Judicial Watch presentation on Clinton E-mail
I don't think Judicial Watch videos are going to convince anyone not already convinced. In fact, their involvement may have the opposite affect you desire .
Not sure why learning facts were have any opposite effect. Opposite to what? Watching CNN? JW also sued the Bush administration and Haliburton, so it's not like they're partisan.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-private-server-20160526-story.html
"". . .It lays to rest the longtime Clinton defense that this use of a private server was somehow normal and allowed by government rules: It was not normal, and was not allowed by the government rules in place at the time. "The Department's current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which "has the proper level of security control to … ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information."
It also shreds the defense that "Well, Colin Powell did it too" into very fine dust, and then neatly disposes of the dust. As the report makes very clear, there are substantial differences between what the two secretaries of State did: . . .""
JW may not be "partisan" in the traditional sense, but geez louise, that doesn't make them any less whacko. These guys are wrong (i.e. FOS) a good 75% of the time. You never know if they're gonna be reliable or not, so there's no point in ever listening to them. I'm surprised this was posted here.
ANY attempt to make the email situation anything more than a minor, trivial little bureacractic mess-up is automatically suspect, if you ask me. It's sort of like treating anything that comes out of Trumps mouth as meaningful, in the traditional sense of that word. Honest people don't do the latter, nor do they do the former.
So in your mind JW is whacko and we'd be better off not knowing how easily security can be ignored at the highest levels of government and that there should be zero accountability?
If JW is right 25% of the time when it investigates government wrongdoing (using your 75% failure rate), isn't that enough to see that it's doing valuable work?
dave said:
So in your mind JW is whacko and we'd be better off not knowing how easily security can be ignored at the highest levels of government and that there should be zero accountability?
If JW is right 25% of the time when it investigates government wrongdoing (using your 75% failure rate), isn't that enough to see that it's doing valuable work?
no. a 75% error rate on something like this makes you a crank - not someone doing valuable work. And how much effort are you prepared to put in to figure out when they're FOS and when they're not?
I mean keeriste almighty - these guys are major players in all of the bogus scandals of the Obama admin - IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious - doesn't that tell you enough about them?
And I could give a sh** about security at the highest levels of government - documentation classification is w-a-a-a-y overused - which is why I never got excited about Hillary's email in the first place. And if you're talking about security, it looks like State had problems that were much bigger than someone having a rogue email server.
drummerboy said:
dave said:
So in your mind JW is whacko and we'd be better off not knowing how easily security can be ignored at the highest levels of government and that there should be zero accountability?
If JW is right 25% of the time when it investigates government wrongdoing (using your 75% failure rate), isn't that enough to see that it's doing valuable work?
no. a 75% error rate on something like this makes you a crank - not someone doing valuable work. And how much effort are you prepared to put in to figure out when they're FOS and when they're not?
I mean keeriste almighty - these guys are major players in all of the bogus scandals of the Obama admin - IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious - doesn't that tell you enough about them?
And I could give a sh** about security at the highest levels of government - documentation classification is w-a-a-a-y overused - which is why I never got excited about Hillary's email in the first place. And if you're talking about security, it looks like State had problems that were much bigger than someone having a rogue email server.
At this point it's more about Hillary's lying (before and after the IG report) that her server was approved than about damage to security. Straight out lying to the American people. Goes to trust.
Well I trust her a whole lot more than I trust Trump, and those are going to be our only real choices in November.
If you like Sanders, run a positive campaign about Sanders. To the extent you run a negative campaign against Clinton, you might as well be a "Trump For President" employee.
tom said:
If you like Sanders, run a positive campaign about Sanders.
This.
No need to join the right-wing conspiracy-making slime machine against Clinton. You discredit yourselves by doing so.
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/colin-powell-says-hillary-clintons-email-is-a-non-issue/23756/
Non issue.
"Although Hillary Clinton’s detractors on the right and far-left will use this as an excuse to convince themselves that she’s somehow in trouble, while they post their usual poorly photoshopped images of Hillary in an orange jumpsuit, their behavior will continue to have no impact on the election. No one beyond her haters has ever considered her email to be an issue one way or the other, and those haters each still only get one vote against her. This is simply not an issue outside of anti-Hillary online groups and cable television news, and never was."
^This.
phenixrising said:
"Although Hillary Clinton’s detractors on the right and far-left will use this as an excuse to convince themselves that she’s somehow in trouble, while they post their usual poorly photoshopped images of Hillary in an orange jumpsuit, their behavior will continue to have no impact on the election. No one beyond her haters has ever considered her email to be an issue one way or the other, and those haters each still only get one vote against her. This is simply not an issue outside of anti-Hillary online groups and cable television news, and never was."
^This.
+1000
And I'm pretty certain this message would be approved by Bernie Sanders (and good for him).
mjh said:
tom said:
If you like Sanders, run a positive campaign about Sanders.
This.
No need to join the right-wing conspiracy-making slime machine against Clinton. You discredit yourselves by doing so.
