For Those Convinced Of Clinton’s Corruption

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2016, 10:58 AM)xxlt Wrote: Similar incompetence shown by Colin Powell, who used private email account while holding the same office as Clinton.

And, it seems it should be noted that nobody at FBI, CIA, CID, Homeland Security, State Department, White House, Office of General Counsel, or any other government agency or shadow agency was on record as telling Hillary before she chose to use the private server what she was doing was not allowed, or not recommended right? And after she set it up, did anyone from these agencies try to correct this utter incompetence? In hindsight, everyone thought it terrible, but nobody had the foresight to prevent or insight correct it? So why do all the fingers of blame point only at her?

Seems like a witch hunt. And we know how you spot a witch, right? First witches are female. Second, they have a lot of power. Third, they have been accused before. So, three strikes and Clinton's out: has a vagina (STRIKE ONE), wields a lot of power (STRIKE TWO), has been called a witch before (STRIKE THREE). And we know what witch hunts do, right? Play on the fear of a powerful vagina bearer, whip up hysteria using that fear and half truths, spend a lot of time and resources trying to do psychological and/or physical violence to powerful and/or outspoken women in as public and humiliating a way as possible. In a pinch if there isn't a powerful woman available then any woman who happens to be a little different or just at hand may be substituted. Cue Lee Greenwood, "And I'm Proud to be an a American..."

This is just silly, but I'm glad you posted it; as it is the stance many Clinton supporters will take and justify their vote in November.

[McC]

(07-25-2016, 11:11 AM)xxlt Wrote: Could you specify what is fantasy about the Clinton Plan? Or if it is the whole plan, could you provide a few specifics showing why it is fantasy?

Also, I admit I haven't looked for Trump's plan, but does he have one? I mean, I know he is going to, "Make America great again," and that, "Only I [Donald Trump] alone can fix" what is wrong with America. But besides fixing everything by himself, until it is great again, and talking about how much "everyone" loves him while he does it, does he have a more specific plan?

http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/Hillary_Economy.htm

Knock yourself out.  I like to call it "The plan to bankrupt America."  The gist of her plan--spend, spend, spend.  Where's the money gonna come from?  We'll just tax the rich.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2016, 04:22 PM)McC Wrote: http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/Hillary_Economy.htm

Knock yourself out.  I like to call it "The plan to bankrupt America."  The gist of her plan--spend, spend, spend.  Where's the money gonna come from?  We'll just tax the rich.

Sadly Trump's "plan" is worse.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/apr/07/politifacts-guide-2016-candidates-tax-plans/

[Benton]

(07-25-2016, 04:22 PM)McC Wrote: http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/Hillary_Economy.htm

Knock yourself out.  I like to call it "The plan to bankrupt America."  The gist of her plan--spend, spend, spend.  Where's the money gonna come from?  We'll just tax the rich.

(07-25-2016, 04:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: Sadly Trump's "plan" is worse.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/apr/07/politifacts-guide-2016-candidates-tax-plans/

And sadlier, neither one will do much of anything.

Presidents don't have the ability to implement much of what either one is advocating. That's Congress. And this Congress — if we view the majority of the members by their votes while they've been in office — is only going to support more tax cuts for upper and lower incomes, and more spending that benefits upper incomes. Who knows how trump will respond to that and Clinton likely will go along with it, using it as leverage to pass one or two initiatives (my guess is upping the minimum wage and student debt reform, which will help the Dems in the future try to garner younger and lower income voters, while the Repubs won't care as the spend more/tax less will benefit their supporters to keep pumping money into the party).

[McC]

If she takes the high road and plays it cool and calm and sane, the contrast will win big for her. But the Dem's have won the last two by taking the low road so that's probably their go to plan. Plus, it's not in her nature to travel the high road. She is an attacker. He's so loopy, she won't even need to. It'll come down to who can be the least scary clown. And I truly hope this race is not a look at our future, candidate wise.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

The future of the United States 

Wild Stallions vs De Nomolos

[Beaker]

(07-24-2016, 01:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: I am actively campaigning against Trump.

If you feel that strongly, shouldn't you be actively campaigning FOR somebody? I don't feel strongly enough to actively campaign, but I doo feel neither Trump NOR Clinton can be good for the US right now. Therefore, after much consideration, I am voting for Gary Johnson.

