Support NeoGAF

[Mattenth]

Hey, Hillary GAFers,

I really just want to say "don't push people away." I hope that when people talk to you in conversations about their concern's about Hillary, you don't just dismiss them. It's alienating, and alienation seems to be the only way that Hillary will lose.

Most of us, myself included, are furious that it's yet again the "lesser-of-two-evils." Trump is obviously worse, and I bet most of your friends know that too.

But that doesn't change that many of us are lamenting the future of our democracy.

Trump is a fucking political terrorist. He wins by lowering the bar for everyone.

Hillary is evidence of that. Set aside the legality of what she's doing. Any other election year, the lies that she's told the American people would be disqualifying.

Answer these questions without mentioning Trump:

• She said she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia. If she says that as President, it needlessly taints the reptuation of an entire country.
• She said that she never sent or received anything marked as classified. The FBI disagrees, and called it "reckless." If she's President, do you really want her with nuclear launch codes?
• She said that she and Bill left the White House "not only dead broke, but also in debt." Do you really want a President that lies about finances?
• She said she applied to be a Marine and was rejected. There's no evidence of that happening.
• She lies over pedantic bullshit, like she was named after the first climber of Mt Everest, even though no one had climbed Everest when she was born...

Do you really want a President that seems to be comfortable lying to the public?

That "don't mention Trump" part is important, because Trump is not my fucking standard.

I think many conservatives in this thread still fucking hate Trump with every fiber in their being.

But the way you lose this election is by dismissing and alienating them.

Or maybe it won't cost you this election, but it might cost you the next one.

 

[Horns]

Yes, that's what I did exactly. I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. :/

In other words, you're a sucker for your party if you really don't find any of this to be a big deal. And you can roll your eyes but if this was a (R) politician, you'd be all over it with your virtual pitch fork.



Sure thing as long as you don't care when judges let cops that murder blacks in this country off scott free to be a problem either. Because the official statement is the cop was just doing their job, ya know.

Please stop with the silly comparisons. This is not a big deal because of the Patriot Act and the FBI shouldn't be believed because cops kill black people and judges let them off. My head hurts.

 

[DryvBy]

Now you've compared the emails to murder?

Stahp

Holy crap. Hollllllllly crap.

Seriously, learn to read. Or just quit trolling.

 

[pigeon]

She's a 'reputable' politician, she should be able to use a fucking computer. She's running for president holy shit.

You understand that information technology is a field that exists, right? Implying that people benefit from its services?

 

[Schnozberry]

"Believing stuff is for suckers" is not a particularly good argument.

Did you have any actual reason to disbelieve, for example, the news reports, which I've already posted in this thread, that make it pretty clear that Hillary asked for a secured Blackberry in order to send emails on the government server and only set up a private server when her request was denied?

Well, do you have a job in which you can insist on having the same device as the President of the United States, get denied, and then build a server on your own property so you can use the device you prefer against the stated policy of your employer?

She was offered an alternative device by the NSA. She refused it.

 

[xxracerxx]

I vote for whoever I think is best. Me not voting for Clinton or Trump isn't a vote for the other side, which is the whole point. If they were literally the only two people on the ballot and I couldn't vote for anybody else I simply wouldn't vote, because I don't think either one is fit to lead.

And that is totally valid, I just think SCOTUS picks are the main issue here for me and voting for a non-viable candidate will not continue the country moving forward.

 

[TheOMan]

Hey, Hillary GAFers,

I really just want to say "don't push people away." I hope that when people talk to you in conversations about their concern's about Hillary, you don't just dismiss them. It's alienating, and alienation seems to be the only way that Hillary will lose.

Most of us, myself included, are furious that it's yet again the "lesser-of-two-evils." Trump is obviously worse, and I bet most of your friends know that too.

But that doesn't change that many of us are lamenting the future of our democracy.

Trump is a fucking political terrorist. He wins by lowering the bar for everyone.

Hillary is evidence of that. Set aside the legality of what she's doing. Any other election year, the lies that she's told the American people would be disqualifying.

Answer these questions without mentioning Trump:

• She said she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia. If she says that as President, it needlessly taints the reptuation of an entire country.
• She said that she never sent or received anything marked as classified. The FBI disagrees, and called it "reckless." If she's President, do you really want her with nuclear launch codes?
• She said that she and Bill left the White House "not only dead broke, but also in debt." Do you really want a President that lies about finances?
• She said she applied to be a Marine and was rejected. There's no evidence of that happening.
• She lies over pedantic bullshit, like she was named after the first climber of Mt Everest, even though no one had climbed Everest when she was born...

