How does Walker demonize minorities?

The latest on HC is that she also sent classified information from her personal e-mail server. I'm guessing she broke a law in that as well.

Ricky:

Ray

At issue is that more Republicans prefer him than Democrats. (But not as many as the left thinks.)

How many would he have to attract?

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm saying that the absolute # of Republicans who support him is lower than you think. It will rapidly decline and he won't be anywhere in the polls before you know it.

rickyp wrote:geojanes

I hate it when the people who make or enforce our laws think that they don't have to follow them.

Did she break a law?

The law was amended in late 2014 to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days. But that was after Clinton left office

.

I'm going to answer this with a question. What law did Petraeus break? He mishandled classified information.

According to two IG's, Hillary did the same thing. Of the 40 emails they looked at, 4 had classified info that was transmitted via her personal server.

WASHINGTON — Government investigators said Friday that they had discovered classified information on the private email account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used while secretary of state, stating unequivocally that those secrets never should have been stored outside of secure government computer systems.

Mrs. Clinton has said for months that she kept no classified information on the private server that she set up in her house so she would not have to carry both a personal phone and a work phone. Her campaign said Friday that any government secrets found on the server had been classified after the fact.

But the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies said the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so now. Information is considered classified if its disclosure would likely harm national security, and such information can be sent or stored only on computer networks with special safeguards.

Meanwhile, what happens to "lesser" persons? Read this case (it's about 2 min. worth)

A sailor had classified info and tried to destroy the evidence after an investigation was begun. She is facing up to 30 years. This is the conclusion :

The Saucier case poses an interesting conundrum for the Department of Justice and Loretta Lynch. The DoJ is willing to prosecute a former sailor to the full extent of the law for violating the law on classified material, in a situation where there was no purposeful unsecured transmission of classified material. Will they pursue Hillary Clinton and her team, at the other end of the power spectrum from the rank-and-file, for deliberate unsecured transmission of improperly marked classified nat-sec intelligence? Will they pursue the same kind of obstruction of justice charges for Hillary’s wiping of her server as they are for Saucier’s destruction of his laptop? If not, then Lynch should be made to explain why.

Clinton carried on a practice that Powell started. (Private email server)

He used private email. However, did he have his own server? Was it subpoenaed? Did he destroy it?

Re Trump:

rickyp wrote:They aren't supporting Trump today because of something he said or did a dozen years ago. And they won't change their support if they learn of his past positions.

Uh-huh. The base is going to love it when ads start running with Trump saying he wants Bush impeached, or praising Hillary Clinton.

It's likely we won't have to suffer that spectacle. Trump will say something even more dumb than his whopper about McCain not being a hero. He says whatever is on his mind, which appears to be politically confused.

Realistically, he has no shot in Iowa. He may win New Hampshire. If not, he's done. If he does, then what? Nevada? Florida? I think he will only help ensure Bush is the nominee if he stays in long enough. The only way to stop Bush is by consolidating conservatives. Trump will split them. Btw, it's not his semi-xenophobic rants that are bumping his numbers, it's his willingness to blast all of the establishment politicians. They're all corrupt. He's right about that. I think that's why Sanders resonates with the left.

Many Americans see there's something wrong.

The differences between Jeb and Hillary are . . . abortion and . . . ????

ray

How does Walker demonize minorities?

Here's how some people think he has...

Gays.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelang ... 03660.html

Unions (yes, they are a minority)
http://www.alternet.org/election-2014/5 ... y-win-2016

Women
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/ ... an-doctor/

I'm not so sure how sincere he is in all his announced positions or public statements. He's running into opposition on his positions on gay marriage in his own family.
I think he's largely calculating how to get to the nomination more than anything..
Witness his position on immigration:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-scott-w ... ion-again/

ray

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm saying that the absolute # of Republicans who support him is lower than you think. It will rapidly decline and he won't be anywhere in the polls before you know

Trump is this elections Sarah Palin. Not this elections Michele Bachman.
He resonates with about a quarter of Republicans emotionally and they'll stick with him beyond reason. .

