|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 06 2016 02:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Well Comey did put her in a bind when she said she didn't send classified material when he said that she did numerous times.
I think this is how it should be. Her crimes are not grievous enough to warrant jailtime or anything, let it play out in the court of public opinion rather than the court of law.
|
On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 02:07 biology]major wrote:
So the person who decides if they actually press charges or not was seen meeting with Bill Clinton, and also has the support of the entire Obama administration. Yeah this seems fair and balanced, in the same way Fox News is And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful.
Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why.
I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible.
If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges."
Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo.
|
On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:07 biology]major wrote:
So the person who decides if they actually press charges or not was seen meeting with Bill Clinton, and also has the support of the entire Obama administration. Yeah this seems fair and balanced, in the same way Fox News is And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo.
Where did people say she did not handle this badly?
Seems like people pretty much agree it was handled badly and some lies were told at the very least.
However, there is no one better and/or viable in the race so you take the lesser of two weevils
|
On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 02:07 biology]major wrote:
So the person who decides if they actually press charges or not was seen meeting with Bill Clinton, and also has the support of the entire Obama administration. Yeah this seems fair and balanced, in the same way Fox News is And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful.
Yeah because he is an island that operates independent of the DoJ and Obama administration. He probably would have pressed charges if there wasn't such tremendous influence posturing from every side, so his decision in and of itself is meaningless. You really think he would go after a unanimous democratic nominee at this stage in the election? Think of the consequences to the Democratic Party of Clinton was indicted. She would have to have been caught scheming directly against the U.S.A or plotting some nefarious assassination for the FBI to press charges at this stage. The dnc, Obama, clintons will exert every ounce of their influence to make sure she doesn't get indicted, because if she did trump would have a free election.
So the only thing I learned from that statement is the actual facts he revealed, which shows numerous emails contained classified information and were handled inappropriately. Malice or incompetence is another debate, I'm just gonna go with incompetence
|
On July 06 2016 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:07 biology]major wrote:
So the person who decides if they actually press charges or not was seen meeting with Bill Clinton, and also has the support of the entire Obama administration. Yeah this seems fair and balanced, in the same way Fox News is And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo. Where did people say she did not handle this badly? Seems like people pretty much agree it was handled badly and some lies were told at the very least. However, there is no one better and/or viable in the race so you take the lesser of two weevils
Did you see Moo's response?
There certainly is a better alternative still in the race. One that wasn't under multiple FBI probes while running, one that wasn't lying regularly to the American people to play down this story, one that didn't have the FBI director say they "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.", etc...
I knew this "well she's the best we got" line was going to get trotted out and that's why Bernie's still in the race. Democrats can pick a better nominee if they want, if we get Hillary it's because Democrats wanted her (bad parts included) not because there wasn't a better option.
This "lesser of two evils" thing is categorically dumb as well. Americans could elect whoever we damn well wanted (within the law) if people didn't believe that ignorance.
On July 06 2016 00:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
"hillary was careless" says guy who put a nazi meme on his twitter
lest we forget, remember all the bush administration emails?
Did the Director of the FBI do that?
|
On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:07 biology]major wrote:
So the person who decides if they actually press charges or not was seen meeting with Bill Clinton, and also has the support of the entire Obama administration. Yeah this seems fair and balanced, in the same way Fox News is And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo.
No one is celebrating incompetence. We will either have Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton as president. This decision by Comey decreases the chances of Trump being president. That's all anyone is celebrating.
|
I think very few people will be celebrating anything come November. Maybe dodging the apocalypse but that's about it.
|
On July 06 2016 02:46 ZeaL. wrote:
I think very few people will be celebrating anything come November. Maybe dodging the apocalypse but that's about it.
I can think of worse things, to be honest. I will celebrate if we can get the democrats to hold the senate so the gridlock in government ends. Reducing the number of tea party do nothing house members would be nice too.
|
On July 06 2016 02:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:07 biology]major wrote:
So the person who decides if they actually press charges or not was seen meeting with Bill Clinton, and also has the support of the entire Obama administration. Yeah this seems fair and balanced, in the same way Fox News is And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo. Where did people say she did not handle this badly? Seems like people pretty much agree it was handled badly and some lies were told at the very least. However, there is no one better and/or viable in the race so you take the lesser of two weevils Did you see Moo's response? There certainly is a better alternative still in the race. One that wasn't under multiple FBI probes while running, one that wasn't lying regularly to the American people to play down this story, one that didn't have the FBI director say they "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.", etc... I knew this "well she's the best we got" line was going to get trotted out and that's why Bernie's still in the race. Democrats can pick a better nominee if they want, if we get Hillary it's because Democrats wanted her (bad parts included) not because there wasn't a better option. This "lesser of two evils" thing is categorically dumb as well. Americans could elect whoever we damn well wanted (within the law) if people didn't believe that ignorance. Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 00:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
"hillary was careless" says guy who put a nazi meme on his twitter
lest we forget, remember all the bush administration emails? Did the Director of the FBI do that?