Do you really want a President that seems to be comfortable lying to the public?

That "don't mention Trump" part is important, because Trump is not my fucking standard.

I think many conservatives in this thread still fucking hate Trump with every fiber in their being.

But the way you lose this election is by dismissing an alienating them.

Or maybe it won't cost you this election, but it might cost you the next one.

I wouldn't consider myself a "Hillary GAFer", but who is the legitimate alternative here?

 

[Gorechylde]

"Believing stuff is for suckers" is not a particularly good argument.

Did you have any actual reason to disbelieve, for example, the news reports, which I've already posted in this thread, that make it pretty clear that Hillary asked for a secured Blackberry in order to send emails on the government server and only set up a private server when her request was denied?

I would urge you to go back and read my previous posts in this thread. I feel I've outlined pretty well why I feel the way I feel on this topic.

You mean these news reports?

The 78-page analysis, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, says Clinton ignored clear directives. She never sought approval to conduct government business over private email, and never demonstrated the server or the Blackberry she used while in office "met minimum information security requirements."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e9cf...sbreak-state-dept-audit-faults-clinton-emails

 

[Gorechylde]

I wouldn't consider myself a "Hillary GAFer", but who is the legitimate alternative here?

Gary MOTHAFUCKIN Johnson!

 

[Ray Wonder]

You understand that information technology is a field that exists, right? Implying that people benefit from its services?

She's sent at least 60,000 emails. She knows what email is.

 

[Rabbi_Vole]

Someday, we will all look back on this and cackle.

 

[GloriousBagel]

She's sent at least 60,000 emails. She knows what email is.

No, she's an old lady, it would be impossible for her to know what an email is.

 

[Jetman]

Planned on voting Hildawg, this cycle, but having a serious problem with it now.

I work in the defense industry and if I or any of my coworkers did what she did, we'd be barred from ever getting a clearance again, be fired, and potentially get prison time.

I won't vote Trump, obviously, but don't think I'll vote Hillary either.

Is it too late to shove Biden into the primaries lol?

 

[Ray Wonder]

I've probably sent like 500 emails total in my life.

 

[Rabbi_Vole]

No, she's an old lady, it would be impossible for her to know what an email is.

Maybe she was using webTV.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Gary MOTHAFUCKIN Johnson!

"Legitimate alternative"

 

[Mattenth]

I wouldn't consider myself a "Hillary GAFer", but who is the legitimate alternative here?

It's not about an alternative. It's about how you engage concerned voters.

Method A (that many here employ): "It's all a scheme. It's all fake. FBI cleared her - she's innocent. You fuckers are buying into propoganda."

Method B: "You know what, Hillary fucking sucks. I hope she gets sent through the primary again in 4 years. But I don't have an alternative."

 

[Macam]

Well, do you have a job in which you can insist on having the same device as the President of the United States, get denied, and then build a server on your own property so you can use the device you prefer against the stated policy of your employer?

She was offered an alternative device by the NSA. She refused it.

It's almost as if she was offered a restricted set of choices, didn't like any of them, and effectively chose a third party device set up/configuration.

 

[billeh]

Planned on voting Hildawg, this cycle, but having a serious problem with it now.

I work in the defense industry and if I or any of my coworkers did what she did, we'd be barred from ever getting a clearance again, be fired, and potentially get prison time.

I won't vote Trump, obviously, but don't think I'll vote Hillary either.

Is it too late to shove Biden into the primaries lol?

I would've been out on my ass if I used the same practices at my job too, just need to run for president and claim ignorance I guess. It's laughable that we're supposed to believe the goddamn state department is held to less scrutiny.

And of course, the argument against all this is "What, you support Trump then?"

 

[gatti-man]

Hey, Hillary GAFers,

I really just want to say "don't push people away." I hope that when people talk to you in conversations about their concern's about Hillary, you don't just dismiss them. It's alienating, and alienation seems to be the only way that Hillary will lose.

Most of us, myself included, are furious that it's yet again the "lesser-of-two-evils." Trump is obviously worse, and I bet most of your friends know that too.

But that doesn't change that many of us are lamenting the future of our democracy.

Trump is a fucking political terrorist. He wins by lowering the bar for everyone.

