US Politics

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.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Ouze wrote:
So, something a little odd came about at the tail end of the election, both in this thread a little, and on the internet at large: Don't vote for HRC because she will start WWIII over the no-fly zone in Syria.

It's funny, because I've seen that from some of the same people that argued that Mitt Romney was totally right about Russia, and that Obama was totally weak because he wouldn't do anything in Syria or Crimea. Yet, HRC suggests standing against Russian aggression, and it's a reason to vote against her. Consistency really took it in the shorts.

I was just saying the same thing to my buddy the other day. I mean, it really makes absolutely no sense. The same guy that has promised to bring World War II-style total war to the Middle East, has allegedly questioned why we don't use our nuclear arsenal, wants to renege on our decades-long treaties, and has actively supported nuclear proliferation is somehow the person that isn't going to start "unnecessary wars."

**Sarouan**

Kilkrazy wrote:
whembly wrote:
..
Oh. I'm sorry to tell you that you're gravely mistaken that I'm rooting for Trump.

It's just that you've spent the past year going CLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILS CLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILS CLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILS CLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILS

Trump is just as bad

CLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILS

CLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILS

Trump is just as bad

BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHA BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHA BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHAZI FOUNDATION BIMBO HELL EMAILSCLINTON IS BAT WINGED BIMBO FROM HELL BENGHAZI EMAILS BENGHAZI EMAILS FOUNDATION BENGHA

So, you know, your coverage of the election just seems a little bit biased.

Damn. So many bats with Clinton...That must mean Hillary Clinton is Batwoman!

Have my exalt, good sir.

...

On a more serious note, I believe the violence on social medias isn't the same for previous elections. Maybe it's just myself, and I guess I don't recall what happened last time, but I believe it's not the same tone. That's why it makes me wonder some troubles may happen.

**Breotan**

Kilkrazy wrote:
So, you know, your coverage of the election just seems a little bit biased.

He never claimed to be unbiased, and being less critical of Trump than he is of Hillary does not make him a Trump supporter. Suggesting otherwise is not only wrong, it's insulting.

**djones520**

Breotan wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
So, you know, your coverage of the election just seems a little bit biased.

He never claimed to be unbiased, and being less critical of Trump than he is of Hillary does not make him a Trump supporter. Suggesting otherwise is not only wrong, it's insulting.

Hey, anything to bash Whembly, right?

**Breotan**

djones520 wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
So, you know, your coverage of the election just seems a little bit biased.

He never claimed to be unbiased, and being less critical of Trump than he is of Hillary does not make him a Trump supporter. Suggesting otherwise is not only wrong, it's insulting.

Hey, anything to bash Whembly, right?

I don't care if people get bashed for their views, just characterize them correctly if you're going to do so.

**whembly**

Breotan wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
So, you know, your coverage of the election just seems a little bit biased.

He never claimed to be unbiased, and being less critical of Trump than he is of Hillary does not make him a Trump supporter. Suggesting otherwise is not only wrong, it's insulting.

Hey, anything to bash Whembly, right?

I don't care if people get bashed for their views, just characterize them correctly if you're going to do so.

S'okay guys... I've stuck a nerve.

I can take unwarranted criticism here... it's The Thumderdome™ after all!

**d-usa**

It's pretty warranted. I'm pretty confident that you cemented yourself as the single most hypocritical poster on this board today.

**NinthMusketeer**

At least his statements are worded intelligently, and its conceivable how someone could have the positions he does. These are not qualities common among the right these days.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
It's pretty warranted. I'm pretty confident that you cemented yourself as the single most hypocritical poster on this board today.

*picks up mirror*

*hands mirror to d-usa*

You should take a look...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NinthMusketeer wrote:
At least his statements are worded intelligently, and its conceivable how someone could have the positions he does. These are not qualities common among the right these days.

Thanks.

They are *my* opinions... and I do try to justify them.

**motyak**

Enough with the personal stuff. If you think a user is posting drivel, just put them on ignore, flag the post if you think it breaks a rule, or don't respond to them. If you don't like a user calling you out, just put them on ignore, flag the post if you think it breaks a rule, or don't respond to them. This petty personal gak on top of this trainwreck of a thread isn't going to continue. Users will conduct themselves in a more mature manner in this thread from hereon out. It's enough of a mess as it is.

