Willie71

This just n. Trump is up 20 points!!!! ....in Narnia.

Trump is a buffoon, but he says things that a lot of people like. That is a problem. I haven't watched all of the debate yet, but what I saw so far doesn't make me think Trump was hurt any by his performance. He used a lot of coded language that the racist mysogynist demographic would be nodding their heads at. I have suspected there is more method to the madness than people believe. People just don't care about facts. Well, a lot of them anyway. Clinton came across as smug. She came across as elitist, and that will not resonate with a lot of people. She was right on most issues and has facts behind her, but I don't think people care. There are a lot of people who believe Obama is a Kenyan Marxist Muslim, after all. This is a frightening mess to watch unfold. Just came across this interview. Sums up the risk of trump winning.

Clinton lies 13% of the time. Trump is 80% iirc. Definitely not an equal metric. Sanders and Warren come across as much more trustworthy. Maybe Bush II and Cheney didn't lie about WMDs either. Maybe they really believed they were there.

Yes, it's grey area. We don't give republicans a pass on things like this, and we shouldn't be inconsistent when it comes to "our" side. Maybe Clinton is that incompetent, which is the other plausible explanation. As I said, I don't think she is that incompetent. She was in charge, was she not? Blaming underlings isn't an acceptible excuse. If you expect me to believe someone with the political savvy you guys claim Clinton to have, and for the most part I agree that she is politically savvy, is that unaware of what happened, you are mistaken. We expect people in positions of power to have some level of competence, especially once they get to the level of Secretary of State. Maybe she wasn't competent to be Secretary of State, and is therefore not competent to be president. Wiping the servers. She as trying to deny knowledge of destroying evidence.

If I had to vote in this election, I would probably vote Stein. I wish the candidate was Warren, Sanders, or even Biden, but it isn't. Ok, I'll play along. The claims that she didn't send classified e-mails, that she had permission to use the personal server, and that she turned over all work related e-mails. She claimed she had no knowledge of wiping servers "like with a rag?" She said it was to use only one device, and she used several. I hesitate to answer as your line of questioning feels disingenuous, like those climate change deniers who ask for evidence of climate change. I think anyone well informed on this issue knows very well what Clinton lied about in regards to the e-mails, so pretending not to know what the lies are about doesn't fit with what you present. There is contradictory evidence on this. We'll probably never know what is real and what is a smear.

The lies are not in dispute by anyone but you as far as I can tell.

This is just apologetics. I was a Clinton supporter a few years back. I thought the criticisms were just smears. I lost the ability to support her the same way I lost the ability to hold on to the religion I was raised with. I couldn't believe the apologetics I was lying to myself with. I dismissed the e-mail scandal until a few months ago, when it became pretty clear she lied through her teeth. The server itself is almost a non issue. The lying about it is an issue. She was caught red handed in several lies about the e-mails. She expects people to be stupid, and that is insulting. This is one of the areas I'm conflicted about. Clinton says she plans to raise taxes, but that is a contradiction to third way democratic principles. Do we believe her, or is this just false election promises to get elected? Same with TPP. It was the "gold standard" until it became a major issue in the primaries, then she is against it, while her donors expect it to go through. On the same line of reasoning, who still believes that Trump has 10 billion dollars? No proof, but there is plenty of evidence pointing in the direction that he lied through his teeth. If we had to wait for proof on everything before we draw conclusions, we would be paralyzed. We should also have the ability to change our conclusions when we get new information. Trump not releasing his taxes likely has more to do with his claims regarding his net worth and foreign dealings than it does with the tax issue itself.

I understand the question. It's answered by asking oneself if you believe she was so incompetent she didn't know what was classified or not because the only person who can answer that question is Clinton. I don't believe she was that incompetent. Can I do a brain scan or read her mind? No, and neither can anyone else. Comey said they could not prove intent. She did send classified information, which is not in dispute. Does Clinton have motivation to lie, even though it makes her look incompetent? Of course she does. I choose not to accept such an unlikely excuse.

Yes I did.