Hillary is evidence of that. Set aside the legality of what she's doing. Any other election year, the lies that she's told the American people would be disqualifying.

Answer these questions without mentioning Trump:

• She said she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia. If she says that as President, it needlessly taints the reptuation of an entire country.
• She said that she never sent or received anything marked as classified. The FBI disagrees, and called it "reckless." If she's President, do you really want her with nuclear launch codes?
• She said that she and Bill left the White House "not only dead broke, but also in debt." Do you really want a President that lies about finances?
• She said she applied to be a Marine and was rejected. There's no evidence of that happening.
• She lies over pedantic bullshit, like she was named after the first climber of Mt Everest, even though no one had climbed Everest when she was born...

Do you really want a President that seems to be comfortable lying to the public?

That "don't mention Trump" part is important, because Trump is not my fucking standard.

I think many conservatives in this thread still fucking hate Trump with every fiber in their being.

But the way you lose this election is by dismissing and alienating them.

Or maybe it won't cost you this election, but it might cost you the next one.

Don't think of it as choosing the lesser of two evils. Think of it as choosing two to three of the next Supreme Court justices. That's far more important than any emails or trump issues. We could effect change for the next 20-30 years with this one election.

I would've been out on my ass if I used the same practices at my job too, just need to run for president and claim ignorance I guess. It's laughable that we're supposed to believe the goddamn state department is held to less scrutiny.

And of course, the argument against all this is "What, you support Trump then?"

At this point yes that's the argument. By not voting Hilary at this point you are essentially supporting trump. There really isn't any other alternative.

 

[pigeon]

Well, do you have a job in which you can insist on having the same device as the President of the United States, get denied, and then build a server on your own property so you can use the device you prefer against the stated policy of your employer?

She was offered an alternative device by the NSA. She refused it.

Sure, and that was dumb. Obviously the alternate universe in which Hillary just learns to use a laptop is better.

I'm not arguing that this wasn't a big stupid mistake. The post I was responding to originally was suggesting that it was deliberate malice. I think it's clear -- and, just to note, I have an FBI investigation that agrees with me -- that it wasn't, it was just stupid.

At the same time, like, probably they should have just gotten her a Blackberry.

She's sent at least 60,000 emails. She knows what email is.

This is a dumb argument. I've driven like several hundred thousand miles in my life, but I can't fix a car.

I would urge you to go back and read my previous posts in this thread. I feel I've outlined pretty well why I feel the way I feel on this topic.

I have read your posts. They don't make any case for why malice is a better assumption then incompetence on this issue. That's why I asked you to make that case.

You mean these news reports?

No, like I said, slugger, I meant the news reports I posted. Maybe go back and read my previous posts!

 

[Rabbi_Vole]

Don't think of it as choosing the lesser of two evils. Think of it as choosing two to three of the next Supreme Court justices. That's far more important than any emails or trump issues. We could effect change for the next 20-30 years with this one election.

Should Republicans do the same?

 

[Syrus]

Our system is trash

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

It's not about an alternative. It's about how you engage concerned voters.

Method A (that many here employ): "It's all a scheme. It's all fake. FBI cleared her - she's innocent. You fuckers are buying into propoganda."

Method B: "You know what, Hillary fucking sucks. I hope she gets sent through the primary again in 4 years. But I don't have an alternative."

You fuckers *are* buying into propaganda. Or the headlines would be about absolute overhaul of the State Department for years of abuses, and not about Clinton specifically. But nobody gives a shit about this except as a weapon against Clinton.

 

[Maxim726X]

Should Republicans do the same?

That's exactly what they're doing.

I don't see where you're going with this.

 

[Rabbi_Vole]

That's exactly what they're doing.

I don't see where you're going with this.

Just wondering if you recommend Republicans also look past the president and to the future of the Supreme Court for their inspiration in November.

 

[jon bones]

Someday, we will all look back on this and cackle.

yep, we'll get a 7-2 SC ruling that crushes some shitty socially conservative law and gloat like hell

 

[Mattenth]

You fuckers *are* buying into propaganda. Or the headlines would be about absolute overhaul of the State Department for years of abuses, and not about Clinton specifically. But nobody gives a shit about this except as a weapon against Clinton.

Case and point?

Even if you believe that, you're going to alienate voters from the Democratic party if you engage them with that attitude.

 

[Ray Wonder]

This is a dumb argument. I've driven like several hundred thousand miles in my life, but I can't fix a car.

