His press secy did say they are not getting involved given the intricacies of the situation.
Such hatred of Obama.
Why now?
- Thread starter HALL85
- Start date
Such hatred of Obama.
My conscious says vote for neither...why would I want to be party to two awful choices when I don't have to.
If the President comments he is injecting partisanship into the situation. If the President doesn't comment he is in up to his ears in this, another lying liar who lies.
I agree with you here. He did overstep. FBI investigates and produces evidence. The US Attorney's office makes the charging decisions and prosecutes the case. Very unclear why he did that. It is very rare for the FBI to state that an investigation is over or recommends not charging. Normally, they just stay silent publicly. That is why the FBI should never comment on whether an investigation has commenced or has been completed.
No, he's a liar, among his other lies, because he stated he didn't know Clinton used a personal email/server until he heard it on the news yet he communicated with her on her personal email/server on numerous occasions. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
If you feel they are equal then I definitely understand the sentiment. I don't want to vote for Clinton but I am of the opinion that my protest vote needs to be anti-trump (for Hillary) to reject far right movement of the GOP.
I wish Hillary would have dropped out of the race months ago. Sanders or Biden if he entered would be crushing Trump right now.
Very true, I never thought of it that way. Of course, extending that logic implies that everyone who received an email from Clinton is equally a liar. If it was that obvious to the receivers of her emails the personal server should not have survived more than a few weeks and yet it went undetected for quite some time.
Using a personal e-mail account for state business was not against policy.
There were policies in regards to data retention and classified info which Clinton did not follow.
I really don't care that she used a personal e-mail server. That really shouldn't bother anyone.
No, as I have posted previously, that is a major issue.
Just clarifying the distinction between the issue of using a private e-mail (perfectly fine and within policy) and improper handling of classified data (huge problem)
If she were running against pretty much anyone other than Trump, I would not vote for her.
My vote is a rejection of Trump and the far right shift of the party.
I don't feel they are equal. Her disregard for the law is very dangerous in my view. They both suck, she just sucks more.
Your prerogative, but I don't believe in the protest vote. I prefer the conscious vote.
Because he's actually doing his job, which is to stay out of the FBI's way. You don't believe it now because you always find a way to attack him, but you're gonna miss him when he's gone and we're stuck with one of these two knuckleheads.
That said, there is no love lost between the Clintons and the Obamas.
You guys all need a good stiff drink. I recommend Woodford Reserve neat. Hang in there though;
it will all be over in 7 days.
it will all be over in 7 days.
Funny, he insisted that Podesta's best friend be in charge of the investigation on the DOJ side. Trying to cover his ass on this.
What would he be in trouble for? He didn't mishandle classified info (as far as we know).
We already know he's part and parcel to Clinton's use of her illegal personal server/email, he communicated with it, wouldn't be surprised to see there is more to his involvement, hence his further coverup. ("I didn't know about her personal server/email until I read it in the news", LOL!)
What "involvement" would you not be surprised to see? You lost me there. I do agree with your last line, no way what he said there is true.
I don't see how the president would have done anything illegal regarding this issue.
Perhaps not illegal but highly unethical and embarassing for him to support such an illegal action so he tries to squash it. Look at what we know so far and his actions to date on this.
Clintons server was not illegal.
Obama could have set the damn thing up himself and it wouldn't be illegal.
It's illegal for anyone to store classified information in an unauthorized way, like, say, on an unauthorized personal email server. See Section 1924 Of Title 18 — Classified Information.
Also violates:
- The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
- The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
As I said above, she did not follow the rules and mishandled classified data... just want to keep those isssues separate from the email server.
There appears to be a misunderstanding of what the issue actually is and your post where you called the server illegal contributes to that.
Having a personal server was not illegal. Using a personal email address was not illegal.
There appears to be a misunderstanding of what the issue actually is and your post where you called the server illegal contributes to that.
Having a personal server was not illegal. Using a personal email address was not illegal.
You'll excuse me if I'm much, much more concerned with Hillarys policies going forward then this silly email nonsense. The discussion going forward SHOULD be about things like her hawkish view of the Mid East & our involvement, her wishy washy stance on fracking, marijuana legalization, and whether we trust her public stances on TPP, tough finance regulation, somehow getting Citizens United overturned, the minimum wage & college debt reform (I don't).
Instead, even intelligent, plugged in guys like yourselves are letting yourself getting distracted by the shiny object. This crap doesn't matter. It won't affect you or me, and none of us will ever fully trust her with classified info regardless how this shakes out. This scandal & the Wikileaks emails show her to be the calculated, slimy politician everyone has suspected her to be.
But her policies will matter, especially if the Dems get the Senate (even if it's just 51-49). I'm more interested in what kind of pressure from her supposed "base" she'll get & if it will work.
Instead, even intelligent, plugged in guys like yourselves are letting yourself getting distracted by the shiny object. This crap doesn't matter. It won't affect you or me, and none of us will ever fully trust her with classified info regardless how this shakes out. This scandal & the Wikileaks emails show her to be the calculated, slimy politician everyone has suspected her to be.
But her policies will matter, especially if the Dems get the Senate (even if it's just 51-49). I'm more interested in what kind of pressure from her supposed "base" she'll get & if it will work.
Here ya go - one opinion
1. her hawkish view of the Mid East & our involvement - will not be as hawkish as President as she is on campaign trail
2. her wishy washy stance on fracking, - loves it and will generally support it
3. marijuana legalization - won't get involved other than to say the states should be involved,
4. whether we trust her public stances on TPP, - There will be some modest amendment to TPP and she will re-support it.
5. tough finance regulation, generally will support and will have some reform in arcane areas of regulation but nowhere near what Sanders would have proposed
6.somehow getting Citizens United overturned, - Will try but Congress and the Courts have more impact
7. the minimum wage - will support strongly
8. & college debt reform - If she actually tackles the first seven items this will fall by the wayside.
1. her hawkish view of the Mid East & our involvement - will not be as hawkish as President as she is on campaign trail
2. her wishy washy stance on fracking, - loves it and will generally support it
3. marijuana legalization - won't get involved other than to say the states should be involved,
4. whether we trust her public stances on TPP, - There will be some modest amendment to TPP and she will re-support it.
5. tough finance regulation, generally will support and will have some reform in arcane areas of regulation but nowhere near what Sanders would have proposed
6.somehow getting Citizens United overturned, - Will try but Congress and the Courts have more impact
7. the minimum wage - will support strongly
8. & college debt reform - If she actually tackles the first seven items this will fall by the wayside.
For her policies to work, she has to work with a branch of our government commonly referred to as the Congress, lol.
In this era of surreal fraction and unwillingness for politicians to compromise and drive real change, how is she going to be able to accomplish that without a majority in Congress? Look at what we've just gone through with the current President. We are now a government of Executive Orders and obstruction, both ways.
We're going to layer that with arguably the most detested and smeared career politician of them all? She'll need a mandate and a Congress. And this is coming from a supporter of HRC - bregrudgingly or not - over Trump. Cannot do Trump. While I would be supportive of a reasonably qualified candidate that is an outsider intent on "draining the swamp" and reducing the federal government's shenanigans, he is not the individual even remotely qualified or with the mental/emotional stability to do it, IMO.
I agree with the poster that said either Bernie or Biden would be mopping the floor with Trump. While my political compass is moderate compared to Bernie, I like much of what Bernie says, but I was never feeling the Bern as much as his dedicated supporters.
In this era of surreal fraction and unwillingness for politicians to compromise and drive real change, how is she going to be able to accomplish that without a majority in Congress? Look at what we've just gone through with the current President. We are now a government of Executive Orders and obstruction, both ways.
We're going to layer that with arguably the most detested and smeared career politician of them all? She'll need a mandate and a Congress. And this is coming from a supporter of HRC - bregrudgingly or not - over Trump. Cannot do Trump. While I would be supportive of a reasonably qualified candidate that is an outsider intent on "draining the swamp" and reducing the federal government's shenanigans, he is not the individual even remotely qualified or with the mental/emotional stability to do it, IMO.
