Hillary won more votes for President
Comments
-
So you have proven the Director of the FBI to be a liar. The lawyers and former justice officials are not privy to all of the information that the FBI was. They did not conduct the investigation, and they are likely partisan in nature or in some way. Also, if they are on TV, they are paid to have an opinion. So in all, their opinion does not carry the same weight as the Director's.BS44325 said:
I don't claim to know more but the statement you highlighted has already been shown to be false and if you spend anytime watching and/or reading the news today you will see that many lawyers and former justice department officials tend to agree with me. Comey was up against a justice department and administration that was never going to indict but his unprecedented statement of facts completely indicted her character.mrussel1 said:
Why is it that you think you have so much more information than the FBI? Here is Comey's statement addressing this very issue:BS44325 said:
As per the Inspector Generals' report Clinton's server was not authorized by the US government nor were her mobile devices authorized for the purposes of sending or receiving classified information. Someone moved information to these unauthorized systems and she then knowingly participated in further dissemination. This "guy" unintentionally moved information to his unauthorized mobile device and later destroyed some of this information. The crime is the same.Degeneratefk said:
This has nothing to do with Clinton's case. This guy knowingly moved classified information from a authorized computer to a computer that was not authorized by the US government. Why can't you see the difference here?BS44325 said:Folsom Naval Rerservist charged and sentenced:
https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials
And apparently intent didn't matter
Second paragraph from the bottom:
"The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel."
Once again laws are for the little people.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Also here is the definiton of negligence for you:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negligence
As you can see it involves a lack of "care"
Extreme carelessness and gross negligence are really one and the same.
Second, again, you seem to think you have a better grasp of the legal concept of gross negligence than the lawyers in the FBI. It's really impressive that a Canadian citizen has a better understanding of the US statutes than the best prosecutors in the US.0 -
Somehow this got lost on the last page so I'll print it again.tempo_n_groove said:Here is the last few comments from Comey.
He clearly states that there isn't anything to bring her to trial but it does say that she and others should have sanctions.
Read the WHOLE thing.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.
I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation — including people in government — but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the F.B.I. found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.0 -
you must be scared then, my evil plan is working....you will obey and vote for the power of TrumpNation...obey and conform.Bentleyspop said:
trump supporters specialize in fear, hate, and ignoranceGern Blansten said:
Funny how you refer to Hillary as the criminal when she has not been indicted for anything.Godfather. said:
wouldn't be funny if Trump won......the fact that anybody would vote for that criminal is beyond me but hay to each their own right ?Degeneratefk said:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah. You really are living in a dream world.Godfather. said:well boys and girls are you ready for TrumpNation ? I have a feeling that Hell'ary may not go to jail but the damage to her reputation as a political figure may be to damning to recover from...I hope !
every news station I'm reading or watching is really in disbelief.
Godfather.
and what is your dream world ?
Godfather.
Yet...somehow you ignore Trump's bankruptcies and ALL of the lawsuits related to Trump University. I understand that those lawsuits haven't been decided yet but to ignore them is really ignorant.
you are getting sleeeepy..obey..sleeeepy HAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHA
Godfather.
0 -
Perhaps somewhat related to this topic specifically, but in general? Agreed.Ledbetterman10 said:Being negligent and careless is in some ways worse than being malicious.
0 -
Comey's statement made us all privy so no specific expertise required. He isn't a liar but a man stuck between a rock and a hard place. Hillary is the liar and her actions compromised your national security.mrussel1 said:
So you have proven the Director of the FBI to be a liar. The lawyers and former justice officials are not privy to all of the information that the FBI was. They did not conduct the investigation, and they are likely partisan in nature or in some way. Also, if they are on TV, they are paid to have an opinion. So in all, their opinion does not carry the same weight as the Director's.BS44325 said:
I don't claim to know more but the statement you highlighted has already been shown to be false and if you spend anytime watching and/or reading the news today you will see that many lawyers and former justice department officials tend to agree with me. Comey was up against a justice department and administration that was never going to indict but his unprecedented statement of facts completely indicted her character.mrussel1 said:
Why is it that you think you have so much more information than the FBI? Here is Comey's statement addressing this very issue:BS44325 said:
As per the Inspector Generals' report Clinton's server was not authorized by the US government nor were her mobile devices authorized for the purposes of sending or receiving classified information. Someone moved information to these unauthorized systems and she then knowingly participated in further dissemination. This "guy" unintentionally moved information to his unauthorized mobile device and later destroyed some of this information. The crime is the same.Degeneratefk said:
This has nothing to do with Clinton's case. This guy knowingly moved classified information from a authorized computer to a computer that was not authorized by the US government. Why can't you see the difference here?BS44325 said:Folsom Naval Rerservist charged and sentenced:
https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials
And apparently intent didn't matter
Second paragraph from the bottom:
"The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel."