She's either dumb, or knows about email. There's no inbetween. I didn't say she was going to fix her server. I said she knows about email. If someone asked you where you put your windshield wiper fluid, you'd know where it goes. My mother is a lot smarter than Hillary Clinton according to you. She has an unrelated job to tech, but needs to email, and understands how it works because she's been doing it so long. I don't buy the "Oh I'm a granny my brain can't handle this new fandangle technomails."

Bullshit. She has some understanding or she's not smart enough for me to support to be president. You don't pick up a pen and write for 10 years and not know how a pen works. You don't sit on a chair for 10 years and not know how generally a chair is made. You don't send emails for 10 years without gaining some general understanding of what's going on when you press send.


EDIT: As The Secretary of State, mind you. Where knowledge of these things is important.

 

[Maxim726X]

Just wondering if you recommend Republicans also look past the president and to the future of the Supreme Court for their inspiration in November.

Well, I know that they're stressing this on conservative radio.

And for those on the fence about their candidate, it's a very compelling argument.

 

[Joey Fox]

Planned on voting Hildawg, this cycle, but having a serious problem with it now.

I work in the defense industry and if I or any of my coworkers did what she did, we'd be barred from ever getting a clearance again, be fired, and potentially get prison time.

I won't vote Trump, obviously, but don't think I'll vote Hillary either.

Is it too late to shove Biden into the primaries lol?

I am going to vote for Trump. Also in the defense industry, and you're 100% right we would be fired and charged. The alternative is corruption, someone above the law (as even commented on liberal news such as MSNBC - Morning Joe).

That's how I define my vote. Others are free to vote their conscience.

 

[Nivash]

It's not about an alternative. It's about how you engage concerned voters.

Method A (that many here employ): "It's all a scheme. It's all fake. FBI cleared her - she's innocent. You fuckers are buying into propoganda."

Method B: "You know what, Hillary fucking sucks. I hope she gets sent through the primary again in 4 years. But I don't have an alternative."

How avout Method C?

"Hillary is a flawed but potentially excellent candidate with an impressive CV. She has been under intense scrutiny for decades, with many attempts to create scandals by political opponents, but she has been cleared in every investigation she has ever been the target of. For all her personal flaws - including what looks like a penchant for storytelling, a possibly overly pragmatic attitude to politics and a tendency to prefer results over protocol - she has shown resilience, savvy, leadership, expertise and determination, all of which are excellent qualities in a president. In addition, she has a proven progressive track record stretching back decades. You may disagree with some of her policies and leadership qualities and you may have prefer someone else, but she did win the Democratic primary to become the nominee and she doesn't deserve a fraction of the hatred she gets from both ends of the political spectrum."

It doesn't make as good a soundbite, but it's much closer to the truth.

 

[Lothars]

I am going to vote for Trump. Also in the defense industry, and you're 100% right we would be fired and charged. The alternative is corruption, someone above the law (as even commented on liberal news such as MSNBC - Morning Joe).

That's how I define my vote. Others are free to vote their conscience.

I don't know how you can have a conscience and vote for Trump.

How avout Method C?

"Hillary is a flawed but potentially excellent candidate with an impressive CV. She has been under intense scrutiny for decades, with many attempts to create scandals by political opponents, but she has been cleared in every investigation she has ever been the target of. For all her personal flaws - including what looks like a penchant for storytelling, a possibly overly pragmatic attitude to politics and a tendency to prefer results over protocol - she has shown resilience, savvy, leadership, expertise and determination, all of which are excellent qualities in a president. In addition, she has a proven progressive track record stretching back decades. You may disagree with some of her policies and leadership qualities and you may have prefer someone else, but she did win the Democratic primary to become the nominee and she doesn't deserve a fraction of the hatred she gets from both ends of the political spectrum."

It doesn't make as good a soundbite, but it's much closer to the truth.

Exactly. I really don't get the hate she gets over all of this.

 

[vainglorious]

Case and point?

Even if you believe that, you're going to alienate voters from the Democratic party if you engage them with that attitude.

It's not anyone's responsibility to make you feel good about your vote and what you choose to do with it. If you don't feel comfortable voting for Hillary Clinton then don't. Polls already show that Sanders supporters are moving behind Clinton without an endorsement from Sanders. In the end if it's your decision to remain with the few who have doubts about Clinton and choose to withhold your vote because of it, then fine. I'm more concerned about a Trump presidency then your hurt feelings.