**Mitochondria**

The problem is not Hillary's, "personally owned email server".

Others in the government have had private servers.

The problem has to do with three specific issues.

1. Not physically located in a private facility. As far as I know all other private servers have been physically located in a government facility.

2. Not managed by non-government, non-credentialed technicians. As far as I know all other private servers have been managed by credentialed government technicians.

3. Complete failure to abide by document archival procedures as laid out by federal law.

She was partially truthful when she said, "other politicians" have had private email servers.

What she omitted was that the others were operated, housed, maintained, and backed up by trained government technicians in government facilities.

While her FOIA avoiding, unsecured, gak server was hidden in someone's spare bathroom in a private residence.

**BigWaaagh**

Mitochondria wrote:
The problem is not Hillary's, "personally owned email server".

Others in the government have had private servers.

The problem has to do with three specific issues.

1. Not physically located in a private facility. As far as I know all other private servers have been physically located in a government facility.

2. Not managed by non-government, non-credentialed technicians. As far as I know all other private servers have been managed by credentialed government technicians.

3. Complete failure to abide by document archival procedures as laid out by federal law.

She was partially truthful when she said, "other politicians" have had private email servers.

What she omitted was that the others were operated, housed, maintained, and backed up by trained government technicians in government facilities.

While her FOIA avoiding, unsecured, gak server was hidden in someone's spare bathroom in a private residence.

The email server was located in the Clintons' home in Chappaqua, New York, until 2013, when it was sent to a data center in New Jersey before being handed over to Platte River Networks, a Denver-based information technology firm that Clinton hired to manage her email system.

Would you care to eleaborate on the "...in someone's spare bathroom in a private residence." comment?

**jasper76**

@Whembley, after its all said and done, you ended up voting for Clinton like the rest of us, didn't you?

(Its OK,if you're not ready to come out publicly, but you know we'd all accept you if you did)

**Ustrello**

Mitochondria wrote:
The problem is not Hillary's, "personally owned email server".

Others in the government have had private servers.

The problem has to do with three specific issues.

1. Not physically located in a private facility. As far as I know all other private servers have been physically located in a government facility.

2. Not managed by non-government, non-credentialed technicians. As far as I know all other private servers have been managed by credentialed government technicians.

3. Complete failure to abide by document archival procedures as laid out by federal law.

She was partially truthful when she said, "other politicians" have had private email servers.

What she omitted was that the others were operated, housed, maintained, and backed up by trained government technicians in government facilities.

While her FOIA avoiding, unsecured, gak server was hidden in someone's spare bathroom in a private residence.

One of the R witch hunt leaders had a private email server himself

**Ouze**

Mitochondria wrote:
The problem is not Hillary's, "personally owned email server".

Others in the government have had private servers.

The problem has to do with three specific issues.

1. Not physically located in a private facility. As far as I know all other private servers have been physically located in a government facility.

2. Not managed by non-government, non-credentialed technicians. As far as I know all other private servers have been managed by credentialed government technicians.

3. Complete failure to abide by document archival procedures as laid out by federal law.

She was partially truthful when she said, "other politicians" have had private email servers.

What she omitted was that the others were operated, housed, maintained, and backed up by trained government technicians in government facilities.

While her FOIA avoiding, unsecured, gak server was hidden in someone's spare bathroom in a private residence.

The interesting thing about this is you're responding to a post where people pointed out similar examples, and you managed to let all the facts that didn't work for you slide right off, like water off a duck, to repeat your original argument. Either you don't understand the original argument - for example, this is similar to GWB43.com, or Chris Christie, Sarah Palins, etc's use of AOL and Yahoo accounts - or you are being intentionally obtuse, and neither situation really warrants any serious engagement with you.

I'm going to naively assume it's the former, though, and suggest you read a little more up on what we're talking about.

**BigWaaagh**

This is addressed to no one, but every one. I just need to get this off my chest, pardon the rant.

