Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote: Rather than argue about some anti-vaxxer site's value as a factual source, let's look at what the FBI said.
... we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information,
...
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
...
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
So...breaking the law is OK and not punishable, so long as you didn't intend to break it?
She either did or she did not. I don't see what intent should have to do with the decision on whether to bring charges.
Essentially the core basis of anglo-saxon law is that in order to commit a crime you have to form the mental intention to commit a crime. To put it another way, if you accidentally kill someone, you did not commit murder, because murder is the crime of deliberately killing someone. You can only commit the crime of murder by first deciding you are going to try to kill someone and then kill them.
As if to doubly emphasise that point, the specific law we are talking about states that you have to intend to send or allow to be sent, useful information, to a foreign power, to be used to the detriment of the US defence situation.
There isn't the thinnest shred of evidence that the Secretary of State had any intentions in that direction at all. She was careless with her email set up, that's all.
Hence she did not break the law, there was no crime, and therefore the FBI report said there was no grounds to charge her.
And that is only if you believe that she was that ignorant about it all. A former First Lady for 8 years. A Senator who spent 6 years on the Armed Services Committee, and the Secretary of State, was totally ignorant on the handling of classified materials.
Again, I posit, for someone who spent 17 years, surrounded by classified data, how could she be that ignorant of it all? Either she's dumb, which I don't think anyone here would argue, or she just didn't give a gak.
Kilkrazy wrote: Essentially the core basis of anglo-saxon law is that in order to commit a crime you have to form the mental intention to commit a crime. To put it another way, if you accidentally kill someone, you did not commit murder, because murder is the crime of deliberately killing someone. You can only commit the crime of murder by first deciding you are going to try to kill someone and then kill them.
But at least in Finland you would be commiting negligent homicide and getting charged with that.
Future War Cultist wrote: Surely though it's concerning how careless she was with sensitive information?
The law doesn't concern carelessness, it concerns intentional release of sensitive defence information.
She wasn't all that careless. The information wasn't particularly sensitive, for example in one case it was a list of points she was supposed to go over in a meeting, and there wasn't mucb of it, and it didn't impinge on defence matters.
I mean it's a bit like someone parking in a no parking zone, because they didn't see or pretended not to see the restriction notice, and then people thinking they should be prosecuted for ram raiding a bank or something.
Kilkrazy wrote: Rather than argue about some anti-vaxxer site's value as a factual source, let's look at what the FBI said.
... we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, ... In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. ... As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
So...breaking the law is OK and not punishable, so long as you didn't intend to break it?
She either did or she did not. I don't see what intent should have to do with the decision on whether to bring charges.
Essentially the core basis of anglo-saxon law is that in order to commit a crime you have to form the mental intention to commit a crime. To put it another way, if you accidentally kill someone, you did not commit murder, because murder is the crime of deliberately killing someone. You can only commit the crime of murder by first deciding you are going to try to kill someone and then kill them.
As if to doubly emphasise that point, the specific law we are talking about states that you have to intend to send or allow to be sent, useful information, to a foreign power, to be used to the detriment of the US defence situation.
There isn't the thinnest shred of evidence that the Secretary of State had any intentions in that direction at all. She was careless with her email set up, that's all.
Hence she did not break the law, there was no crime, and therefore the FBI report said there was no grounds to charge her.
Setting up an unapproved homebrew email server blows up the "she didn't intend to break any laws" defense.
Here's the biggest thing about this whole farcial non-intent justificaiton.
Dir. Comey and the FBI acted on a very narrow investigation order.
It was Hillary herself and her e-mails only.
This was purposeful and hamstrung the investigation from the start.
Therefore, the FBI did not investigate the "air gap" of how secure content on the government system got moved to Hillary's home brew. This almost certainly had to involve some combination of Huma, Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, or other inner-circle staff.
With none of them made a target in this investigation...much of the case was lost.
So... finding no explicit intent? BLAM! No conspiracy.
This could EASILY be proven without any minion flipping, just with time logs of who accessed what and when... then reconcile it to the classified emails on Hillary's homebrew.