What you (predictably) fail to realize is that despite all this many people still think Hillary is a better candidate then Bernie.
Your free to disagree with that, but that doesn't change their opinion, nor the fact that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate.
|
On July 06 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:07 biology]major wrote:
So the person who decides if they actually press charges or not was seen meeting with Bill Clinton, and also has the support of the entire Obama administration. Yeah this seems fair and balanced, in the same way Fox News is And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo. No one is celebrating incompetence. We will either have Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton as president. This decision by Comey decreases the chances of Trump being president. That's all anyone is celebrating.
I didn't say you were celebrating incompetence, I said you were celebrating that her incompetence/lying wasn't provably criminal in the view of the FBI, which you clearly are.
On July 06 2016 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
No criminal charges!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Woooooooooooooooooooohoooooooooooooooooo
All legal matters are now behind Clinton and the media machine can blast everything else in people's ears from here until November. Phew!
It's sad what this Clinton V Trump is doing to the Democrats and our system at large.
On July 06 2016 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 02:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:07 biology]major wrote:
So the person who decides if they actually press charges or not was seen meeting with Bill Clinton, and also has the support of the entire Obama administration. Yeah this seems fair and balanced, in the same way Fox News is And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo. Where did people say she did not handle this badly? Seems like people pretty much agree it was handled badly and some lies were told at the very least. However, there is no one better and/or viable in the race so you take the lesser of two weevils Did you see Moo's response? There certainly is a better alternative still in the race. One that wasn't under multiple FBI probes while running, one that wasn't lying regularly to the American people to play down this story, one that didn't have the FBI director say they "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.", etc... I knew this "well she's the best we got" line was going to get trotted out and that's why Bernie's still in the race. Democrats can pick a better nominee if they want, if we get Hillary it's because Democrats wanted her (bad parts included) not because there wasn't a better option. This "lesser of two evils" thing is categorically dumb as well. Americans could elect whoever we damn well wanted (within the law) if people didn't believe that ignorance. On July 06 2016 00:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
"hillary was careless" says guy who put a nazi meme on his twitter
lest we forget, remember all the bush administration emails? Did the Director of the FBI do that? What you (predictably) fail to realize is that despite all this many people still think Hillary is a better candidate then Bernie. Your free to disagree with that, but that doesn't change their opinion, nor the fact that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate.
They can think it, but it doesn't make it true. Point being, that one can't suggest she's the best/only option as a fact, I'd say there's a LOT of evidence to the contrary as well.
As much as Bernie supporters are made out to be fools, I have to say anyone still believing Hillary at this point is truly the fool.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On July 06 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:07 biology]major wrote:
So the person who decides if they actually press charges or not was seen meeting with Bill Clinton, and also has the support of the entire Obama administration. Yeah this seems fair and balanced, in the same way Fox News is And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo. No one is celebrating incompetence. We will either have Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton as president. This decision by Comey decreases the chances of Trump being president. That's all anyone is celebrating. I didn't say you were celebrating incompetence, I said you were celebrating that her incompetence/lying wasn't provably criminal in the view of the FBI, which you clearly are. Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
No criminal charges!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Woooooooooooooooooooohoooooooooooooooooo
All legal matters are now behind Clinton and the media machine can blast everything else in people's ears from here until November. Phew! It's sad what this Clinton V Trump is doing to the Democrats and our system at large. Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 02:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:07 biology]major wrote:
So the person who decides if they actually press charges or not was seen meeting with Bill Clinton, and also has the support of the entire Obama administration. Yeah this seems fair and balanced, in the same way Fox News is And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo. Where did people say she did not handle this badly? Seems like people pretty much agree it was handled badly and some lies were told at the very least. However, there is no one better and/or viable in the race so you take the lesser of two weevils Did you see Moo's response? There certainly is a better alternative still in the race. One that wasn't under multiple FBI probes while running, one that wasn't lying regularly to the American people to play down this story, one that didn't have the FBI director say they "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.", etc... I knew this "well she's the best we got" line was going to get trotted out and that's why Bernie's still in the race. Democrats can pick a better nominee if they want, if we get Hillary it's because Democrats wanted her (bad parts included) not because there wasn't a better option. This "lesser of two evils" thing is categorically dumb as well. Americans could elect whoever we damn well wanted (within the law) if people didn't believe that ignorance. On July 06 2016 00:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
"hillary was careless" says guy who put a nazi meme on his twitter
lest we forget, remember all the bush administration emails? Did the Director of the FBI do that? What you (predictably) fail to realize is that despite all this many people still think Hillary is a better candidate then Bernie. Your free to disagree with that, but that doesn't change their opinion, nor the fact that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate. They can think it, but it doesn't make it true. Point being, that one can't suggest she's the best/only option as a fact, I'd say there's a LOT of evidence to the contrary as well. As much as Bernie supporters are made out to be fools, I have to say anyone still believing Hillary at this point is truly the fool. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A
If you operate under the assumption that (for better or worse), the only two people who have a chance at being president are Trump and Clinton, the celebration makes sense. You seem to loath the idea of lesser evils, but it's simply reality. Being able to write in a candidates name is not the same as that person having a shot at winning. The masses, who are profoundly intellectually lazy, will not do that. Clinton is the nominee and thus the only chance. I don't think it's worth arguing if Bernie still has a chance at being president. We've already said what we believe. But I am simply saying that your assumptions are not the same as mine. My celebration makes no sense with your assumptions, but it is clearly appropriate under my assumptions. We simply disagree on the assumptions.
