HRC, guilt and innocence (split from Why doesn't truth matter & middle ground)

[rangerx]

37 minutes ago, Outrider said:

From your link 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/white-house-private-email-kushner-trump-bannon-priebus/index.html

 

You are missing my point.

It's not a crime to use a private server either, if the information is in a public reporting stream. It's illegal to hide it. it's illegal to destroy specific evidence if summoned to provide it. Hillary is guilty of preempting a fishing expedition, a FoIA workaround and phony scandals or conspiracy theories cooked up by republicans , solely to assassinate her character. She had every right to protect herself. The current government and former opposition seem to have no problem with government intrusion or hostile foreign involvement when it comes to underhanded treatment of other parties. It's hypocrisy on stick, slathered in bullshit.

The law is clear, no matter how many times anyone claims otherwise. Hillary has not been charged with anything.

My point being Hillary's ill-perceived maybes have absolutely nothing to do with anything that's going on today, including crimes against the United States of America. Can you imagine the conservative outrage if the person charged with those crimes was brown? No less kneeling at a football game during a song?

It's bad enough republicans are shielding teen stalkers and pussy grabbers, but when the actions of traitors are preferred to liberals in government, America has lost the ability to ever aspire greatness again.

Edited December 11, 2017 by rangerx

[Outrider]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

More gish gallop tactics.

Not really.

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Put my comment in context by quoting the rest and answer the 2 questions asked immediately following what you quoted.

Ask them again and I will try to pick them up. I honestly try to answer to every point but sometimes multiple posters make the same (in my mind) point. You are not going to always get your very own customized response. I also try a little harder for those that try to answer to all my points. You don't do that.

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You implied that Democrats didn't actually like her. That was the context and I pointed out that no Democrat has ever received more primary votes than Clinton and that Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million.

That dosent show us why they cast those votes. I am only telling you what people tell me. Many feel like they didn't have much choice. 

Just democrats this time during the primary. The first paragraph below is HRC and the second is Bernie.

http://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/190787/clinton-image-among-democrats-new-low.aspx
 

Quote

 

We can start with the Democratic side of the ledger, where Clinton's current net favorable rating of +36 among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents is based on 66% who give her a favorable rating and 30% who give her an unfavorable rating.

He reached his personal net favorable rating apogee (+63) in late March/early April, and although it's been down slightly since then, his is still the most positive rating for any candidate of either party at this point, by a large margin.

 

What the hay lets see what the republicans thought about Trump.

Quote

On the GOP side, it's basically a pox on both your houses when it comes to Trump and Cruz. Both are doing poorly, on an absolute basis, compared with where they were in early January and compared with the Democratic candidates. Trump currently has a +9 net favorable rating among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, based on 52% favorable and 43% unfavorable ratings. Cruz is at +8, with 48% favorable and 40% unfavorable.

I see unpopular candidates all the way around. Well except for Bernie and his score isnt exactly stellar.

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 How unfavorable is Trump today in polling; worst ever for a first year President. Would you argue that means he is unpopular with conservatives? 

Yep thats what I hear. Why did you vote for Trump? So Clinton would not get in. Why did you vote for Clinton? So Trump would not get in. You never hear these things?

Somehow I think I will not be criticized for "everything Trump must be referenced in a negative light."

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

It's not a crime to use a private server either, if the information is in a public reporting stream. It's illegal to hide it. it's illegal to destroy specific evidence if summoned to provide it. Hillary is guilty of preempting a fishing expedition, a FoIA workaround and phony scandals or conspiracy theories cooked up by republicans , solely to assassinate her character. She had every right to protect herself. The current government and former opposition seem to have no problem with government intrusion or hostile foreign involvement when it comes to underhanded treatment of other parties. It's hypocrisy on stick, slathered in bullshit.

 

BTW I don't agree with the use of private emails in any way. But putting them on your own server gives so much more control over what is wanted to be kept secret. You may not agree with why these watch dog groups want this information but it shouldn't be up to me, you or HRC to decide. Trump is getting the same treatment from liberal watch dogs. Although thess groups tend to be radical they do perform a valuable service. If you (as a public servant) do not want anything embarrassing to pop up don't do/write anything embarrassing. 

Judicial Watch and others have been waiting two years and more for documents that should have been provided in months.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/

Quote

 

Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group, has more than 15 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits related to Mrs. Clinton’s emails still pending

Jason Leopold, a journalist at Vice Media whose lawsuit helped force the release of tens of thousands of Mrs. Clinton’s messages in 2015 and 2016, still has an active lawsuit.

And the Republican National Committee, which sued the State Department last year, still has active cases.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2017 by Outrider

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Ask them again and I will try to pick them up. I honestly try to answer to every point but sometimes multiple posters make the same (in my mind) point.

Just look for the question marks.

 

3 minutes ago, Outrider said:

That dosent show us why they cast those votes. I am only telling you what people tell me. Many feel like they didn't have much choice

Is the a measurement more powerful than actual votes Politician depend on? 