Once again laws are for the little people.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Also here is the definiton of negligence for you:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negligence
As you can see it involves a lack of "care"
Extreme carelessness and gross negligence are really one and the same.
Second, again, you seem to think you have a better grasp of the legal concept of gross negligence than the lawyers in the FBI. It's really impressive that a Canadian citizen has a better understanding of the US statutes than the best prosecutors in the US.0 -
Sounds like you are calling him corrupt, derelict in his duty and dare I say... grossly negligent? Funny how you can show some empathy towards him.BS44325 said:
Comey's statement made us all privy so no specific expertise required. He isn't a liar but a man stuck between a rock and a hard place. Hillary is the liar and her actions compromised your national security.mrussel1 said:
So you have proven the Director of the FBI to be a liar. The lawyers and former justice officials are not privy to all of the information that the FBI was. They did not conduct the investigation, and they are likely partisan in nature or in some way. Also, if they are on TV, they are paid to have an opinion. So in all, their opinion does not carry the same weight as the Director's.BS44325 said:
I don't claim to know more but the statement you highlighted has already been shown to be false and if you spend anytime watching and/or reading the news today you will see that many lawyers and former justice department officials tend to agree with me. Comey was up against a justice department and administration that was never going to indict but his unprecedented statement of facts completely indicted her character.mrussel1 said:
Why is it that you think you have so much more information than the FBI? Here is Comey's statement addressing this very issue:BS44325 said:
As per the Inspector Generals' report Clinton's server was not authorized by the US government nor were her mobile devices authorized for the purposes of sending or receiving classified information. Someone moved information to these unauthorized systems and she then knowingly participated in further dissemination. This "guy" unintentionally moved information to his unauthorized mobile device and later destroyed some of this information. The crime is the same.Degeneratefk said:
This has nothing to do with Clinton's case. This guy knowingly moved classified information from a authorized computer to a computer that was not authorized by the US government. Why can't you see the difference here?BS44325 said:Folsom Naval Rerservist charged and sentenced:
https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials
And apparently intent didn't matter
Second paragraph from the bottom:
"The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel."
Once again laws are for the little people.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Also here is the definiton of negligence for you:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negligence
As you can see it involves a lack of "care"
Extreme carelessness and gross negligence are really one and the same.
Second, again, you seem to think you have a better grasp of the legal concept of gross negligence than the lawyers in the FBI. It's really impressive that a Canadian citizen has a better understanding of the US statutes than the best prosecutors in the US.0 -
Well he just announced that he will appear before a house committee tomorrow to answer questions on the matter. There could be some more shoes to drop.mrussel1 said:
Sounds like you are calling him corrupt, derelict in his duty and dare I say... grossly negligent? Funny how you can show some empathy towards him.BS44325 said:
Comey's statement made us all privy so no specific expertise required. He isn't a liar but a man stuck between a rock and a hard place. Hillary is the liar and her actions compromised your national security.mrussel1 said:
So you have proven the Director of the FBI to be a liar. The lawyers and former justice officials are not privy to all of the information that the FBI was. They did not conduct the investigation, and they are likely partisan in nature or in some way. Also, if they are on TV, they are paid to have an opinion. So in all, their opinion does not carry the same weight as the Director's.BS44325 said:
I don't claim to know more but the statement you highlighted has already been shown to be false and if you spend anytime watching and/or reading the news today you will see that many lawyers and former justice department officials tend to agree with me. Comey was up against a justice department and administration that was never going to indict but his unprecedented statement of facts completely indicted her character.mrussel1 said:
Why is it that you think you have so much more information than the FBI? Here is Comey's statement addressing this very issue:BS44325 said:
As per the Inspector Generals' report Clinton's server was not authorized by the US government nor were her mobile devices authorized for the purposes of sending or receiving classified information. Someone moved information to these unauthorized systems and she then knowingly participated in further dissemination. This "guy" unintentionally moved information to his unauthorized mobile device and later destroyed some of this information. The crime is the same.Degeneratefk said:
This has nothing to do with Clinton's case. This guy knowingly moved classified information from a authorized computer to a computer that was not authorized by the US government. Why can't you see the difference here?BS44325 said:Folsom Naval Rerservist charged and sentenced:
https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials
And apparently intent didn't matter
Second paragraph from the bottom:
"The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel."