|
On July 06 2016 03:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:07 biology]major wrote:
So the person who decides if they actually press charges or not was seen meeting with Bill Clinton, and also has the support of the entire Obama administration. Yeah this seems fair and balanced, in the same way Fox News is And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo. No one is celebrating incompetence. We will either have Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton as president. This decision by Comey decreases the chances of Trump being president. That's all anyone is celebrating. I didn't say you were celebrating incompetence, I said you were celebrating that her incompetence/lying wasn't provably criminal in the view of the FBI, which you clearly are. On July 06 2016 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
No criminal charges!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Woooooooooooooooooooohoooooooooooooooooo
All legal matters are now behind Clinton and the media machine can blast everything else in people's ears from here until November. Phew! It's sad what this Clinton V Trump is doing to the Democrats and our system at large. On July 06 2016 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 02:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:07 biology]major wrote:
So the person who decides if they actually press charges or not was seen meeting with Bill Clinton, and also has the support of the entire Obama administration. Yeah this seems fair and balanced, in the same way Fox News is And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo. Where did people say she did not handle this badly? Seems like people pretty much agree it was handled badly and some lies were told at the very least. However, there is no one better and/or viable in the race so you take the lesser of two weevils Did you see Moo's response? There certainly is a better alternative still in the race. One that wasn't under multiple FBI probes while running, one that wasn't lying regularly to the American people to play down this story, one that didn't have the FBI director say they "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.", etc... I knew this "well she's the best we got" line was going to get trotted out and that's why Bernie's still in the race. Democrats can pick a better nominee if they want, if we get Hillary it's because Democrats wanted her (bad parts included) not because there wasn't a better option. This "lesser of two evils" thing is categorically dumb as well. Americans could elect whoever we damn well wanted (within the law) if people didn't believe that ignorance. On July 06 2016 00:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
"hillary was careless" says guy who put a nazi meme on his twitter
lest we forget, remember all the bush administration emails? Did the Director of the FBI do that? What you (predictably) fail to realize is that despite all this many people still think Hillary is a better candidate then Bernie. Your free to disagree with that, but that doesn't change their opinion, nor the fact that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate. They can think it, but it doesn't make it true. Point being, that one can't suggest she's the best/only option as a fact, I'd say there's a LOT of evidence to the contrary as well. As much as Bernie supporters are made out to be fools, I have to say anyone still believing Hillary at this point is truly the fool. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A If you operate under the assumption that (for better or worse), the only two people who have a chance at being president are Trump and Clinton, the celebration makes sense. You seem to loath the idea of lesser evils, but it's simply reality. Being able to write in a candidates name is not the same as that person having a shot at winning. The masses, who are profoundly intellectually lazy, will not do that. Clinton is the nominee and thus the only chance. I don't think it's worth arguing if Bernie still has a chance at being president. We've already said what we believe. But I am simply saying that your assumptions are not the same as mine. My celebration makes no sense with your assumptions, but it is clearly appropriate under my assumptions. We simply disagree on the assumptions.
Even if I take you assumptions, it doesn't change what you are celebrating. Perhaps which veneer you would like to put on it, but the underlying thing you're celebrating is that her incompetence and deception wasn't provably criminal. Because both her incompetence and deception has been shown to be real (not part of some vast right-wing conspiracy like many here advanced) regarding this issue.
