Crooked Hillary!

[Flonne]

-snip-

What she says scares me a lot more than what he says, it's really that simple. His plans are mostly blowing smoke or being purposefully over the top for the sake of exaggeration, he may have inherited most of his money but a geniunely, legitimately stupid person would still have lost all of it. The majority of his businesses are not or have not gone bankrupt, only a small portion, which is an acceptable loss for a billionaire, risk is everything if you really want to make or keep your money.

He knows exactly what he is doing, he exaggerates pomegranate to get attention and when he is called out on things he did wrong he glosses over them like they are nothing because they really ARE nothing, not in the sense that "he can do no wrong", but, in the sense that he knows that his audience do not care. He is a clown. The difference between him and Hillary boils down to this; he is a clown you can laugh at, a court jester who can hold the attention of a room and keep everyone focused on him, and Hillary is a clown that shows up in the middle of the night and butchers a village with her appropriately terrifying shrieky laugh. I can't watch her because what she says is scary as hell, Bernie has bad ideas but he is a nice guy who would not resort to doing underhanded things to achieve his goals and thus would get nowhere in the political system, she is willing to do ANYTHING, absolutely anything, to win.

I don't vote based on policies anymore because they never follow anything they say anyway because they either get blocked by Congress or simply abandon everything they've said, I vote based on the type of person they are. Trump would not be a terrible president. He was not my first choice but he is nowhere near my last choice. Go back and watch some of his speeches, you can tell when he is exaggerating, he puffs up more than normal and becomes the court jester. He is not going to build a wall. He IS going to significantly increase the difficulty of breaking into the country illegally. He IS going to try to deport anyone without green cards, as should be done to begin with. He is not going to start World War III (debatable, but if he does it will be necessary, honestly). He is not going to use nukes (same as previous). You can read him easily if you are paying attention to him because he WANTS to be easy to read, he puts a lot of effort into his facades. He wants to scare the rest of the world, because they need to be scared, because humans are not inherently good, fear is unfortunately the only way to control the most dangerous people in the world, because they only UNDERSTAND fear, that is how they control others so that is the only thing that can control them. At the same time, he wants people HERE to see what he really means, not just his words but his meanings behind the words.

I'm not saying he's deep, and this isn't any deep posturing to begin with, it's very simple, and that's the whole idea. His biggest obstacle is that liberals currently take EVERYTHING dead serious, they can no longer recognize satire or sarcasm or underlying meaning, everything triggers them and everything is meant as an insult or backhanded remark. I say obstacle, but honestly, I still don't think he cares what they think at the end of the day. The percentage of people that were going to vote for Bernie that are going to vote for him in the general election based on polls is growing every day, and it's literally an uphill battle from here for Hillary, because every time she opens her mouth she loses more supporters, even Democrats can't get past how much of a scumbag she is and would rather just not vote at all than vote for her, whereas Trump gains voters every time he has a rally. Even if she doesn't go to prison where she belongs for all the illegal/traitorous pomegranate she's done to this country in the past few years, many people are already at the point where they see Trump's victory as inevitable, not just because he is the better candidate, but more importantly because in the general election they realize she is not going to be debating against some sweet old man who she can run roughshod over, Trump will pineappleing destroy her in a debate because he does not give a pineapple about any of the things a traditional politician is mortally afraid of. If she had won with an 85%+ percentile overall against Bernie I may have revised my opinion, but they were WAY closer than they ever should have been, he was only that close because people would literally rather have a crazy old man whose ideas go at a 180 degree angle to our country's founding principles than her.

[Takebacker]

It's fine. She will get indicted.

[xparasite9]

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/10/fbi_...e_report_says/

even salon ain't havin' none of her pomegranate

[Flonne]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...t-hillary-hook
FBI literally admits she did everything wrong, then rewrote the laws so it was OK. WELCOME TO AMERICA.

Part of me is glad she got off, but only part, and not for the reason of "the DNC can pick whoever they want" but because she is basically a liability to the party after the statement; there is now more ammo than Trump will ever need to use against her and her chance is much lower, but it's still not 0%, and that's really the only acceptable chance of success when it comes to her. The real problem comes in if Trump is still actually her friend and will be throwing the election to get her in.