 

[pigeon]

Hillary is evidence of that. Set aside the legality of what she's doing. Any other election year, the lies that she's told the American people would be disqualifying.

Answer these questions without mentioning Trump:

• She said she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia. If she says that as President, it needlessly taints the reptuation of an entire country.
• She said that she never sent or received anything marked as classified. The FBI disagrees, and called it "reckless." If she's President, do you really want her with nuclear launch codes?
• She said that she and Bill left the White House "not only dead broke, but also in debt." Do you really want a President that lies about finances?
• She said she applied to be a Marine and was rejected. There's no evidence of that happening.
• She lies over pedantic bullshit, like she was named after the first climber of Mt Everest, even though no one had climbed Everest when she was born...

Do you really want a President that seems to be comfortable lying to the public?

This is a great example of exactly what the issue is with these discussions.

Here's the Edmund Hillary article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/nyregion/17hillary.html

Hillary says her mom told her that she was named for Edmund Hillary.

Now, obviously she isn't. But Hillary's not claiming that she was, she's saying she was told that she was. For reasons that I hope are obvious, Hillary cannot be a perfectly reliable witness on the provenance of her own name in any case.

So, like, if you're predisposed to assume Hillary is lying, then sure, this is another example of Hillary's pathological lies. But if you're not assuming at the start that she's a liar then, like, it's perfectly reasonable to think that her mom told her a story that wasn't true and she remembered the story years later when she met the guy it was about.

If you are starting from the perspective of "convince me that Hillary Clinton, who we agree is a narcissistic liar, is worth voting for," then I am not sure it's worth anybody's time or energy to engage with you. If I thought Hillary was a narcissistic liar then I probably wouldn't encourage people to vote for her. But I don't! I think most of the examples you listed are misconstrued or manufactured issues created by people who want to attack her.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Case and point?

Even if you believe that, you're going to alienate voters from the Democratic party if you engage them with that attitude.

I don't really care. People who want to buy this bullshit will buy this bullshit. I'm not going to cater to it.

 

[GYODX]

When multiple investigations and the FBI don't believe it warrants indictment but 'people on the internet' think it's a really big deal, I'm not going to side with people on the internet

Did you even hear what Comey said? It was pretty damming.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I am going to vote for Trump. Also in the defense industry, and you're 100% right we would be fired and charged. The alternative is corruption, someone above the law (as even commented on liberal news such as MSNBC - Morning Joe).

That's how I define my vote. Others are free to vote their conscience.

You defined your vote the second Trump came down that escalator, let's be honest. If it wasn't the e-mails you'd be talking about Benghazi and if it wasn't Benghazi you'd be talking about Vince Foster.

 

[Gorechylde]

Sure, and that was dumb. Obviously the alternate universe in which Hillary just learns to use a laptop is better.

I'm not arguing that this wasn't a big stupid mistake. The post I was responding to originally was suggesting that it was deliberate malice. I think it's clear -- and, just to note, I have an FBI investigation that agrees with me -- that it wasn't, it was just stupid.

At the same time, like, probably they should have just gotten her a Blackberry.



This is a dumb argument. I've driven like several hundred thousand miles in my life, but I can't fix a car.



I have read your posts. They don't make any case for why malice is a better assumption then incompetence on this issue. That's why I asked you to make that case.



No, like I said, slugger, I meant the news reports I posted. Maybe go back and read my previous posts!

You obviously haven't read my posts nor the articles I linked. Her actions and those of her staff point to malice. Deleting government correspondence that is subject to FOIA? Working exclusively through private email on a private server when you serve the public domain and are subject to government oversight? She was given notice at least twice that what she was doing was wrong and a breach of protocol and continued course anyway? Incompetence my ass. She's not fucking stupid.

I have read your reports. Where do they say this wouldn't end in a removal of security clearance and disqualification from POTUS for anyone NOT named Clinton? What makes Hildawg exempt from the same rules that govern her peers?

To be clear, I don't give a fuck if she's indicted or not. She should never hold a security clearance again. Kind of hard to run the country without one though.

 

[GYODX]

This is a great example of exactly what the issue is with these discussions.

Here's the Edmund Hillary article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/nyregion/17hillary.html

Hillary says her mom told her that she was named for Edmund Hillary.

Now, obviously she isn't. But Hillary's not claiming that she was, she's saying she was told that she was. For reasons that I hope are obvious, Hillary cannot be a perfectly reliable witness on the provenance of her own name in any case.