So you can say you're celebrating her getting off because it makes Trump less likely to win, but her getting off is still what's being celebrated, or would have been lamented had it not happened.
|
On July 06 2016 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 03:05 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:07 biology]major wrote:
So the person who decides if they actually press charges or not was seen meeting with Bill Clinton, and also has the support of the entire Obama administration. Yeah this seems fair and balanced, in the same way Fox News is And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo. No one is celebrating incompetence. We will either have Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton as president. This decision by Comey decreases the chances of Trump being president. That's all anyone is celebrating. I didn't say you were celebrating incompetence, I said you were celebrating that her incompetence/lying wasn't provably criminal in the view of the FBI, which you clearly are. On July 06 2016 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
No criminal charges!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Woooooooooooooooooooohoooooooooooooooooo
All legal matters are now behind Clinton and the media machine can blast everything else in people's ears from here until November. Phew! It's sad what this Clinton V Trump is doing to the Democrats and our system at large. On July 06 2016 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 02:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:07 biology]major wrote:
So the person who decides if they actually press charges or not was seen meeting with Bill Clinton, and also has the support of the entire Obama administration. Yeah this seems fair and balanced, in the same way Fox News is And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo. Where did people say she did not handle this badly? Seems like people pretty much agree it was handled badly and some lies were told at the very least. However, there is no one better and/or viable in the race so you take the lesser of two weevils Did you see Moo's response? There certainly is a better alternative still in the race. One that wasn't under multiple FBI probes while running, one that wasn't lying regularly to the American people to play down this story, one that didn't have the FBI director say they "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.", etc... I knew this "well she's the best we got" line was going to get trotted out and that's why Bernie's still in the race. Democrats can pick a better nominee if they want, if we get Hillary it's because Democrats wanted her (bad parts included) not because there wasn't a better option. This "lesser of two evils" thing is categorically dumb as well. Americans could elect whoever we damn well wanted (within the law) if people didn't believe that ignorance. On July 06 2016 00:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
"hillary was careless" says guy who put a nazi meme on his twitter
lest we forget, remember all the bush administration emails? Did the Director of the FBI do that? What you (predictably) fail to realize is that despite all this many people still think Hillary is a better candidate then Bernie. Your free to disagree with that, but that doesn't change their opinion, nor the fact that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate. They can think it, but it doesn't make it true. Point being, that one can't suggest she's the best/only option as a fact, I'd say there's a LOT of evidence to the contrary as well. As much as Bernie supporters are made out to be fools, I have to say anyone still believing Hillary at this point is truly the fool. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A If you operate under the assumption that (for better or worse), the only two people who have a chance at being president are Trump and Clinton, the celebration makes sense. You seem to loath the idea of lesser evils, but it's simply reality. Being able to write in a candidates name is not the same as that person having a shot at winning. The masses, who are profoundly intellectually lazy, will not do that. Clinton is the nominee and thus the only chance. I don't think it's worth arguing if Bernie still has a chance at being president. We've already said what we believe. But I am simply saying that your assumptions are not the same as mine. My celebration makes no sense with your assumptions, but it is clearly appropriate under my assumptions. We simply disagree on the assumptions. Even if I take you assumptions, it doesn't change what you are celebrating. Perhaps which veneer you would like to put on it, but the underlying thing you're celebrating is that her incompetence and deception wasn't provably criminal. Because both her incompetence and deception has been shown to be real (not part of some vast right-wing conspiracy like many here advanced) regarding this issue. So you can say you're celebrating her getting off because it makes Trump less likely to win, but her getting off is still what's being celebrated, or would have been lamented had it not happened.
I believe Clinton's dishonesty would be less damaging to our economy and way of life than Trump. Looking at both candidates, and knowing Clinton is dishonest, I still believe 4 years of Clinton would be a net benefit over 4 years of Trump. I am celebrating the results of her innocence on our country, not the results themselves. Do you believe Trump would be a better president?