This should have been a relatively easy case to make. Had it been done in such fashion...
Speaking of intent:
Whoa. HRod's now immunity-protected BleachBitter Paul Combetta on REDDIT two years ago. https://t.co/M7khmkEek0 pic.twitter.com/KqHJhiRerY
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) September 19, 2016
Here's the waybackpage of the deleted reddit post.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/19 20:06:07
CNN-Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson on Sunday said he was glad no one had been injured during the recent attacks in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota - but the incidents caused dozens of injuries.
"I'm just grateful that nobody got hurt," Johnson said on CNN when asked about the attacks.
CNN-Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson on Sunday said he was glad no one had been injured during the recent attacks in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota - but the incidents caused dozens of injuries.
"I'm just grateful that nobody got hurt," Johnson said on CNN when asked about the attacks.
On Monday, Joe Hunter, a spokesman for Mr. Johnson’s campaign said that the candidate had quickly issued a Twitter response saying that he’d misspoken and meant to say that no one had been killed.
I'm pretty sure that's what he meant. I never try to hold folks responsible for slips of the tongue, such as Hillary's "raise taxes on the Middle Class" slip.
CNN-Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson on Sunday said he was glad no one had been injured during the recent attacks in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota - but the incidents caused dozens of injuries.
"I'm just grateful that nobody got hurt," Johnson said on CNN when asked about the attacks.
Heh... another aleppo brain fart.
One slip, yeah, it's a brain fart. This, so recently after the Aleppo failure, and methinks it's more like dain bamage.
CNN-Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson on Sunday said he was glad no one had been injured during the recent attacks in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota - but the incidents caused dozens of injuries.
"I'm just grateful that nobody got hurt," Johnson said on CNN when asked about the attacks.
Heh... another aleppo brain fart.
One slip, yeah, it's a brain fart. This, so recently after the Aleppo failure, and methinks it's more like dain bamage.
With Gary Johnson I get the feeling it's like that scene from Futurama, when the crew get hurled backwards through time ("that's not what happened!") and a teenage Fry goes to the sewers to date a teenage Leela.
"What is he, like the biggest loser on the surface, so he has to come to the sewer to hang out with the mutants?"
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Kilkrazy wrote: Essentially the core basis of anglo-saxon law is that in order to commit a crime you have to form the mental intention to commit a crime. To put it another way, if you accidentally kill someone, you did not commit murder, because murder is the crime of deliberately killing someone. You can only commit the crime of murder by first deciding you are going to try to kill someone and then kill them.
But at least in Finland you would be commiting negligent homicide and getting charged with that.
Negligent homicide is the killing of someone via gross negligence. Basically doing something so reckless that it constitutes a complete disregard for the safety of others (driving on the wrong side of the road,). General Homicide charges in the US usually require "malice" which is intent to cause someone harm. Felony homicide is the killing of someone while committing another crime, regardless of malice (i.e. intent to kill someone).
Intent is the distinction between these crimes. Clinton being gung ho with system security isn't great, but it's not criminal, and honestly this is a mistake that probably gets made a lot in the US government. We just don't care when anyone but Hillary does it for some reason.
This should have been a relatively easy case to make. Had it been done in such fashion...
I see the confusion now. See this was an investigation. I think what you're looking for is an Inquisition. Easy mistake to make.
On Monday, Joe Hunter, a spokesman for Mr. Johnson’s campaign said that the candidate had quickly issued a Twitter response saying that he’d misspoken and meant to say that no one had been killed.
I'm pretty sure that's what he meant. I never try to hold folks responsible for slips of the tongue, such as Hillary's "raise taxes on the Middle Class" slip.
Funny...A linguist went over her speech and she had a 'not' in there. This was even discussed in this thread.
Considering that the Hillary is corrupt stuff has been going on for 25 years with no charges or anything to show for it, there are really only three possible conclusions:
1) The government, at every possible level from local to federal, is too stupid to find evidence of anything. That includes anything from fraud to murder. At no point was any law enforcement agency or any investigator able to find evidence to even bring a single charge of anything.