 

5 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Yep thats what I hear. Why did you vote for Trump? So Clinton would not get in. Why did you vote for Clinton? So Trump would not get in. You never hear these things?

 

I actually haven't seen a single post on this forum from a single member here in the U.S. indicated they wish they could take their vote back. That in itself speaks volumes in my opinion. 

[swansont]

15 hours ago, Outrider said:

IMO guilty. HRC took the unprecedented step of setting up her own private server. This gave her a lot of control over her emails. A nice end run around the Freedom of Information Act.

Unprecedented, right. Oh, except gwb43.com and georgewbush.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

How is this an end run around FOIA? What rule is it violating?

15 hours ago, Outrider said:

 Yes I do have that right under FOIA. I have the right for someone other than the politician to go through and decide what is revelant and what is not.

No, you don't. Private (non-government) communication is not something you are allowed to access.

FOIA allows you to access government records, which are "all recorded information, regardless of medium or format, made or received by the agency or its agents under federal law relating to the transaction of public business". Private communications, i.e. not conducting government business, are not part of this.

http://www.ballardspahr.com/alertspublications/legalalerts/2014-01-15-private-e-mail-and-public-officials-whats-a-public-document.aspx

 

14 hours ago, Phi for All said:

 This is a big part of the problem. You're convinced about Hillary, but far less sure about the creepy Trump doppelganger. It seems you've forgotten how to be outraged at the deception. Think about it. You turn Clinton's control of her emails into an AUTOMATIC "end run around the FoIA", but Moore gets the benefit of the doubt despite all the testimony from victims. Hillary has been through the ringer and hasn't been charged as a criminal, and Moore has had a blind eye turned to his crimes because he was part of the system that would have investigated him. What are you "far less sure" about?

Not only that, but Moore keeps changing his story and has lied about knowing the victims. He signed a frikkin' yearbook, for physical evidence of his lies. (but of course you have conspiracy nuts who claim forgery)

[rangerx]

The whole Hillary thing is just old. It's getting to the point where it can be added to the urban dictionary.

"Hillary" can be used as a synonym to Godwin, where invoking the topic derails the discussion, hence failing the debate. By default.

"Hillaried" be used as a term for preemptive character assassination, particularly one in a sexist, conspiratorial or malicious manner.

[Outrider]

22 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Is the a measurement more powerful than actual votes Politician depend on? 

Well some certainly give us more information. Is it really so hard for you to understand that people often vote for candidates they see as flawed simply because they see the other option as even worse.

22 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I actually haven't seen a single post on this forum from a single member here in the U.S. indicated they wish they could take their vote back. That in itself speaks volumes in my opinion

Maybe thats the problem. You need to talk to some RL people about this. Poltics on MB's tend to be warped from the people on the street in my experience. Less defensive and less rigid.

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Unprecedented, right. Oh, except gwb43.com and georgewbush.com

Well those were servers set up by organizations so private yes but private and personal no. But close enough for whataboutism. 

https://www.snopes.com/g-w-bush-lost-22-million-e-mails/

Quote

As in Clinton’s case, the Bush administration e-mails were sought as evidence in government investigations. No no charges were filed and no criminal wrongdoing was found in regard to Clinton’s handling of e-mails. Bush aides were found in contempt of Congress for not complying with subpoenas in the U.S. attorney firings investigation, but no punishment was handed down.

I call them all guilty. How about you?

12 hours ago, swansont said:

How is this an end run around FOIA?

Because in both cases people request information and don't get it. In HRC's case her lawyers decided what we did and did not get to see. Plus there is still more information that hasn't been handed out yet. They shouldn't have to wait years. 

In the Bush case  there was a backup found. I think its being restored and sorted through. But yet again they shouldn't have to wait years.

I will try to find what specific rule was broken.

12 hours ago, swansont said:

No, you don't. Private (non-government) communication is not something you are allowed to access.

And a government employee is supposed to work out what is what not personal lawers.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Outrider

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, Outrider said:

 Well those were servers set up by organizations so private yes but private and personal no. But close enough for whataboutism. 

Keep those goalposts a-movin'!

(how can it be whataboutism when it's an actual rebuttal of a claim of unprecedented activity?)

[Outrider]

On 12/11/2017 at 1:57 PM, Outrider said:

HRC took the unprecedented step of setting up her own private server.

My original claim. In what way have I moved anything?

Was Karl Rove guilty of anything in the Bush email scandal?

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Well some certainly give us more information. Is it really so hard for you to understand that people often vote for candidates they see as flawed simply because they see the other option as even worse.

In 2 Senate races, 2 primaries, and a general election; five separate elections she received the most votes because people just didn't like their options? Perhaps she is simply more popular than you care to admit.

 

11 minutes ago, Outrider said:

I will try to find what specific rule was broken.

