Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Yes your detailed logical arguments have crushed me. I see it know! The house report was wrong,
Benghazi
Started by deepstate2016
Yes your detailed logical arguments have crushed me. I see it know! The house report was wrong,
Changing the goalposts doesn't help you. You can't argue that the Clinton and Reagan are the same. You could argue it if you wanted to compare Obama though.
Hillary lied several times about the whole thing. No one died. It was retaliation for a newspaper cartoon. There was no help available. Blah blah blah.
The Beirut situation was unique. We had just begun our foray into jihad in the 70s, and this shortly followed. 40 years later, it's a different world wrt Islamic terrorism. You may not remember a life without terror warnings and TSA but I do.
Your love for Hillary is pretty pathetic, guy. She's done nothing to make this place better but has scandal after scandal following her. Not exactly the best thing.
There were multiple warnings of an attack in Beirut, the same tactic had been used one month prior. The marine guards were not allowed ammunition these facts came to light after the event but we're lied about by the regan administration.
Of course I remember time before the culture of fear, before we allowed our government to strip us of our rights.
I have no love of Mrs. Clinton. I wish to God there were better choices. I just see her as a less dangerous choice. Mr. Trump has made his intentions clear and if he acted upon them it would cause huge long-standing damage to this nations core interests. If Mrs. Clinton is elected we will end up with a ethically questionable career politician.
We as a nation have survived that without any long term loss. People's blind hatred for the Clinton's also blinds them to the real dangers Mr. Trump presents.
To reiterate
1. Not moving a goal post. Both administrations had warnings of attacks and placed completely inadequate security around victims.
2. Both lied about the events
3. Not living Clinton's on, just very clear on the dangers of a trump foreign,economic, and domestic policies.
Of course I remember time before the culture of fear, before we allowed our government to strip us of our rights.
I have no love of Mrs. Clinton. I wish to God there were better choices. I just see her as a less dangerous choice. Mr. Trump has made his intentions clear and if he acted upon them it would cause huge long-standing damage to this nations core interests. If Mrs. Clinton is elected we will end up with a ethically questionable career politician.
We as a nation have survived that without any long term loss. People's blind hatred for the Clinton's also blinds them to the real dangers Mr. Trump presents.
To reiterate
1. Not moving a goal post. Both administrations had warnings of attacks and placed completely inadequate security around victims.
2. Both lied about the events
3. Not living Clinton's on, just very clear on the dangers of a trump foreign,economic, and domestic policies.
Does not look good for clinton:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/fbi-clinton-email-server-comey-damning-lines/index.html
Would have been better for the democrats if she was just indicted because maybe then they could nominate some one else. I honestly would vote for almost anyone else besides Clinton (even Bernie, and thats from a moderate republican)... Too bad I think Trump is a megalomanic with no filter.... Might have to go 3rd party which is a shame throwing away my vote especially in a swing state.
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/fbi-clinton-email-server-comey-damning-lines/index.html
Would have been better for the democrats if she was just indicted because maybe then they could nominate some one else. I honestly would vote for almost anyone else besides Clinton (even Bernie, and thats from a moderate republican)... Too bad I think Trump is a megalomanic with no filter.... Might have to go 3rd party which is a shame throwing away my vote especially in a swing state.
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
This really changes nothing. Exoneration and saying she did no wrong is not a realistic outcome. Prosecution would have finished her. This jus keeps her where she was, those who will never vote for a Clinton still will not and those who will will hold their nose and cast a ballot.
I disagree. I was one of those people who was going to "hold my nose" and vote for clinton- mainly because I thought the GOP was making a big deal about nothing. But to hear the FBI director (who is supposedly non-partisan) say she was extremely careless and that "anyone" in her position would clearly know better makes me think twice. Who wants an "extremely careless" president?
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
You didn't already think that what she did was careless?
I agree that this announcement maintains that status quo regarding Secretary Clinton and it certainly does nothing to elevate Trump.
Would you support Petraeus? He actually gave information away. Neither candidate is a dream, but one is a total disaster. Sometimes there are no real good choices. The Clinton's have a loooooooonnnnnng record of behaviour that is not illegal but questionable. So no I am not really surprised, I like Mrs Clinton no more or no less.
No I would not support Petraeus. Despite being a good general he had extremely bad judgement. But at least he gave information away to someone who was probably harmless.
Regarding Clinton maybe I was being naive, but I believed her regarding 1. It was easy to be unaware of the security requirements around her e-mail 2. That she didn't send classified stuff on her personal server. I now have to rely on the FBI judgement since they actually saw all the possible evidence that she DID send sensitive highly classified stuff with "extreme carelessness" (even if it wasnt marked classified). And that it's very likely this resulted in hostile nations gaining access.