2) Hillary Clinton is the most powerful person to ever walk into politics. Her influence and control is greater than that of the Rothschields, the Illuminati, and/or the reptile people. She is able to make charges, and people, disappear without any consequences of any kind.
3) it's all a bunch of horse gak.
My opinion on the three options:
1) Considering that the government routinely catches politicians and files charges and gets convictons, this isn't very likely. Heck, Trump has been caught how many times?
2) If she is the queen of the lizard people, wouldn't we want someone powerful like that running out country?
3) Probably the most likely scenario.
Also: considering that Trump has been caught doing all the things Hillary has been accused of doing, has admitted to doing them, has bragged about doing them, and has paid fines for doing them, and hasn't been called out for it by people that are constantly calling Hillary unqualified for anything because of these things, shows me that the problem is not about what the accusations are, but that the problem is the person being accused.
This should have been a relatively easy case to make. Had it been done in such fashion...
I see the confusion now. See this was an investigation. I think what you're looking for is an Inquisition. Easy mistake to make.
:sigh:
With respect to national fething security, yes I expect nothing less than a thorough investigation.
Snark all you want claiming that this would be an Inquisition.
Information from the Classified system (SIPRNet) does not magically jump from the Classified system to the Unclassified System or her Unclassified homebrew server. Someone or multiple parties copied and or transcibed it and sent it to Clinton's homebrew system.
We already have an email proving that Hilliry instructs Jake Sullivan to REMOVE the Classification Header and send Unclassified. The markings do not make something Classified but instead it is the contents. This in itself is a felony. It also shows how galling she lied to the FBI that she didn't know what the (C) meant in her communications.
So, yes... the FBI should've gone after the small fish to get the big fish...
Kilkrazy wrote: Rather than argue about some anti-vaxxer site's value as a factual source, let's look at what the FBI said.
... we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information,
...
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
...
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
So...breaking the law is OK and not punishable, so long as you didn't intend to break it?
She either did or she did not. I don't see what intent should have to do with the decision on whether to bring charges.
Essentially the core basis of anglo-saxon law is that in order to commit a crime you have to form the mental intention to commit a crime. To put it another way, if you accidentally kill someone, you did not commit murder, because murder is the crime of deliberately killing someone. You can only commit the crime of murder by first deciding you are going to try to kill someone and then kill them.
As if to doubly emphasise that point, the specific law we are talking about states that you have to intend to send or allow to be sent, useful information, to a foreign power, to be used to the detriment of the US defence situation.
There isn't the thinnest shred of evidence that the Secretary of State had any intentions in that direction at all. She was careless with her email set up, that's all.
Hence she did not break the law, there was no crime, and therefore the FBI report said there was no grounds to charge her.
Setting up an unapproved homebrew email server blows up the "she didn't intend to break any laws" defense.
Here's the biggest thing about this whole farcial non-intent justificaiton.
Dir. Comey and the FBI acted on a very narrow investigation order.
It was Hillary herself and her e-mails only.
This was purposeful and hamstrung the investigation from the start.
Therefore, the FBI did not investigate the "air gap" of how secure content on the government system got moved to Hillary's home brew. This almost certainly had to involve some combination of Huma, Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, or other inner-circle staff.
With none of them made a target in this investigation...much of the case was lost.
So... finding no explicit intent? BLAM! No conspiracy.
This could EASILY be proven without any minion flipping, just with time logs of who accessed what and when... then reconcile it to the classified emails on Hillary's homebrew.
This should have been a relatively easy case to make. Had it been done in such fashion...
Speaking of intent:
Whoa. HRod's now immunity-protected BleachBitter Paul Combetta on REDDIT two years ago. https://t.co/M7khmkEek0 pic.twitter.com/KqHJhiRerY
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) September 19, 2016
Here's the waybackpage of the deleted reddit post.
