Vote for President

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Vote for President

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 150 52.1%

  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 138 47.9%
  • Total voters
    288
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ignatius J said:
Lack of being able to put things in perspective I would say is your simpleton approach. There are plenty of articles putting in context why Trump has the support that he does. To label tens of millions of Americans "nut jobs" because they disagree with you is convenient, 3rd grade thinking. I despise Hillary but I'm not naive or intellectually lazy enough to label her supporters a derogatory description or refuse to understand why people do not like Trump.
Click to expand...

"He has alienated both college-educated men and women, sending both to the Democratic Party in larger shares than in previous presidential election years. In other words, he has expanded the other party."

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/0...ift-among-white-men-than-the-cause-of-it.html
Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
Ignatius J said:
Lack of being able to put things in perspective I would say is your simpleton approach. There are plenty of articles putting in context why Trump has the support that he does. To label tens of millions of Americans "nut jobs" because they disagree with you is convenient, 3rd grade thinking. I despise Hillary but I'm not naive or intellectually lazy enough to label her supporters a derogatory description or refuse to understand why people do not like Trump.
Click to expand...





Said the person who let's their dislike of one candidate blind them to every thing else.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Fluffhead87 said:
Good for part of the country democrats pander to.

And good news for Mrs. Trump if she was inappropriately granted citizenship in 2006 after the H1b visa fiasco that's coming to light.
Click to expand...

Funny thing. Nominee's wives are usually off-limits. Ted Cruz told me. Except when it is Trump. Another reason why it is sometimes hard for me to vote for a Democrat. They are on your team until you leave their plantation. Then they are downright vicious.
 
Ignatius J said:
Funny thing. Nominee's wives are usually off-limits. Ted Cruz told me. Except when it is Trump. Another reason why it is sometimes hard for me to vote for a Democrat. They are on your team until you leave their plantation. Then they are downright vicious.
Click to expand...

So it's ok to be against illegal immigrants but not when it has to deal with your wife?
 
Ignatius J said:
Funny thing. Nominee's wives are usually off-limits. Ted Cruz told me. Except when it is Trump. Another reason why it is sometimes hard for me to vote for a Democrat. They are on your team until you leave their plantation. Then they are downright vicious.
Click to expand...


I recall a great deal of hostility toward Mrs Clinton when her husband ran and even unkind things being said about there child, so no both sides attack family. In this case if she broke immigration law should we just let it go? I mean Mr. Trump has campaigned on this hard has he not?
 
Ignatius J said:
Funny thing. Nominee's wives are usually off-limits. Ted Cruz told me. Except when it is Trump. Another reason why it is sometimes hard for me to vote for a Democrat. They are on your team until you leave their plantation. Then they are downright vicious.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with you. Wives/husbands and children should be off limits. Unless they bring the spotlight unto themselves by doing interviews and talking about things that have holes in the stories. Investigating her interview and then calling her out on it isn't "downright vicious".

But please down think only Dems (officially or left leaning individuals) have ever called out family members. See Scott Baio's post RNC msnbc interview as the most recent example ()

The 3 Obama ladies have endured many many cruel and downright vicious verbal harassment that was never spoken about the Bush female members of the family.

But, sure, only the evil left.
 
Ignatius J said:
He is light years better than Clinton. I stand by that.
Click to expand...
Donald Trump is no better than ANYONE. That is nearly LITERALLY true.

There are Americans who for whatever reason would like to destroy this country. And there are murderers, rapists, violent criminals who have no business being in charge of people. They're worse than Trump.

But to the OBJECTIVE eye, and I DO mean OBJECTIVE, he is the most terrible wannabe politician in the history of American politics. He is not great at his own field of choice, which MOST successful businessman and business media will tell you. (Let's see his taxes so he can prove us wrong). He has shown ZERO interest in helping anyone but himself. ZERO. He doesn't understand the issues beyond a few really bad talking points. He MAKES UP facts as he go,and blames the f)&@ing press when they call him on it! He makes fun of the disabled; he calls people names; he's clearly misogynistic; he's an adulterer; he's scammed millions from employees and business partners; he has f$&@ing FAVORED MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE, he stereotypes both non-white Americans AND non-white international groups...

This fu$&ing guy is one of the worst human beings this country has offered as a politician. The fact that ANY human being supports him is an indication of one of five things:

1) Dislike of the Clinton name to the point that every accusation becomes true, no matter how ridiculous and demonstrably false, resulting in a deranged charicature of a political villain that doesn't in reality exist. Not even the Blagoiovichs or Trafficants out there are as bad as people make the Clinton's out to be.