I'm 54 and a moderate Republican-leaning Independent. I've only voted Democrat POTUS candidates 3 times in my life. WJC second term, Obama both terms. I have voted GOP straight ticket many times throughout my life, I used to be a card carrying member of the RNC, but unfortunately that party has devolved in ways that I don't even recognize it anymore. So this time, I'm voting to keep America the country it was designed to be so I'll be going HRC without a second's hesitation.

I've watched this election with the perspective of age and experience that a lot of you don't have. That's not a judgemental statement, but a simple fact that comes with having lived a chunk of life. If you think things are messed up, you're right, they are. In my life I've seen real criminals in politics and I've seen genuinely good and qualified people in politics, but the thing that this election has that is unique to anything I've ever seen is Donald Trump and the potential he has, based on his own words, for utterly destroying the fabric of who we are as a nation and what makes our country great. Yes, America, you're great right now regardless of what the fear mongers say.

Firstly, this whole email affair is the biggest pile of bullgak I've ever seen people swallow up with a spoon. Yes, in the big global reality scheme of things, and we're talking about POTUS here, it's utter bullgak.

Yes, it was careless and possibly a bit arrogant, no debate, but that's really the meat of it. No criminal charges. No foreign collusion. No treasonous intent.

Yet here we stand on the brink of an election where a petulent, vindictive, just horrible gak of a man and tyrant wannabe has a very real chance of becoming the next POTUS and some prople are losing their minds over emails. WHAT THE FETH! ARE YOU KIDDING?

This man has every telltale sign of a fascist in the making. He's lining up boogeymen to target when he's elected. He has openly embraced and welcomed the lowest scum and thugs of our society. He's flippantly commented about limiting the press, imprisoning people who haven't been convicted of a crime...any of this sound similar to the tactics of any other prominent megalomaniacal dictators in history?...militarily striking our enemies with the ultimate weapon while also seeking to spread and proliferate the same, he's an undeniable demagogue, he's a blatant racist, misogynist, adulterer and xenophobe and he's going to be able to put forward Supreme Court nominations? OH FOR GOD'S SAKE, WHAT KIND OF FUTURE IS THAT GOING TO MAKE FOR OUR COUNTRY?! Not to mention, and this is just staggering to me, he's an unwitting pawn of Russia...CIA director's words, not mine...a country HE'S INVITED TO HACK US very publicly, a country he's financially beholding to, a country that has been proven to be messing around with the election in a manner favorable to Trump, a country that his aides do business with and have strong ties to, a country whose dicta...um, President...is a man he admires. WHAT KIND OF KOOL-AID ARE PEOPLE DRINKING!

Then there's the whole false equivalency lie being embraced by those without the spine to justify not standing up and picking a side. Votes are being thrown away on third party candidates so completely unsuited for the Presidency that it beggars belief. I'm sorry, while I respect your right to vote for who you want, that doesn't change the fact that you're making it possible for this individual and his ilk to hijack our nation. Enough with the "I'm voting against ____" crap. If you don't think the stakes are that high, well, they are this time and that calls for making a stand for something. Trump cannot be that something.

Once again, sorry for the rant, but I just needed to say that.

**Ahtman**

I want to salute that post.

**Korinov**

BigWaaagh wrote:
Yet here we stand on the brink of an election where a petulent, vindictive, just horrible gak of a man and tyrant wannabe has a very real chance of becoming the next POTUS and some prople are losing their minds over emails. WHAT THE FETH! ARE YOU KIDDING?

(...)

This man has every telltale sign of a fascist in the making. He's lining up boogeymen to target when he's elected. He has openly embraced and welcomed the lowest scum and thugs of our society. He's flippantly commented about limiting the press, imprisoning people who haven't been convicted of a crime...any of this sound similar to the tactics of any other prominent megalomaniacal dictators in history?...militarily striking our enemies with the ultimate weapon while also seeking to spread and proliferate the same, he's an undeniable demagogue, he's a blatant racist, misogynist, adulterer and xenophobe and he's going to be able to put forward Supreme Court nominations? OH FOR GOD'S SAKE, WHAT KIND OF FUTURE IS THAT GOING TO MAKE FOR OUR COUNTRY?! Not to mention, and this is just staggering to me, he's an unwitting pawn of Russia...CIA director's words, not mine...a country HE'S INVITED TO HACK US very publicly, a country he's financially beholding to, a country that has been proven to be messing around with the election in a manner favorable to Trump, a country that his aides do business with and have strong ties to, a country whose dicta...um, President...is a man he admires. WHAT KIND OF KOOL-AID ARE PEOPLE DRINKING!