So, like, if you're predisposed to assume Hillary is lying, then sure, this is another example of Hillary's pathological lies. But if you're not assuming at the start that she's a liar then, like, it's perfectly reasonable to think that her mom told her a story that wasn't true and she remembered the story years later when she met the guy it was about.

If you are starting from the perspective of "convince me that Hillary Clinton, who we agree is a narcissistic liar, is worth voting for," then I am not sure it's worth anybody's time or energy to engage with you. If I thought Hillary was a narcissistic liar then I probably wouldn't encourage people to vote for her. But I don't! I think most of the examples you listed are misconstrued or manufactured issues created by people who want to attack her.

How do you misconstrue her bullshit about being under sniper fire when she landed in Bosnia?

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

You guys getting yourselves all worked up over chickenshit.

Get your priorities right, listen to the candidates speak on the issues, do your research.

 

[Alcoremortis]

Well, do you have a job in which you can insist on having the same device as the President of the United States, get denied, and then build a server on your own property so you can use the device you prefer against the stated policy of your employer?

She was offered an alternative device by the NSA. She refused it.

To be fair, I'd also refuse any device that the NSA recommended to me.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Planned on voting Hildawg, this cycle, but having a serious problem with it now.

I work in the defense industry and if I or any of my coworkers did what she did, we'd be barred from ever getting a clearance again, be fired, and potentially get prison time.

I won't vote Trump, obviously, but don't think I'll vote Hillary either.

Is it too late to shove Biden into the primaries lol?

You mean notorious plagiarist Joe Biden? You're not going to find someone in politics for decades that is sparkling clean, even Sanders. The difference is no one remembers that stuff when you're not an electoral threat. Clinton was the good guy as SoS and had nearly 70% favorability while Obama was the villain and as soon as she became a candidate guess what happened?

 

[Ray Wonder]

You guys getting yourselves all worked up over chickenshit.

Get your priorities right, listen to the candidates speak on the issues, do your research.

If this was a thread about their political positions and policies, I would be mostly positive about Hillary. It's not though. It's about emails. lol

 

[Schnozberry]

It's almost as if she was offered a restricted set of choices, didn't like any of them, and effectively chose a third party device set up/configuration.

If she was running HillaryCorp that really isn't a problem, but it is when you're the Secretary of State and you send potentially unsecure mail from inside hostile or unfriendly states for it to be intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

 

[Mengy]

I wouldn't consider myself a "Hillary GAFer", but who is the legitimate alternative here?

We have no alternative, the system has guaranteed that. It's Hillary or Trump, and while neither is Presidential material IMHO, we do have to choose one or the other. A vote for any other minor candidate is essentially helping Trump to win, and we can't let that happen, so.....

 

[Schnozberry]

To be fair, I'd also refuse any device that the NSA recommended to me.

I'd like to see the next President rescind the executive order that created the NSA and disband it, but replacing the secure phone that is offered to you with an unsecure set of personal devices on your own property managed by your personal IT Staff is either hightly incompetent or cynically calculated, and neither one is particularly virtuous for a Presidential Candidate.

 

[Gorechylde]

We have no alternative, the system has guaranteed that. It's Hillary or Trump, and while neither is Presidential material IMHO, we do have to choose one or the other. A vote for any other minor candidate is essentially helping Trump to win, and we can't let that happen, so.....

No. We don't have to choose one or the other.

 

[SirClinksAlot]

I am going to vote for Trump. Also in the defense industry, and you're 100% right we would be fired and charged. The alternative is corruption, someone above the law (as even commented on liberal news such as MSNBC - Morning Joe).

That's how I define my vote. Others are free to vote their conscience.

Morning Joe is "liberal news" now? Ahahahhahaha. Congrats on voting for a racist, sexist, piece of human garbage in Trump. Go pat yourself on the back.

 

[digdug2k]

If she was running HillaryCorp that really isn't a problem, but it is when you're the Secretary of State and you send potentially unsecure mail from inside hostile or unfriendly states for it to be intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

You won't find anyone in any position of power... ever, who hasn't sent classified info over an insecure channel. Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Google/Apple employee who hasn't accidentally let something slip over email or to a family member. The only people you might find who wouldn't have made that mistake are people in low enough positions of power that 1.) they can be highly controlled (i.e. you can only access this info from this building in this terminal after you've handed over your cellphone and laptop and gone through several body scanners and 2.) still have someone paid to watch their every move.