US Elections 2016: Why we can't have nice things

[LongRider]

8 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said:

The other supposedly is this great businessman, but evidence shows he sucks at what is supposed to be his bread and butter, and I am supposed to think he can handle one of the biggest economies in the world when he fails at doing what he is supposed to be good at? Lol. 

But, but in the debate he said he would give economies to the working folk!  I want my shiny new economy damn it!

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, StepStark said:

You too keep forgetting her plan for Syria. But at least you're not rude and disrespectful like the other guy.

No, I am troubled by some of her foreign policy stuff. And I am afraid that she may reverse Obama's attempt to tone down American military involvement in the Mid East.

That said, I don't see Trump being the Prince of Peace. Nor do I think he'd do well at foreign policy given his irrational nature. Plus the fact that he is  not very studious about these matters worries me. And he seemingly has some real nuts on his foreign policy team. And by the way, I'm not cool with torture which he says he will bring back.

[Boris the Blade]

8 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Funny that you keep ignoring her plan for Syria, that will lead to the war with Russia.

You too keep forgetting her plan for Syria. But at least you're not rude and disrespectful like the other guy.

Funny you ignored my comments about Trump's plan to commit war crimes through killing civilians and torturing people even if it doesn't get info out of them (which studies have shown it doesn't work) just because they deserve it. Also, again, stop with the god damn straw man arguments. I have issues with Clinton, but I have bigger issues with Trump since he is not good for our foreign policy, nor our domestic. 

[StepStark]

16 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said:

Why am I upset and angry? Because I am sick and tired of people like you that ignorantly spout off and do so thanks to right wing lies, smears and half truths.
Also, me focusing on Trump as a counter to the constant ignorant Clinton bashing is not ignoring the issues with Clinton. 
And who is saying Clinton is above the law? You admit you're not a US citizen, so maybe you don't know our laws. 
She was investigated, the FBI didn't half ass it because it was Clinton, if anything, they went harder knowing it was Clinton and knowing that there potentially could have been extremely secure files that were in private email server that was not secure. Even more so when the director of the FBI  is a republican. 

Also, there is no reason to have a dick measuring contest over what is worse, because that just minimizes the crimes Trump has committed, multiple of them being rape and sexual assault, and that is just really a dickish thing to do.

BTW, stop using straw man arguments. 

Also, did you ignore the shit Trump has said about how he would kill civilians that are terrorist family members or how he would torture terror suspects even if it didn't get info out of them just because they deserve it? 

Opposite to Hillary, Trump is yet to:

- publicly celebrate someone being lynched by the mob;

- launch a war on a sovereign country;

- launch an undeclared war on another sovereign country.

And so on.

He has a disgusting political rhetoric. But she has a history of disgusting political acts. He threatens to murder families, which is really disgusting to repeat once more. But she actually destroyed entire nations and was proud of it.

So yeah, you are right, there is no comparison. She has done much worse to the world than he has so far. Maybe he'd be as bad as her, but with her there is no doubt - she is a war criminal on par with Bush and Cheney and Obama and Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright.

But there is no point in discussing anything with you any more. You obviously don't know to behave and post in a civil manner and you allow yourself too much. Your personal attacks on me speak enough. Goodbye.

[BloodRider]

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

What's disturbing for me is this idea that whoever loses the presidential race should never be investigated.

Show me where anyone here or in a reasonable media outlet stated this, or go back to 4-Chan, before I snatch that fedora right offa your head.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

What's disturbing for me is this idea that whoever loses the presidential race should never be investigated.

What the people cheering Trump's disturbing comment really want is "Bill's of Attainder".  Where a Legislature passes a law saying "Person X is gulity" of a crime.  That power is expressly denied to Congress under Art. I, Section 9 of the US Constitution.  

As for investigations has there been someone who has been more investigated than Sec. Clinton?  People seem to see the lack of inculpatory evidence as proof of guilt which is insane.  They are literally saying the lack of evidence is proof of guilt.  Crazy talk.

[StepStark]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What the people cheering Trump's disturbing comment really want is "Bill's of Attainder".  Where a Legislature passes a law saying "Person X is gulity" of a crime.  That power is expressly denied to Congress under Art. I, Section 9 of the US Constitution.  

As for investigations has there been someone who has been more investigated than Sec. Clinton?  People seem to see the lack of inculpatory evidence as proof of guilt which is insane.  They are literally saying the lack of evidence is proof of guilt.  Crazy talk.

No, I'm saying that the lack of conclusion is proof of incompetence (or something worse) on the part of investigators. If Hillary wasn't responsible, then who was?

