Read FBI director's statement on Hillary Clinton email investigation .....
- Thread starter nhboy
- Start date
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
That "IT Guy" was a totally separate case than this.
Tilted
..
In much the same way that's why some of us wanted someone other than Mr. Trump to get the nomination, so that there was a decent chance of beating Mrs. Clinton.
I realize that some of you had different theories about the situation - you thought (and maybe still think), for various reasons, that he would make for a strong candidate against her. But he does not, he is one of the worst candidates that could have been put up against her - for some very simple demographic and electoral dynamics reasons, and for reasons related to his temperament and the strategy he had chosen to win the nomination. The only reason he might even be close is because she is such a terrible, terrible candidate. The opposition to him (from independents and Republicans) wasn't because people wanted Mrs. Clinton to win, it was because they didn't.
Republicans could have had an easy road to the White House this year if they had picked someone like, e.g., Mr. Kasich. Republicans just needed someone fairly moderate (i.e. not someone like Mr. Cruz) and someone who would not scare people on the other side into getting out and voting for a candidate (i.e. Mrs. Clinton) that they weren't at all enthusiastic about. Republicans had an enthusiasm advantage this time around because Democrats were (1) generally a little less enthused than they'd typically be and (2) were going to pick a candidate that many of them were lukewarm at best about. Mr. Romney would have been a favorite against her as would Mr. McCain as would Mr. Kasich as would some others. They might not have gotten the Republican base all jazzed up, but that wasn't needed because it was going to be Mrs. Clinton on the other side. But a big key is that they wouldn't have gotten the other side all riled up either. And that's what Republicans need in order to win presidential elections now - the other side to not be all riled up.
There's still plenty to happen between now and November, but it's likely not to matter in the end - it may affect the numbers, but likely won't affect the main result. Mrs. Clinton won the White House when Mr. Trump became the nominee, unless Mr. Trump was going to completely change who he was campaigning as. Doing that would lose him support from his base and, at any rate, does not seem to be what he's chosen.
I believe that you and others sincerely believed that Mr. Trump could win the general election. I don't and won't accuse you of being dishonest about that. I just thought and still think you were wrong. Similarly, those opposed to him weren't being dishonest in thinking that he would almost surely lose the general election. Some other Republicans have been lukewarm at best regarding him not because they want Mrs. Clinton to win, but because they know he can't win if he continues to do things the way he has - so either, something has to make him change tactics or the best they can hope for is to salvage the Republican party to some degree by not getting on board full steam in support of him.
Tilted
..
There you go. So we must have said... okay, if you want you can start protecting yourself.
Lurk
Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
The "IT guy" helped set up her server architecture and knew the vulnerabilities therein. One of the State Department IT guys is a close friend at church. There's a lot that's not being published.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
I'm not disputing that.
I'm saying when that guy pled the 5th, it was during the case brought by Judicial Watch, not the FBI's investigation. The guy cooperated with the FBI and was given immunity. That's why he had no reason not to plead the 5th in the other case.
There you go again. This is the most flawed logic I have ever seen from you in all the years you've been participating in these forums.
If Kasich can't beat Trump - or anyone else, for that matter - what on earth makes you think he can beat Hillary Clinton? Logic dictates that the person who wins the most votes in the primary has the best chance against their general election opponent. Kasich couldn't get past 1st base in the primary - he literally won nothing other than his own home state, and even then barely - yet somehow the voters who rejected him will rally by his side in the general? That makes absolutely zero sense. So why do you keep banging that drum when it's logically wrong? When has a candidate who was roundly rejected by the voters ever won an election?
glhs837
Power with Control
Don't think anyone ever said anyone who ever mishandled classified should be in jail. But anyone who knowingly places TS on an unsecure server and sends it back and forth over unsecure networks repeatedly is not simply "mishandling" classified. Mishandling is me sending classified details about a system to someone over an unsecure network because I copied the wrong page out of a document, the guy who missed that last Secret file in his bag after the movement, that sort of thing.
Actually Tilted presents the proper case, you are just so in the tank for Trump, so vested in him that you can't see any other ending. This of course despite your protestations that you aren't the in the tank for Trump. Anyone reading this site can see that for the lie that it is.
Tilted is, correctly, looking at a general election victory. Winning the primary is useless if you can't appeal to a broad array of voters in the general. Trump appeals to one slice of voters. White, old, uneducated. Sure you can find exception to this rule...just like all other rules. But the preponderance of Trump supporters are white, old, uneducated.
