freeman3 wrote:So I should vote for someone for president with policies that I consider far worse for the country because Hillary tried to shield her email from right-wing snoops? Give me a break.

1. No, you should vote (as I will) so as to not offend your conscience. I don't know how liberals justify voting for her given her vacuum of ethics.

2. It is not "right-wing snoops" she was avoiding, but the American people. If she didn't want accountability, there was no mandate on her serving. She was free to NOT be Secretary of State.

I wouldn't care if a Republican did it, honestly, unless it was proven to have hurt national security. If you think it's so important then don't vote for her

If you set the bar any lower, you'd be able to support Rod Blagojevich for President.

And, btw, we are just beginning to see how far the Clinton Foundation corruption has spread.

Otherwise, who are you trying to convince? Unless you can get her criminally charged for this you got nothing. Nothing.

Because the Obama-appointed IG of the State Department presents facts that are inconvenient, you naturally resort to . . . "this is nothing. Get an indictment."

The Goldman Sachs speeches are significant because they say something about the influence of Wall Street on her. I'm not sure what this email saga says about Hillary and her ability to govern. If you can't get her criminally charged or link this email thing with her ability to be president then you've got, uh, nothing.

She lied about it. Repeatedly.

She exposed national security info to hackers.

She violated State Department rules--and fired people for doing the same thing.

And, she broke the law:

In fact, Washington Free Beacon reported last year that Clinton signed an NDA at the start of her time at the State Department acknowledging the very laws she is now clearly in violation of.

For those of you keeping score at home, the Federal Records Act lays it out pretty clearly: (18 U.S. Code § 2071)

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

That is the federal law in question. It covers all federal agencies. Each individual agency (The Department of State, in this case) then implements rules and policies for all employees so that their operations are in accordance with the law. The rules have been violated, therefore the law was broken.

Will she be indicted?

Doubtful.

The same AG who decided "sex" means something other than what a biologist would say it is seems an unlikely candidate to actually follow the rule of law.

Freeman, I completely understand your point, this is a lesser of two evils situation! But you have to admit you painted Hillary in a very nice way. She simply tried to (illegally) keep her messages from "right wing snoops" only? No, she wanted to keep her messages to her and wanted nobody to be able to check on her. Not "just" right wing snoops (though yes those are the main opposition of course) but the New York Times, the Washington Post, and even the trashy tabloids. She wanted no transparency and wanted to hide everything from everybody. Get that part straight, she hid things from you and Ricky, Dr Fate and everyone else, that is a simple fact and it can not be swept under the rug so easily.

If a Republican did it, it would still be wrong in my eyes. And I think the issue is minor at it's base, what bothers me is the lies upon lies she has heaped upon herself. Much like Bill Clinton and his sexcapades with Monica. Big deal, he had a hummer in the white house, it's something to apologize for and move on, no, no, no, he had to lie and cover up all he possibly could and it's the same thing here. Simply admit you screwed up, say you wanted to keep things from "right wing snoops" but no, she piles on lie after lie and makes things worse. THAT is the real issue.

"you got nothing. Nothing" is not the issue. Legally I think they DO have at least 'something" but even if not, the issue is not one of criminal legality but rather of trust and of honesty, one of judgement that would make you comfortable with her judgement as President and on that "we got plenty, Plenty"

You started so well but slipped into the criminality aspect, that's so disappointing that you went there. this is sooooo much more than that and shifting to that position only paints her even more crooked than she already is!

HILLARY CLINTON GOES TO A GIFTED-STUDENT PRIMARY SCHOOL IN NEW YORK TO
TALK ABOUT THE WORLD.

AFTER HER TALK SHE OFFERS QUESTION TIME.


ONE LITTLE BOY PUTS UP HIS HAND. HILLARY ASKS HIM WHAT HIS NAME IS.
“KENNETH," HE SAYS.

"AND WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION, KENNETH - ??" SHE ASKS.
"I HAVE THREE QUESTIONS," HE SAYS.

"FIRST -- WHATEVER HAPPENED IN BENGHAZI - ??

"SECOND -- WHY WOULD YOU RUN FOR PRESIDENT IF YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF
HANDLING TWO E-MAIL ACCOUNTS - ??

"AND, THIRD -- WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE MISSING SIX BILLION DOLLARS WHILE
YOU WERE SECRETARY OF STATE - ??"