[DanteGabriel]

Just now, StepStark said:

No, I'm saying that the lack of conclusion is proof of incompetence (or something worse) on the part of investigators. If Hillary wasn't responsible, then who was?

You start with the assumption that someone did something punishable by law, and your own conviction is somehow a greater authority than the FBI and trained investigators. This is some basic fail of logic and legal understanding. But I suspect that you know this and you're just another one of the concern-trolls that seem to be tag-teaming it up in here.

[SkynJay]

Oh, but Trump wasn't saying he would just jail someone without due process... Certainly he wouldn't build his campaign around such a thing...

 

[BloodRider]

7 minutes ago, StepStark said:

No, I'm saying that the lack of conclusion is proof of incompetence (or something worse) on the part of investigators. If Hillary wasn't responsible, then who was?

You were.  And you are here to cover it up.  But now we know.  And we will find you, and you will pay.

 

See, anyone can do it!

[Boris the Blade]

3 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

You start with the assumption that someone did something punishable by law, and your own conviction is somehow a greater authority than the FBI and trained investigators. This is some basic fail of logic and legal understanding. But I suspect that you know this and you're just another one of the concern-trolls that seem to be tag-teaming it up in here.

All of this.  Also, that last sentence is dead on.

[StepStark]

13 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Looks at 3 shredding bins on my floor, which is one floor of 18 floors occupied by one govt department...hmm legal destruction of govt documents happens all the time. In addition, use of a private e-mail means probably a lot of e-mails that were not secState business and hence not govt property and hence not subject to any retention laws. Deleting an email of one e-mail account does not remove that email from existence, the email still exists on the sender's account and other recipients. Any e-mail sent from an official govt e-mail to HRC's private email or from HRC to a govt email will be permanently archived in the govt email archive, so it would be a simple thing to search for all emails sent to or received from HRC's personal email.

Legal destruction. Emphasis on 'legal'. This one obviously wasn't. Maybe it's not Hillary's fault, because maybe there wasn't a proper procedure for destroying emails at the time. I doubt that, but it is a possibility. But if that is the case, she should have said so. And she didn't to the best of my knowledge. As for other copies of her emails, that is a weak argument, because senders and other recipients aren't subjects to public investigation, especially if the investigators don't know about hem because emails that would expose them are erased from Clinton's account. About the government archive, if there was no proper procedure for erasing those emails at the time, then there probably wasn't an archice either, or, if there was, same emails could have been erased from the archive too.

But honestly, this is much more tech talk than I intended, so if you think she did nothing wrong about those emails, I'm not even going to try to persuade you otherwise any more.

[Boris the Blade]

4 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Legal destruction. Emphasis on 'legal'. This one obviously wasn't. Maybe it's not Hillary's fault, because maybe there wasn't a proper procedure for destroying emails at the time. I doubt that, but it is a possibility. But if that is the case, she should have said so. And she didn't to the best of my knowledge. As for other copies of her emails, that is a weak argument, because senders and other recipients aren't subjects to public investigation, especially if the investigators don't know about hem because emails that would expose them are erased from Clinton's account. About the government archive, if there was no proper procedure for erasing those emails at the time, then there probably wasn't an archice either, or, if there was, same emails could have been erased from the archive too.

But honestly, this is much more tech talk than I intended, so if you think she did nothing wrong about those emails, I'm not even going to try to persuade you otherwise any more.

Again, nothing illegal was done. It's clear you're ignorant to US law. Just stop. 

[Ariadne23]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Y'all think trump is the end of the repubs - it might just be the beginning. Right now that base is far stronger than the sane ones. Priebus, pence, and big donors just threw their hat in with trump. 

And while they may never win an election without being centrist, they can't obliterate their base.

Basically I'm saying I agree with this. I don't think it's going away on its own, or with Trump's defeat.

[Ariadne23]

1 hour ago, StepStark said:

What's disturbing for me is this idea that whoever loses the presidential race should never be investigated.

Well, she was already. By the FBI. What's disturbing is the allusion to the idea that we will, in the future, live in a banana republic where the losers in a democratic election will be jailed because they lost. That's a real turning point in American history, right there.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

Well, she was already. By the FBI. What's disturbing is the allusion to the idea that we will, in the future, live in a banana republic where the losers in a democratic election will be jailed because they lost. That's a real turning point in American history, right there.

 Sounds kind of Russian...

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

8 minutes ago, StepStark said:

No, I'm saying that the lack of conclusion is proof of incompetence (or something worse) on the part of investigators. If Hillary wasn't responsible, then who was?