2) Stupidity, gullibility, or desperation to the point of believing promises like "I'll be the greatest jobs/military/economy/security/
religion president ever".

3) It's SCOTUS and bust. ("And bust" because that trade off will be disastrous for EVERYONE)

4) You're just a contrarian. The future of the country isn't high on the list of concerns. and it's fun watching people freak out about Trump.

5) You're a racist and xenophobe. Or, at least, you're a lower-class white person who believes the white v. non-white narrative created by white elites to keep lower class whites on the side of white elites. ("Your one of us! Even though, you are not and will NEVER be one of us...")

That's all I can think of. Maybe there are some other good additions, like ambitious sellout (Chris Christie) or rich opportunist (business pals who Trump promised contracts).

But to suggest Trump is "better" than someone? ANYONE?! He is worse than EVERYONE.
 
Ignatius J said:
According to Democrats, it is not illegal and that makes you a xenophobe.
Click to expand...
Again, your "reasoning" here is?

Pointing out or attempting to point out hypocrisy doesn't make someone anything. Certainly not "xenophobic".

Commenting on your fear of, or certain attributes of a foreign person makes someone "xenophobic".

When you can call his comment "xenophobic", by "democrat" standards or otherwise, I see why a sneeze by HRC becomes a conspiracy to sell dirty bombs to the Taliban.
 
Fluffhead87 said:
I mostly agree with you. Wives/husbands and children should be off limits. Unless they bring the spotlight unto themselves by doing interviews and talking about things that have holes in the stories. Investigating her interview and then calling her out on it isn't "downright vicious".

But please down think only Dems (officially or left leaning individuals) have ever called out family members. See Scott Baio's post RNC msnbc interview as the most recent example ()

The 3 Obama ladies have endured many many cruel and downright vicious verbal harassment that was never spoken about the Bush female members of the family.

But, sure, only the evil left.
Click to expand...

I saw that interview live and thought it was a little much by Tamrin Hall.

Yes, Baio made a speech at the convention and put his foot in his mouth calling HRC a c$&t when pretending to be all moral and religious.

But it's Chiachi. Yes he's a good example of the delusional uninformed Trump voter, but it's CHIACHI. You don't earn yourself points by going after Chiachi.

Just ask if it was fun being there and move on.

Attack the hypocrisy of someone who is an important and influential liar/hypocrite. There are plenty of them to choose from.

This Anthony Sabato jackass who said "I'm a Christian and I know Obama is a Muslim". That's a different story. He now claims he's been "blacklisted" in Hollywood, because apparently he was getting lots of roles before.
Well, he has a right to say what he wants. And Hollywood folks or any other folks have a right to say we don't want to hire you because you seem to decide what someone's beliefs are based on their name or skin tone. Believe and say what you want, but if it's pretty offensive, you need to understand that people might not want you around.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
Ignatius J said:
According to Democrats, it is not illegal and that makes you a xenophobe.
Click to expand...

No, according to Telemundo it's not illegal.
Pooh & Annie said:
I saw that interview live and thought it was a little much by Tamrin Hall.

Yes, Baio made a speech at the convention and put his foot in his mouth calling HRC a c$&t when pretending to be all moral and religious.

But it's Chiachi. Yes he's a good example of the delusional uninformed Trump voter, but it's CHIACHI. You don't earn yourself points by going after Chiachi.

Just ask if it was fun being there and move on.

Attack the hypocrisy of someone who is an important and influential liar/hypocrite. There are plenty of them to choose from.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but at the same time the RNC tried to make him influential by putting him on stage.
And it was just the first most recent example of going after a spouse I could think of.
 
Pooh & Annie said:
This fu$&ing guy is one of the worst human beings this country has offered as a politician. The fact that ANY human being supports him is an indication of one of five things:

1) Dislike of the Clinton name to the point that every accusation becomes true, no matter how ridiculous and demonstrably false, resulting in a deranged charicature of a political villain that doesn't in reality exist. Not even the Blagoiovichs or Trafficants out there are as bad as people make the Clinton's out to be.

2) Stupidity, gullibility, or desperation to the point of believing promises like "I'll be the greatest jobs/military/economy/security/
religion president ever".