It's been confirmed there were a number of emails that were marked as classified. Comey confirmed this. Clinton claimed she didn't know what the classification system was. Unacceptable for someone who was Secretary of State. Numerous others met the criterion for being classified, something she should have known holding a position like Secretary of State. How can she be considered qualified if she is that ignorant? Are you comfortable with someone who held as much power as Secretary of State being incompetent on what us and isn't classified? This competence is supposed to be a contrast with Trump. As I said, Oliver was quite kind to Clinton. He almost gave her a pass. The AP, MSNBC, Democracy Now and many others were less gracious as they analyzed the data. Just making sure it's clear.

I think you are an apologist.

I'm not suggesting you are an apologist. apologies. I was more commenting on a few other people who have been very vocal, and active in trying to shut down discussion of the real problems.

The statements she made about not having sent any classified e-mails, claiming she had permission to use the personal server etc. Some see this as innuendo, but it's fact. I didn't waste time posting links because this isn't in dispute outside of the most uninformed apologetics.

Oliver was quite kind to Clinton, basically suggesting thigs are less bad than they appear on the issues where there are real problems. This is a stretching the truth a big to do damage control, to try to give Clinton a bit better advantage. He also outright dismissed the e-mail scandal and Benghazi, correctly so, although Clinton's inept lying to pretend she had no idea what as going on hurts her credibility and perception of honesty. Very few people believe there was no wrongdoing by the Clintons, and insisting it's all a smear hurts progressives, as it makes progressives look like conservatives, removing the moral high ground. I think it's a big mistake to try to minimize more than what has already been conceded, especially when more leaks could be coming, possibly confirming much greater potential conflicts of interest or corruption. It's too risky. As O,over and numerous others have said, using the line "she's not as bad as trump" isn't very solid ground.

I have said basically the same thing as John Oliver. He didn't report the change in relations with Algeria after the donation. They went from having a travel warning due to human rights violations to being seen as an ally in the fight on terror. He skipped over the changes in arms sales too. Overall, it was pretty accurate, and everyone has said Trump is worse. However, Clinton is much worse than Biden, Warren, or Sanders, to name a few who were considered possible presidential candidates, even though two of them didn't actually run. When the bar is set at being better than Trump, it's hard to fail, but the democrats are doing a fine job of losing ground to a madman.

I know this type of situation doesn't bother some members here, but it sure as hell raises eyebrows for me. We are just scratching the surface of what has transpired. It boggles my mind that the DNC would prop this candidate up, even if there is no wrongdoing. The optics of corruption will be hammered home over and over as they have been. When hundreds of millions are at stake, I have a hard time believing there are no ethical concerns. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/ Yeah, the far right Salon website spreading right wing smears. Some of the world's worst human rights abusers are on that list. Just to be clear, Trump's apparent relationships with Russia is a deal breaker too.

When Working on program development, I rely as much as possible on meta-analysis. I no longer defend the integrity of science from what I previously considered very reliable sources. I always provide a caveat now.

I used to think science from respected institutions was corruption free. However, there have been more reports of corporate donors influencing the purity of the work. There was a recent story about the sugar industry influencing the work done at Harvard iirc. I'll have to look it up for the details. The FDA having lobbyists from large pharmaceutical companies on its board is also a crossing of boundaries. Here's the first link that came up when I searched "Harvard sugar.: https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/12/sugar-industry-harvard-research/ Interesting read.

I'll accept that, even if I don't agree. I feel the opposing side of the debate has been patronizing and sarcastic, but should strive to be better than that. I will be better. This seems to me to be a parallel to climate denial discussion. One side finds none of the evidence acceptable, and presents an unrealistic standard to meet, ignoring each piece of the picture that hints in the same direction. How many times do we have to explain the models are reliable, or a cold day in November isn't evidence that it's all bunk. I simply cannot prove criminal activity. That is something the courts often fail to do with wealthy or powerful people, so I do not accept that challenge. I find it tiring to dismantle cherry picked data over and over, when there is no interest in a good will discussion regarding the evidence. How much status would you give to a climate change denier who never heard of the IPCC? This is similar. One would assume they have no information at all. Third way democrat policies do not favour working class people, a point Tar made, which I hesitantly agreed with. I'm not sure what that has to do with corruption or criminality, again showing dishonesty in the debate. When a mod who is leading the pro Clinton arguments, doesn't know this very basic political knowledge, it shows there is a total lack of knowledge on this issue. This is not hidden information and is discussed ad nauseum throughout the primaries. Third way democrats are ok with taking big money donations from large corporations. There are plenty of expose's on the Clinton Foundation, and there is an at minimum optics issue, with much more troubling evidence being exposed. The AP did a brief expose, Charles Ortel did a more in depth expose, and the Empire files did one too. I didn't even go into Clinton Cash, which was reasonably well sourced in spite of the author being associated with Breitbart, an instant disqualifier to most people on the left. That's too bad, as it wasn't the usual right wing crap you typically see on Fox. It's frustrating to see such strong convictions that there is no wrongdoing, when there are multiple lines of evidence available to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge base here. It just seems like creationism or climate change denial.

