BREAKING! FBI to Reopen Investigation into Clinton Emails

Here's the thing about e-mails, Benghazi, etc.

Even with those things taken into account, she's still a better choice for President of the United States than Trump. That's what you arch-conservatives refuse to understand when you trot out the same scandals over and over again. We read the reports, we heard your arguments. Your guy is still worse.

The GOP would have had a very high chance of victory with Rubio or Kasich, and had a reasonable chance with Jeb or Cruz. But they nominated Trump, so they're going to lose, and lose big.

gahuga wrote:

Here's the thing about e-mails, Benghazi, etc.

Even with those things taken into account, she's still a better choice for President of the United States than Trump. That's what you arch-conservatives refuse to understand when you trot out the same scandals over and over again. We read the reports, we heard your arguments. Your guy is still worse.

The GOP would have had a very high chance of victory with Rubio or Kasich, and had a reasonable chance with Jeb or Cruz. But they nominated Trump, so they're going to lose, and lose big.

Rubio and Cruz were morons, and nobody wanted another Bush. Kasich was the only good option, and his campaign was way too slow getting momentum. Like molasses on a cold morning.

Honestly, how can you know which one will be worse? The worst (reasonable) argument about Trump would be that he will divide the country like no other. That's a big thing.

The worst against Hillary is that she is corrupt. What effect will that have on the country? it's harder to say. At best, it will have no lasting effect. At worst she will erode trust in the government and expand the powers of the President. That's also a big thing.

So which big thing is worse? I don't know.

I feel like Trump would literally get nothing done because everyone hates him. That might be the best outcome of the next 4 years.

gahuga wrote:

Here's the thing about e-mails, Benghazi, etc.

Even with those things taken into account, she's still a better choice for President of the United States than Trump. That's what you arch-conservatives refuse to understand when you trot out the same scandals over and over again. We read the reports, we heard your arguments. Your guy is still worse.

The GOP would have had a very high chance of victory with Rubio or Kasich, and had a reasonable chance with Jeb or Cruz. But they nominated Trump, so they're going to lose, and lose big.

As I see it the choice is to vote for known corruption or for an egocentric hothead. I can't see how anyone would willingly put the US government in the hands of a person who is willing to engage in "pay for play" behavior. Ihave lost all respect for anyone who will vote for HRC.

Everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE, who sent an email to Clinton or received one from her, including the President, knew she had a private email server. Yes, it was a bad idea, but this was not something she was trying to hide and certainly not corruption.

Only 18% of government officials said they never used personal email for work.

Only 110 of the 30,000 emails sent contained classified information.

Government officials say that 50-90% of classified information probably didn't need to be classified. The classification process is a mess.

There is no way Hillary would today be able to obtain a security clearance. However, Presidents do not need to obtain a security clearance. The President is the only federal job Hillary is able to obtain.

For God's sake people, our entire government has been, and will continue to be, pay to play.

I don't care if it's Trump, Clinton, Bernie or Elizabeth Warren. It sucks, but that's what we've got.

What we've got is no shortage of guillotines.

off base wrote:

Everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE, who sent an email to Clinton or received one from her, including the President, knew she had a private email server. Yes, it was a bad idea, but this was not something she was trying to hide and certainly not corruption.

Only 18% of government officials said they never used personal email for work.

Only 110 of the 30,000 emails sent contained classified information.

Government officials say that 50-90% of classified information probably didn't need to be classified. The classification process is a mess.

+10000000

No critics seem to understand anything about emails. One of my favorite questions is to ask these dumb a$$ Trump supporters is if they think any republicans knew about her private email server. They all say of course not! Everyone knew. Everyone!

grabbap wrote:

Government officials say that 50-90% of classified information probably didn't need to be classified. The classification process is a mess.

This is correct. Over-classification is an major issue with Government. The assumption is classify a document first, decide later if not to. Later rarely happens.

Having worked in the security industry for many years I can says that simply changing, or eliminating, a few sentences and certain words can result in a long document not being classified at all.

VERY convincing arguments! (lol) I like this part in particular:

"Let's assume you are correct that Trump is a moron - at worst he is a moron president. There is as yet no proof that extreme intelligence is a necessary quality for presidency. In fact, some of the most revered presidents of our past weren't particularly smart. For instance, FDR, despite his enviable Ivy League pedigree, was known as a bit of an oaf.... Other examples abound. "

Love it. ONE example, without any reference to back it up, just a it "was known" for your "citation."

And then you conclude......maybe Trump is the next FDR!

Let's look at a more recent example: Bush was a guy who only got anywhere due to his family connections and $, and clearly was a dimwit. Trump is very similar to that portrayal (probably smarter than ol' W, but not by much).

How W work out for us?

Obama picked people in his administration from the suggestion list of CiTi bank advisor/Wall St shill

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15560

From:

fromanm@citi.com

T

To:

bobama@ameritech.net

Date: 2008-10-06 20:38

Subject: Diversity

Note the date 10/6/2008 (pre O election) and what was going on - the TBTF bailouts.

lax wrote:

not really dude wrote:

No, how someone talks doesn't make them an idiot. Not everyone is a trained speaker or career politician. Stuttering or babbling does not make you an idiot. Not knowing this makes YOU the idiot.

I hate hearing this. Whether you're a leader of a country or a business, public speaking is a critical basic skill. You need to be able to communicate effectively.

Want to lead a country or a company and you're not a natural public speaker? Take a freakin' Toastmasters class.

Nothing you said has anything to do with the argument. I agree with you that a public representative (but not a company leader) should have good public speaking skills (It is one of the reasons why I don't want to vote for Trump). But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about whether subpar public speaking skills means you are an idiot or stupid. It doesn't.

I understood everything Trump was saying in your post. I don't see anything difficult to understand. What exactly are you trying to point out as evidence? Perhaps your reading comprehension isn't as good is you think it is. Have you considered that?

It isn't my job to educate you with further references, nor did I conclude that Trump would be the next FDR. I did not reference either Bush or Obama, whose SAT scores were ~1200 and ~1100, respectively. My sole contention in this instance was that intelligence level does not appear to have been a primary indicator of a president's quality throughout American history. W wasn't the most intelligent guy and his presidency wasn't successful. I hope you're not trying to extrapolate and draw large-ranging conclusion from just that example. That wouldn't be sound reasoning, BIGLY.

No news here.

The case was never closed just recommended not to prosecute because there was not enough there.

Now they are going to see if the new info provides anything that would be enough to prosecute.

Maybe it will maybe it won't. Probably not but they NEVER closed the case.

Trump is an idiot and anyone defending him is just as dumb. Here are some Trump quotes for people who think he is not an idiot:

"You know, it really doesn't matter what the media write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass."

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

"Sorry losers and haters, but my IQ is one of the highest—and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure, it's not your fault."

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."

"I've said if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her."

"My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body."

"And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the p*ssy. You can do anything."

None of those statements are dumb. They are all either true, or jokes that fly over some people's heads, or occasionally a joke that went over the line in today's culture.

[quote]gahuga wrote:

Here's the thing about e-mails, Benghazi, etc.

Even with those things taken into account, she's still a better choice for President of the United States than Trump.

Talk about closed mind. No matter what we find out about Hillary and the Clintons (and we have seen several things, one more horrific than the next), you will continue to support her for president.

You are a fool. I am a lifelong Dem but not this time....

Climate change is not a joke. Sexual assault is not a joke. Incest is not a joke. Go ahead and keep those blinders on though.