[xparasite9]

poor nishimura.
poor snowden.

[Eos]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...illary-clinton

[Justin]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...illary-clinton

So this article in a nutshell: Everybody's doing it, so it's okay and no one should be held accountable for their actions?

At least, that's what I took from it.

[Eos]

So this article in a nutshell: Everybody's doing it, so it's okay and no one should be held accountable for their actions?

I think it's more "If everyone else did it why is she getting an expensive year long witch hunt over it?"

Have to be willing to punish them all equally, or let it go and move on to something that actually matters.

[Justin]

Ah, I see. Yeah, I agree with that. They should all be charged or penalized in some fashion rather than wasting so much time and money on it. Simple as that.

[KhainiWest]

I think it's more "If everyone else did it why is she getting an expensive year long witch hunt over it?"

Have to be willing to punish them all equally, or let it go and move on to something that actually matters.

The thing is, they should. Like, I'm surrounded by family and work with security clearances, there were people who did less, with just as much negligence and face years in prison.

Keep in mind that Snowden is kind of not applicable as his was clearly intentional, while Hilary just practiced something the Obama administration tried to squash but I guess overlooked it or had confidence in specific staff. Overall we still don't know if it was harmful, it's just a big slap on the face to pretty much the entire community that holds any type of security clearance as their essential boss is held to a lower standard than they are.

[Flonne]

The thing is, they should. Like, I'm surrounded by family and work with security clearances, there were people who did less, with just as much negligence and face years in prison.

Keep in mind that Snowden is kind of not applicable as his was clearly intentional, while Hilary just practiced something the Obama administration tried to squash but I guess overlooked it or had confidence in specific staff. Overall we still don't know if it was harmful, it's just a big slap on the face to pretty much the entire community that holds any type of security clearance as their essential boss is held to a lower standard than they are.

Anyone with any sort of clearance is not given the "gross negligence only counts if you did it on purpose" treatment, if someone takes home a laptop by accident with classified data on it without saying anything they get courtmartialed even if it's proven that they didn't do anything with the information, because, as judges and cops love to say, "ignorance of the law excuses no one". His entire argument in the press conference was worthless because the underlying fact was that she did it, even if it wasn't on purpose, and if she is held to a different standard than why are there even laws to begin with?

Hillary was caught lying on the subject too multiple times, which is also usually something that can get people screwed over even if they did nothing at all, lying to a judge and the public is a big deal.

[Eos]

And then there was this... http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/07/...e-fbi-details/

[Flonne]

And then there was this... http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/07/...e-fbi-details/

Not as damaging to national security as potentially leaked data, but still not good. They should just fix this argument that it's unfair to Hillary right now by retroactively indicting every last one of the people that did anything like this, regardless of affliliation. Some house cleaning definitely needs to be done anyway with the scumbags in DC.

[Takebacker]

I think it's more "If everyone else did it why is she getting an expensive year long witch hunt over it?"

Have to be willing to punish them all equally, or let it go and move on to something that actually matters.

The problem with this talking point is that private email accounts =/= private email servers and mobile devices (with accounts). One is far more serious in context of national security, especially when we're talking about information as closely guarded as this.

But yeah, let's move on to the far bigger issue: the clinton foundation and the RICO case.

[KhainiWest]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...low-all-rules/

Pretty much how I feel about it, she took a convenience, there was a consequence, now the government (as they typically do) are now being reactionary towards it rather than take the precautions that was suggested. I'm pretty sure Obama made it law though that she shouldn't be doing it to begin with.

[Takebacker]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...low-all-rules/

Pretty much how I feel about it, she took a convenience, there was a consequence, now the government (as they typically do) are now being reactionary towards it rather than take the precautions that was suggested. I'm pretty sure Obama made it law though that she shouldn't be doing it to begin with.