3) It's SCOTUS and bust. ("And bust" because that trade off will be disastrous for EVERYONE)

4) You're just a contrarian. The future of the country isn't high on the list of concerns. and it's fun watching people freak out about Trump.

5) You're a racist and xenophobe. Or, at least, you're a lower-class white person who believes the white v. non-white narrative created by white elites to keep lower class whites on the side of white elites. ("Your one of us! Even though, you are not and will NEVER be one of us...")

That's all I can think of. Maybe there are some other good additions, like ambitious sellout (Chris Christie) or rich opportunist (business pals who Trump promised contracts).

But to suggest Trump is "better" than someone? ANYONE?! He is worse than EVERYONE.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the whole gun thing although that may fall under point #3:rolleyes:
 
Pooh & Annie said:
This fu$&ing guy is one of the worst human beings this country has offered as a politician. The fact that ANY human being supports him is an indication of one of five things:

1) Dislike of the Clinton name to the point that every accusation becomes true, no matter how ridiculous and demonstrably false, resulting in a deranged charicature of a political villain that doesn't in reality exist. Not even the Blagoiovichs or Trafficants out there are as bad as people make the Clinton's out to be.

2) Stupidity, gullibility, or desperation to the point of believing promises like "I'll be the greatest jobs/military/economy/security/
religion president ever".

3) It's SCOTUS and bust. ("And bust" because that trade off will be disastrous for EVERYONE)

4) You're just a contrarian. The future of the country isn't high on the list of concerns. and it's fun watching people freak out about Trump.

5) You're a racist and xenophobe. Or, at least, you're a lower-class white person who believes the white v. non-white narrative created by white elites to keep lower class whites on the side of white elites. ("Your one of us! Even though, you are not and will NEVER be one of us...")
Click to expand...

#6 Dislike of the current admistration or more specifically, Barack Hussein Obama wherein feelings determine that it is true he is hands-down the worst POTUS ever AND a Muslim AND not a U.S. citizen regardless of the facts. With that said, feelings also determine that Donald unfiltered not a Muslim definitely American Trump can be a great POTUS because he appears to be nothing like Obama (including qualified but that's a miniscule detail...that's not what you care about).

And Hillary isn't an option because it's "another term for Barack Hussein Obama".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ignatius J said:
Qualifications as far as political office is very little. Although I do think he understands how big money and Washington works. And shoot, seeing how the private sector and Washington mix I am willing to see. Something new apart from the stale bread of politics as usual in Washington. I do think being in the private sector gives him a unique knowledge in regards to economic policy. He knows exactly what happens with tax cuts and credits and infrastructure spending, etc.
Click to expand...

I almost admire your faith in him. Personally, I would rather not have Trump as our "willing to see" President.

Ignatius J said:
Aside from my anti-Hillary stance, there are several positions in his platform that I would gravitate towards him from a pure policy perspective
Click to expand...

The positions from this week, last week or just today? You can actually keep up with the guy?
 
Pooh & Annie said:
Donald Trump is no better than ANYONE. That is nearly LITERALLY true.

There are Americans who for whatever reason would like to destroy this country. And there are murderers, rapists, violent criminals who have no business being in charge of people. They're worse than Trump.

But to the OBJECTIVE eye, and I DO mean OBJECTIVE, he is the most terrible wannabe politician in the history of American politics. He is not great at his own field of choice, which MOST successful businessman and business media will tell you. (Let's see his taxes so he can prove us wrong). He has shown ZERO interest in helping anyone but himself. ZERO. He doesn't understand the issues beyond a few really bad talking points. He MAKES UP facts as he go,and blames the f)&@ing press when they call him on it! He makes fun of the disabled; he calls people names; he's clearly misogynistic; he's an adulterer; he's scammed millions from employees and business partners; he has f$&@ing FAVORED MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE, he stereotypes both non-white Americans AND non-white international groups...

This fu$&ing guy is one of the worst human beings this country has offered as a politician. The fact that ANY human being supports him is an indication of one of five things:

1) Dislike of the Clinton name to the point that every accusation becomes true, no matter how ridiculous and demonstrably false, resulting in a deranged charicature of a political villain that doesn't in reality exist. Not even the Blagoiovichs or Trafficants out there are as bad as people make the Clinton's out to be.

2) Stupidity, gullibility, or desperation to the point of believing promises like "I'll be the greatest jobs/military/economy/security/
religion president ever".

3) It's SCOTUS and bust. ("And bust" because that trade off will be disastrous for EVERYONE)

4) You're just a contrarian. The future of the country isn't high on the list of concerns. and it's fun watching people freak out about Trump.