Once again laws are for the little people.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Also here is the definiton of negligence for you:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negligence
As you can see it involves a lack of "care"
Extreme carelessness and gross negligence are really one and the same.
Second, again, you seem to think you have a better grasp of the legal concept of gross negligence than the lawyers in the FBI. It's really impressive that a Canadian citizen has a better understanding of the US statutes than the best prosecutors in the US.0 -
Seems like Comey could have just laid out the evidence and said it is now up to the justice department to determine. He made the decision for the "reasonable prosecutor" instead of letting the "reasonable prosecutor" come to their own conclusion. He gave the justice department (and Obama) cover. That is the strange thing to me. Special treatment for Hillary.
He probably didn't like doing it but he probably reasoned it was okay since he ripped into Hillary during the first 10 minutes of his speech.0 -
OR....knowing that there wasn't anything to prosecute in any remote fashion he made the most of the opportunity to discredit the State Dept/Clinton for careless disregard, etc.bootlegger10 said:Seems like Comey could have just laid out the evidence and said it is now up to the justice department to determine. He made the decision for the "reasonable prosecutor" instead of letting the "reasonable prosecutor" come to their own conclusion. He gave the justice department (and Obama) cover. That is the strange thing to me. Special treatment for Hillary.
He probably didn't like doing it but he probably reasoned it was okay since he ripped into Hillary during the first 10 minutes of his speech.
Seems like he did what he could to damage Clinton as much as possible.Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
An investigation of the investigation.BS44325 said:
Well he just announced that he will appear before a house committee tomorrow to answer questions on the matter. There could be some more shoes to drop.mrussel1 said:
Sounds like you are calling him corrupt, derelict in his duty and dare I say... grossly negligent? Funny how you can show some empathy towards him.BS44325 said:
Comey's statement made us all privy so no specific expertise required. He isn't a liar but a man stuck between a rock and a hard place. Hillary is the liar and her actions compromised your national security.mrussel1 said:
So you have proven the Director of the FBI to be a liar. The lawyers and former justice officials are not privy to all of the information that the FBI was. They did not conduct the investigation, and they are likely partisan in nature or in some way. Also, if they are on TV, they are paid to have an opinion. So in all, their opinion does not carry the same weight as the Director's.BS44325 said:
I don't claim to know more but the statement you highlighted has already been shown to be false and if you spend anytime watching and/or reading the news today you will see that many lawyers and former justice department officials tend to agree with me. Comey was up against a justice department and administration that was never going to indict but his unprecedented statement of facts completely indicted her character.mrussel1 said:
Why is it that you think you have so much more information than the FBI? Here is Comey's statement addressing this very issue:BS44325 said:
As per the Inspector Generals' report Clinton's server was not authorized by the US government nor were her mobile devices authorized for the purposes of sending or receiving classified information. Someone moved information to these unauthorized systems and she then knowingly participated in further dissemination. This "guy" unintentionally moved information to his unauthorized mobile device and later destroyed some of this information. The crime is the same.Degeneratefk said:
This has nothing to do with Clinton's case. This guy knowingly moved classified information from a authorized computer to a computer that was not authorized by the US government. Why can't you see the difference here?BS44325 said:Folsom Naval Rerservist charged and sentenced:
https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials
And apparently intent didn't matter
Second paragraph from the bottom:
"The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel."
Once again laws are for the little people.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Also here is the definiton of negligence for you:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negligence
As you can see it involves a lack of "care"
Extreme carelessness and gross negligence are really one and the same.
