Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 10:12am PT
|
Madbollter...you're parroting rightwing talking points.
ROFL
You can read my post and come up with THAT? Oh my....
Name me the things she has been found guilty of.....waiting.... Just a bunch of innuendo and fake scandals.
You mean a crime? Like a felony?
Well, the same was said of Al Capone, until his final conviction for... tax evasion!
Nixon pleaded the same thing, until he was finally forced to resign in infamy.
Nobody is convicted of anything... until they are convicted of something.
And are you going to tell me that she is not guilty of violating the clear intention of the freedom of information act?
Are you going to tell me that ALL of these "fake scandals" (presumably including this new email scandal) are just inventions of the right wing, that she is above all reasonable suspicion?
Are you going to tell me that the Demoncrats have NOBODY to offer us that is not scandal-ridden?
And the idea that Warren is not as credible as Hillary to govern is absurd.
Obama was NOTHING prior to being the President! Surely Warren is at least as competent as Obama. LOL
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 10:30am PT
|
And are you going to tell me that she is not guilty of violating the clear intention of the freedom of information act?
I have no idea what that means.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 10:37am PT
|
Madbollter...you're parroting rightwing talking points.
Is that comment an example of left wing "argument?" If what madbolter posted is untrue, provide the refutation. If what he posted was true, but analyzed incorrectly, provide the correction. Responding as above demonstrates an inability to refute the post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
John
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 10:44am PT
|
The left wing refutes the right wing with "parroting talking points!" The right wing refutes the left wing with "where there's smoke there's fire" and "guilty until proven innocent!" If other people were eventually proven guilty, then Hilary must be guilty too!
Now we're making progress :-) Human believing at its finest. My beliefs must be true somehow!
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 10:53am PT
|
What you're doing is repeating the rightwing media's throw-out-everything-and-something-will-stick baloney.
Whitewater
"Filegate"
Vince Foster
Benghazi
E-mails (don't the people who received these e-mails have a copy?)
It all must add up something! Violating the intent of the Freedom of Information Act? That's what you got???
A candidate doesn't get to enact their platform. They have to be a skilled politician to get anything done in Washington. Why do you think the Republicans are going nuts about Hillary? They fear her. They don't fear Bernie Sanders.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 10:56am PT
|
I have no idea what that means.
Here's some help: http://foia.state.gov/
Look at Section §171.11.e: Record means all information under the control of the Department, including information created, stored, and retrievable by electronic means, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made in or received by the Department and preserved as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations or other activities of the Department or because of the informational value of the data contained therein. It includes records of other Government agencies that have been expressly placed under the control of the Department upon termination of those agencies. It does not include personal records created primarily for the personal convenience of an individual and not used to conduct Department business and not integrated into the Department's record keeping system or files.
And this line is what Hillary intentionally sought to use as a loophole to keep at least some of her State-related emails to herself: It does not include personal records created primarily for the personal convenience of an individual and not used to conduct Department business and not integrated into the Department's record keeping system or files.
By intentionally mixing her State and private emails together on her own system (i.e.: "not integrated into the Department's record keeping system or files"), and intentionally USING the language of "convenience," she KNOWS exactly what section of the FOIA she will appeal to if push comes to shove. And the American people will be (yet again) torn to decide if it is worth pursuing her on the "fine point" of the all-important phrase: not used to conduct Department business.
Hillary DID "conduct Department business" using her own email server, and she DID NOT turn over all of her State-related emails to State as required by FOIA (and as specified as "available" on State's on website).
The irony here is that she acknowledged State's right to ALL of those emails, as specified in subsection (f): Control means the Department's legal authority over a record, taking into account the ability of the Department to use and dispose of the record as it sees fit, to legally determine the disposition of a record, the intent of the record's creator to retain or relinquish control over the record, the extent to which Department personnel have read or relied upon the record, and the degree to which the record has been integrated into the Department's record keeping system or files. And she CLAIMED that she HAD complied by turning over all State-related emails. So, she both acknowledges the law and claims to comply with it WHILE in fact not actually complying with it.