"The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, is a federal freedom of information law that allows for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the United States government. The Act defines agency records subject to disclosure, outlines mandatory disclosure procedures and grants nine exemptions to the statute"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States)#Scope

1. (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;^[8]
2. related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;^[8]
3. specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;^[8] FOIA Exemption 3 Statutes
4. trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;^[8]
5. inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;^[8]
6. personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;^[8]
7. records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;^[8]
8. contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions;^[8] or
9. geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.^[8]    

[Outrider]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

(how can it be whataboutism when it's an actual rebuttal of a claim of unprecedented activity?)

Ok I apologize and withdrawal my comment. 

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In 2 Senate races, 2 primaries, and a general election; five separate elections she received the most votes because people just didn't like their options? Perhaps she is simply more popular than you care to admit.

Perhaps she is. I guess we can just each have our own truth here despite mounds of opinion polls proving me right and mounds of votes proving you right.

Typical political discussion on the internet no one concedes anything it might show weakness.

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Typical political discussion on the internet in the White House, and all of US Congress no one concedes anything it might show weakness.

There. FTFY

[Outrider]

20 minutes ago, iNow said:

There. FTFY

How bout this.

Typical political discussion on the internet and in the White House and in all of US Congress no one concedes anything it might show weakness.

[Ten oz]

31 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Perhaps she is. I guess we can just each have our own truth here despite mounds of opinion polls proving me right and mounds of votes proving you right.

Typical political discussion on the internet no one concedes anything it might show weakness.

Context, context, context...you said and have continued to say that many voted for her but may not have actually liked her. You supported the claim with national favorability but is the issue is how popular she is among Democrats why not a poll of democrats? Back in 2015 before the things got nuts Clinton was more popular nationally than Sanders or Biden. As for her image among Democrats it was good for years and temporarily dipped during the campaign before recovering.  

 

12 minutes ago, Outrider said:

How bout this.

Typical political discussion on the internet and in the White House and in all of US Congress no one concedes anything it might show weakness.

Nonsense, I mentioned having voted for John Edwards in the 08' primary in an early post. That was clearly a mistake. 

[Outrider]

17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

. You supported the claim with national favorability but is the issue is how popular she is among Democrats why not a poll of democrats?

I gave you both a national poll and a poll of democrats. 

 

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Back in 2015

We are not back in 2015 and both your charts are supporting what I have said. In particular the bottom on shows that only 40 percent of her own party saw her as strongly favorable while they were out voting for her in the millions. 

22 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Nonsense, I mentioned having voted for John Edwards in the 08' primary in an early post. That was clearly a mistake. 

What is that a concession of?

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, Outrider said:

I gave you both a national poll and a poll of democrats. 

 

We are not back in 2015 and both your charts are supporting what I have said. In particular the bottom on shows that only 40 percent of her own party saw her as strongly favorable while they were out voting for her in the millions. 

 

She was more popular than either Biden or Sanders and recovered after the dip. How popular must she be in your opinion? You haven't presented a stander. She was more popular than any Republican candidate was among Republicans. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Outrider said:

How bout this.

Typical political discussion on the internet and in the White House and in all of US Congress no one concedes anything it might show weakness.

Lol. Once more, this time with feeling!

[Outrider]

I said on this very page looks like unpopular candidates all the way around. 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

She was more popular than either Biden or Sanders and recovered after the dip. How popular must she be in your opinion? You haven't presented a stander. She was more popular than any Republican candidate was among Republicans. 

 

58 minutes ago, iNow said:

Lol. Once more, this time with feeling!

I can't call you wrong.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Outrider

[iNow]

Neither can I. It might show weakness.

BTW - OT, but AP just called the election for Jones

[CharonY]

Wow,  folks actually voted against an (alleged) child molester? 

Edited December 13, 2017 by CharonY

[Outrider]

55 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Wow,  folks actually voted against an (alleged) child molester? 

In Bama no less I am proud of my of my fellow statespersons right now. I know it was not easy for any of us. Maybe a bright new day, I hope so.

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, Outrider said:

In Bama no less I am proud of my of my fellow statespersons right now. I know it was not easy for any of us. Maybe a bright new day, I hope so.

In the Alabama Senate race in 2014 for that seat 800k turned out and voted. Last night nearly 1.4 million turned up. Moore won in the same ball park of votes as a Republican in Alabama wins in mid term and off season elections. It was the huge increase in voting than beat him.  By the numbers the demographics voted as one would have predicted. Black turnout was Jones over 90% for Jones while 70% of the White vote was for Moore, 83% of evangelicals voted Moore, while 60% of voters under 30yrs of age voted for Jones. In 2016 Clinton got more total votes in Alabama than Jones did last night which shows the level of democratic support we show last night already existed in the State. Turn out was the key. I wish, I hope, one day I witness an election where people in mass actually cross partisan lines and vote. It would be a beautiful thing. Last night wasn't it though. Last night was simply a stronger push to turn people out in already established Democratic districts. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/alabama-exit-polls/?utm_term=.3a1ca52ac7a4