Or it's proof that there's nothing criminal here to see. So, Hillary deleted those 30K e-mails, so she is responsible for doing that. The investigation by people who know what the law says about retaining official correspondence concluded that this is not a criminal act. But your conclusion is that it was incompetence or corruption that lead to this decision, not an adequate understanding and application of the law. OK

 

2 minutes ago, StepStark said:

Legal destruction. Emphasis on 'legal'. This one obviously wasn't. Maybe it's not Hillary's fault, because maybe there wasn't a proper procedure for destroying emails at the time. I doubt that, but it is a possibility. But if that is the case, she should have said so. And she didn't to the best of my knowledge. As for other copies of her emails, that is a weak argument, because senders and other recipients aren't subjects to public investigation, especially if the investigators don't know about hem because emails that would expose them are erased from Clinton's account. About the government archive, if there was no proper procedure for erasing those emails at the time, then there probably wasn't an archice either, or, if there was, same emails could have been erased from the archive too.

But honestly, this is much more tech talk than I intended, so if you think she did nothing wrong about those emails, I'm not even going to try to persuade you otherwise any more.

Who says it's not legal? You? What is your authority and expertise in the matter. The investigation obviously concluded that it was not criminally indictable. As the owner of the email account there is likely to be a strict liability application here in that it doesn't matter who pressed the delete button, as the owner of the account you are responsible for what happens with it unless it is shown there was unauthorised access. So if it was a criminal act, even if someone else did it Hillary would be legally answerable and she would have to show that the deleting happened as a result of unauthorised access.

If it is email that is a govt record alleged to have been sent or received then it is discoverable under investigation of the actions of a govt official. Hell any citizen can apply for an official information Act (or US equivalent) release of all e-mails received from HRCs private email by any govt official. And they can only withhold releasing e-mails that have a security classification that would prohibit such release at the time of the request. I've been involved in official information releases involving several thousand documents, where subject X was mentioned. This involved weeding through thousands of documents that were deemed not relevant to the request, but still got swept up in the initial search so that no relevant document could be left out. This included documents I had written myself.

With 20 years in the same govt department I am able to search for every e-mail I've sent in the last 20 years. I have no doubt at all that the US govt has been permanently archiving govt e-mails at least since Obama took office and made Hillary SecState. 

[StepStark]

14 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

You start with the assumption that someone did something punishable by law, and your own conviction is somehow a greater authority than the FBI and trained investigators. This is some basic fail of logic and legal understanding. But I suspect that you know this and you're just another one of the concern-trolls that seem to be tag-teaming it up in here.

I didn't write a single insult to anyone here. And yet I have been called various names. You are calling me a troll for example. A guy who doesn't know that Hillary publicly celebrated the lynching of Qaddafi calls me ignorant, for another example. Nice. And I'm not even defending Trump. I pretty much agreed with everything you said about him. But do you know who you are defending? Do you know what does Middle East look like because of her and other members of US administration? Do you know that you are defending a war criminal who is sadly never going to answer for her crimes? I've been to Middle East recently and I am shocked with your defense of a monster that is Hillary Clinton, who is among the most responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of men, women and children. Yes, women and children too. You are so "liberal" that you are defending a person that put tens of thousands of women and children to death.

If you people here are representative of Hillary's support, then now I understand why ordinary people in USA can't stand her and people like her any more, to the point that they are willing to vote for Trump even. I have quite a few friends from USA and none of them has anything nice to say about Trump as a businessman, or as a public person, or as a celebrity, but literally nobody among them would even think of voting for a war criminal like Hillary. Some of them won't vote because they can't force themselves to vote for Trump, and some will vote for Trump even though they'd never have a coffee with him, but literally none of them will vote for a war criminal. By the way they are all liberals, but true liberals, not like folks here who don't know to have a civil discussion.

[LongRider]

13 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Sounds kind of Russian...

 

 

Whoop!  That was a great rant!  Thanks for posting. 

[Ariadne23]

I believe Hillary kept a separate server because Obama was no friend of hers and she didn't want to end up like Patreus. I believe that was stupid of her in the long run because it opened the door to this question of whether she talked about classified govt info on this server, even when it was not labelled as such. But it looks like, against all odds, she didn't fuck up too much there. I also believe that Hillary, as Secretary of State, helped the administration obfuscate the narrative that our ambassador was killed by terrorists until after the 2012 election. I would love to care about that. But against a fascist, how can I? I'm pissed about thay, but it is what it is.