|
On July 06 2016 03:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 03:05 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:07 biology]major wrote:
So the person who decides if they actually press charges or not was seen meeting with Bill Clinton, and also has the support of the entire Obama administration. Yeah this seems fair and balanced, in the same way Fox News is And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo. No one is celebrating incompetence. We will either have Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton as president. This decision by Comey decreases the chances of Trump being president. That's all anyone is celebrating. I didn't say you were celebrating incompetence, I said you were celebrating that her incompetence/lying wasn't provably criminal in the view of the FBI, which you clearly are. On July 06 2016 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
No criminal charges!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Woooooooooooooooooooohoooooooooooooooooo
All legal matters are now behind Clinton and the media machine can blast everything else in people's ears from here until November. Phew! It's sad what this Clinton V Trump is doing to the Democrats and our system at large. On July 06 2016 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 02:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:07 biology]major wrote:
So the person who decides if they actually press charges or not was seen meeting with Bill Clinton, and also has the support of the entire Obama administration. Yeah this seems fair and balanced, in the same way Fox News is And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo. Where did people say she did not handle this badly? Seems like people pretty much agree it was handled badly and some lies were told at the very least. However, there is no one better and/or viable in the race so you take the lesser of two weevils Did you see Moo's response? There certainly is a better alternative still in the race. One that wasn't under multiple FBI probes while running, one that wasn't lying regularly to the American people to play down this story, one that didn't have the FBI director say they "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.", etc... I knew this "well she's the best we got" line was going to get trotted out and that's why Bernie's still in the race. Democrats can pick a better nominee if they want, if we get Hillary it's because Democrats wanted her (bad parts included) not because there wasn't a better option. This "lesser of two evils" thing is categorically dumb as well. Americans could elect whoever we damn well wanted (within the law) if people didn't believe that ignorance. On July 06 2016 00:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
"hillary was careless" says guy who put a nazi meme on his twitter
lest we forget, remember all the bush administration emails? Did the Director of the FBI do that? What you (predictably) fail to realize is that despite all this many people still think Hillary is a better candidate then Bernie. Your free to disagree with that, but that doesn't change their opinion, nor the fact that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate. They can think it, but it doesn't make it true. Point being, that one can't suggest she's the best/only option as a fact, I'd say there's a LOT of evidence to the contrary as well. As much as Bernie supporters are made out to be fools, I have to say anyone still believing Hillary at this point is truly the fool. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A If you operate under the assumption that (for better or worse), the only two people who have a chance at being president are Trump and Clinton, the celebration makes sense. You seem to loath the idea of lesser evils, but it's simply reality. Being able to write in a candidates name is not the same as that person having a shot at winning. The masses, who are profoundly intellectually lazy, will not do that. Clinton is the nominee and thus the only chance. I don't think it's worth arguing if Bernie still has a chance at being president. We've already said what we believe. But I am simply saying that your assumptions are not the same as mine. My celebration makes no sense with your assumptions, but it is clearly appropriate under my assumptions. We simply disagree on the assumptions. Even if I take you assumptions, it doesn't change what you are celebrating. Perhaps which veneer you would like to put on it, but the underlying thing you're celebrating is that her incompetence and deception wasn't provably criminal. Because both her incompetence and deception has been shown to be real (not part of some vast right-wing conspiracy like many here advanced) regarding this issue. So you can say you're celebrating her getting off because it makes Trump less likely to win, but her getting off is still what's being celebrated, or would have been lamented had it not happened. I believe Clinton's dishonesty would be less damaging to our economy and way of life than Trump. Looking at both candidates, and knowing Clinton is dishonest, I still believe 4 years of Clinton would be a net benefit over 4 years of Trump. I am celebrating the results of her innocence on our country, not the results themselves. Do you believe Trump would be a better president?
That framing pretends like it had to end up this way, it didn't, people could have not vehemently denied what turned out to be true.
So Hillary supporters have to take responsibility for getting her this far, so that they could now make the "She's better than Trump, right?" argument.
She would have never gotten nominated with a "I'm better than Trump" strategy from the start, she lied about who/what she was all the way up to this point, her supporters denied it, it's confirmed that she was outright lying, and now they want to say "but she's not Trump" which, frankly, disgusts me.
EDIT: I find it cute that Hillary supporters are already on the "well I didn't really like her, but she's better than Trump", like they hadn't been cheerleading and denying that she was obviously a liar the whole time.