5) You're a racist and xenophobe. Or, at least, you're a lower-class white person who believes the white v. non-white narrative created by white elites to keep lower class whites on the side of white elites. ("Your one of us! Even though, you are not and will NEVER be one of us...")

That's all I can think of. Maybe there are some other good additions, like ambitious sellout (Chris Christie) or rich opportunist (business pals who Trump promised contracts).

But to suggest Trump is "better" than someone? ANYONE?! He is worse than EVERYONE.
Click to expand...

What you have above is a series of pompous opinions, conjecture, and denial.

I think point 5 is particular dangerous and a textbook example of the liberal plantation's thinking and battle plan. To control the liberal plantation is to engage in racism and class warfare.
 
Ignatius J said:
What you have above is a series of pompous opinions, conjecture, and denial.

I think point 5 is particular dangerous and a textbook example of the liberal plantation's thinking and battle plan. To control the liberal plantation is to engage in racism and class warfare.
Click to expand...

So Trump's racism is the liberal's fault?
 
RadOncDoc21 said:
So Trump's racism is the liberal's fault?
Click to expand...

It is your fault for perpetuating a narrative. Unfortunately, perception is reality for people, and Demlcrats have perfected that.

Picture this, Hillary is listening to a movement that recently put slave reparations on their platform. I'm not really sure what to even say about that. Haha.
 
Ignatius J said:
It is your fault for perpetuating a narrative. Unfortunately, perception is reality for people, and Demlcrats have perfected that.

Picture this, Hillary is listening to a movement that recently put slave reparations on their platform. I'm not really sure what to even say about that. Haha.
Click to expand...

Nice role reversal. Usually the right wing slams the left wing for perceptions of promoted lack of culpability but you just argued it's the media's fault for replaying the racist/bigoted message (you put it so PC as "a narrative") Not the speaker but instead anyone who perpetuates it? You put it so well in your above quoted reply - "I'm not sure what to even say about that. Haha."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Fluffhead87 said:
Nice role reversal. Usually the right wing slams the left wing for perceptions of promoted lack of culpability but you just argued it's the media's fault for replaying the racist/bigoted message (you put it so PC as "a narrative") Not the speaker but instead anyone who perpetuates it? You put it so well in your above quoted reply - "I'm not sure what to even say about that. Haha."
Click to expand...

I blame any and all people who think irresponsibly, yes. I just hope they allow my Roth to be exempt from the reparations!
 
Ignatius J said:
It is your fault for perpetuating a narrative. Unfortunately, perception is reality for people, and Demlcrats have perfected that.

Picture this, Hillary is listening to a movement that recently put slave reparations on their platform. I'm not really sure what to even say about that. Haha.
Click to expand...

Is this the rationale to explain how Trump is able to shoot a man and not lose a single vote from his supporters?
 
TRUMP for president = one of greatest shames in U.S. History.
 
Fluffhead87 said:
You've got an interesting way of initially giving blame:

Is it Trump's fault he speaks his words?

*sidestep* It is your fault for asking the question and perpetuating his message.
Click to expand...

No. I'm just saying I'm not egocentric enough to "blame" him because I take offense to something he says. Basically, my old man would say "grow a pair". If you are offended, good for you. But that is your emotion, not everyone else's.
 
Ignatius J said:
No. I'm just saying I'm not egocentric enough to "blame" him because I take offense to something he says. Basically, my old man would say "grow a pair". If you are offended, good for you. But that is your emotion, not everyone else's.
Click to expand...

You just said "I blame any and all people who think irresponsibly." So you have no problem blaming large groups of people for thinking but not a single person for speaking? Bet your old man would be proud you grew a pair.

I never said I was offended at a thing. Just trying to understand you and your wording that seems all over the place today.
 
Fluffhead87 said:
You just said "I blame any and all people who think irresponsibly." So you have no problem blaming large groups of people for thinking but not a single person for speaking? Bet your old man would be proud you grew a pair.

I never said I was offended at a thing. Just trying to understand you and your wording that seems all over the place today.
Click to expand...

What do you want me to go into more detail about?
 