Second, again, you seem to think you have a better grasp of the legal concept of gross negligence than the lawyers in the FBI. It's really impressive that a Canadian citizen has a better understanding of the US statutes than the best prosecutors in the US.
When the GOP doesn't get the answer they want they hold hearings so that their sound bites become news fodder on Faux News. Pathetic.Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
The FBI director left the decision up to the American People. He knew that if he recommended criminal charges that the politics surrounding this would get in the way. He pretty much destroyed any credibility of HRC words that she has said over the past year + that she has not sent classified emails and then walking it back saying she never sent anything marked classified. It is now in the hands of the voter. Do you trust the billionaire who gets a too loose with his lips in remarks or do you trust the career politician who has a track record of lying to the American people?96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II0 -
it's a messy situation for sure but as you said she has been lying to Americans for a loooong time so how can she be trusted ?Dirtie_Frank said:The FBI director left the decision up to the American People. He knew that if he recommended criminal charges that the politics surrounding this would get in the way. He pretty much destroyed any credibility of HRC words that she has said over the past year + that she has not sent classified emails and then walking it back saying she never sent anything marked classified. It is now in the hands of the voter. Do you trust the billionaire who gets a too loose with his lips in remarks or do you trust the career politician who has a track record of lying to the American people?
so no charges have been filed but her true self has been put on display for the whole world to see
Godfather.
0 -
did you really expect anything else from these assholes?Gern Blansten said:
An investigation of the investigation.BS44325 said:
Well he just announced that he will appear before a house committee tomorrow to answer questions on the matter. There could be some more shoes to drop.mrussel1 said:
Sounds like you are calling him corrupt, derelict in his duty and dare I say... grossly negligent? Funny how you can show some empathy towards him.BS44325 said:
Comey's statement made us all privy so no specific expertise required. He isn't a liar but a man stuck between a rock and a hard place. Hillary is the liar and her actions compromised your national security.mrussel1 said:
So you have proven the Director of the FBI to be a liar. The lawyers and former justice officials are not privy to all of the information that the FBI was. They did not conduct the investigation, and they are likely partisan in nature or in some way. Also, if they are on TV, they are paid to have an opinion. So in all, their opinion does not carry the same weight as the Director's.BS44325 said:
I don't claim to know more but the statement you highlighted has already been shown to be false and if you spend anytime watching and/or reading the news today you will see that many lawyers and former justice department officials tend to agree with me. Comey was up against a justice department and administration that was never going to indict but his unprecedented statement of facts completely indicted her character.mrussel1 said:
Why is it that you think you have so much more information than the FBI? Here is Comey's statement addressing this very issue:BS44325 said:
As per the Inspector Generals' report Clinton's server was not authorized by the US government nor were her mobile devices authorized for the purposes of sending or receiving classified information. Someone moved information to these unauthorized systems and she then knowingly participated in further dissemination. This "guy" unintentionally moved information to his unauthorized mobile device and later destroyed some of this information. The crime is the same.Degeneratefk said:
This has nothing to do with Clinton's case. This guy knowingly moved classified information from a authorized computer to a computer that was not authorized by the US government. Why can't you see the difference here?BS44325 said:Folsom Naval Rerservist charged and sentenced:
https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials
And apparently intent didn't matter
Second paragraph from the bottom:
"The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel."
Once again laws are for the little people.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Also here is the definiton of negligence for you:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negligence
As you can see it involves a lack of "care"
Extreme carelessness and gross negligence are really one and the same.
Second, again, you seem to think you have a better grasp of the legal concept of gross negligence than the lawyers in the FBI. It's really impressive that a Canadian citizen has a better understanding of the US statutes than the best prosecutors in the US.
When the GOP doesn't get the answer they want they hold hearings so that their sound bites become news fodder on Faux News. Pathetic.
this is going to be benghazi on steroids with all of these investigations.
cue special prosecutor now.
kenn starr is out of a job, maybe they can dust him off and make him special prosecutor?"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
Absolutely not! No way does Hillary get my vote. And, of course, neither does the unqualified pseudo-republican pseudo-"politician" either. What an awful presidential election this is turning out to be. By far, the worst of the dozen or so I've had the opportunity to participate in.Dirtie_Frank said:The FBI director left the decision up to the American People. He knew that if he recommended criminal charges that the politics surrounding this would get in the way. He pretty much destroyed any credibility of HRC words that she has said over the past year + that she has not sent classified emails and then walking it back saying she never sent anything marked classified. It is now in the hands of the voter. Do you trust the billionaire who gets a too loose with his lips in remarks or do you trust the career politician who has a track record of lying to the American people?