JUST THEN THE BELL RINGS FOR RECESS.
HILLARY INFORMS THE KIDDIES THAT THEY WILL CONTINUE AFTER RECESS.



WHEN THEY RESUME HILLARY SAYS,
"OKAY, WHERE WERE WE - ?? OH, THAT'S RIGHT, QUESTION TIME.
WHO HAS A QUESTION - ??"



A DIFFERENT BOY -- LITTLE JOHNNY -- PUTS HIS HAND UP.
HILLARY POINTS TO HIM AND ASKS HIM WHAT HIS NAME IS.

"JOHNNY," HE SAYS.

"AND WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION, JOHNNY - ??" SHE ASKS.

"I HAVE FIVE QUESTIONS," HE SAYS.

"FIRST -- WHATEVER HAPPENED IN BENGHAZI - ??

"SECOND -- WHY WOULD YOU RUN FOR PRESIDENT IF YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF
HANDLING TWO E-MAIL ACCOUNTS - ??

"THIRD -- WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE MISSING SIX BILLION DOLLARS WHILE YOU
WERE SECRETARY OF STATE - ??

"FOURTH -- WHY DID THE RECESS BELL GO OFF 20 MINUTES EARLY - ??

"AND, FIFTH -- WHERE'S KENNETH - ??"

FYI

I have not made up my mind on who to vote for.
I never voted for a Democrat for President but have voted one or two here and there at the state level and even voted for ...gasp! Hillary as my Senator (the opposition was a joke at best)

I think Trump is a blowhard and a bit of a moron. He leaves much to be desired as far as "presidentiality"
Hillary is a shew and a liar, I can't trust her as far as I can throw her

Trump MIGHT be trustworthy, Hillary is not
Hillary might be Presidential, Trump is not

i will not waste my vote and go to a third party, I will not fail to vote, it's one of these two jerks and I'm none too happy about it! Much depends on the coming months. Will Trump settle down and be a bit more even tempered and more nuanced? (I can't believe he is this way in the business world or he would be broke) will Hillary own up to mistakes and come clean?
Both are doubtful and hat makes this so very difficult!!!!

Right NOW, I am "leaning" towards Trump
A few weeks ago it was Hillary with that slight lean...I really am torn.

fate

If you set the bar any lower, you'd be able to support Rod Blagojevich for President

Rods not tunning. Trump is...
With the relevations about Trump U, and Trump Nutrition the bar seems to be getting pretty low.
Lower still if he releases his tax records.
Why?
Here...

the presumptive GOP nominee also has a tremendous load of debt that includes five loans each over $50 million. (The disclosure form, which presidential candidates must submit, does not compel candidates to reveal the specific amount of any loans that exceed $50 million, and Trump has chosen not to provide details.) Two of those megaloans are held by Deutsche Bank, which is based in Germany but has US subsidiaries."

Because Trump chose to write only the amount he must disclose, we can’t know the real extent of his indebtedness to Deutsche Bank. It’s at least $100 million, but Trump could be into them for much more. Is it $300 million? A billion? More? He's not telling.

"And this prompts a question that no other major American presidential candidate has had to face: What are the implications of the chief executive of the US government being in hock for $100 million (or more) to a foreign entity that has tried to evade laws aimed at curtailing risky financial shenanigans, that was recently caught manipulating markets around the world, and that attempts to influence the US government?"

Trump has been making the argument that because he’s rich, he’s free from the potential corrupting influence of raising money. But what his financial documents show is that Trump comes pre-corrupted. He’s already over a big, big barrel to people who are already known to be gaming the system.

"Deutsche Bank is clearly his favorite lender, and Trump's financial empire has become largely dependent on his relationship with this major player on Wall Street and the global markets."

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/t ... t-interest

At least Hillary's solvent.

rickyp wrote:fate

If you set the bar any lower, you'd be able to support Rod Blagojevich for President

Rods not tunning. Trump is...
With the relevations about Trump U, and Trump Nutrition the bar seems to be getting pretty low.
Lower still if he releases his tax records.
Why?
Here...

the presumptive GOP nominee also has a tremendous load of debt that includes five loans each over $50 million. (The disclosure form, which presidential candidates must submit, does not compel candidates to reveal the specific amount of any loans that exceed $50 million, and Trump has chosen not to provide details.) Two of those megaloans are held by Deutsche Bank, which is based in Germany but has US subsidiaries."

Because Trump chose to write only the amount he must disclose, we can’t know the real extent of his indebtedness to Deutsche Bank. It’s at least $100 million, but Trump could be into them for much more. Is it $300 million? A billion? More? He's not telling.