If even ONE email surfaced as State-related, sent from her server, and not turned over in her 30,000+ emails as being "all" of her State-related emails, then the American people would have ample reason to demand access to her server. In fact, multiple such emails have surfaced, and there will be more.
So, we know that Hillary knew the relevant text of State's own language regarding FOIA, that she has already appealed to it in her "explanation" of how she handled her emails, and that she is NOT in compliance with FOIA. She has flatly and intentionally precluded the American people from EVER having access to information that is clearly specified in FOIA and in State's own language as being "available" to them.
Surely by now she has hired consultants to do a deep, multi-pass, randomized overwrite of her drive(s), so that when (in eventual grandiose fashion) she sighs deeply and then turns over the server (assuming it's even THE server), nothing will be recoverable.
But the FOIA is clear, and State's interpretation of it is clear. And at this point it seems clear that Hillary intentionally (and successfully) circumvented that law's application to HER.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 10:57am PT
|
Not going to work TW, go to the Mind thread to get that one frozen.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 11:06am PT
|
Here is how the Right Wing Scandal Machine works.
They search for something that is questionable about someone they want to smear, they all jump on board and make a big dust storm, then they point to the dust storm and say "look at all that smoke, well there must be something to this scandal, because everyone is parroting the talking points now"
even though there was nothing there in the first place,
or it was caused by the Republicans in the first place, like them not funding the security for Benghazi
or the Republicans have done the same thing but a thousand times worse, like Jeb Bush deleting all his e-mails, and Huckabee paying $100,000 to wipe his computer clean after he left office, or Karl Rove running the Bush admin on his server, that he then wiped clean after he was subpoenaed by Congress.
All Secretaries of State before Kerry had their own server, but now we only talk about Hillary?
It just exposes their hypocrisy, and that they GOT Nothing to run on.
Can you win a campaign on hating and smearing the opposition? they will try.
go ahead and tell me what they are running on
lower taxes for the rich, higher military spending, less protections for real people and more debt, that is what they are running on, they just hope you are a typical Republican sucker and don't catch on to how they will screw you
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 11:13am PT
|
It all must add up something! Violating the intent of the Freedom of Information Act? That's what you got???
Yeah, that's what I've got, and it ought to be enough.
I have never appealed to "it all" in any sense. I've said that Hillary wears her corruption on her sleeve, and she does. I've said that she is scandal-ridden, and she is.
Not everybody is "guilty until proven innocent." There are two reasons why Hillary is a special case here.
1) Hillary, unlike most Americans, yet like a man like Al Capone, is scandal-ridden and rife with suspicious behaviors and associations. By contrast, a candidate like Ben Carson (again, God save us from a guy like him making it through the process) is AT LEAST not a suspicious character with suspicious behaviors and associations.
2) Hillary, unlike most Americans, wants to have her finger on the nuclear trigger, and so her honesty, integrity, motivations, and TRANSPARENCY are under a level of scrutiny that most Americans justifiably have no interest in enduring.
We VET (or at least try to vet) candidates for that office! So, if you don't like the fire, then don't bring your OWN smoke! Hillary IS a smoke-filled room, and it is a legitimate question to ask: IS there actually fire anywhere? It sure SEEMS like there's fire here somewhere! Can there be THIS much smoke with nary a fire anywhere around???
That is not a "right wing" concern. That is an American concern.
And the email scandal would be more than enough, if it weren't for the Demoncrat true-believers that will vote for Hillary NO MATTER what she does.
Regarding the idea that copies of all of her emails exist among the people she sent them to, it is obvious that the ones we would be most concerned about reside with people that will never share them, and they have probably all been deleted by now. HILLARY was legally responsible to hand over everything State-related, and we now know that she did not. Furthermore, SHE was responsible to be both transparent and compliant regarding ALL State-related communications. We now know that she was not AND that she very intentionally crafted a context in which she NEVER could be held accountable to the law.
I say again, SURELY the Demoncrats can offer us a candidate that is both minimally competent (Obama could do it!) AND that is not a MASS of scandals, lies, and obfuscations.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 11:19am PT
|
MB
That is YOUR Opinion
My opinion is that she is well qualified to be President
and she is one million times better than any Republican that will be a candidate.