Worth a read: http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-dangerous-acceptance-of-donald-trump?mbid=social_facebook_aud_dev_kwmaysubdonaldtrump&kwp_0=155117
"It depended on conservatives pretending he wasn’t so bad, compared with the Communists, while at the same time the militant left decided that their real enemies were the moderate leftists, who were really indistinguishable from the Nazis. The radical progressives decided that there was no difference between the democratic left and the totalitarian right and that an explosion of institutions was exactly the most thrilling thing imaginable.
"The American Republic stands threatened by the first overtly anti-democratic leader of a large party in its modern history—an authoritarian with no grasp of history, no impulse control, and no apparent barriers on his will to power. The right thing to do, for everyone who believes in liberal democracy, is to gather around and work to defeat him on Election Day. Instead, we seem to be either engaged in parochial feuding or caught by habits of tribal hatred so ingrained that they have become impossible to escape even at moments of maximum danger. Bernie Sanders wouldn’t mind bringing down the Democratic Party to prevent it from surrendering to corporate forces—and yet he may be increasing the possibility of rule-by-billionaire."
Emphasis added.
a lot of the punditry and apparently many Clinton supporters are all too eager to write history before it's even happened. There is no evidence that Sanders supporters aren't as appalled by Trump as everyone else. And the polls show that Sanders supporters are going to vote for Clinton after she's nominated. Why the rush to blame Sanders supporters now for something they aren't at all likely to do? This campaign for the Democratic nomination is business as usual for the party, just as it was in '08.
This is starting to get absurd:
Clinton supporters to Sanders supporters:
"How come you haven't pledged to support Hillary Clinton yet?"
"Because she hasn't been nominated yet. I'm going to vote for Sanders in the primary and I'll support him as long as he's still running."
"So you're not going to vote for Hillary? Trump will win!"
"If Clinton is nominated, I'll vote for her. I've actually said that several times already."
"But what about all the Bernie Bros? They're not going to vote for Hillary, and Trump is going to win!"
"Polls show that the vast majority of Sanders supporter say they'll vote for Hillary in November against Trump. In fact an even greater percentage of Sanders supporters say they'll vote for Clinton than her supporters said they'd vote for Obama at the same point in '08."
"So why aren't you going to vote for Hillary Clinton?"
"I AM GOING TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON!!"
I'm not asking you who's on first....
ml1 said:
a lot of the punditry and apparently many Clinton supporters are all too eager to write history before it's even happened. There is no evidence that Sanders supporters aren't as appalled by Trump as everyone else. And the polls show that Sanders supporters are going to vote for Clinton after she's nominated. Why the rush to blame Sanders supporters now for something they aren't at all likely to do? This campaign for the Democratic nomination is business as usual for the party, just as it was in '08.
This is starting to get absurd:
Clinton supporters to Sanders supporters:
"How come you haven't pledged to support Hillary Clinton yet?"
"Because she hasn't been nominated yet. I'm going to vote for Sanders in the primary and I'll support him as long as he's still running."
"So you're not going to vote for Hillary? Trump will win!"
"If Clinton is nominated, I'll vote for her. I've actually said that several times already."
"But what about all the Bernie Bros? They're not going to vote for Hillary, and Trump is going to win!"
"Polls show that the vast majority of Sanders supporter say they'll vote for Hillary in November against Trump. In fact an even greater percentage of Sanders supporters say they'll vote for Clinton than her supporters said they'd vote for Obama at the same point in '08."
"So why aren't you going to vote for Hillary Clinton?"
"I AM GOING TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON!!"
I'm not asking you who's on first....
I think you should stop worrying about who says what on the internet. There's a lot of stupid sh*t on both sides and it doesn't really matter.
mjh said:
ml1 said:
a lot of the punditry and apparently many Clinton supporters are all too eager to write history before it's even happened. There is no evidence that Sanders supporters aren't as appalled by Trump as everyone else. And the polls show that Sanders supporters are going to vote for Clinton after she's nominated. Why the rush to blame Sanders supporters now for something they aren't at all likely to do? This campaign for the Democratic nomination is business as usual for the party, just as it was in '08.
This is starting to get absurd:
Clinton supporters to Sanders supporters:
"How come you haven't pledged to support Hillary Clinton yet?"
"Because she hasn't been nominated yet. I'm going to vote for Sanders in the primary and I'll support him as long as he's still running."
"So you're not going to vote for Hillary? Trump will win!"
"If Clinton is nominated, I'll vote for her. I've actually said that several times already."
"But what about all the Bernie Bros? They're not going to vote for Hillary, and Trump is going to win!"
"Polls show that the vast majority of Sanders supporter say they'll vote for Hillary in November against Trump. In fact an even greater percentage of Sanders supporters say they'll vote for Clinton than her supporters said they'd vote for Obama at the same point in '08."
"So why aren't you going to vote for Hillary Clinton?"
"I AM GOING TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON!!"
I'm not asking you who's on first....