In a Presidential race, Republicans are at a disadvantage. More people live in blue states. Blue states have more electoral college votes. So in order for an R to win the White House the candidate has to appeal to more than just old, white, uneducated, angry males. Trump doesn't even come close to that. Tweeting out a pic of a taco bowl and saying Happy Cinco De Mayo doesn't win the Latino vote.
In order to win the White House, R's need to nominate a moderate candidate...like Mr. Kasich.
As a further repudiation of your Trump stance, Ms. Clinton will win MD. There is no hope Trump will win this state. Therefore, your "I won't do anything to help elect Hillary" stance is irrelevant. You can vote your conscious...if you choose to do so. Or you can vote for a buffoon.
Tilted
..
It's not at all flawed logic. I don't understand why it's hard to understand that a party primary is a very different thing than a general election in many important ways. Do you want me to run through various reasons why, and demonstrate in a number of ways, why what you're saying now is mistaken? I will, but I'd be surprised if I hadn't touched on many of them already.
For starters (but by no means most compellingly)... The electorate in a general election is very different than that in a party primary. It just is. Also, person A preferring person 1 over person 2 does not mean that persons C, D, E, F, G, and H wouldn't prefer person 2 over person 1. It doesn't even mean that person A wouldn't prefer person 2 over person 4 if person 1 weren't an option. That's not how such things work.
Also, Mr. Sanders was beaten by Mrs. Clinton. Do you disagree with the many people that think Mr. Sanders would have a better chance of beating Mr. Trump than Mrs. Clinton does? Do you disagree - as a general proposition, not in specific regards - with the countless people who over the years have claimed over and over that had such and such person been the candidate rather than so and so, such and such person might have won where so and so lost? Almost everyone has said something like that at some point, because how such things work is something that we inherently understand. Would every other candidate that didn't win a party primary have for sure lost the general election had they been the nominee if the actual nominee went on to lose? I don't think so. I don't think most people believe that. I don't even think you believe that.
Also, aren't you relying on the notion that many, many Republican voters who rejected (using your term) Mr. Trump will rally by his side in the general for the idea that Mr. Trump has a chance (or at some point had a chance) to win the general? If what you're suggesting made sense, Mr. Trump would also have no chance. He needs lots of people that rejected him in the primaries to now vote for him in the general. Many of them of course will, that's how having varying options at varying points in time works.
Also, Mr. Trump got trounced in Wyoming and Idaho and Utah and Kansas. Do you think he can't win those states in the general? Of course not. Losing a multi-horse primary race doesn't mean that you would lose an (in effect) heads up race against a different opponent in the general. They are by their nature very different kinds of races.
President Obama would get destroyed in a Republican primary race. That doesn't mean he couldn't get elected in a general election. Again, they're different races with very different electorates (and for many other reasons). The number of people voting in a primary race are a small fraction of the number voting in a general election - and those in the latter skew very different ideologically than those in the former.
Have you really never thought that a particular candidate who lost a primary race would have a better chance of winning the general election than the person who won the primary race?
If Mr. Trump were to win the general election, it wouldn't be because he was the only Republican who could have. It would be because Mrs. Clinton is just that bad that almost any Republican could have. I don't myself put too much stock in polls this far out. I consider them, but they're just another piece of information that goes into the figure-things-out machine. And I have to be able to understand the reasons why they might say one thing or another (and the basics of their methodology) before I'll give them a lot of credence. That said, it's not for nothing that even recent polls have Mr. Kasich beating Mrs. Clinton soundly while she beats Mr. Trump soundly. Poll Republican primary voters and the results might be very different (they'd both surely beat her by huge margins). But 100 million different people will vote in the general election as compared with the Republican primaries. How a plurality of the latter would vote doesn't tell us a whole lot about how a majority (or even a plurality) of the former will.
I could go on and on but I'll spare both of us for now.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
From the office of the FBI Director Comey/ We came, We saw ,We wish to do nothing.
Director Comey: Got dammit I work for these people do you believe I want to kiss my career goodbye?
Of course she is guilty, but I propose we just forget about it, and let her continue to run for the highest office in the land.
We can continue to screw over the little guys, and make it look like we are doing our jobs.
Attorney General Lynch: I promised to do what the FBI Director told me to do, Of course I knew what he was going to say, Bill and I talked about it on the plane. Director Comey says forget about it so that lets me off the hook, just like I knew it would. LMAO Gotcha you dumb assed people who believe in Justice LMAO.