I agree with the poster that said either Bernie or Biden would be mopping the floor with Trump. While my political compass is moderate compared to Bernie, I like much of what Bernie says, but I was never feeling the Bern as much as his dedicated supporters.
Last edited:
Huge Bernie supporter here, obviously. I have no illusion to the type of blockade he would face on policy similar to Hillary & Obama, but I do wonder if he could break it down in some areas simply based on his long history with alot of the Republican House & Senate members. He is liked in Congress, and has worked with alot of these guys on diff. things through the years. These guys don't have this causitc rage toward him like they do Obama & Hillary. What could have been...
I think the big issue that divides Hillary supporters/older people/centrists/Democrats/what have you and the Bernie peope/progressives is the speed at which change would be attempted with a real progressive in charge. I think people have gotten used to the slow wheels of progress in our democracy, and people like me see no problem with a guy like Bernie shaking it up and trying to get big things done NOW, not 10-15 years from now. That's not radical, but fast.
I think the big issue that divides Hillary supporters/older people/centrists/Democrats/what have you and the Bernie peope/progressives is the speed at which change would be attempted with a real progressive in charge. I think people have gotten used to the slow wheels of progress in our democracy, and people like me see no problem with a guy like Bernie shaking it up and trying to get big things done NOW, not 10-15 years from now. That's not radical, but fast.
I agree with you. My contention with this is the voters of this country. We have the power to throw people out and influence the policies much more so than we're doing. I acknowledge it is not easy from gerrymandering to campaign finance, however, being engaged is a must. Have to engage even when they're not offering a good candidate.
Generally the public is engaged during Presidential elections, but there isn't a consistent follow-up with Congress. Most of the same people don't even vote in the Congressional election cycles, further throwing everything out of whack.
Could Hillary surprise and truly be a policy advocate? No clue, but maybe with that security, although seems unlikely. Maybe Trump would actually surprise and would be (I think this possibility scares the conservative GPO types because he's more liberal than the game he's played for the past year). I thought Obama would, but he took his ball and went home after a while too.
Last edited:
A good article by George Will discussing how low this all has gone. http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/02/will-a-fitting-final-chapter-to-the-sleaze-sweepstakes/
I guess he could not stay out of the fray like he should have. I was actually impressed that he did stay out of it until now....
Obama has chimed in today. I am not sure what he said but I think it was not way ta go Comey...
issues are important but so is a candidates likability. Not everyone is issue oriented and many tend to vote for those that they like. Yes personality is still a factor. Personally I do not agree with everything Bernie says but I find him very likable and charismatic which is why I voted for him in the primary. Hillary on the other hand is just not liked by a significant portion of the electorate whether justified or not. I do think the e-mail controversy is grossly overblown but she can not overcome it just because of who she is. I am voting for Hillary because Trump is just so much worse. Probably the most vile major party candidate ever. But I'd be much happier if Bernie's lever was the one I'd be pressing on election day.
TK
TK
I don't agree with that at all. First of all Hillary was not President, Obama was and is. Secondly are you having memory lapse as to how bad our economic situation was when Obama took over the Presidency? We are light years better off now than then. You keep talking as if Obama & Hillary are the same person. They are not. Politically Hillary is much more of a centrist than Obama. Quite honestly if this were a 3 way race without party labels attached Obama would be a landslide winner over Trump & Hillary.
Tom K
Come on...Obama is about as centrist as they come. He tried to strike a bipartisan deal on almost every topic before giving up b/c they're nuts...and then he'd go his own way. And don't forget his attempts at a Grand Bargain with Boehner. He had no problem selling out SS, Medicare & Medicaid...all in the name of having a legacy that would be regarded right down the middle. Luckily , this was the one time Tea Party obstruction was a positive. Shit, Obama was the one who made the Bush tax cuts permanent. Doesn't sound very liberal to me.
She leans more right than him on foreign policy, otherwise they are almost identically straight down the middle.
If Obama was as progressive as the right lies about him, I'd be jumping for joy, wouldn't I?