Every Republican is way more corrupt, and many of them are already being investigated for some criminal activity.
There are only 2 choices, take your pick.
a decent first Women President, or 4 years of driving over a cliff with America on board.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 11:20am PT
|
Werner, you're right. I shouldn't bother.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 11:22am PT
|
Why doesn't anyone care about the Republican criminal investigations
Christy, Walker, Perry, etc.
what about Jeb Bush's e-mails?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 11:25am PT
|
MB
That is YOUR Opinion
Exactly, which is exactly what we share in such discussions.
My opinion is that she is well qualified to be President
and she is one million times better than any Republican that will be a candidate.
Your opinion, which, clearly, I don't share.
ALL I've cared about in my discussion is to indicate to reasonable minds why an increasing spectrum of reasonable Americans does not share the enthusiasm with which some other Americans view Hillary.
I, for one, find her despicable in the extreme. I don't trust her in the slightest. And integrity still matters to me.
In the end, I'll vote for that candidate that is the least of the evils, all things considered. But Hillary strikes me as pretty amazingly evil.
Christy, Walker, Perry, etc.
what about Jeb Bush's e-mails?
They are all terrible. However, unlike Hillary's setup, Jeb's was not beholden to the federal FOIA. It's not yet clear what Jeb did "wrong" by having multiple email accounts.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 11:30am PT
|
Yes, yes, let's all talk about illegal information gathering and cover-ups...
Edit: "In the end, I'll vote for that candidate that is the least of the evils, all things considered."
And who are you thinking that might be this time around, mb?
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 11:37am PT
|
Madbolter, you have been treated respectfully, your arguements are being factually refutiated and then you throw in with the forum bully. I guess you're a lost cause. Waiting for a savior who isn't coming.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 11:51am PT
|
Madbolter, you have been treated respectfully, your arguements are being factually refutiated
As have you, at least by me. And you have not "refutiated" (whatever that word is) my arguments.
The FOIA is clear. State recognizes it and even interprets it in a way that Hillary clearly violated. And Hillary violated it with intention to violate it, even referring to specific language in it in her efforts to circumvent it.
Who the lesser of the evils will turn out to be? Who knows yet? There are eighteen months to go. Maybe by the time of the election, Hillary will look like a saint by comparison to the others.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 12:07pm PT
|
"In the end, I'll vote for that candidate that is the least of the evils, all things considered."
And who are you thinking that might be this time around, mb?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 12:12pm PT
|
Who the lesser of the evils will turn out to be? Who knows yet? There are eighteen months to go. Maybe by the time of the election, Hillary will look like a saint by comparison to the others.
Asked and answered.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 12:40pm PT
|
Sorry...maybe I missed it. No offense, but I don't want to go through your long missives looking for a simple answer (that might not be there if I looked for it).
Of the potential GOP candidates (or any Party, for that matter)...which ones look good to you right now?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2015 - 01:13pm PT
|
which ones look good to you right now?
Not to be nit-picky, but, seriously, none look "good" to me right now.
Ron Paul looked better to me than others in times past, but he was very libertarian, and Rand is NOT his daddy in any relevant sense.
And the Rebumblecon primary morass seems designed to produce the most right-wing candidate possible, who then spends the remaining time in the general election process trying to cast him/herself as much more "moderate" than the primary made out. So, who knows WHAT you are really getting after that mess?
The fact that a guy like Ben Carson can be taken seriously by anybody is very, very troubling! He's a nice guy, a consummate surgeon, and due to a book and movie a somewhat known and highly-regarding individual. He's probably a really decent human being. He's also hyper-religious, ultra-right, and entirely unqualified to be CEO of our nation. He's a nicer, smarter version of Palin; and it boggles my mind that anybody takes him seriously.
I'm a Christian, but the LAST thing I want to see this country become is a theocracy! The far right is even more scary to me than the far left (barely).
So, none of them "look good" to me, because the primary process is going to exacerbate what are already scary qualities, and who knows what sort of candidate is going to emerge from that? I would probably find a moderate Demoncrat to be more palatable than whatever is going to emerge from the Rebumblecon primary process.
But, in case I have not said it clearly enough: Both parties stink!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!