While I agree with the core of what you're saying, adulterer looks a bit tame among all the rest

Unless you meant it in a more "unrepentant and proud sexual predator" vibe, of course.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Well, I've just being watching the Julian Assange interview on Clinton, Wikileaks, and Russia, and it's not looking good for Clinton. I appreciate the fact that Wikileaks is taboo for some worked blocked people, so I won't post links here, but it's on youtube, RT, and probably other places, which you'd be able to find quite easily.

IMO, it was a good interview...

Remember, I am the messenger, not the message!

If you're not happy with my interpretation, go to the source and see for yourself.

Key points from Assange and the leaked emails from wikileaks

1) Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been backing ISIL. Saudi Prince X and Qatar Prince Y donated money to the Clinton foundation. As Secretary of State, Clinton signed deals that authorized large weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Saudi Prince X and Qatar Prince Y are not only responsible for dealing with the paperwork on their side when it comes to handling weapons sales from the USA, but are also linked to ISIL and other extreme Islamist groups in Syria.

Clinton knows this....

2) Assange has said that Russia is not the source for wikileaks....There has been a determined effort by Clinton to link Trump with Putin.

3) Clinton was a key player in the regime change in Libya and the overthrow of Gaddaffi.

4) When Obama was running for president, Citibank, a key Obama supporter, presented Obama with a list of their preferred cabinet. Obama's new cabinet was identical to the Citibank list....Coincidence?

Some of this may not be news to my American friends.

Personally, I agree with the above, that Trump would be a dangerous choice as President.

But if you elect Clinton, you're getting another Richard Nixon....

I'm glad I don't have to vote on Tuesday...

**Maddermax**

BigWaaagh wrote:
This is addressed to no one, but every one. I just need to get this off my chest, pardon the rant.

I'm 54 and a moderate Republican-leaning Independent. I've only voted Democrat POTUS candidates 3 times in my life. WJC second term, Obama both terms. I have voted GOP straight ticket many times throughout my life, I used to be a card carrying member of the RNC, but unfortunately that party has devolved in ways that I don't even recognize it anymore. So this time, I'm voting to keep America the country it was designed to be so I'll be going HRC without a second's hesitation.

I've watched this election with the perspective of age and experience that a lot of you don't have. That's not a judgemental statement, but a simple fact that comes with having lived a chunk of life. If you think things are messed up, you're right, they are. In my life I've seen real criminals in politics and I've seen genuinely good and qualified people in politics, but the thing that this election has that is unique to anything I've ever seen is Donald Trump and the potential he has, based on his own words, for utterly destroying the fabric of who we are as a nation and what makes our country great. Yes, America, you're great right now regardless of what the fear mongers say.

Firstly, this whole email affair is the biggest pile of bullgak I've ever seen people swallow up with a spoon. Yes, in the big global reality scheme of things, and we're talking about POTUS here, it's utter bullgak.

Yes, it was careless and possibly a bit arrogant, no debate, but that's really the meat of it. No criminal charges. No foreign collusion. No treasonous intent.

Yet here we stand on the brink of an election where a petulent, vindictive, just horrible gak of a man and tyrant wannabe has a very real chance of becoming the next POTUS and some prople are losing their minds over emails. WHAT THE FETH! ARE YOU KIDDING?