[tigerseye]

I have had higher level security clearances and they are taken very seriously by the government and everything is made very clear (very clear). Even at the level I was at. At this point ,I think it is pretty clear that the law was broken and was worked around/ignored (different set of rules for the elite/corrupt). (She either broke the law or she was to stupid to understand -either one proves she isn't qualified to be the President of the United States.) The Clintons are surrounded by corruption.(at this point I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.DYODD) She is also never asked any meaningful questions about anything by the MSM about any of the corruption. She is running for president and she doesn't take questions unless they are scripted. If she is elected she will fit right in with the rest of the crooks/incompitents. (bush1, bush2, clinton1, obama)

I wouldn't be surprised if she is elected, after all she has wrapped up the vote of the socialists and the free sh@t army.

Our country is in trouble.

WHO DEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[THE Bigzoman]

(07-24-2016, 01:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: I am actively campaigning against Trump.

If that means I have to defend Clinton I will do so.

Back to your first point:  You fit in to the article perfectly.  Even if she didn't do anything you can find a reason to not like her.

Trump has been shown not only to be incompetent but also to do things that are outright illegal just to make a buck.  Clearly he is a GREAT choice to run the country. 

The only way you can believe this is if you think the scandals/accusations are the only valid reasons to dislike her. You can dislike her on plenty of other grounds.

Her inconsistency on polices, her endorsement of TPP, just coming off like a complete shill when she speaks (etc.)

[THE Bigzoman]

(07-25-2016, 10:58 AM)xxlt Wrote: Similar incompetence shown by Colin Powell, who used private email account while holding the same office as Clinton.

And, it seems it should be noted that nobody at FBI, CIA, CID, Homeland Security, State Department, White House, Office of General Counsel, or any other government agency or shadow agency was on record as telling Hillary before she chose to use the private server what she was doing was not allowed, or not recommended right? And after she set it up, did anyone from these agencies try to correct this utter incompetence? In hindsight, everyone thought it terrible, but nobody had the foresight to prevent or insight correct it? So why do all the fingers of blame point only at her?

Seems like a witch hunt. And we know how you spot a witch, right? First witches are female. Second, they have a lot of power. Third, they have been accused before. So, three strikes and Clinton's out: has a vagina (STRIKE ONE), wields a lot of power (STRIKE TWO), has been called a witch before (STRIKE THREE). And we know what witch hunts do, right? Play on the fear of a powerful vagina bearer, whip up hysteria using that fear and half truths, spend a lot of time and resources trying to do psychological and/or physical violence to powerful and/or outspoken women in as public and humiliating a way as possible. In a pinch if there isn't a powerful woman available then any woman who happens to be a little different or just at hand may be substituted. Cue Lee Greenwood, "And I'm Proud to be an a American..."

Here I thought that "Witch Hunts" was just a term to describe a moral panic, not moral panics directed at women in power.

Kind of like Clinton's advocacy of the Title 9 shit on college campuses right now, but I digress.

[GMDino]

(07-25-2016, 07:30 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: The only way you can believe this is if you think the scandals/accusations are the only valid reasons to dislike her. You can dislike her on plenty of other grounds.

Her inconsistency on polices, her endorsement of TPP, just coming off like a complete shill when she speaks (etc.)

Policy is a valid point for disliking her. But that's not what was said:

(07-24-2016, 12:54 PM)McC Wrote: Let's say the email scandal shows no evidence of corruption.   What it does show is utter incompetence in a ranking cabinet position.  Might not proves she's a crook, does prove she's an idiot.  

Which applied directly tot he OP. "She's guiltily!" "OK, she's may be caught but she's still guilty!" "Even if she isn't guilty she's stupid!"

Which has nothing to do with policy.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-24-2016, 06:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'll readily admit Clinton isn't the best choice for a President.  Still better than Trump.  Especially given all the awful things he has really done vs the awful things she has been accused of.  I had someone, today in 2016, bring up she had Vince Foster killed.  Seriously.

Oh, and what of Trump's plan?  Does he have one or is just not "absolute fantasy"?  I'd be thrilled to hear it.

Shut up, fool!  This is a thread about Clinton corruption.  Pick any of the umpteen others to rag on the future Pres'.