Yeah, for me the mishandling of classified information isn't nearly as important or upsetting as the whole premise for her private server in the first place, so she could avoid having to disclose anything to the American people. I don't want somebody to be PotUS if their staff IT people think that a subpoena requesting records prompts them to delete those records. Having politicians hide their work from the American people is bad and we have the Freedom of Information Act and subpoenas to prevent that from happening. If Hillary doesn't want the American people to know what she's doing then she shouldn't be placed in a position of authority.
December 2014 / January 2015 – “Undisclosed Clinton staff member” instructs Combetta to remove archives of Clinton emails from PRN server but he forgets.
March 4, 2015 – Hillary receives subpoena from House Select Committee on Benghazi instructing her to preserve and deliver all emails from her personal servers.
March 25, 2015 – Combetta has a conference call with “President Clinton’s Staff.”
March 25 – 31, 2015 – Combetta has “oh gak” moment and realizes he forgot to wipe Hillary’s email archive from the PRN server back in December…which he promptly does using BleachBit.
February 18, 2016 - Combetta meets with FBI and denies knowing about the existense of the subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi at the time he wiped Hillary's server.
May 3, 2016 - Combetta has follow-up meeting with the FBI and admits that he "was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's e-mail data on the PRN server.
Given this fact pattern, we would be very curious to know exactly when Paul Combetta was granted immunity by the Justice Department. Perhaps that immunity was granted sometime after February 18, 2016, when Combetta had troubles recalling the issuance of a subpoena, but before May 3, 2016, when he seemed to recover from his unfortunate bout of amnesia. Just a guess.
Earlier this week, the chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform sent the following letter to Platte River Networks asking officials to appear before Congress to testify on how Hillary's email account was set up and how the messages were deleted. That said, it's now unclear whether this request for testimony will go anywhere given the new information that Combetta has been granted immunity.
Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said that the deletions by the specialist, who worked for a Colorado company called Platte River Networks, had already been “thoroughly examined by the F.B.I. prior to its decision to close out this case.”
“As the F.B.I.’s report notes,” Mr. Fallon said, “neither Hillary Clinton nor her attorneys had knowledge of the Platte River Network employee’s actions. It appears he acted on his own and against guidance given by both Clinton’s and Platte River’s attorneys to retain all data in compliance with a congressional preservation request.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/19 20:43:33
whembly wrote: With respect to national fething security, yes I expect nothing less than a thorough investigation.
Snark all you want claiming that this would be an Inquisition.
What would you call a steadfast refusal to accept any outcome but the one you want, with no consideration for legal rights or investigatory procedure?
So, yes... the FBI should've gone after the small fish to get the big fish...
Sounds like an Inquisition to me. To hell with civil rights, logic, or even basic reason. She's guilty and you will never accept any answer that doesn't give you that verdict, even when an exhaustive months long investigation says otherwise in plain ink because it will always be "they didn't investigate hard enough."
It's unclear whether the talking points themselves contained classified information
But she clearly sent classified emails nonsecure because she's guilty and anything that says otherwise is just part of the conspiracy of people who don't think cyber security matters.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/19 20:50:39
This should have been a relatively easy case to make. Had it been done in such fashion...
I see the confusion now. See this was an investigation. I think what you're looking for is an Inquisition. Easy mistake to make.
:sigh:
With respect to national fething security, yes I expect nothing less than a thorough investigation.
Snark all you want claiming that this would be an Inquisition.
Information from the Classified system (SIPRNet) does not magically jump from the Classified system to the Unclassified System or her Unclassified homebrew server. Someone or multiple parties copied and or transcibed it and sent it to Clinton's homebrew system.
We already have an email proving that Hilliry instructs Jake Sullivan to REMOVE the Classification Header and send Unclassified. The markings do not make something Classified but instead it is the contents. This in itself is a felony. It also shows how galling she lied to the FBI that she didn't know what the (C) meant in her communications.
So, yes... the FBI should've gone after the small fish to get the big fish...
Again, like every time you repeat this same old argument:
Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
Talking points are generally non-classified, and removing the classified material and identifying information is pretty much standard procedure for making something non-classified. And once it's non-classified it's allowed to send it non-secure.