I think you should stop worrying about who says what on the internet. There's a lot of stupid sh*t on both sides and it doesn't really matter.
The people obsessing over Sanders supporters not voting for Clinton don't seem stupid. They do seem jittery. But they are lucid and making sense. They just won't take "yes" for an answer.
Jittery with a reason.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/sanders-supporters-not-vote-clinton-221642
"Yes" would be a great answer, but we're going to need more of them to beat Trump. I remember the debacle of Ralph Nader in Florida all too well.
tom said:
Jittery with a reason.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/sanders-supporters-not-vote-clinton-221642
"Yes" would be a great answer, but we're going to need more of them to beat Trump. I remember the debacle of Ralph Nader in Florida all too well.
the election is still five months away. And the primaries aren't even over yet. Let us vote for our preferred candidate and let him speak at the convention, and then declare his candidacy dead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcs7fSj8grc
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/17/us/poll-shows-dukakis-leads-bush-many-reagan-backers-shift-sides.html?pagewanted=all
ml1 said:
mjh said:
ml1 said:
a lot of the punditry and apparently many Clinton supporters are all too eager to write history before it's even happened. There is no evidence that Sanders supporters aren't as appalled by Trump as everyone else. And the polls show that Sanders supporters are going to vote for Clinton after she's nominated. Why the rush to blame Sanders supporters now for something they aren't at all likely to do? This campaign for the Democratic nomination is business as usual for the party, just as it was in '08.
This is starting to get absurd:
Clinton supporters to Sanders supporters:
"How come you haven't pledged to support Hillary Clinton yet?"
"Because she hasn't been nominated yet. I'm going to vote for Sanders in the primary and I'll support him as long as he's still running."
"So you're not going to vote for Hillary? Trump will win!"
"If Clinton is nominated, I'll vote for her. I've actually said that several times already."
"But what about all the Bernie Bros? They're not going to vote for Hillary, and Trump is going to win!"
"Polls show that the vast majority of Sanders supporter say they'll vote for Hillary in November against Trump. In fact an even greater percentage of Sanders supporters say they'll vote for Clinton than her supporters said they'd vote for Obama at the same point in '08."
"So why aren't you going to vote for Hillary Clinton?"
"I AM GOING TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON!!"
I'm not asking you who's on first....
I think you should stop worrying about who says what on the internet. There's a lot of stupid sh*t on both sides and it doesn't really matter.
The people obsessing over Sanders supporters not voting for Clinton don't seem stupid. They do seem jittery. But they are lucid and making sense. They just won't take "yes" for an answer.
The internet primary definitely seems to be focused on which fans are the biggest *****s. From my viewpoint, I've seen plenty of bad behavior on both sides. I stand by my advice to ignore them all as much as possible.
mjh said:
The internet primary definitely seems to be focused on which fans are the biggest *****s. From my viewpoint, I've seen plenty of bad behavior on both sides. I stand by my advice to ignore them all as much as possible.
this isn't the whole internet. It's MOL, and I know a lot of the people in this thread personally. Some are friends. It's not a bunch of random people. So yes, I pay attention to the people posting here.
tom said:
mjh said:
tom said:
If you like Sanders, run a positive campaign about Sanders.
This.
No need to join the right-wing conspiracy-making slime machine against Clinton. You discredit yourselves by doing so.
Worth a read: http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-dangerous-acceptance-of-donald-trump?mbid=social_facebook_aud_dev_kwmaysubdonaldtrump&kwp_0=155117
"It depended on conservatives pretending he wasn’t so bad, compared with the Communists, while at the same time the militant left decided that their real enemies were the moderate leftists, who were really indistinguishable from the Nazis. The radical progressives decided that there was no difference between the democratic left and the totalitarian right and that an explosion of institutions was exactly the most thrilling thing imaginable.
"The American Republic stands threatened by the first overtly anti-democratic leader of a large party in its modern history—an authoritarian with no grasp of history, no impulse control, and no apparent barriers on his will to power. The right thing to do, for everyone who believes in liberal democracy, is to gather around and work to defeat him on Election Day. Instead, we seem to be either engaged in parochial feuding or caught by habits of tribal hatred so ingrained that they have become impossible to escape even at moments of maximum danger. Bernie Sanders wouldn’t mind bringing down the Democratic Party to prevent it from surrendering to corporate forces—and yet he may be increasing the possibility of rule-by-billionaire."
Emphasis added.
Thank you for posting this. The New Yorker article is a must read.
This appeared in the NYT Sunday Review. "The Nazi Tweets of 'Trump God Emperor."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/the-nazi-tweets-of-trump-god-emperor.html
Featured Events
-
Go "Back to the '70s" with The Maplewood Glee Club and Special Guests from CHS
May 19, 2024 at 4:00pm
For Sale
Free Items
Advertisement
Very detailed history of how the scandal came to light and why it's so serious. (Lengthy introductions end at about the 7 minute point.)
https://youtu.be/vUcapOyJhfU