This man has every telltale sign of a fascist in the making. He's lining up boogeymen to target when he's elected. He has openly embraced and welcomed the lowest scum and thugs of our society. He's flippantly commented about limiting the press, imprisoning people who haven't been convicted of a crime...any of this sound similar to the tactics of any other prominent megalomaniacal dictators in history?...militarily striking our enemies with the ultimate weapon while also seeking to spread and proliferate the same, he's an undeniable demagogue, he's a blatant racist, misogynist, adulterer and xenophobe and he's going to be able to put forward Supreme Court nominations? OH FOR GOD'S SAKE, WHAT KIND OF FUTURE IS THAT GOING TO MAKE FOR OUR COUNTRY?! Not to mention, and this is just staggering to me, he's an unwitting pawn of Russia...CIA director's words, not mine...a country HE'S INVITED TO HACK US very publicly, a country he's financially beholding to, a country that has been proven to be messing around with the election in a manner favorable to Trump, a country that his aides do business with and have strong ties to, a country whose dicta...um, President...is a man he admires. WHAT KIND OF KOOL-AID ARE PEOPLE DRINKING!

Then there's the whole false equivalency lie being embraced by those without the spine to justify not standing up and picking a side. Votes are being thrown away on third party candidates so completely unsuited for the Presidency that it beggars belief. I'm sorry, while I respect your right to vote for who you want, that doesn't change the fact that you're making it possible for this individual and his ilk to hijack our nation. Enough with the "I'm voting against ____" crap. If you don't think the stakes are that high, well, they are this time and that calls for making a stand for something. Trump cannot be that something.

Once again, sorry for the rant, but I just needed to say that.

Well said.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, I've just being watching the Julian Assange interview on Clinton, Wikileaks, and Russia, and it's not looking good for Clinton. I appreciate the fact that Wikileaks is taboo for some worked blocked people, so I won't post links here, but it's on youtube, RT, and probably other places, which you'd be able to find quite easily.

IMO, it was a good interview...

Remember, I am the messenger, not the message! If you're not happy with my interpretation, go to the source and see for yourself.

Key points from Assange and the leaked emails from wikileaks

1) Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been backing ISIL. Saudi Prince X and Qatar Prince Y donated money to the Clinton foundation. As Secretary of State, Clinton signed deals that authorized large weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Saudi Prince X and Qatar Prince Y are not only responsible for dealing with the paperwork on their side when it comes to handling weapons sales from the USA, but are also linked to ISIL and other extreme Islamist groups in Syria.

Clinton knows this....

2) Assange has said that Russia is not the source for wikileaks....There has been a determined effort by Clinton to link Trump with Putin.

3) Clinton was a key player in the regime change in Libya and the overthrow of Gaddaffi.

4) When Obama was running for president, Citibank, a key Obama supporter, presented Obama with a list of their preferred cabinet. Obama's new cabinet was identical to the Citibank list....Coincidence?

So, to recap. 1) You believe that US Allies only got sold weapons, not because the US likes to sell weapons to it's friends but because some individuals from those countries donated to a charity that the Clintons do not get any payment from, and which is rated highly by most charity watchdogs, to influence a single person among many who have input into such deals? Yeah, I'm going to call Bulls**t. The US sells weapons to it's allies because it's good business, and because they're *allies*.

2) Yes, Clinton used her amazing influence on the many branches of the US intelligence community to lure them into accusing Russia of being behind the attacks without evidence, and the accusations have been solely hers. Riiiiiigght.

3) ...And?

4) Well, it's good no one's voting for Obama then. Trying to make a thing from 8 years ago where companies were suggesting cabinet positions, and some of those positions may have been filled by obvious choices into a thing at this point is kind of moot though. It's just more mud being flung with no indication of it being correct.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Some of this may not be news to my American friends.

Personally, I agree with the above, that Trump would be a dangerous choice as President.

But if you elect Clinton, you're getting another Richard Nixon....

I'm glad I don't have to vote on Tuesday...

You know, the things Nixon got in trouble for was trying to steal information from the DNC so he could win his election. This year, the DNC had it's information stolen, to influence the election. Nixon employed an entire crew of ratf**kers to do his dirty business, including Roger Stone who was a part of CREEP. Roger Stone now works for Trump, and is attacking Clinton. Nixon had an enemies list and wanted to use the apparatus of government to attack them. Trump is saying he wants to lock up his political opponent, regardless of the outcome of the investigation into her.