Heck, the whole process is pretty much how you get responses to FOIA requests, by removing classified material and identifying information and sending it nonsecure to the people who requested the information. I guess every respondent to a FIOA request is a felon as well.
I'm rejecting the point because it's nothing but your steadfast refusal to accept any outcome but the one you want. There is no evidence she lied, just your presumption that she must have lied because she's guilty. Repeating something until it becomes true only works on talk radio and the New York Times best sellers list.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/19 21:00:42
I'm rejecting the point because it's nothing but your steadfast refusal to accept any outcome but the one you want. There is no evidence she lied, just your presumption that she must have lied because she's guilty. Repeating something until it becomes true only works on talk radio and the New York Times best sellers list.
No... you're rejecting this because you're whiteknighting your desired candidate, or very pro-Democrat.
It's one thing to support Clinton because you don't want Trump to ever set foot in the White House. I get that... I really do.
But, to ignore the very real malfeasance that goes along with the Clintons? That's just being obtuse.
Clinton tried to use her appearance at a joint session of associations of black and Hispanic journalists to defuse a mounting controversy over her recent remarks about her emails. Over the past week, she cited Comey’s public comments from last month to demonstrate she was truthful about her private email use and had not put at risk classified information in the messages she sent and received.
What resulted Friday were still more mischaracterizations.
No... you're rejecting this because you're whiteknighting your desired candidate, or very pro-Democrat.
Because no one could ever disagree with you unless they're "white knights" and "pro-democrat."
But, to ignore the very real malfeasance that goes along with the Clintons? That's just being obtuse.
I accept that Clinton and her staff were careless, display a staggering lack of knowledge about IT to the point I wonder if any of them ever took a computer science class in their lives. I even accept that in reality anyone other than a sitting SoS running for the white house probably would have been drummed out of politics for this, not because it's the worst scandal ever, but because people really have been ruined for less.
What I ignore is this conspiratorial BS, that masquerades as objectivity. If I'm a white knight for anything, its sensibility in politics. I'm tired of this brand of political theater. It was stupid when the Republicans dragged Bill through hearing after hearing over the definition of is. It was stupid when the Democrats did it to Bush over the Iraq war. It was stupid when the Republicans embarrassed themselves investigating Benghazi, and it's stupid now. I'm tire of tax dollars being wasted in witch hunts, and I'm tired of frothing at the mouth partisanship trying to pretend it's anything else and especially, more than anything, I'm tired of this crap where anyone who calls dry gak what it is being slapped with "white knighting" for nothing more than wanting the toilet to be flushed and the stupidity to end.
What I ignore is this conspiratorial BS, that masquerades as objectivity. If I'm a white knight for anything, its sensibility in politics. I'm tired of this brand of political theater. It was stupid when the Republicans dragged Bill through hearing after hearing over the definition of is. It was stupid when the Democrats did it to Bush over the Iraq war. It was stupid when the Republicans embarrassed themselves investigating Benghazi, and it's stupid now. I'm tire of tax dollars being wasted in witch hunts, and I'm tired of frothing at the mouth partisanship trying to pretend it's anything else and especially, more than anything, I'm tired of this crap where anyone who calls dry gak what it is being slapped with "white knighting" for nothing more than wanting the toilet to be flushed and the stupidity to end.
I want this on a T-shirt.
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?)
Case and point. You can't even read the title Whem.
Hillary Clinton's wrong claim that FBI director Comey called her comments about email 'truthful'
You can't even read the article!
Comey said, "We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI."
Comey never said she lied. He never backed her up as she claimed.
Clinton said regarding the presence of classified information in her email, FBI director James "Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I've said is consistent with what I have told the American people."
A reasonable person would interpret Clinton’s statement to mean that Comey has endorsed her public remarks about her email. This is not the case.
Basic reading has been sacrificed on the pedestal of this inane prattle.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/19 21:41:24
Politics is, and always has been, a dirty, stinking, vicious mess. The more power up for grabs, the truer this is. As one half of Washington's elite power couples, HRC must be dirty, because the whole system is covered in gak.