According to the poll, the number of registered Republican primary voters whose responded that Trump is their first choice jumped from 15% at the beginning of July to 28% last week. Another 10% of voters pick him as their second choice

.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-don ... z3gvt8HM2t

fate

Uh-huh. The base is going to love it when ads start running with Trump saying he wants Bush impeached, or praising Hillary Clinton

That would be interesting.
Who's going to run those ads and how will it affect them? Backlash against negative advertising run in multi candidate races sometimes hurts candidates who do the ads, and candidates who are smeared.
Which candidates have the money to do a significant amount of advertising like this?

rickyp wrote:fate

Uh-huh. The base is going to love it when ads start running with Trump saying he wants Bush impeached, or praising Hillary Clinton

That would be interesting.
Who's going to run those ads and how will it affect them? Backlash against negative advertising run in multi candidate races sometimes hurts candidates who do the ads, and candidates who are smeared.
Which candidates have the money to do a significant amount of advertising like this?

Oh, mercy. Have you so quickly forgotten Citizen's United?

Crossroads GPS and others will blast Trump from here to eternity, if it becomes necessary.

Freeman and RickyP,
Her web of lies lies grows even larger. Does the E-mail issue still not bother you? When does it become more than a lie to you; and show her true character?

bbauska wrote:Freeman and RickyP,
Her web of lies lies grows even larger. Does the E-mail issue still not bother you? When does it become more than a lie to you; and show her true character?

Right now, there is EVIDENCE she lied. She told the American people she NEVER sent classified emails from her personal server. That is now known to be false.

I think Freeman has previously said something like "because she can win."

That is really frightening.

WASHINGTON—An internal government review found that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent at least four emails from her personal account containing classified information during her time heading the State Department.

In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the inspector general of the intelligence community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret”—the second-highest level of classification—at the time it was sent. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street Journal by a spokeswoman for the inspector general.

The inspector general’s office concluded that Mrs. Clinton should have used a secure network to transmit the emails in question—rather than her personal email account run off a home server.

“None of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings, but some included IC-derived classified information and should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network,” wrote Inspector General I. Charles McCullough in the letter to Congress.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/investigati ... 1437714369


4 emails?
My God.
The earth will stop revolving.

Did any classified information get leaked? Has her home server been show to be vulnerable?

Clinton has denied that she sent classified info in those emails.http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/25/politics/ ... ed-emails/

Those 4 e-mails that purportedly contained classified info were not classified as such according to the investigation. I doubt very much that they contained info that could have damaged national security. More hype.

I understand that you guys are desperate to beat Hillary. Why do you think we have to accede to your interpretation about this minor stuff?

And when you quote someone DF don't you think you should refer to the context in which it was said? I can hardly remember it but the statement was said in a specific context. I read your quote of me and I kind of indicates that I said no matter what allegations come out against Clinton I don't care because she can win. I don't think anything significant has come out against her but doesn't mean that I ever said that I don't care whatever proven allegations come out against her.

It is not whether classified information is leaked. It is character. She lies. Her character is not good. As this issue of lies gets bigger and bigger, I am asking if it has gotten anywhere close to being a problem yet for those who are liberal.

bbauska wrote:It is not whether classified information is leaked. It is character. She lies. Her character is not good. As this issue of lies gets bigger and bigger, I am asking if it has gotten anywhere close to being a problem yet for those who are liberal.

well, it is the specific allegation against her that has people jumping to suggest she should be charged.

Being less than honest is, well, the hallmark of a politician. But that is not what her antagonists are claiming, they are directly alleging illegal activity. So far, that has not been proven.

You know what, find me your favourite GOP hopeful, and I will find a lie (or evasion, or fudging, or whatever) - Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to get national political prominence without having to dissemble on something. Hillary has been prominent for longer than most.

freeman3 wrote:I understand that you guys are desperate to beat Hillary. Why do you think we have to accede to your interpretation about this minor stuff?

In my mind it's less about the particulars of the situation and more about the person who thinks that this is OK. Think about it Freeman: you just get named Secretary of State. So of course you decide to set up a private email account to do your official business? Of course not. Who does that? Hopefully not the next president of the USA.