[Belsnickel]

(07-25-2016, 07:03 PM)tigerseye Wrote: I have had higher level security clearances and they are taken very seriously by the government and everything is made very clear (very clear). Even at the level I was at. At this point ,I think it is pretty clear that the law was broken and was worked around/ignored (different set of rules for the elite/corrupt). (She either broke the law or she was to stupid to understand -either one proves she isn't qualified to be the President of the United States.) The Clintons are surrounded by corruption.(at this point I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.DYODD) She is also never asked any meaningful questions about anything by the MSM about any of the corruption. She is running for president and she doesn't take questions unless they are scripted. If she is elected she will fit right in with the rest of the crooks/incompitents. (bush1, bush2, clinton1, obama)

I wouldn't be surprised if she is elected, after all she has wrapped up the vote of the socialists and the free sh@t army.

Our country is in trouble.

WHO DEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I read somewhere that security clearances for appointees and elected officials do not work in the same way as they do for employees. So comparing experiences doesn't really work well.

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2016, 09:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I read somewhere that security clearances for appointees and elected officials do not work in the same way as they do for employees. So comparing experiences doesn't really work well.

I suppose it depends on what you mean "do not work in the same way". As I understand it they do not have to pass a security background screening, but they do take an oath and are subject to the same rules. Anyone on their staff is required to be screened. That's why a lot of folks said Hillary's staffers will be out of work.

[Belsnickel]

(07-25-2016, 09:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose it depends on what you mean "do not work in the same way". As I understand it they do not have to pass a security background screening, but they do take an oath and are subject to the same rules. Anyone on their staff is required to be screened. That's why a lot of folks said Hillary's staffers will be out of work.

I was under the impression that the clearance could not be pulled, either. Is this something you had heard?

[*bfine32*]

(07-25-2016, 09:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I was under the impression that the clearance could not be pulled, either. Is this something you had heard?

They can be denied access to things. Not sure you can pull what they don't have; but it doesn't mitigate their responsibility; as they took an oath.  

[xxlt]

(07-25-2016, 02:31 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Their spouses, fiance, ect... are notified as well.
If I remember correctly, I received notification yearly.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

So this post and the one before it seem to suggest that the White House Senior staff get the same orientation that any soldier or contractor or employee with a security clearance gets. I rather imagine that is not quite true, but to my original point, I have seen no evidence that anyone every said the HRC, "No, you can't use that server." Has anyone else seen evidence that anyone told her that? Or do we just get, "There's rules for people with a security clearance"? (Which seems kind of obvious.)

[xxlt]

(07-25-2016, 02:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is just silly, but I'm glad you posted it; as it is the stance many Clinton supporters will take and justify their vote in November.

Actually, it is something I have never heard a Clinton supporter say. Mostly, I hear them say she is a horrible thing that rhymes with runt and punt but they are voting for her anyway.

As for it being silly, why is it? If someone ignores a sign on a door that says, "Oxygen in use, no open flame," walks in, strikes a match, and blow shit up, they seem far more culpable than someone who walks in an identical room without such signage and strikes a match. All I am saying is there wasn't a sign, and as far as I can tell the issue was never raised when the server was in use because of security concerns but after for a political bludgeon. Seems a bit disingenuous.

[McC]

(07-26-2016, 04:21 PM)xxlt Wrote: So this post and the one before it seem to suggest that the White House Senior staff get the same orientation that any soldier or contractor or employee with a security clearance gets. I rather imagine that is not quite true, but to my original point, I have seen no evidence that anyone every said the HRC, "No, you can't use that server." Has anyone else seen evidence that anyone told her that? Or do we just get, "There's rules for people with a security clearance"? (Which seems kind of obvious.)

I just can't buy the i didn't know defense for someone in that position. It's your ***** job to know.

[xxlt]

(07-25-2016, 04:22 PM)McC Wrote: http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/Hillary_Economy.htm

Knock yourself out.  I like to call it "The plan to bankrupt America."  The gist of her plan--spend, spend, spend.  Where's the money gonna come from?  We'll just tax the rich.

Hmmm. The link provided lays out spending proposals and funding sources for same. Pretty far out stuff. I can see why it seems so unrealistic to you.