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Or do you vote for the candidate who lies about charitable giving, wants to remove citizenship from millions of Americans, rips off the contractors that worked for him and has created entire businesses based on fraud (Trump University) along with a myriad of other horrible things he has done..Dirtie_Frank said:The FBI director left the decision up to the American People. He knew that if he recommended criminal charges that the politics surrounding this would get in the way. He pretty much destroyed any credibility of HRC words that she has said over the past year + that she has not sent classified emails and then walking it back saying she never sent anything marked classified. It is now in the hands of the voter. Do you trust the billionaire who gets a too loose with his lips in remarks or do you trust the career politician who has a track record of lying to the American people?
Hmm.. 100 classified emails or wholesale fraud... hmmm.. which way should I go...0 -
Neither...Gary Johnsonmrussel1 said:
Or do you vote for the candidate who lies about charitable giving, wants to remove citizenship from millions of Americans, rips off the contractors that worked for him and has created entire businesses based on fraud (Trump University) along with a myriad of other horrible things he has done..Dirtie_Frank said:The FBI director left the decision up to the American People. He knew that if he recommended criminal charges that the politics surrounding this would get in the way. He pretty much destroyed any credibility of HRC words that she has said over the past year + that she has not sent classified emails and then walking it back saying she never sent anything marked classified. It is now in the hands of the voter. Do you trust the billionaire who gets a too loose with his lips in remarks or do you trust the career politician who has a track record of lying to the American people?
Hmm.. 100 classified emails or wholesale fraud... hmmm.. which way should I go...
0 -
I'm a couple of election cycles behind you, Brian, and I agree. Just awful choices. But I've come to expect that. Once again, neither major party candidate will be getting my vote. Crooked Hillary vs Racist/Misogynist Trump looks like a no-win proposition. I see Hillary as the lesser of two evils, but not "lesser" enough to deserve my vote.brianlux said:
Absolutely not! No way does Hillary get my vote. And, of course, neither does the unqualified pseudo-republican pseudo-"politician" either. What an awful presidential election this is turning out to be. By far, the worst of the dozen or so I've had the opportunity to participate in.Dirtie_Frank said:The FBI director left the decision up to the American People. He knew that if he recommended criminal charges that the politics surrounding this would get in the way. He pretty much destroyed any credibility of HRC words that she has said over the past year + that she has not sent classified emails and then walking it back saying she never sent anything marked classified. It is now in the hands of the voter. Do you trust the billionaire who gets a too loose with his lips in remarks or do you trust the career politician who has a track record of lying to the American people?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
I'm fine with Hillary. I really don't understand the hatred that she gets along with the "lying/crooked" comments.
She is miles above Trump.
I don't mind Johnson as an individual....but Libertarians just don't make sense.Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
That's right. Many libertarian policies, in practice, will not work. Gary seems like a fine man, but he came off as underwhelming, at best, during the CNN forum given to him and Weld. He seemed to just defer to Weld.Gern Blansten said:I'm fine with Hillary. I really don't understand the hatred that she gets along with the "lying/crooked" comments.
She is miles above Trump.
I don't mind Johnson as an individual....but Libertarians just don't make sense.
99% of the shit against HRC is just smears and twisting of facts.0 -
Funny, seems to me that anything coming FROM HRC is also just smears and twisted facts.mrussel1 said:
That's right. Many libertarian policies, in practice, will not work. Gary seems like a fine man, but he came off as underwhelming, at best, during the CNN forum given to him and Weld. He seemed to just defer to Weld.Gern Blansten said:I'm fine with Hillary. I really don't understand the hatred that she gets along with the "lying/crooked" comments.
She is miles above Trump.
I don't mind Johnson as an individual....but Libertarians just don't make sense.
99% of the shit against HRC is just smears and twisting of facts.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help