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
Pure supposition, one person DELIBERATELY passed classified information. One MAY have had it stolen. Do you see the difference?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Pure supposition, one person DELIBERATELY passed classified information. One MAY have had it stolen. Do you see the difference?
Petraeus was an appointed general and he lost his job and pleaded guilty to a crime, as he should have.
Clinton is running for public office and has not been charged with a crime but is being judged by the public for her character.
Do you see the difference?
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
Clinton was sending highly classified info from a completely unsecured private server while traveling extensively in countries with sophisticated cyber-warfare programs. We know from the FBI report that some of the people she sent emails to FOR SURE had their accounts compromised. We "cant be sure" if her account was compromised. I wonder if the clinton campaign is nervous that some two-bit hacker from Russia is going to "leak" these classified e-mails from her before November. That would almost certainly throw the election to Trump. I'd be nervous if I were them.
If the democrats had any sense they would nominate someone else at this point.
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
If the democrats had any sense they would nominate someone else at this point.
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
Actually he was head of the CIA at the time. Mrs. Clinton can be judged on her character that's what people do when electing a president. That is not the argument. The argument is over the legality of her actions. I have never argued that Mrs. Clinton suffers from to much character, but that many posters have concluded she had broken the law, which the FBI feels she has not.
True head of the CIA.
And I never said she committed a crime - I think the FBI assessment is accurate and think the GOP pushing the matter beyond that is actually kind of disgusting.
But saying the FBI assessment won't change anyone's mind about her character is also silly. Not everyone is polarized and made up their mind. Elections are won or lost by swing voters.
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
Usually I would agree about the swing voters, but in this case BOTH sides are so polarized I doubt ANY information about either candidate will move any voter.
I don't think anyone's changing any minds with this. She was horribly careless and she thinks she's so important that she can make her own rules. People on the left try to look past that and people in the right want to make it the center of every news cycle. Nothing new there.
She's terrible. I've never wanted to vote for a candidate less in my life. Like everyone I was ecstatic when she got trounced by Obama in 2008. And given a choice, this time I would probably vote for any republican not named Trump, Cruz, or Carson.
But it's her or Trump. He is a deplorable person and he's not very smart. He's worse than her.
You missed his point and then called him a name! Nice!
Then don't vote for her. Stay home on election day or vote for someone who actually stands for what you believe. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and the only wasted vote is the one supporting a candidate that does not represent your views. This two party bull**** mentality gave us this mess in the first place. I despise both Trump and Hillary for different reasons, and while I find one barely less repulsive than the other, I will not cast my support for either candidate, as neither is deserving.
Sent from my SM-G920V using SDN mobile
I understand you, and I think you're right. But in my opinion, Trump's vision is so anti-American that I'd like to see him beaten so badly that it's embarrassing. Not as a vote of confidence for Hillary, but as a message that most American's are not racist, xenophobic, anti-intellectual, money-grubbing misogynists. It's embarrassing enough that he made it this far. He's dumb, a blatant liar, and he doesn't represent what America is about (in my opinion).
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
And you think there are only 2 candidates to choose from. [emoji6]
Sometimes, people are schmucks. If I came barreling in telling everyone to shut it, I'd expect to be called a schmuck too. [emoji106]
I understand.
Throwing around a name-calling or insult I guess isn't terrible if used very sparingly. But looking at your posts here and in the other forums you seem to like dismissing other people's points and ridiculing them. Maybe sometimes they DO deserve it, but like everyone else in the world, you're human and prone to misinterpretation and being wrong about things. Then when you keep posting as if other people's arguments are beneath you, you come across as an intolerant know-it-all who actually knows just about the same as everyone else, sometimes less.
I would and will vote for Johnson if he has a shot, although I need to read up more on his economics. But the fact is, he probably won't have a shot.
As long as there is gerrymandering, unlimited money, unlimited lobbying power, voter suppression, unlimited congressional terms, and unlimited media coverage to headline candidates, it will often (if not always), come down to the least terrible candidate. I think it's just as important to vote pragmatically as it is to vote purely philosophically. But I absolutely understand anyone's third party vote.
As long as there is gerrymandering, unlimited money, unlimited lobbying power, voter suppression, unlimited congressional terms, and unlimited media coverage to headline candidates, it will often (if not always), come down to the least terrible candidate. I think it's just as important to vote pragmatically as it is to vote purely philosophically. But I absolutely understand anyone's third party vote.
.
Wait a minute. When did I ever call you a name. And aren't you doing exactly what you are complaining about in your last sentence? Come on. Just because someone has a different opinion and calls you on something they disagree with, it's not being intolerant. It's discourse. Not everyone has to agree and sing kumbaya.
At least I don't call you, or anyone else stupid, even if I think they're a schmuck.
At least I don't call you, or anyone else stupid, even if I think they're a schmuck.
