unlikely he knows anything worthwhile to the Russians or Chinese.
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
-
Why? Clinton already proved that you can be criminally negligent, intentionally damage national security, actively impede an investigation, a be a generally cover your evil, criminal, tracks and no responsibility will be assigned to you, provided that you have the correct last name. But yes, if anything classified hit that server she is 100% responsible and should go to prison for at least a decade, just like your precious idol was and should have done.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
Nathan Minier wrote:
you can be criminally negligent, intentionally damage national security, actively impede an investigation, a be a generally cover your evil, criminal, tracks and no responsibility will be assigned to you, provided that you have the correct last name.
That's a good description of how I perceive a lot of the world's "top" politicians. (can't say I'm fed up with politics, or a "Wutbürger", yet I'm astonished of how many people still give them their votes - And that's "alternative" parties counted in, too).
I only have a signature in order to let @DalekDave follow my posts.
-
Very Large Brain wrote:
NEVER! I would not even have supported her.
Then I apologize. :rose: :beer:
Very Large Brain wrote:
The law is very clear on this, if what I read is true.
Not sure it is. Otherwise HRC would likely be incarcerated.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Then I apologize. [Rose] [beer]
No harm done! I find Americans very polarized. Either for Trump or for HRC. I don't like either of them. Here in Canada we have 4 major parties and any of them could win an election. At the last election, I voted for neither of them, although I was glad to see Harper ousted.
-
It looks like you woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
Nathan Minier wrote:
Stop pretending you care about national security.
When Cadet Bonespurs revealed classified information to the Russian ambassador, he probably got some people killed and he definitely made it less likely that foreign intelligence services would cooperate with the US, knowing that our idiot president* might at any time reveal their sources and methods. That is a real threat to our national security. As far as him blabbing to Sean Hannity on an unsecure phone while the Russians and Chinese listen in, it is theoretically possible that they might learn something but, for once, Il Douche's ignorance and incompetence makes it unlikely he knows anything worthwhile to the Russians or Chinese.
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
I think was he was getting at was that you don't care about Clinton's potential security breaches, only Trumps. In other words, like most people on the left the only way they can present an argument is if they are being massive hypocrites. When discussing these ideas in your safe-space echo-chambers that flies as you're all willing to ignore the same uncomfortable truths, but unfortunately when you try those arguments on normal people all they see is your hypocrisy and rather lackluster points.
-
I think was he was getting at was that you don't care about Clinton's potential security breaches, only Trumps. In other words, like most people on the left the only way they can present an argument is if they are being massive hypocrites. When discussing these ideas in your safe-space echo-chambers that flies as you're all willing to ignore the same uncomfortable truths, but unfortunately when you try those arguments on normal people all they see is your hypocrisy and rather lackluster points.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
only Trumps
Only tRump openly revealed classified information to the Russian ambassador. Only tRump is using an unsecure phone that is likely being intercepted. I really don't care about Ivanka. The hypocrisy is on the right. After screaming about Clinton for years, they have no interest in investigating the numerous breaches in email protocol by various executive branch players. And ad-homs are always a loser. It just makes you look weak.
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
only Trumps
Only tRump openly revealed classified information to the Russian ambassador. Only tRump is using an unsecure phone that is likely being intercepted. I really don't care about Ivanka. The hypocrisy is on the right. After screaming about Clinton for years, they have no interest in investigating the numerous breaches in email protocol by various executive branch players. And ad-homs are always a loser. It just makes you look weak.
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
Thanks for verifying everything I said :thumbsup: BTW if you want to throw around accusations of "ad hominem" then at least learn what it is. You're using it the same way the left use "racist", "bigot", "Nazi" etc; just a slur to try and shut down what people are saying. You might think it works, but I'm afraid it doesn't.
-
Thanks for verifying everything I said :thumbsup: BTW if you want to throw around accusations of "ad hominem" then at least learn what it is. You're using it the same way the left use "racist", "bigot", "Nazi" etc; just a slur to try and shut down what people are saying. You might think it works, but I'm afraid it doesn't.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Thanks for verifying everything I said
Since you didn't say this: "The hypocrisy is on the right." You're just wrong.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
learn what it is.
It's what you wrote.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
shut down what people are saying.
You haven't said anything So, I'll wait...
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
-
I think was he was getting at was that you don't care about Clinton's potential security breaches, only Trumps. In other words, like most people on the left the only way they can present an argument is if they are being massive hypocrites. When discussing these ideas in your safe-space echo-chambers that flies as you're all willing to ignore the same uncomfortable truths, but unfortunately when you try those arguments on normal people all they see is your hypocrisy and rather lackluster points.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
I think was he was getting at was that you don't care about Clinton's potential security breaches,
Potential the key word. No evidence it happened. Myself I do in fact care about the 20 million dollars spent and the 2 years of wasted time on the "Benghazi" investigation which is in fact what they were actually supposed to be looking at. Not email.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
I think was he was getting at was that you don't care about Clinton's potential security breaches,
Potential the key word. No evidence it happened. Myself I do in fact care about the 20 million dollars spent and the 2 years of wasted time on the "Benghazi" investigation which is in fact what they were actually supposed to be looking at. Not email.
jschell wrote:
No evidence it happened.
No evidence what happened?
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Thanks for verifying everything I said
Since you didn't say this: "The hypocrisy is on the right." You're just wrong.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
learn what it is.
It's what you wrote.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
shut down what people are saying.
You haven't said anything So, I'll wait...
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
Majerus wrote:
Since you didn't say this: "The hypocrisy is on the right." You're just wrong.
The left complaining about Trump's camp doing something that they defended the Clinton camp for shows hypocrisy on the right. Ok.... TDS is in full effect :~
Majerus wrote:
It's what you wrote.
No, I didn't.
-
Majerus wrote:
Since you didn't say this: "The hypocrisy is on the right." You're just wrong.
The left complaining about Trump's camp doing something that they defended the Clinton camp for shows hypocrisy on the right. Ok.... TDS is in full effect :~
Majerus wrote:
It's what you wrote.
No, I didn't.
...and wait...
Before the oath, Trump has managed to surpass 2nd term Nixon for paranoia, 2nd term Reagan for corruption & 2nd term Bush for incompetence.--R. Schooley Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The president fired the FBI director to obstruct a federal investigation into possible collusion with a foreign power to fix an election. - Jesse Berne
-
I think was he was getting at was that you don't care about Clinton's potential security breaches, only Trumps. In other words, like most people on the left the only way they can present an argument is if they are being massive hypocrites. When discussing these ideas in your safe-space echo-chambers that flies as you're all willing to ignore the same uncomfortable truths, but unfortunately when you try those arguments on normal people all they see is your hypocrisy and rather lackluster points.
Yes, this is exactly what I was getting at. I'm all for prosecution of proven security breaches, regardless of what side of the aisle they come from. The politicization of this concept is full-on stupid.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
-
I just wanted to show the hypocrisy.