Ignatius J said:
What do you want me to go into more detail about?
Click to expand...
Consistency

You don't blame him then you blame people on this forum then everyone for their thoughts then you aren't "egocentric enough" to blame him (but you are egocentric enough to blame the others for thinking or "perpetuating his message". Sorry @RadOncDoc21 - he says its your fault)

But it's also my fault I was offended when I hadn't mentioned anything of the sort.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Fluffhead87 said:
Consistency

You don't blame him then you blame people on this forum then everyone for their thoughts then you aren't "egocentric enough" to blame him (but you are egocentric enough to blame the others for thinking or "perpetuating his message". Sorry @RadOncDoc21 - he says its your fault)

But it's also my fault I was offended when I hadn't mentioned anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

In my defense, I think you are trying to twist my words into what you want them to be in an effort to discredit me as a Trump supporter. That's why I take my kids to eat and I have 6 different updates from you crazy folks when I am done.

I am saying that the decision to be offended is a relative term and it is irresponsible and egocentric to think your take on it represents the correct take. It's subjective.

Now quit playing this game of "I gotcha" and let's get back to Hillary being the most corrupt person to ever run for office. Thanks.
 
Ignatius J said:
Lack of being able to put things in perspective I would say is your simpleton approach. There are plenty of articles putting in context why Trump has the support that he does. To label tens of millions of Americans "nut jobs" because they disagree with you is convenient, 3rd grade thinking. I despise Hillary but I'm not naive or intellectually lazy enough to label her supporters a derogatory description or refuse to understand why people do not like Trump.
Click to expand...

The most telling articles are the ones that outline the characteristics of a highly statistically likely Trump supporter. Other than being a white male (duh), they are

1. Likely to be uneducated (no college degree)
2. Have feelings of powerlessness and voicelessness (overwhelmingly agree with statement 'people like me don't have a say about what the government does')
3. Crave authoritarianism and would give up liberty and decency for promises of higher security (support policies like killing Isis family members, using nuclear weapons, shutting down mosques, banning muslim immigration, Muslim registration, deporting US born children of illegal immigrants)
4. Live in parts of the country with high levels of racial resentment (Google a geographic heatmap outlining searches for racial slurs and jokes- it essentially superimposes on Trump's electoral support map)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ignatius J said:
In my defense, I think you are trying to twist my words into what you want them to be in an effort to discredit me as a Trump supporter. That's why I take my kids to eat and I have 6 different updates from you crazy folks when I am done.

I am saying that the decision to be offended is a relative term and it is irresponsible and egocentric to think your take on it represents the correct take. It's subjective.

Now quit playing this game of "I gotcha" and let's get back to Hillary being the most corrupt person to ever run for office. Thanks.
Click to expand...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/most-corrupt-candidate-ever-is-donald-trump.html
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/28/how-close-was-donald-trump-to-the-mob/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...75b918-60a3-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...siness_failures_corruption_scams_and_mob_ties

The last link is particularly informative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I will say that I just talked to my family, sister is a huge democrat, father major republican, and big donor. About as hardcore republican as they come.
Neither is excited about prospects. My sister will vote for Hillary, but my Dad won't vote for Trump. Both argued tonight for hours about how bad the other candidate was, and neither would support their own.
Even I dont think I can come up with a way to rationalize a vote for Trump, and I have been pretty much straight Republican ticket since starting voting (rare crossover with unique situations). I am however more energized to show up at the poll to get the other republicans a spot, since I know Trump will tank turnout. Hopefully more are like me.

Gridlock 2016!


Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile app
 
Last edited:
If Mrs. Clinton wins it will sit probably be gridlock, unless Mr. Trump still will not shut up and damages the party further, the house will be GOP and it will be at least a couple more years of the same.
 
Ignatius J said:
In my defense, I think you are trying to twist my words into what you want them to be in an effort to discredit me as a Trump supporter. That's why I take my kids to eat and I have 6 different updates from you crazy folks when I am done.

I am saying that the decision to be offended is a relative term and it is irresponsible and egocentric to think your take on it represents the correct take. It's subjective.

Now quit playing this game of "I gotcha" and let's get back to Hillary being the most corrupt person to ever run for office. Thanks.
Click to expand...

