Rabbi_Vole
Banned
Do you often use shame as a motivator to bring people to your side or way of thinking? How effective is it?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
FBI will not recommend indictment for Hillary Clinton
- Thread starter Muzy72
- Start date
- Status
Super_Cobra
Member
I really hope someone replaces Hillary. Her bullshit is just growing. This email scandal should had gotten her in trouble. It's like saying we should hire Casey Anthony to baby sit because she wasn't found guilty.
And the term "hilldawg" is gross.
And the term "hilldawg" is gross.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
When half of the discussion is about how this reflects on her overall ability and qualifications, it starts to get stupid.
I'm just popping back in here, but....is this the new narrative? That Hillary is some incompetent senior citizen who gets all of her tech support from her grandchildren?
vainglorious
Member
Welp.
fixedpoint
Member
That's a right-wing echo chamber; Scarborough is a Republican. And Trump is corrupt.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-ca...ng&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central
"House Republicans have called FBI Director James Comey to testify about Hillary Clinton's use of private email as secretary of state."
Hopefully Comey comes equipped with examples of precedent showing that his findings were normal to slow down this conspiracy train.
"House Republicans have called FBI Director James Comey to testify about Hillary Clinton's use of private email as secretary of state."
Hopefully Comey comes equipped with examples of precedent showing that his findings were normal to slow down this conspiracy train.
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
You know what, after reading this and the comment comparing the FBI to a judges letting police off for killing black men, I think I'll tap out of this thread.
OMG This ^^^^ The dramatics going on are ridiculous.
I really have no clue how people see Trump as some squeaky clean business man. It is pretty damn dumb to think this.
Is there an actual source for this often cited fact?
Which makes you wonder why he said it if he was going to just let her walk like that? He sounded more like s guy who didn't want to be the one to say "she ain't going to jail, but she shouldn't be in the oval office either"
Yeah, it's hard for me to understand why anybody would pick Trump over Clinton unless they lean toward the racist stuff. The only way I can try to rationalize his position is that he thinks Trump tries to be corrupt but doesn't have the connections to be actually corrupt, but Hillary does.
Monocle
Member
So you'd choose utter incompetence and unvarnished bigotry from a literal egomaniac over the vague specter of corruption from a thoroughly qualified politician. Great strategy.
P.S. Trump has spoken openly about buying off politicians. So, about corruption...
I read them. Maybe they just weren't as convincing as you seem to think!
comey said:
No intent to conceal, no malice.
Literally this entire thread is about Hillary complying with an FOIA request for emails from her private server. Willingness to comply, no malice. Unless you think she had intent to conceal, in which case see the previous point.
your article said:
No evidence that Clinton was given notice, only that her IT director was given notice and killed the discussion. No knowledge, no malice.
You can't be disqualified from the office of President? Unless you want to take away her citizenship or something, there's nothing in the constitution about "unless you violated security protocol."
I certainly agree that if Hillary were still Secretary of State she'd have to resign.
She's already at the point in the presidential nominee process where she receives regular national security briefings. I'm not sure you can do that without a security clearance either!
Like, I think there's a genuine concern here about her engaging in insecure practices out of carelessness, and it doesn't particularly cheer me up. Ultimately, though, you know, as President she'll have a secure Blackberry, so hey, at least we got rid of the proximate cause.
But I see no evidence that there was deliberate malice here, and, again, the FBI agrees with me. I think that if you start from the position of assuming there's malice then you'll definitely find some, but that doesn't move me greatly.
I honestly don't see how any of the stuff that happened here affects my perspective on how she would do as president, except that she'd get some better IT staff.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
This is the shit that drives me nuts. Hillary? Too corrupt to be in office! Trump? The guy who admits to paying off politicians with a history of shady dealings and abusive contractor relationships? Totally cool.
Where does this delusion come from that it's a sound idea to replace the supposedly corrupted with the corruptors? Removing the people big money has bought with the big money itself?
Fucking think, people.
If you look at her email dump... It is actually pretty true.
There are several instances where it's very clear that she is very technically illiterate. At one point She asked Huma Abeddin how to a smiley face on a blackberry. In another, there was an exchange where Huma highly suggested that hillary did not know how to send emails from a computer.
Edit:I only mean incompetent in terms of technology.
Gorechylde
Member
Hilary sent ALL of her classified info over an unsecure network after she was told not to. That's select company.
As someone who has had a high level clearance in a past life, that's not true. There are Admirals and Generals that have managed to go entire careers keeping TS off of UNCLAS systems.
BlastProcessing
Member
All? That's the first time I have heard that claim.
