Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Just so I know what I'm dealing with here... crazy old guy or orange racist mutant?
orange is NOT the new black
Just so I know what I'm dealing with here... crazy old guy or orange racist mutant?
I support Hillary in part because I remember what she suffered in the '90s as First Lady. The Right was incensed that she DARE try to influence policy. They tried to get her to fit the mold of the archetypal first lady, who was the ultimate housewife. That's not who she ever was. I loved that she was able to have her own career after Bill served his two terms.
For a woman, she's a bit brash and that ALWAYS draws criticism. Again, I respect her a ton for what she's had to put up with as a candidate.
President Clinton was considered too "feminine" a president be cause he didn't over emphasize The Military, cared about more "women orientated" issues like education, etc How he displayed empathy.. There were callers genuinely talking about talking The Vote away from women because they helped get him elected !
On the one hand, I'm sadly not surprised that that sort of stupidity is still out there, but on the other hand...yikes .
Exactly. I have no problem with the fact people support Bernie, I totally get why he holds appeal for people, and I like the guy as well. I agree with his stances, and I appreciate the idealism and hope his campaign has inspired in people. I like seeing people genuinely enthused and passionate like this, and I hope the enthusiasm and passion he's inspired carries over to getting some really good policy and legislation passed, be it on a local, state, or federal level.
But he didn't win the nomination. Hilary did. And I'm going to support her. That doesn't mean I automatically agree with every single thing she's said or done, that doesn't mean I think she's the best Democratic candidate we've ever had, that doesn't mean I can't understand why some people are wary of her.
But I'm sure as hell NOT voting for Trump, not voting at all is not an option to me, and I don't want to write in a third-party candidate. And I believe she's got the experience and knowledge necessary to do the job, and won't drive our country into the ground. I don't care if she's "unlikable", I don't care if she's a "bitch", I don't care if she's had her awkward public moments, etc., etc. I just want her to do her job and try and fight on behalf of the issues I care about, and so long as she can do that, we're good.
So are Powell and Rice dishonest and untrustworthy?
Doesn't have much to do with being honest does it?
It's important not to conflate "personal email account" with "private email server." There're meaningful differences. Hillary isn't the first to use the former, but she is absolutely the first to use the latter.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Sure, but from a security aspect, which is apparently what this is about(which is actually bs), what's the difference?
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
I think the real concern is the motivation for having a private email server. Seems likely that the ability to permanently delete emails is one possible motivation.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
CNN; said:A major political donor to the Clintons and other top Democrats was selected by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to serve on a key State Department intelligence board in 2011, despite having no clear background in the area, according to emails released this week.
...
Rajiv Fernando has donated $9,400 to Clinton's two White House bids -- first her 2008 run and again this year -- and has been a generous donor to Democrats running for the House and Senate and to President Barack Obama.
Fernando, a Chicago securities trader, has also been a prolific donor to the Clinton Foundation, giving at least $1 million to the organization, according to its website.
I agree with you. The security angle is not the best angle. Even though I would assume that corporations who make their livelihood off of hosting email servers are likely somewhat more secure than Hillary's.
I think the real concern is the motivation for having a private email server. Seems likely that the ability to permanently delete emails is one possible motivation.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Or it could be that she's like the rest of us and she ends up bringing work home with her. It's not like she can send an email using her iPhone. I'm not even sure if remoting in is an option for them.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Come, now. I'm likely supporting Clinton at the end of the day, too, but is the most reasonable answer "this controversy is because Clinton just works too hard for the American people, dammit!" ?
Because no one has ever made a mountain out of a molehill to bring down a Clinton?
All I'm saying is that using your own email isn't always some great conspiracy.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Server. Your own email server. There's too much obfuscation on this particular point, and it really makes a difference.
Agreed about the GOP making mountains of molehills. They've fucked themselves here, to an extent -- the boy who cried whitewater, and whatnot.
But just because people have manufactured scandals about the Clintons doesn't mean that there can now never be an *actual* scandal about the Clintons
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
"what about those emails you sent Vince Foster in Benghazi while your husband was banging interns?"
If there was something damning about Hillary's deleted emails, we would know about it by now.
If there was something damning about Hillary's deleted emails, we would know about it by now.
I find the idea that she appointed an apparently entirely unqualified donor to an intelligence committee to be pretty damning
Election 2016:
Guy Who Clearly Isn't Doing Math
Guy Who Is Clearly a Bigot
Woman Who Is Clearly Corrupt
She helped a deposed prime minister in some remote African nation smuggle millions out of his country by emailing her bank account info to him.
Not as damning as electing an entirely unqualified person to rule the world.