It bothers me that comey didn't elaborate more on the lax security culture of the state department. They dropped their spam filters entirely so that they could receive hillary's emails (didn't even whitelist her...) and then we later suffered the largest hack on our government in it's history. She sent emails in plain text for a while, and even after that had ports open and multiple highly exploitable progams running for the servers entire lifetime. Apparently certain units who had to produce weekly reports to the secretary were having their tactical operations consistently stuffed by their opposition. When they stopped producing those reports, they were in the clear. They couldn't give a s'hit about precautions, because obviously their feet will never be held to the fire for it.

[Flonne]

It bothers me that comey didn't elaborate more on the lax security culture of the state department. They dropped their spam filters entirely so that they could receive hillary's emails (didn't even whitelist her...) and then we later suffered the largest hack on our government in it's history. She sent emails in plain text for a while, and even after that had ports open and multiple highly exploitable progams running for the servers entire lifetime. Apparently certain units who had to produce weekly reports to the secretary were having their tactical operations consistently stuffed by their opposition. When they stopped producing those reports, they were in the clear. They couldn't give a s'hit about precautions, because obviously their feet will never be held to the fire for it.

This can't be legitimate, no matter how incompetent they are, they would never drop their filters on their actual servers and they wouldn't even examine the files at all on their internal network. They would use a DMZ of some sort like a virtual machine or even better, a server unconnected to their internal system that has downloaded the data (still using proper encryption to safeguard against theft of the documents in question) and then was taken off network semi-permanently to be examined, at worst they could create a dedicated local-only network surrounding that one server with some forensics workstations hooked up to it. Or are you referring to the state department dropping security precautions in order for Hillary's emails to get through? The way you worded it it looks to me like you are saying the FBI dropped their security to get her email data onto their servers in order to analyze. Different situation but same basic outcome, how could the most powerful governmental body in the world be that stupid?

These are things I would expect my aunt to do, and she is a woman who has not once but TWICE called the number on popups for virus cleanup and given them full remote access to her PC, then wondered why someone was charging thousands of dollars to her bank account.

[Takebacker]

Or are you referring to the state department dropping security precautions in order for Hillary's emails to get through?

Yeah this is exactly what i mean. Hillary sent emails to state -> emails went to spam filter -> state turned off spam filters so they could receive the queen's commands. It was reported on pretty heavily by a ton of news outlets i think about 2-3 weeks ago?

how could the most powerful governmental body in the world be that stupid?

I don't know. I really just don't know. I will never be in the same league of IT guru that eos is but the amount of baffling information involving this entire situation has been too much for me to handle. I don't know much about hacking but i'm convinced it wouldn't take me more than an afternoon to teach people how to hack the private server of the secretary of state, and that it's guaranteed the chinese and russians have damn near 100% of whatever passed through that server. :[

The worst part is that anyone who doesn't know anything about computers (so many people...) and even people that do but haven't done more than surface level research into the facts of the situation don't think that any of this is serious or that unfathomable irreparable damage hasn't been done to national security. I do trust the FBI since they do have far more information than me, but i still think that their recommendation is extremely troubling for many reasons.

[xparasite9]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...low-all-rules/

Pretty much how I feel about it, she took a convenience, there was a consequence, now the government (as they typically do) are now being reactionary towards it rather than take the precautions that was suggested. I'm pretty sure Obama made it law though that she shouldn't be doing it to begin with.

politifact is literally run by a newspaper that endorsed clinton

also HOLY pomegranate THE DNC IS SO CROOKED

this violates New York codes:
190.20 false advertising
190.23 false personation
190.25 criminal impersonation

[Flonne]

HOLY pomegranate THE DNC IS SO CROOKED

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politi...ileaks-emails/
CROOKED YOU SAY? How could you cast such a light upon these paragons of virtue.


http://imgur.com/gallery/IKruW
From all of the links I've followed so far, every one has been legitimate, assuming the content is reliable. (Yes, I know it's wikileaks, that is a big assumption, but the only way it's fake is if someone had to time to falsify over 20,000 email chains. Not impossible, but that takes the kind of dedication that you don't see every day. Plus, it's Hillary, we all already knew she was doing pomegranate like putting moles in Sanders' campaign, that's just politics nowadays unfortunately).