Republicans will be voting for supreme Court seats just like liberals, I don't think people are happy with either candidates besides the die hards who contribute their hard earned money to rich people who don't need it. Pretty sure both sides want nothing to do with mustache twirling Donald and H-Rod
Sure seems like it and I'm amazed that it isn't being shouted down as offensive. A bit disappointed that some posters would rather protect their candidate than rightfully slap down obvious ageism.
Rabbi_Vole
Banned
Speaking of mustache twirling, when are we going to get another bearded president? I'd even be ok with a bearded woman president. I just want facial hair to make a comeback on the national stage.
You may want to check your facts.
TheLaughingStock
Member
When does Johnson become legitimate? What makes him legitimate?
It really irks me when someone says they are voting for Trump but claims they are not racist or bigoted. You can't separate your vote for someone that believes in taking away peoples freedoms, who has sad a whole bunch of stupid shit, who can't articulate any of his positions in any form except "we are going to have the best this or have the best that". He has no substance, he's a racist bigot, and if you vote for someone like that you are just as bad as he is.
It's sad that fear mongering works on the weak minded.
It's sad that fear mongering works on the weak minded.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook
Anyone have any thoughts about this? Trying to parse it.
Anyone have any thoughts about this? Trying to parse it.
Nope. It's not a fact at all, just a poorly constructed attempt at a defense.
Plenty of people work with classified information safely and securely. Plenty of people will also be careless and make silly mistakes (and this is a good bit more than that). Saying everyone engages in this sort of behavior, intentionally or not, is a stretch.
Schnozberry
Member
Yes, but most of those people do so over company monitored communications, get caught, and get retrained or face administrative penalty.
They usually have the sense not to put themselves in the position where they are personally responsible for maintaining and servicing an e-mail server that houses the evidence of their stupidity. Especially if foreign governments were able to discover she was using a private e-mail server, and begin the process of obtaining her entire inbox clandestinely.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Standard issue conservative angling ('gross negligence').
That's what I figured but wanted to give the benefit of the doubt.
I mean, people in power tend to get away with stuff. While two completely different situations, it's not that radical of a comparison.
I guess I don't understand where people are coming from with the Hillary gripes.
I mean, I don't necessarily like her, but has she done anything that makes you think she can't run this country at the highest levels? Is reading emails from home really something that's going to upset you and make you think she's incapable of fulfilling her job responsibilities? They discovered some level of classified material had gone thru her email account on exactly .1733% of emails that they reviewed. Admittedly it's not good but it's clearly not malicious either.
I just think people have gotten this thing in their head where they have to LIKE their president rather than think they can do the job. And nothing I've seen has made me believe that Hillary can't do the job reasonably well.
I mean, I wouldn't want to grab a beer with her. But do I think she can keep Wall Street from totally fleecing the American public? Kinda/hopefully, at least as well as anyone can. Do I think she can wrangle Congress to maybe do something? I hope so.
All I know is that I'm not concerned that the world will end if she gets the nuclear launch codes. And that's something I can only say about one candidate in this election.
I mean, I don't necessarily like her, but has she done anything that makes you think she can't run this country at the highest levels? Is reading emails from home really something that's going to upset you and make you think she's incapable of fulfilling her job responsibilities? They discovered some level of classified material had gone thru her email account on exactly .1733% of emails that they reviewed. Admittedly it's not good but it's clearly not malicious either.
I just think people have gotten this thing in their head where they have to LIKE their president rather than think they can do the job. And nothing I've seen has made me believe that Hillary can't do the job reasonably well.
I mean, I wouldn't want to grab a beer with her. But do I think she can keep Wall Street from totally fleecing the American public? Kinda/hopefully, at least as well as anyone can. Do I think she can wrangle Congress to maybe do something? I hope so.
All I know is that I'm not concerned that the world will end if she gets the nuclear launch codes. And that's something I can only say about one candidate in this election.
Schnozberry
Member
There's nothing illegitimate about him. You either like his positions or you don't. Personally I find him a bit boring and hate that he attempts to oversimplify issues and his own positions a lot of the time, but I will vote for him instead of Hillary or Trump. He seems sincere and open minded, and I think he's the most likely of the candidates to push for peace and ending the toxic drug war.
Any remote chance of actually being elected president would be a start. Since he doesn't, he's basically running a sham campaign for the purposes of publicity. It's simple: the US system only leaves room for two factions and there is no second place in a presidential election. Third parties can only stand a chance by completely supplanting one of the two main factions., such as happened when the Republicans replaced the Whigs. Anything else, and they'll just siphon votes from the party they most resemble and lead to a landslide for the opposing faction, like in the 1912 election where the Democrats won 435 to 96 after the Progressive Party split the Republican vote down the middle.
Do you honestly believe that the Libertarian Party could possible ever completely replace either the Democrats or the Republicans in this or any presidential election in the foreseeable future? Of course not. That's why Johnson is not a legitimate candidate. He simply has no possibility of winning.