|
On July 06 2016 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 03:15 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 03:05 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:07 biology]major wrote:
So the person who decides if they actually press charges or not was seen meeting with Bill Clinton, and also has the support of the entire Obama administration. Yeah this seems fair and balanced, in the same way Fox News is And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo. No one is celebrating incompetence. We will either have Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton as president. This decision by Comey decreases the chances of Trump being president. That's all anyone is celebrating. I didn't say you were celebrating incompetence, I said you were celebrating that her incompetence/lying wasn't provably criminal in the view of the FBI, which you clearly are. On July 06 2016 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
No criminal charges!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Woooooooooooooooooooohoooooooooooooooooo
All legal matters are now behind Clinton and the media machine can blast everything else in people's ears from here until November. Phew! It's sad what this Clinton V Trump is doing to the Democrats and our system at large. On July 06 2016 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 02:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo. Where did people say she did not handle this badly? Seems like people pretty much agree it was handled badly and some lies were told at the very least. However, there is no one better and/or viable in the race so you take the lesser of two weevils Did you see Moo's response? There certainly is a better alternative still in the race. One that wasn't under multiple FBI probes while running, one that wasn't lying regularly to the American people to play down this story, one that didn't have the FBI director say they "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.", etc... I knew this "well she's the best we got" line was going to get trotted out and that's why Bernie's still in the race. Democrats can pick a better nominee if they want, if we get Hillary it's because Democrats wanted her (bad parts included) not because there wasn't a better option. This "lesser of two evils" thing is categorically dumb as well. Americans could elect whoever we damn well wanted (within the law) if people didn't believe that ignorance. On July 06 2016 00:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
"hillary was careless" says guy who put a nazi meme on his twitter
lest we forget, remember all the bush administration emails? Did the Director of the FBI do that? What you (predictably) fail to realize is that despite all this many people still think Hillary is a better candidate then Bernie. Your free to disagree with that, but that doesn't change their opinion, nor the fact that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate. They can think it, but it doesn't make it true. Point being, that one can't suggest she's the best/only option as a fact, I'd say there's a LOT of evidence to the contrary as well. As much as Bernie supporters are made out to be fools, I have to say anyone still believing Hillary at this point is truly the fool. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A If you operate under the assumption that (for better or worse), the only two people who have a chance at being president are Trump and Clinton, the celebration makes sense. You seem to loath the idea of lesser evils, but it's simply reality. Being able to write in a candidates name is not the same as that person having a shot at winning. The masses, who are profoundly intellectually lazy, will not do that. Clinton is the nominee and thus the only chance. I don't think it's worth arguing if Bernie still has a chance at being president. We've already said what we believe. But I am simply saying that your assumptions are not the same as mine. My celebration makes no sense with your assumptions, but it is clearly appropriate under my assumptions. We simply disagree on the assumptions. Even if I take you assumptions, it doesn't change what you are celebrating. Perhaps which veneer you would like to put on it, but the underlying thing you're celebrating is that her incompetence and deception wasn't provably criminal. Because both her incompetence and deception has been shown to be real (not part of some vast right-wing conspiracy like many here advanced) regarding this issue. So you can say you're celebrating her getting off because it makes Trump less likely to win, but her getting off is still what's being celebrated, or would have been lamented had it not happened. I believe Clinton's dishonesty would be less damaging to our economy and way of life than Trump. Looking at both candidates, and knowing Clinton is dishonest, I still believe 4 years of Clinton would be a net benefit over 4 years of Trump. I am celebrating the results of her innocence on our country, not the results themselves. Do you believe Trump would be a better president? That framing pretends like it had to end up this way, it didn't, people could have not vehemently denied what turned out to be true. So Hillary supporters have to take responsibility for getting her this far, so that they could now make the "She's better than Trump, right?" argument. She would have never gotten nominated with a "I'm better than Trump" strategy from the start, she lied about who/what she was all the way up to this point, her supporters denied it, it's confirmed that she was outright lying, and now they want to say "but she's not Trump" which, frankly, disgusts me. EDIT: I find it cute that Hillary supporters are already on the "well I didn't really like her, but she's better than Trump", like they hadn't been cheerleading and denying that she was obviously a liar the whole time.
You could re-do the entire primary now and Hillary would still beat Bernie.
|
On July 06 2016 03:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 03:15 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 03:05 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:07 biology]major wrote:
So the person who decides if they actually press charges or not was seen meeting with Bill Clinton, and also has the support of the entire Obama administration. Yeah this seems fair and balanced, in the same way Fox News is And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo. No one is celebrating incompetence. We will either have Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton as president. This decision by Comey decreases the chances of Trump being president. That's all anyone is celebrating. I didn't say you were celebrating incompetence, I said you were celebrating that her incompetence/lying wasn't provably criminal in the view of the FBI, which you clearly are. On July 06 2016 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
No criminal charges!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Woooooooooooooooooooohoooooooooooooooooo
All legal matters are now behind Clinton and the media machine can blast everything else in people's ears from here until November. Phew! It's sad what this Clinton V Trump is doing to the Democrats and our system at large. On July 06 2016 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 02:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why.
I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible.
If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges."
Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo. Where did people say she did not handle this badly? Seems like people pretty much agree it was handled badly and some lies were told at the very least. However, there is no one better and/or viable in the race so you take the lesser of two weevils Did you see Moo's response? There certainly is a better alternative still in the race. One that wasn't under multiple FBI probes while running, one that wasn't lying regularly to the American people to play down this story, one that didn't have the FBI director say they "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.", etc... I knew this "well she's the best we got" line was going to get trotted out and that's why Bernie's still in the race. Democrats can pick a better nominee if they want, if we get Hillary it's because Democrats wanted her (bad parts included) not because there wasn't a better option. This "lesser of two evils" thing is categorically dumb as well. Americans could elect whoever we damn well wanted (within the law) if people didn't believe that ignorance. On July 06 2016 00:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
"hillary was careless" says guy who put a nazi meme on his twitter
lest we forget, remember all the bush administration emails? Did the Director of the FBI do that? What you (predictably) fail to realize is that despite all this many people still think Hillary is a better candidate then Bernie. Your free to disagree with that, but that doesn't change their opinion, nor the fact that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate. They can think it, but it doesn't make it true. Point being, that one can't suggest she's the best/only option as a fact, I'd say there's a LOT of evidence to the contrary as well. As much as Bernie supporters are made out to be fools, I have to say anyone still believing Hillary at this point is truly the fool. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A If you operate under the assumption that (for better or worse), the only two people who have a chance at being president are Trump and Clinton, the celebration makes sense. You seem to loath the idea of lesser evils, but it's simply reality. Being able to write in a candidates name is not the same as that person having a shot at winning. The masses, who are profoundly intellectually lazy, will not do that. Clinton is the nominee and thus the only chance. I don't think it's worth arguing if Bernie still has a chance at being president. We've already said what we believe. But I am simply saying that your assumptions are not the same as mine. My celebration makes no sense with your assumptions, but it is clearly appropriate under my assumptions. We simply disagree on the assumptions. Even if I take you assumptions, it doesn't change what you are celebrating. Perhaps which veneer you would like to put on it, but the underlying thing you're celebrating is that her incompetence and deception wasn't provably criminal. Because both her incompetence and deception has been shown to be real (not part of some vast right-wing conspiracy like many here advanced) regarding this issue. So you can say you're celebrating her getting off because it makes Trump less likely to win, but her getting off is still what's being celebrated, or would have been lamented had it not happened. I believe Clinton's dishonesty would be less damaging to our economy and way of life than Trump. Looking at both candidates, and knowing Clinton is dishonest, I still believe 4 years of Clinton would be a net benefit over 4 years of Trump. I am celebrating the results of her innocence on our country, not the results themselves. Do you believe Trump would be a better president? That framing pretends like it had to end up this way, it didn't, people could have not vehemently denied what turned out to be true. So Hillary supporters have to take responsibility for getting her this far, so that they could now make the "She's better than Trump, right?" argument. She would have never gotten nominated with a "I'm better than Trump" strategy from the start, she lied about who/what she was all the way up to this point, her supporters denied it, it's confirmed that she was outright lying, and now they want to say "but she's not Trump" which, frankly, disgusts me. EDIT: I find it cute that Hillary supporters are already on the "well I didn't really like her, but she's better than Trump", like they hadn't been cheerleading and denying that she was obviously a liar the whole time. You could re-do the entire primary now and Hillary would still beat Bernie.
Maybe, maybe not, but that's neither here nor there.
|
I'm in the Clinton is a mostly honest and decent person who has a pretty good record to run on camp. I like her, and going through this primary has really reinforced that because I've gotten a better handle on where she stands on the issues rather than "she's qualified and I have a generally good impression of her".
I think it's a pretty big camp actually, though some would like to either deny its existence or just say in various creative ways (shills, establishment, low information, naive) that we're wrong.
|
The "Not Trump" argument is bad, but it's not the only one Hillary supporters have, it's just the only one that might possibly get through to people who have already bought the narrative that Hillary is dishonest/crooked/untrustworthy etc.
|
On July 06 2016 03:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2016 03:32 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 03:15 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 03:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 03:05 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:45 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2016 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
And what about Comey? The people who actually did the investigation said no charges would be successful. Typically someone's security clearance would be revoked even if they couldn't make charges stick. While the criminal case is obviously going no where, the conclusion is that she lied multiple times to the public about what she did and why. I don't think it's that big a deal she doesn't go to prison (typical for elites), my problem is people thinking that her behaviour around this email issue wasn't terrible. If she just came out and said "I had a home server so that people couldn't get info I didn't want them to have from FOIA's" and not the total fabrication about 2 devices (seriously such a stupid intentional lie to the American people) maybe this would be more of a vindication for her, but what was essentially done was to say "yes she blatantly lied multiple times to the public about this, but she didn't give conflicting testimony (usually the only way people get caught up for this stuff) so we're not bringing charges." Trump has really lowered the bar for Democrats, that her incompetence wasn't provably criminal is hardly something to celebrate imo. No one is celebrating incompetence. We will either have Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton as president. This decision by Comey decreases the chances of Trump being president. That's all anyone is celebrating. I didn't say you were celebrating incompetence, I said you were celebrating that her incompetence/lying wasn't provably criminal in the view of the FBI, which you clearly are. On July 06 2016 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:
No criminal charges!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Woooooooooooooooooooohoooooooooooooooooo
All legal matters are now behind Clinton and the media machine can blast everything else in people's ears from here until November. Phew! It's sad what this Clinton V Trump is doing to the Democrats and our system at large. On July 06 2016 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 02:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2016 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Where did people say she did not handle this badly?
