Of course it is relative, but I think Walker or Christie are options. Rubio is a bit inexperienced, but it worked so well for Obama (SARCASM!)

Which is the least reprehensible in your mind?

freeman3 wrote:This gives a little more balanced appraisal. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... cials-hav/

Other public officials have been a bit sloppy with regard to this issue including Colin Powell and Jeb Bush. I don't really buy the distinction made above (in Politifact)between having a private address and a private email server. Either way, you are off the government servers, supposed to be more secure. But a Secretary of State would be seeing more sensitive information than a governor and would want to make sure they were on a secure server. But then you have Colin Powell using private email just a few years before.

A server is different. For example, on a private email, the user cannot destroy the server or even wipe it.

Here's another distinction: Colin Powell did not destroy emails after being subpoenaed.

[url]It seems to me that if classified material is being sent to her isn't that the fault of the sender, not her?[/url]

Nope. Consider: Hillary is a wordsmith (not a good one, but a precise one). She denied both sending and receiving material that was "classified at the time" (it was sent or received). Why? Because it is against the law. That's why she should have had a government email address.

Jennifer Palmieri, her spokeswoman, said Hillary "didn't think it through" in reference to having a private email server. Is that believable?

Did she send out classified material over her private server? If not, then I can't see this being an issue that derails her candidacy. Ok, it's a mistake of judgment but others have done it. Assuming she did not send classified info herself and no damage was done then I think she'll be ok.

Maybe. However, no one has ever had their own server. No one has ever lied about their email to the American people. And, no one has ever told two horrific jokes about it. She's got all the charisma of yellow carpet.

"Mistake of judgment?"

That's not exactly a plus when you're running for President.

And, it's more than that. This was calculated. She knew what she was getting into when she signed up to be SecState. Knowing that, she decided to have a private email server. That's not a "mistake;" it's a "calculation."

We'll see.

Liberals act like we expect to see her frog-marched, like the "evil" man who produced the video Hillary blamed for the attack on Benghazi. Nope. What we think is that eventually Democrats will realize they should have someone who is not so blatantly dishonest as their nominee.

Speaking of her judgment, how about this?

Hillary Clinton continues to be dogged by questions about her use of a private e-mail account while she was secretary of state.

CBS News identified two e-mails on her server Wednesday which the intelligence community says contained classified information.

The messages were uncovered during an investigation of the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

The first email, from April 2011, was forwarded to Clinton by aide Huma Abedin. It cited intelligence reports from the U.S. Africa Command on Libyan troop strength and movements.

The second, forwarded by aide Jacob Sullivan in November 2012, outlined reports of possible arrests in connection with the Benghazi attack.

The emails are among the some 30,000 Clinton turned over to the State Department from her private server. On Monday, the State Department said it had flagged 305 emails, out of the 20 percent it has reviewed, as potentially containing classified information.

Clinton has insisted there was no classified information on her server.

. . .
But it is not just Clinton’s private server that may have contained classified information. The State Department filed court papers Wednesday afternoon saying it “does not believe that any personal computing device was issued by the Department” to Clinton.

“Anytime you’re bringing your own equipment and using it for work purposes, it’s not as secure as something that’s actually issued by the company,” CNET senior editor Dan Ackerman explained. “Because they take those laptops, for example, and they pre-configure them, they put their own software on them, tracking software, update software, and they distribute them.”

That raises the question, how secure were her personal devices, like her BlackBerry, since they weren’t issued by the State Department?

She did not care, apparently, about little things like "national security."

I mean, come on!

theshrizzz wrote:

bbauska wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

Well, these polls are going against Freeman2's presidential selection criteria of anyone who can beat a Republican. Who now?

Hillary is a crook, Jeb would be more of the same, Trump is a buffoon, everyone else seems like they are either crazy or just stupid.

Do we really have no better choices???

Glad to have you acknowledge that about Hillary.

I'm not sure they're all crazy or stupid, but I do know I don't want Jeb.

Republicans want to elect Trump or Dr Carson, idiot and dopey...their other picks are Jeb Bush, a guy with the personality of a lump of clay, Marco Rubio a guy with the gravitas of a 12 year old and supported/bought by a billionaire, Scott Walker, see Jeb Bush on lack of charisma plus a lack of foreign policy knowledge....a crazy far-right Christian in Huckabee...I like Kasich and Christie more, but presumably they will have no chance of becoming the nominee...I'll take my chances with Hillary anytime over that cast of clowns...

freeman3 wrote:Republicans want to elect Trump or Dr Carson, idiot and dopey...their other picks are Jeb Bush, a guy with the personality of a lump of clay, Marco Rubio a guy with the gravitas of a 12 year old and supported/bought by a billionaire, Scott Walker, see Jeb Bush on lack of charisma plus a lack of foreign policy knowledge....a crazy far-right Christian in Huckabee...I like Kasich and Cheistie more, but presumably they will have no chance of becoming the nominee...I'll take my chances with Hillary anytime over that cast of clowns...

So your position on Mrs. Clinton has not changed with all the new information?

freeman3 wrote:Republicans want to elect Trump or Dr Carson, idiot and dopey...their other picks are Jeb Bush, a guy with the personality of a lump of clay, Marco Rubio a guy with the gravitas of a 12 year old and supported/bought by a billionaire, Scott Walker, see Jeb Bush on lack of charisma plus a lack of foreign policy knowledge....a crazy far-right Christian in Huckabee...I like Kasich and Cheistie more, but presumably they will have no chance of becoming the nominee...I'll take my chances with Hillary anytime over that cast of clowns...

Oh brother.

Meanwhile, when Hillary winds up in a slightly different orange pantsuit than she wore the other day, your back-up plans are:

1. A socialist.
2. A former governor of MD who can't catch a cold.
3. The current Veep who is a fool, a liar, and a plagiarist.
4. A former Veep who told us we'd be living under water by now.
5. A former Republican Senator.
6. Jim Webb, who is actually qualified and therefore will not win the nomination.
7. Martial law and Obama declares himself "needed" for the good of the country.

I love how you call Carson "dopey." Let me know when you do your next brain surgery.

Dopey....http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/11/15 ... president/

bbauska wrote:Of course it is relative, but I think Walker or Christie are options. Rubio is a bit inexperienced, but it worked so well for Obama (SARCASM!)

Which is the least reprehensible in your mind?

Well Christie strikes me as a crook too.

Honestly I don't follow politics very closely these days. But I have a sinking feeling that I'd have big problems with both Walker and/or Rubio, even if I don't know what those problems are yet. Just my prejudiced $.02

And perhaps that surgical reputation is a bit inflated.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... -president

And here is a defense of Hillary:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/0 ... classified

And I agree with you DF that our options without Hillary are limited...so why on earth would we want her out of the race? Unless there is a criminal indictment she should run. Period.

freeman3 wrote:And I agree with you DF that our options without Hillary are limited...so why on earth would we want her out of the race? Unless there is a criminal indictment she should run. Period.

Will you not support her if there is an indictment? Just looking for the lower limit before you will withdraw support.

Who do you guys like most at this point?

Fate, Brad?

Just curious.

theshrizzz wrote:Who do you guys like most at this point?

Fate, Brad?

Just curious.

By "like" I mean who is your personal favorite, not who you think has the best chance of winning.