Freeman, Is your opinion changing yet?

Nope.

So this video on Hilary is making the rounds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI&feature=youtu.be

Yeah, it's a hatchet job, but it's a very, very good one.

freeman3 wrote:Nope.

And, the fact that she is clearly lying--by trying to make this a partisan issue?

Given that she signed a form acknowledging she was responsible to know whether or not she had classified info, and she had such info in an insecure place, and sources, methods, and even people were compromised, you still think this is nothing?

Wow.

freeman3 wrote:Nope.

Wow indeed...

First, nothing has shown to be compromised. As far as I know, nobody has shown that any of these emails have gotten out to the open. That distinguishes it from the Valerie Plame situation. Sloppiness in handling her email pales in comparison to a Trump or Cruz presidency. At worst she negligently handled her email. Oh boy. Link it to actual (instead of hypothetical...if enemies got ahold of these emails and if they were able to use it in some fashion)damage being done and you got something.
Let me put it to you this way: I think the Bush presidency caused many trillions dollars in damage to the US economy, caused the needless deaths of many American soldiers (plus many thousands of soldiers having serious disabling injuries and/ or suffering from PTSD), plus millions of Americans suffering from the Financial Crisis (and I am sure thousands of people prematurely dying as a result of that Crisis). That is not " hypothetical " damage.

I don't expect you to agree with me regarding Bush II, but I have good reasons for not caring overly much about yet another Clinton witch hunt. When you get a criminal indictment let me know. Until then...let me work on my fantasy baseball team.

freeman3 wrote:First, nothing has shown to be compromised. As far as I know, nobody has shown that any of these emails have gotten out to the open. That distinguishes it from the Valerie Plame situation. Sloppiness in handling her email pales in comparison to a Trump or Cruz presidency. At worst she negligently handled her email. Oh boy. Link it to actual (instead of hypothetical...if enemies got ahold of these emails and if they were able to use it in some fashion)damage being done and you got something.

So her "sloppiness," which was actually a private server that SHE says she set up for convenience and was not properly secured, unless it ends in someone being killed, she's good to go?

Incompetence is a reason to promote her? Can you set the bar any lower?

I don't expect you to agree with me regarding Bush II, but I have good reasons for not caring overly much about yet another Clinton witch hunt. When you get a criminal indictment let me know. Until then...let me work on my fantasy baseball team.

Witch hunt? She did this! All she had to do was take a government email account and none of this happens.

http://www.military.com/veteran-jobs/security-clearance-jobs/security-clearances-and-security-violations.html

Not to mention the unauthorized server...
Not to mention the unauthorized Blackberry...

You are right. She is not indicted. I think you said it would matter then. Well, I can wait.

I am just not sure what principle you think is being furthered here . Hillary Clinton's career is not important to me; the policies she would implement are. The difference between her policies and policies implemented by a Trump or a Cruz are far more important to me than criticism of how she maintained her email. If the shoe was on the other foot would you give the election to say Bernie Sanders because the only Republican who could beat him had the same exact email situation as Hillary Clinton does ? I know, I know of course you would hand over the reins to Bernie in that situation because Republicans are so principled...

I am not your target voter here. Maybe you can make independent voters care. I don't think so until you can get criminal charges filed.

freeman3 wrote:I am just not sure what principle you think is being furthered here . Hillary Clinton's career is not important to me; the policies she would implement are. The difference between her policies and policies implemented by a Trump or a Cruz are far more important to me than criticism of how she maintained her email. If the shoe was on the other foot would you give the election to say Bernie Sanders because the only Republican who could beat him had the same exact email situation as Hillary Clinton does ? I know, I know of course you would hand over the reins to Bernie in that situation because Republicans are so principled...

I am not your target voter here. Maybe you can make independent voters care. I don't think so until you can get criminal charges filed.

I'll make it easier for you. Let's say it was Rubio who had been Secretary of State. Let's say he did all the things she has done and was lying daily about it.

I would not vote for him. I don't care if it was a choice between only him and Bernie. I cannot vote for someone like that.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:I am just not sure what principle you think is being furthered here . Hillary Clinton's career is not important to me; the policies she would implement are. The difference between her policies and policies implemented by a Trump or a Cruz are far more important to me than criticism of how she maintained her email. If the shoe was on the other foot would you give the election to say Bernie Sanders because the only Republican who could beat him had the same exact email situation as Hillary Clinton does ? I know, I know of course you would hand over the reins to Bernie in that situation because Republicans are so principled...

I am not your target voter here. Maybe you can make independent voters care. I don't think so until you can get criminal charges filed.

I'll make it easier for you. Let's say it was Rubio who had been Secretary of State. Let's say he did all the things she has done and was lying daily about it.

I would not vote for him. I don't care if it was a choice between only him and Bernie. I cannot vote for someone like that.

Ditto.

I am comfortable in my position on this . Maybe that's makes me more of a utilitarian than a deontologist. But I don't believe in having millions of people suffer under a right-wing regime in furtherance of some abstract principle. If I thought the e-mail scandal said something significant about her character that would make her govern in a way that would make things worse for our people than her opponent I am sure I would feel differently.

freeman3 wrote:I am comfortable in my position on this . Maybe that's makes me more of a utilitarian than a deontologist. But I don't believe in having millions of people suffer under a right-wing regime in furtherance of some abstract principle. If I thought the e-mail scandal said something significant about her character that would make her govern in a way that would make things worse for our people than her opponent I am sure I would feel differently.

At this point I think Sanders is more electable than Clinton. 9 more months of allegations will be painful for her candidacy. I'm surprised you don't change horses.

Maybe. I am worried more about her lack of charisma than anything else. Ultimately, I don't think Sanders is electable. But since his views are closer to mine than Hillary's are, I would be glad to be wrong.

freeman3 wrote:Maybe. I am worried more about her lack of charisma than anything else. Ultimately, I don't think Sanders is electable. But since his views are closer to mine than Hillary's are, I would be glad to be wrong.

This is a persistent meme. Why do people consider Hillary electable? Her unfavorables are through the roof. There are people who are generally on the left who look at her and feel like they need to take a shower. Did you watch the video I posted earlier on this page? How do you get through a general election with a record like that? What if she is the nominee and she gets indicted? What then? Lots of old line dems like yourself aren't thinking this through. If you want a dem, you got one chance, you got Bernie, and yes, he isn't the greatest candidate, but he is authentic, and do not underestimate the power of authenticity. That reaches people who vote for the person, not the policy, the classic swing voter. And HRC has zero authenticity.