Clinton isn't Nixon. Clinton is being attacked by opponents using Nixon's tactics, to a much greater effect than even Nixon did. She's taken a lot of money from companies, yes, but the thing is that after dozens of politically motivated investigation and an unprecedented amount of hacked personal information being made available, the total result is Bubkis, nothing, no smoking gun, no grand conspiracy, and the worst thing done was simply using a private email in the exact same way as the previous to Sec States and the entire previous administration did without incident.

At this point, all people have to go on is innuendo and conspiracy, because they see all the mud that's been flung at her, and they think "god, she must be really dirty", without stopping to think why none of the accusations against her have ever panned out.

**wuestenfux**

Clinton isn't Nixon. Clinton is being attacked by opponents using Nixon's tactics, to a much greater effect than even Nixon did. She's taken a lot of money from companies, yes, but the thing is that after dozens of politically motivated investigation and an unprecedented amount of hacked personal information being made available, the total result is Bubkis, nothing, no smoking gun, no grand conspiracy, and the worst thing done was simply using a private email in the exact same way as the previous to Sec States and the entire previous administration did without incident.

Exactly. She's was a blue eyed with the emails. But at the end of the day it was an inflation of nothing.
I would be more more worried if Trump made the race.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I stand by my personal view that Clinton could be another Nixon. By all means disagree with me there.

But for the other stuff, I'm not accusing Clinton of anything - it's Julian Assange and Wikileaks who are doing the accusing, not me.

I am the messenger, not the message

**sirlynchmob**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, I've just being watching the Julian Assange interview on Clinton, Wikileaks, and Russia, and it's not looking good for Clinton. I appreciate the fact that Wikileaks is taboo for some worked blocked people, so I won't post links here, but it's on youtube, RT, and probably other places, which you'd be able to find quite easily.

IMO, it was a good interview...

Remember, I am the messenger, not the message! If you're not happy with my interpretation, go to the source and see for yourself.

Key points from Assange and the leaked emails from wikileaks

1) Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been backing ISIL. Saudi Prince X and Qatar Prince Y donated money to the Clinton foundation. As Secretary of State, Clinton signed deals that authorized large weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Saudi Prince X and Qatar Prince Y are not only responsible for dealing with the paperwork on their side when it comes to handling weapons sales from the USA, but are also linked to ISIL and other extreme Islamist groups in Syria.

Clinton knows this....

2) Assange has said that Russia is not the source for wikileaks....There has been a determined effort by Clinton to link Trump with Putin.

3) Clinton was a key player in the regime change in Libya and the overthrow of Gaddaffi.

4) When Obama was running for president, Citibank, a key Obama supporter, presented Obama with a list of their preferred cabinet. Obama's new cabinet was identical to the Citibank list....Coincidence?

Some of this may not be news to my American friends.

Personally, I agree with the above, that Trump would be a dangerous choice as President.

But if you elect Clinton, you're getting another Richard Nixon....

I'm glad I don't have to vote on Tuesday...

#1, can we also remember trump has suggested giving those countries nukes.
#2, there is evidence that points to a connection, and that would be enough for mccarty to throw him in jail.
#3, isn't that a good thing? another dictator is gone.
#4, politics as usual

**Ashiraya**

BigWaaagh, I wish I could exalt that post more than once. I cannot comprehend how people even can compare the two candidates.

**Mitochondria**

BigWaaagh wrote:

The email server was located in the Clintons' home in Chappaqua, New York, until 2013, when it was sent to a data center in New Jersey before being handed over to Platte River Networks, a Denver-based information technology firm that Clinton hired to manage her email system.

Would you care to eleaborate on the "...in someone's spare bathroom in a private residence." comment?

You will note that not a single of those locations was a government facilty, manned by trained and credentialed technicians.

At one point in time me the server was installed a private residence and the server was kept in a spare bathroom. Go ahead and google it.

**Tannhauser42**

The Nixon/Clinton comparison is fairly apt. Because the thing that's really biting them in the ass isn't the original act (Watergate, email server), but their attempts afterward to cover it up, hide it, and/or lie about it.

I still say if Hillary had just fessed up to it all at the beginning, the email thing would have ended up being far less of an issue.

**BigWaaagh**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, I've just being watching the Julian Assange interview on Clinton, Wikileaks, and Russia, and it's not looking good for Clinton. I appreciate the fact that Wikileaks is taboo for some worked blocked people, so I won't post links here, but it's on youtube, RT, and probably other places, which you'd be able to find quite easily.