Seems like people pretty much agree it was handled badly and some lies were told at the very least.
However, there is no one better and/or viable in the race so you take the lesser of two weevils Did you see Moo's response? There certainly is a better alternative still in the race. One that wasn't under multiple FBI probes while running, one that wasn't lying regularly to the American people to play down this story, one that didn't have the FBI director say they "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.", etc... I knew this "well she's the best we got" line was going to get trotted out and that's why Bernie's still in the race. Democrats can pick a better nominee if they want, if we get Hillary it's because Democrats wanted her (bad parts included) not because there wasn't a better option. This "lesser of two evils" thing is categorically dumb as well. Americans could elect whoever we damn well wanted (within the law) if people didn't believe that ignorance. On July 06 2016 00:52 ticklishmusic wrote:
"hillary was careless" says guy who put a nazi meme on his twitter
lest we forget, remember all the bush administration emails? Did the Director of the FBI do that? What you (predictably) fail to realize is that despite all this many people still think Hillary is a better candidate then Bernie. Your free to disagree with that, but that doesn't change their opinion, nor the fact that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate. They can think it, but it doesn't make it true. Point being, that one can't suggest she's the best/only option as a fact, I'd say there's a LOT of evidence to the contrary as well. As much as Bernie supporters are made out to be fools, I have to say anyone still believing Hillary at this point is truly the fool. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A If you operate under the assumption that (for better or worse), the only two people who have a chance at being president are Trump and Clinton, the celebration makes sense. You seem to loath the idea of lesser evils, but it's simply reality. Being able to write in a candidates name is not the same as that person having a shot at winning. The masses, who are profoundly intellectually lazy, will not do that. Clinton is the nominee and thus the only chance. I don't think it's worth arguing if Bernie still has a chance at being president. We've already said what we believe. But I am simply saying that your assumptions are not the same as mine. My celebration makes no sense with your assumptions, but it is clearly appropriate under my assumptions. We simply disagree on the assumptions. Even if I take you assumptions, it doesn't change what you are celebrating. Perhaps which veneer you would like to put on it, but the underlying thing you're celebrating is that her incompetence and deception wasn't provably criminal. Because both her incompetence and deception has been shown to be real (not part of some vast right-wing conspiracy like many here advanced) regarding this issue. So you can say you're celebrating her getting off because it makes Trump less likely to win, but her getting off is still what's being celebrated, or would have been lamented had it not happened. I believe Clinton's dishonesty would be less damaging to our economy and way of life than Trump. Looking at both candidates, and knowing Clinton is dishonest, I still believe 4 years of Clinton would be a net benefit over 4 years of Trump. I am celebrating the results of her innocence on our country, not the results themselves. Do you believe Trump would be a better president? That framing pretends like it had to end up this way, it didn't, people could have not vehemently denied what turned out to be true. So Hillary supporters have to take responsibility for getting her this far, so that they could now make the "She's better than Trump, right?" argument. She would have never gotten nominated with a "I'm better than Trump" strategy from the start, she lied about who/what she was all the way up to this point, her supporters denied it, it's confirmed that she was outright lying, and now they want to say "but she's not Trump" which, frankly, disgusts me. EDIT: I find it cute that Hillary supporters are already on the "well I didn't really like her, but she's better than Trump", like they hadn't been cheerleading and denying that she was obviously a liar the whole time. You could re-do the entire primary now and Hillary would still beat Bernie. Maybe, maybe not, but that's neither here nor there.
Its pretty much your entire point at the moment.
You think Bernie would be a better choice. You think people voted Hillary under false pretenses and your unwilling to accept that people think Hillary would be a better candidate despite all the baggage.
|
On July 06 2016 03:36 Seuss wrote:
The "Not Trump" argument is bad, but it's not the only one Hillary supporters have, it's just the only one that might possibly get through to people who have already bought the narrative that Hillary is dishonest/crooked/untrustworthy etc.
I've voted against people before, I'll do it again. Much like the different flavors of bitter office coffee we have, I'm not happy about my options. But I'm going to pick one and drink it because I need coffee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
25928
3763
264
203
1
EPT