My apologies. My intention was not to twist your words but to clarify my confusion about what you meant about blame (or didn't mean).
Though at the same time you've done an amazing job of twisting words too. Of course you are right that taking offense is a personal subjective reaction, of which I never claimed (but you put those words in my mouth). I'm assuming your second paragraph above is relating 'you' to me as 2nd person singular instead of a general 2nd person plural.
But it's not like us 'crazy folks' were having a one way conversation yelling at you. We didn't hammer-page you on this forum without reply from you during dinner (not that we knew that's what you were doing). You did continue the conversation rather quickly each time you were quoted. I wouldn't have been offended if you waited a few hours then replied.
 
bRhVnLY.png
 
Ignatius J said:
Whoa.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/c...ed-iranian-scientist-on-email/article/2598807
Click to expand...
Without seeing the email itself this means nothing. She "discussed" him. Could be nothing more then mentioning his name etc.etc. I discuss national security all the time via e mail and even use the names of people involved. It is all public domain. Hell she could have just written anything.

I know I know they must have been some anti Clinton figure so the Clinton hit squad arranged his capture and execution so the cocaine fueled satanic baby killing orgies in Arkansas could be covered up.
 
deepstate2016 said:
Without seeing the email itself this means nothing. She "discussed" him. Could be nothing more then mentioning his name etc.etc. I discuss national security all the time via e mail and even use the names of people involved. It is all public domain. Hell she could have just written anything.

I know I know they must have been some anti Clinton figure so the Clinton hit squad arranged his capture and execution so the cocaine fueled satanic baby killing orgies in Arkansas could be covered up.
Click to expand...

If your email is classified then you would be committing a felony. Just interesting to say the least.
 
deepstate2016 said:
As I stated public information.
Click to expand...

This appears to be a guy linked to the State Department and CIA.

Nevertheless, at the least this highlights the type of sensitive info that was exchanged on Hillary's server. Which again, per Director Comey, was less protected than a standard gmail account.

It really boggles the mind why Secretary Clinton thought it was appropriate and points to a severe lack of judgment. Maybe she "short-circuited".
 
Ignatius J said:
Whoa.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/c...ed-iranian-scientist-on-email/article/2598807
Click to expand...

I agree with @deepstate2016. We don't know what was discussed.

I definitely think that Hillary screwed up in regards to this server debacle. However, in terms of overall Wrecklessness and carelessness as well as "judgement not suited to keep this country safe", Trump is well ahead of her.

Hillary may do bs like this where she discusses classified infomation with advisors on a private server but Trump, the possibilities are much scarier. He is the guy who may decide to do so while at the podium. Or brag it at a random world leader during a meet (and then claim he probably maybe never met that person). Or just decide to share with twitter because he determines it's not classified because...feelings. The list goes on.
 
Ignatius J said:
This appears to be a guy linked to the State Department and CIA.

Nevertheless, at the least this highlights the type of sensitive info that was exchanged on Hillary's server. Which again, per Director Comey, was less protected than a standard gmail account.

It really boggles the mind why Secretary Clinton thought it was appropriate and points to a severe lack of judgment. Maybe she "short-circuited".
Click to expand...


This is the guy that defected, claimed he had been kidnapped. All over the news. So "mentioning him" means we better get after the times the post and all the subscribers for being careless with "sensitive" information.
Like I said let us see what she really said.
 
gotname said:
I agree with @deepstate2016. We don't know what was discussed.

I definitely think that Hillary screwed up in regards to this server debacle. However, in terms of overall Wrecklessness and carelessness as well as "judgement not suited to keep this country safe", Trump is well ahead of her.

Hillary may do bs like this where she discusses classified infomation with advisors on a private server but Trump, the possibilities are much scarier. He is the guy who may decide to do so while at the podium. Or brag it at a random world leader during a meet (and then claim he probably maybe never met that person). Or just decide to share with twitter because he determines it's not classified because...feelings. The list goes on.
Click to expand...

The big question on the email is what the purpose was in setting it up, which I do not think we have ever gotten a clear answer on. You don't spend weeks to months wiping, searching, and deleting 30,000 emails from a server because you didn't want investigators to know what kind of flowers you preferred at Chelsea's wedding. And seriously, 30,000 emails, or 20+ per day for her tenure, that were "personal". Please.

Or at the very least you ask them for permission. C-O-R-R-U-P-T.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

nimbus
Cedars Union Vote
Replies
39
Views
3K
anbuitachi
A
P
Voting rights in your dept.
Replies
22
Views
3K
Bertelman
Bertelman
BLADEMDA
President Bernie Sanders
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
919
Views
44K
Consigliere
Consigliere
TeslaCoil
Jerome Adams Fired on Day One of Biden Presidency
Replies
12
Views
3K
GassYous
GassYous
O
Bernie Sanders announces he is running for President
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
333
Views
15K
XWing5000
XWing5000
Top