IMO, it was a good interview...

Remember, I am the messenger, not the message! If you're not happy with my interpretation, go to the source and see for yourself.

Key points from Assange and the leaked emails from wikileaks

1) Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been backing ISIL. Saudi Prince X and Qatar Prince Y donated money to the Clinton foundation. As Secretary of State, Clinton signed deals that authorized large weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Saudi Prince X and Qatar Prince Y are not only responsible for dealing with the paperwork on their side when it comes to handling weapons sales from the USA, but are also linked to ISIL and other extreme Islamist groups in Syria.

Clinton knows this....

2) Assange has said that Russia is not the source for wikileaks....There has been a determined effort by Clinton to link Trump with Putin.

3) Clinton was a key player in the regime change in Libya and the overthrow of Gaddaffi.

4) When Obama was running for president, Citibank, a key Obama supporter, presented Obama with a list of their preferred cabinet. Obama's new cabinet was identical to the Citibank list....Coincidence?

Some of this may not be news to my American friends.

Personally, I agree with the above, that Trump would be a dangerous choice as President.

But if you elect Clinton, you're getting another Richard Nixon....

I'm glad I don't have to vote on Tuesday...

An interview with an anarchist! Well, if that doesn't provide the impartiality that's needed to make decisions in order to cast an intelligent vote in the election, then I don't know what can!

Nothing personal, but I'm glad you're not voting on Tuesday as well.

**Tannhauser42**

Ashiraya wrote:
BigWaaagh, I wish I could exalt that post more than once. I cannot comprehend how people even can compare the two candidates.

Because, at the end of the day, Hillary is a Democrat, and the only thing that has historically united the disparate groups within the GOP is not policy, not ideology, but simply opposing the Democrats.

**BigWaaagh**

Mitochondria wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:

The email server was located in the Clintons' home in Chappaqua, New York, until 2013, when it was sent to a data center in New Jersey before being handed over to Platte River Networks, a Denver-based information technology firm that Clinton hired to manage her email system.

Would you care to eleaborate on the "...in someone's spare bathroom in a private residence." comment?

You will note that not a single of those locations was a government facilty, manned by trained and credentialed technicians.

At one point in time me the server was installed a private residence and the server was kept in a spare bathroom. Go ahead and google it.

Firstly, it's not up for debate that "not a single of those locations was a government facilty, manned by trained and credentialed technicians" so try to stay on topic.
I just spelled out the chronology of the server for you. Yet, I still don't see the spare bathroom in a private residence you refer to. You made the comment, you back it up. I can google 'Aliens living in the Earth' and guess what? It shows articles backing that. So because you can "google it", it must be true? You got to be kidding me.

**Mitochondria**

Ouze wrote:

1. GWB43.com

2. Chris Christie

3. Sarah Palins, etc's use of AOL and Yahoo accounts

1. So your defense of Clinton is that she should not be held accountable because others have broken the same law?

2. I don't give a feth what a governor does. Get back to me when they are at the federal level.

3. You may not know this, but the actual email address is immaterial. A "civilian" email address can be reassigned to a secured server in a few minutes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BigWaaagh wrote:

1. Firstly, it's not up for debate that "not a single of those locations was a government facilty, manned by trained and credentialed technicians" so try to stay on topic.

2. I just spelled out the chronology of the server for you. Yet, I still don't see the spare bathroom in a private residence you refer to.

1. The exact point is every other private email server used by a government official HAS been located and serviced inside a government facility. Hers was not. Because she want the AVOID following the law on document archival procedures. She went to great lengths to completely avoid having her emails recorded.

2. The data center in Denver was located in a loft and an employee of that company reported that the server racks were located in a spare bathroom.

All of this neatly sidesteps the multiple times she lied about using one blackberry and that classififed material was nver sent to and from her through the uncontrolled server.

Not to mention her failure to abide by court order to turn over her emails, which she then went through and deleted waht she thought was not relevant. feth her. She does not get to decide. When she was Secretery or State every fething email she sent belonged to the citizens of the US.