UnemployedVillain
Member
Not really. It comes down to what is defined as "gross negligence". Some claim she could be described as committing that, but then there's the fact that out of 30,000 emails, only 110 contained classified information, and only a fraction of those were actually marked classified (so at most 0.36% of the emails exchanged were of classified info at the time), or the fact she had these stored and wasn't destroying them.
vainglorious
Member
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the...the_media_has_conveniently_forgotten_partner/
And still nobody gives a shit about the Bush email scandal from 2007. Nope.
And still nobody gives a shit about the Bush email scandal from 2007. Nope.
That's how I see it. Like who really cares about bullshit that has nothing to do with actually having the skills and fortitude to do the job? I don't care that she and her entire department were careless with email security protocol back in 2008 when the first iphone was brand new, lol. It's not going to be a problem when she's President, and she will most definitely be hiring the best person for the job to take care of all future security IT for her now.
A few embellished or bullshit stories over the years that may or may not be misconstrued for political points? Who cares. As long as she chooses the Supreme Court, and pushes progressive policy then I'll vote for her, easy. The whole thing seems like a bunch of fake hand wringing because some people would secretly prefer Trump or just harboring some deep personal issues with Clinton. Okay then. You do you, but spare us the dramatics.
And to remove the entire social safety net established nearly 100 years ago, deregulate the private sector basically entirely, and move away from progressive taxation towards a much more dramatic wealth inequality.
The Libertarian party is a group of borderline anarchists drunk on the concept of individuality while being entirely supported by the fact that they live in a collective. It's a cuckoo nest and Johnson is just their latest McMurphy.
Schnozberry
Member
I think refusal to accept Libya as a mistake after failing to reach any of the stated objectives of her "doctrine", along with claiming she had no regrets about causing one of the most brutal civil wars and dire refugee crises in the world is a pretty big disqualifier.
Also, her support of the unjust Invasion of Iraq, her repeated lying about her e-mail server, and the shady uranium deal involving the Clinton Foundation make her one of the most dubious figures ever to run for President. She has a history of questionable ethics regarding her personal affairs, and coupled with her Wilsonian vigor for Foreign Policy Adventurism, it makes it hard to stomach her for me.
Version 3.0
Member
I'll bite. Here's your answer: not a single one of those things registers on my radar when it comes to deciding whether to vote for her. I don't care about exaggerated stories or anecdotes. This e-mail situation is problematic, but I expect she's learned her lesson and security will be tight going forward.
But she's a candidate for president. Her website has a long list of relevant issues and where she stands on each. Those are what I care about, not whether she really saw a 15-inch cockroach in the White House basement once, whether her grandfather really called her "HillDawg", nor even that she made a very dumb data security decision.
In my opinion, the fact that her political opponents have to settle for crying about this e-mail situation and Benghazi in lieu of anything more damaging is a ringing endorsement.
Now, fair is fair. Can you, without mentioning Hillary Clinton, explain why voting for Trump is a good idea?
Schnozberry
Member
Sure, lets pretend that a Johnson presidency means any of those things will actually happen.
There also happens to be a pretty good case for the Fair Tax, and eventually the country will have to come to terms with the fact that we can't afford the promises made with our safety net because of a number of factors. The non-political problem of birth rate decline being chief among them.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Sure I do. Sometimes unexpected things happen and sometimes they don't all the time. The foreseeable future is murky for me. I didn't forecast Mr. Trump would be the GOP nominee and saying, "The system is rigged!" like I asked months ago in 2016. Even I doubted he'd listen to someone like me.
vainglorious
Member
More arm chair prosecutorial nonsense. There's a reason this guy is writing about criminal investigations and not prosecuting them. It's called mens rea. A criminal statute that fails to include a mens rea of intent is certainly going to draw a constitutional challenge that very well may be sustained. Then, you've changed an election outcome with a faulty prosecution. The take away from this is that when it comes to Clinton scandals, people will spin and spin in an effort to support their chosen narrative.
I think it's hilarious that "She said she was named after the person who climbed Mount Everest, but she wasn't!" is a huge talking point for some people. If Hillary is that evil, you shouldn't really have to be scraping the bottom of the barrel like that to get dirt on her.
"She once claimed she caught a 5 foot Marlin while deep sea fishing, but Politifact.com confirmed it was only a 2 1/2 foot seabass!"
"She once claimed she caught a 5 foot Marlin while deep sea fishing, but Politifact.com confirmed it was only a 2 1/2 foot seabass!"
The overall point is that a large amount of people don't trust a word that comes out of her mouth based on things she has said before.
Myself included. Not that it matters because I'm not American, but still.
- Status