"And this prompts a question that no other major American presidential candidate has had to face: What are the implications of the chief executive of the US government being in hock for $100 million (or more) to a foreign entity that has tried to evade laws aimed at curtailing risky financial shenanigans, that was recently caught manipulating markets around the world, and that attempts to influence the US government?"

Trump has been making the argument that because he’s rich, he’s free from the potential corrupting influence of raising money. But what his financial documents show is that Trump comes pre-corrupted. He’s already over a big, big barrel to people who are already known to be gaming the system.

"Deutsche Bank is clearly his favorite lender, and Trump's financial empire has become largely dependent on his relationship with this major player on Wall Street and the global markets."

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/t ... t-interest

At least Hillary's solvent.

This forum is about Hillary. Argue about Trump in the Trump forum.

Yes, Hillary's solvent--because of all the money she and Bill have taken from foreign governments and Wall Street.

touche!

and if he starts a Trump page, nobody will disagree with much he posts!
I think we all agree, Trump sucks. We can point to a few issues we agree with him on, many we do not.

But liberals simply can not say that about any liberal candidate. Even when it pains them to do, they simply must either try and accept the bad as actually being a non-issue or, as we have here, ignore it and say the other guy is worse.

The Clinton's are shady, they say one thing while doing another, they are sneaky crooks. Accept it, own it, move beyond it, but c'mon, trying to claim otherwise makes you look pretty pathetic!

You might want to try this particular quetionnare:

https://www.isidewith.com/

Comes recommended. 36,979,946 voters use iSideWith to find their candidate match.

60 questions... takes a few minutes. \

rickyp wrote:You might want to try this particular quetionnare:

https://www.isidewith.com/

Comes recommended. 36,979,946 voters use iSideWith to find their candidate match.

60 questions... takes a few minutes. \

If there were 6 million questions, I still would not support Hillary.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:You might want to try this particular quetionnare:

https://www.isidewith.com/

Comes recommended. 36,979,946 voters use iSideWith to find their candidate match.

60 questions... takes a few minutes. \

If there were 6 million questions, I still would not support Hillary.

I did agree with her on 6% of the issues, which was 6x more than Bernie.

Gary Johnson came in at 67%. Trump? Immaterial for two reasons:

1. I would not vote for him under any conceivable circumstances.
2. His positions change by the moment.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:You might want to try this particular quetionnare:

https://www.isidewith.com/

Comes recommended. 36,979,946 voters use iSideWith to find their candidate match.

60 questions... takes a few minutes. \

If there were 6 million questions, I still would not support Hillary.

I did agree with her on 6% of the issues, which was 6x more than Bernie.

Gary Johnson came in at 67%. Trump? Immaterial for two reasons:

1. I would not vote for him under any conceivable circumstances.
2. His positions change by the moment.

It would be interesting to see how much you got for Trump though.

But does the result mean you will vote for Johnson? Is he going to be on the ballot in Mass?

danivon wrote:It would be interesting to see how much you got for Trump though.

87%. I'm not sure how they quantified that--given how undeveloped most of his positions are.

But does the result mean you will vote for Johnson? Is he going to be on the ballot in Mass?

It is my understanding Johnson will be on all 50 ballots. I will give him some thought as a protest candidate. I disagree with more than 33% of his positions, I'm sure.

It is ridiculous to me that Clinton and Trump are the "best" this country has to offer.

97% Bernie, 93% Hillary and 80% Johnson.

freeman3 wrote:97% Bernie, 93% Hillary and 80% Johnson.

I think the 93% probably overstates it, don't you? Do you view yourself that sympatico with her?

I would rather have Bernie as President than either Trump or Hillary. He believes a portion of what he says, which is more than I can say for either of the others. I believe Gary Johnson is sincere too--him vs. Bernie would at least offer a choice. I think Hillary v. Trump is America's worst nightmare.

I am not thrilled with Hillary, that's for sure. Getting rich from being in government, the whole idea of someone getting elected because their spouse was president, she's licked the boots of Wall Street too much to do anything they don't want, and she has is not likeable (when she tries to be warm and personable it comes across as fake; she should stick to bring a Thatcherish ice queen where she at least appears tough and smart). But every candidate (well maybe not Trump) is a composite of their individual qualities and as a representative of a party reflecting certain views...so I just emphasize the party over the personal and vote...