This is an inescapable fact of politics.
The reality is, you need to have someone in the White House in November, be it HRC, Trump, or Stein/Johnson.
Of your available candidates, HRC is the only one remotely qualified for the job.
Yeah, yeah, lied, politics for sale, take our guns, Bengazhi!!, etc.
Still the only person available remotely qualified.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
One of the interesting things that I have heard a few times during the past week is that the head of the GOP is talking about punishments for Republican candidates who are not backing Trump. He said that they had to sign contracts to get access to their database and other things, and that part of the contract was the pledge to back the eventual nominee. And if they refuse to endorse, or worse speak out against him, they should face punishments. He made that argument during my infamous "stuck in talk radio land" drive last week, and I've seen it a few times online now.
Which just leaves me confused. Is the GOP and conservative talk radio okay with private contracts restricting free speech and people facing consequences by private organizations for things they said that violates their contract?
Which just leaves me confused. Is the GOP and conservative talk radio okay with private contracts restricting free speech and people facing consequences by private organizations for things they said that violates their contract?
Yep. One of the things they are consistent on is that you have no rights if you want to work for someone/something.
d-usa wrote: One of the interesting things that I have heard a few times during the past week is that the head of the GOP is talking about punishments for Republican candidates who are not backing Trump. He said that they had to sign contracts to get access to their database and other things, and that part of the contract was the pledge to back the eventual nominee. And if they refuse to endorse, or worse speak out against him, they should face punishments. He made that argument during my infamous "stuck in talk radio land" drive last week, and I've seen it a few times online now.
Which just leaves me confused. Is the GOP and conservative talk radio okay with private contracts restricting free speech and people facing consequences by private organizations for things they said that violates their contract?
That's no restriction on free speech at all. Political parties are private entities and have memberships, by laws, etc. If you choose to become a member of the GOP and choose to be a candidate for office and want the Party to back you and support you then you have to play by the Party's rules. You're still free to say or not say whatever you want but the GOP controls their party and the conditions that must be met to gain access to Party resources. The Democrats do the exact same thing hence the whole kerfluffle over Debbie Wasserman Schilz not giving Bernie equal access to all of the Party resources that were made available to Hillary.
Which just leaves me confused. Is the GOP and conservative talk radio okay with private contracts restricting free speech and people facing consequences by private organizations for things they said that violates their contract?
Yep. One of the things they are consistent on is that you have no rights if you want to work for someone/something.
Except when someone is being censured for being racist/transphobic/generally talking out their backside.
Then it's SJW/femnazi/cuck tyranny.
Talking about the subhuman trolls from the alt-right mostly here. Not your run of the mill conservative.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Which just leaves me confused. Is the GOP and conservative talk radio okay with private contracts restricting free speech and people facing consequences by private organizations for things they said that violates their contract?
Yep. One of the things they are consistent on is that you have no rights if you want to work for someone/something.
If you don't like a contract you don't have to sign it. You control your own labor. No rights are violated by a private political party having by laws that put conditions on access to Party resources.
feeder wrote: Politics is, and always has been, a dirty, stinking, vicious mess. The more power up for grabs, the truer this is. As one half of Washington's elite power couples, HRC must be dirty, because the whole system is covered in gak.
This is an inescapable fact of politics.
The reality is, you need to have someone in the White House in November, be it HRC, Trump, or Stein/Johnson.
Of your available candidates, HRC is the only one remotely qualified for the job.
Yeah, yeah, lied, politics for sale, take our guns, Bengazhi!!, etc.
Still the only person available remotely qualified.
That is a demonstrably false statement. All the candidates on the ballot Trump, Clinton, Johnson and Stein meet the constitutional qualifications to be President of the USA. What you are claiming is that Clinton is the only candidate worthy of being PotUS which is a matter of subjective opinion. Hillary has the second highest unfavorable rating in the decades spanning history of PotUS candidate unfavorable ratings, only Trump ranks higher. If the "best" candidate running is the second most disliked candidate ever then it's no wonder that so many people are apathetic and disappointed in this election.
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?) 