Peace out. Swansort admitted she didn't know what a third way democrat is, and I provided a reference going over 30 years of this history, with the Clintons being at the forefront. I am still accused of not Substantiating my claim? I have referred to Ortel's expose as well as Abby Martin's. All of this is verifiable through multiple sources. I pride myself on not saying stupid shit, and looking back over my history, you can see I have very few neg reps, less than I have received from people in the last couple days. It amazed me that my statements are seen as extraordinary claims, when it is mainstream knowledge to anyone with more than a passing interest in American politics. You are aware of the bad decisions in Haiti, or what's going on in Africa, right? Have you looked up third way democrat yet?

You aren't even aware you conceded the debate to me, are you? It's just like demanding evidence David Duke is a racist. Affiliation or leading the KKK isn't enough evidence that he's a racist? I won't respond to any further posts of yours until you apologize and inform yourself. Pathetic. Dunning Kruget at its finest. Hopefully the other mods will step in and correct the trolling you've spewed. You really have no idea what is going on beyond the partisan headlines, do you?

It takes massive apologetics to not see the comical levels of corruption in current US politics. I said quite a few posts ago I have no interests in debating with you because of your apologetics. I continued with Swansort because I have seen her hold very reasonable positions on most issues, and this seems to be the exception where she has the blinders on. I have no history of debating with you as I have no knowledge if you are capable of looking at things beyond the apologetics you present on this issue. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. And again, I comment on the Clintons not in relativistic terms. You seem to be incapable of understanding that.

Edit: how many mob bosses were never convicted because they had power? OJ didn't do it either. Right? The standard shuts down communication, and works against Clinton because it is so xxxxxxx tone deaf. It annoys those who want to discuss the issues. The fact that Clinton's campaign paid people to pose as regular forum users to "correct the record" ie. spread pro Clinton propaganda is sad and pathetic. The only way I can see people being this unaware of the legitimate Clinton concerns is if they only get their information from cable news. Maybe some people are just unaware of the legitimate criticisms. I will also respond to the accusation that I have no evidence or admitted I have no evidence. I don't have evidence that meets an unrealistic standard. Climate change deniers, I can't prove that the sea hasn't raised 10 feet already, so there isn't evidence that climate change is real. I can see how that works. Then excuse me for being direct. You have no understanding of what you are talking about. Clinton and Gore brought third way democrat principles to the US. You need to do some research before you keep dismissing those who are much more informed than you. You just admitted you have no understanding of what the Democratic Party currently stands for, and H Clinton embodies that more than anyone else. The Clintons brought this crap to the US but don't critic use them specifically? WTF is that kind of apologetic? I suggest you inform yourself before you really embarrass yourself. I'm not meaning this as an insult. This is classic dunning Kruger. We all fall for it from time to time. So, Swansort, your response is : "lalalalala I can't hear you."

Holy Batman Swansort!!!! I usually disagree with everything Rar says, but you seem to have no u derstanding of what a third way democrat is. You might start with this. It's a good primer on third way democrats. Maybe you will stop insulting those who get there information from less biased sources than corporate news. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25666062-listen-liberal

Look at the language used. The way the message is delivered is important. Clinton supporters/apologists piss people off and hurt Clinton. Keep going. You are doing a great job. I feel no need to sell you on anything. I've conceded there are no convictions to support my position, which is the standard you set. It's an unreasonable standard, considering the political and legal power of the people we are discussing. You can use the same standard to defend the bankers who brought down the economy in 2008, as well as BushII and Cheney and their war crimes. You must believe they are all innocent too. They haven't done anything illegal, or different from their peers. I used to expect better from you. You opened my eyes.