Director Comey: Got dammit I work for these people do you believe I want to kiss my career goodbye?
Of course she is guilty, but I propose we just forget about it, and let her continue to run for the highest office in the land.
We can continue to screw over the little guys, and make it look like we are doing our jobs.
Attorney General Lynch: I promised to do what the FBI Director told me to do, Of course I knew what he was going to say, Bill and I talked about it on the plane. Director Comey says forget about it so that lets me off the hook, just like I knew it would. LMAO Gotcha you dumb assed people who believe in Justice LMAO.
preselector
Member
The next mandatory security training will probably emphasize 'you can't carry classified material home to work on it even if your intentions are good'.
Subtext: The Hillary defense won't work for peons like you.
Subtext: The Hillary defense won't work for peons like you.
Tilted
..
I think that's about right; I think it was silly to expect that an indictment recommendation was coming. Frankly, I think this statement from Mr. Comey gives Mrs. Clinton's opponents more to work with than I would have expected it to.
littlelady
God bless the USA
I agree. For the majority of Comey's speech, you would think wait for it...the recommendation for charges was coming any minute, then all of a sudden he took an about face and we were left scratching our heads...wait, what? I think he said all he could to say to prove Hillary should be indicted, but he fell short because he succumbed to be part of the system, too, for whatever reason. It wouldn't be so shocking, except for the fact that we already knew/know that the Clintons are as corrupt as the day is long. Very sad, indeed.
Off topic: I don't get that Obama flew Clinton to NC on Air Force 1. Essentially, the taxpayers paid to transport Hillary to campaign with the current POTUS by her side. Has any other POTUS transported a POTUS nominee to campaign? It is like these people have no values or rules. There has been talk over time that some in DC wanted Obama to have a third term. If Hillary is elected, it will be an Obama third term or maybe fourth. Hillary and Obama are fellow puppets of the NWO, and America is in big trouble. Go Trump!
This_person
Well-Known Member
Does anyone have a cleaned up version?
It seems pretty odd that the felony does not require intent, but the reason for not recommending an indictment is lack of proof of intent.
mAlice
professional daydreamer
I've been thinking, "looks like someone has gotten to him, or he's drinking the kool-aid. Maybe someone stole his account? I dunno', but there has been a noticeable change in the tone of his posts.
And yet the guy who was rejected overwhelmingly, by way more people than rejected Trump, by everyone pretty much, can somehow win?
You are presuming that because they didn't vote for Trump in the primary, they won't vote for him in the general either, and that's definitely not how it works. The media tards kept saying that until I wanted to punch them in the throat. A vote for Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or whoever is just that - a vote for them. It's not necessarily a vote against Trump, any more than a vote for Trump was a vote against any of the rest of them. Every single election, people who voted for someone else in the primary come together and vote for the nominee who wasn't their first choice.
You may remember that there were 12 candidates in the beginning, and I'd have to look but I don't believe Trump won any of those primaries with more than 50%. It would have been almost impossible for him to do so, given the number of candidates in the field. Note, however, that when it was down to a more manageable three candidates Trump had no problem pulling over 50%.
It's entirely possible - probable, actually - that many Democrats will vote for Trump in the general. It's way more unlikely that Republican voters will snub Trump in favor of Hillary. In short, Trump can pull from both parties; Hillary cannot.
Polls schmolls. The polls have been so far off from actuality that they're worthless. They're not even a good indicator this election. I admit I get vaguely excited when polls show Trump and Shrill in a dead heat, but when they show her leading by a few points I'm like, meh, because they don't mean anything, especially this far out. Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio were supposed to be the guys, according to the early polls. Well, we see how that turned out in reality.
Not necessarily - she does have the machine behind her, after all. But if it weren't for the super delegates, which is just a fat load of bull####, they would be neck and neck. And after yesterday, it's quite likely they'd have gone to a brokered convention, or whatever Democrats do when neither candidate hits the number - cage match, who knows. In that case, yes, Bernie would have a nice shot at being the nominee. Mrs. Clinton, as you pointed out, is just that bad.
Where you're going awry with this is you're living by the polls and forgetting the real humans behind them. Both the pollers and the ones being polled. I don't know if you're just wishful thinking because you like Hillary or dislike Trump, but your predictions aren't based on logic, nor are they based on anything real. Which is unusual for you, and why I'm wondering about the Lizard People. The other reason may be because you're listening to the media too much, and they are batting a thousand on the being wrong front. I think we can safely say that, in this election, they don't know John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt.
Last edited: