• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Guccifer 2.0 Leak Reveals How DNC Rigged Primaries for Clinton

LOL!! Nice try to turn this around and against me...instead of addressing the valid concerns of your own Party. (I'm assuming you are a Democrat)

1. I don't have any "obsession" with Elites of any Party...but the Party members do, and it seems they have solid justification for their concern.

2. I don't have a "candidate", though I will vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils.

3. Now this one is your best idiocy ever: Thinking that Trump has the support of the rich. Time to get a clue, dude. It's the Party Elites who have the backing of the billionaires. Not Trump.

4. And, of course, a post from you wouldn't be complete if you didn't keep harping on your drivel about Putin.

I'm not the one who bragged that Putin thought I was "brilliant". That would be Trump. The elitist of the elite.

The idea that Donald Trump — Donald Freaking Trump! — is the embodiment of American populism is, to me, a sign of political decadence. The man is a plutocratic billionaire known only for his flashy swagger, his boundless egotism, his trophy wives, his casinos, and for being a reality TV star. If David Rockefeller were a hip-hop superstar, he would be Donald Trump. He is a demagogue. White Trump supporters who wonder why black people fall for the blatant hucksterism of an Al Sharpton ought to look in the mirror.

Trump and Elitism | The American Conservative
 
I'm not the one who bragged that Putin thought I was "brilliant". That would be Trump. The elitist of the elite.



Trump and Elitism | The American Conservative

LOL!!

And this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread...which is how the DNC rigged their own primaries.

But hey, I can understand you wanting to talk about anything but your Party's actions...you'll just have to do it without me.
 
What failsafes are necessary for unclassified email correspondence ?

I'm not talking about unclassified material. I'm talking about 1) What she deleted.
2) Drone strike strategy which involves foreign policy and military intelligence.
[url=http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/experts-clinton-emails-compromised-cia-names-39700330]3) The potential exposure of undercover CIA agents
, and, most importantly,
4) The possibility of indictments handing the Presidency to Donald ****ing Trump the ****ing Antichrist.

This is NOT the candidate to hinge the entirety of our nation's future upon.

Failsafe ? What applies is the records act, not a security risk.

Let me explain :

(Use of server) is tied to quasi-violating the (records act). IOW: the security criticisms are not related.

But they are.

(Poor handling of classified information) isn't tethered to Hillary in any meaningful way.

But it is. Look at the links. Look at the evidence. Take into consideration that 60% of Americans feel afraid for themselves because of the information on these classified emails. You can't just give them the middle-finger, that is 60% of the country. SIXTY-PERCENT.
She even tapped one of her friggen donors to sit on a board discussing NUCLEAR FREAKING WEAPONS.

Major Clinton donor with no experience tapped for security advisory post

Not to mention THIS could initiate SERIOUS INTERNATIONAL BACKLASH. Particularly at a time when global-warming is becoming a major geopolitical issue.

Unclassified networks should NOT house classified information that could pose a risk to national security, period.

Agreed. And it had classified information on it. Period.

And i don't think Clinton used a private server for protection. I think she used it for convenience. She probably didn't think anyone would make such a big deal about it since she's far from the only one to do so.

This has been discussed previously, not with me, but that specific guidelines had been set forth that were clear and there is no excuse. Furthermore, she deliberately violated procedure considering the fact that cyberterrorism is on the rise. There was something she didn't want to be seen. Why else would she go to such lengths to cover her tracks? Why else would she delete 30,000 emails? You're not exactly taking a very critical look, or even a second-guess, as to how this is even remotely bizarre. It is indeed bizarre, and when you compromise undercover CIA agents, expose state secrets to China, Russia, South Korea and Germany, put an inexperienced DONOR in a top-secret nuclear-weapons board, exposed Obama's administration to a rogue force blackmailing entire nations into implementing fracking, exposed information about DRONE STRIKES to the aforementioned powers... I don't even remember where I was going with this there are so many threats to our national security enclosed here STARING YOU RIGHT IN THE FACE.
 
Hillary Clinton didn’t win the Democratic primaries through democratic means.



That the DNC showed bias and favoritism for Clinton seems beyond dispute. That the process was rigged through the use of the Superdelegates is clear. But all of this was done in the open according to Democratic Party rules, and no evidence of criminal activity has surfaced vis-a-vis the primary process.

Saunders supporters were fools to think Saunders ever had a chance. Anyone paying attention could have foreseen this outcome. But then I suppose this just confirms the opinion Saunders supporters already have of US "democracy".

It seems to me that the Democrats avoided the kind of problem that Trump presented to the Republicans through the use of a process that guaranteed that an insider would win the nomination. Had the Republicans used this process they wouldn't have the headaches Trump is causing them now.

It's like Tom Friedman always says about China -- an authoritarian system works better. Who needs all that messy democracy, anyway?

After this I doubt that either party will make the mistake of including too much democracy in the nomination process. Historically, that process was never democratic to begin with. One is tempted to say it's ironic that the Democratic Party was the one to re-discover this, but, when you think about it, there's nothing ironic about it at all.

Who is Saunders? :lamo

Doesn't seem like you're very informed on the Presidential race.
 
MISTER "INSTANT GRATIFICATION"

LOL!!

It doesn't matter if Bush is an angel or not. Dude...I'm not the one saying Hillary is okay just because somebody else wasn't. I, along with many others...but not you, it appears...consider Hillary on her own (de)merits.

Then explain how using a private email is a "demerit" to a candidate for the presidency of the nation, when such usage was (and probably still is) common in LaLaLand on the Potomac. At the very most it is a misdemeanor.

No, the truth in the matter is you (and your ilk) are looking for just-about-anything negative in order to discredit her. Yes, the lady does not walk on water. Neither does Obama. We all have faults, and if you are looking for a Saint to run this country, then you should be searching for them on some other planet.

But, if you are really-'n-truly in favor of having a raving plutocrat as PotUS, then say so! Defend his cause. Because the Trump-card is No Angel - and never has been. He does not have the qualifications (namely, right experience) to run the country.

He was and still is a spoiled-brat who needs constant and instant gratification to justify his existence. A forty-megabuck inheritance does that to a person, if they let it do so.

Business Failures.jpg

Income Disparity has been ravaging the nation, and you are nitpicking over illicit emails. BFD ...
______________________
 
Last edited:
MISTER "INSTANT GRATIFICATION"



Then explain how using a private email is a "demerit" to a candidate for the presidency of the nation, when such usage was (and probably still is) common in LaLaLand on the Potomac. At the very most it is a misdemeanor.

Do you ever listen to yourself?? In one sentence, you deny anything that most others see as Hillary's disqualifying characteristics, you pull the old "everybody does it, so she's not bad when SHE does it" and "but it's not REALLY such a bad thing, anyway" excuses.

No, the truth in the matter is you (and your ilk) are looking for just-about-anything negative in order to discredit her. Yes, the lady does not walk on water. Neither does Obama. We all have faults, and if you are looking for a Saint to run this country, then you should be searching for them on some other planet.

The truth is, nobody has to look very hard to find the negatives about Hillary. But hey...I don't demand a saint. I just don't want a money/power grubbing liar in the WH.

But, if you are really-'n-truly in favor of having a raving plutocrat as PotUS, then say so! Defend his cause. Because the Trump-card is No Angel - and never has been. He does not have the qualifications (namely, right experience) to run the country.

He was and still is a spoiled-brat who needs constant and instant gratification to justify his existence. A forty-megabuck inheritance does that to a person, if they let it do so.

Of course, what would the perfect "excuse Hillary" post be without a deflection toward "how bad the other guy is", eh? The fact is, Trump has nothing on Hillary when it comes to self-gratification (and the accompanying anger when she doesn't get her way). Trump is simply the lesser of two evils.

Income Disparity has been ravaging the nation, and you are nitpicking over illicit emails. BFD ...
______________________

And the final tactic...deflect to some other issue that has nothing to do with the rest of the post.

Simply pathetic, dude...
 
Trump is simply the lesser of two evils.

That's what the election will come down to, and I wholeheartedly disagree. I think Hillary would be a bad president, but I think Trump would be an unmitigated disaster.
 
Who is Saunders? :lamo

Doesn't seem like you're very informed on the Presidential race.

I can't help it if the guy doesn't know how to spell his own name.
 
MISTER "INSTANT GRATIFICATION"



Then explain how using a private email is a "demerit" to a candidate for the presidency of the nation, when such usage was (and probably still is) common in LaLaLand on the Potomac. At the very most it is a misdemeanor.

Nope, lots of people have gone to jail of such violations, which are very serious, and the idea that maintaining a private server for classified email is permitted is false.

It ought to give Hillary's supporters pause that she lies so much, is so filthy with corporate and foreign government money, and was clearly accepting money from various parties with business before the State Department. Forget about being criminally careless with classified information. She and Bill even have their own "Hillary University" scandal -- she and Bill accepted millions from this shady private university that got millions from the state department.

It looks to me like she wants the highest office in the land so that she can bust out the country. She'll end up like Hugh Chavez, that is, billions in Swiss accounts with a wrecked country and a suffering people for a legacy. I say this half way tongue in cheek, but how can any of her supporters tell us it's not true? It's perfectly in line with her past performance.
 
MUCH ADO ABOUT NUTHIN2

In one sentence, you deny anything that most others see as Hillary's disqualifying characteristics, you pull the old "everybody does it, so she's not bad when SHE does it" and "but it's not REALLY such a bad thing, anyway" excuses.

That's not what I said, dude.

I said that it was an unimportant mistake on her part. And that if we extended the net, we'd capture and embarrass LaLaLand politicians going all the way back to the advent of the Internet.

The far more important mistakes have been by Bush1 and Bush2 who led us into useless wars in the Middle-east. We've still not got out of Afghanistan, Iraq is still a mess, and who the hell cares what Hillary said in her emails?

There are far more important issues at hand - like why do 15% of the American population live below the Poverty Threshold '$24K income for a family of four) since 1965:

Numbe in Poverty & Poverty Rate 1959 to 2013.jpg

That's 50 million Americans, dude. Or the combined population of California and Illinois, dude.

I say they are a crime perpetrated by the American people who could not give a damn about the poor fellow-Americans who do their grunt-work - given the rank disregard of the pathetic present Minimum Wage and hostility for a decent wage of $15 an hour.

And why? Because your BigMac would cost you 20 cents more ... ?
 
MUCH ADO ABOUT NUTHIN2



That's not what I said, dude.

I said that it was an unimportant mistake on her part. And that if we extended the net, we'd capture and embarrass LaLaLand politicians going all the way back to the advent of the Internet.

The far more important mistakes have been by Bush1 and Bush2 who led us into useless wars in the Middle-east. We've still not got out of Afghanistan, Iraq is still a mess, and who the hell cares what Hillary said in her emails?

There are far more important issues at hand - like why do 15% of the American population live below the Poverty Threshold '$24K income for a family of four) since 1965:

View attachment 67203142

That's 50 million Americans, dude. Or the combined population of California and Illinois, dude.

I say they are a crime perpetrated by the American people who could not give a damn about the poor fellow-Americans who do their grunt-work - given the rank disregard of the pathetic present Minimum Wage and hostility for a decent wage of $15 an hour.

And why? Because your BigMac would cost you 20 cents more ... ?

I'm thinking you protest...and deflect...too much. Could it be that you really have nothing good to say in her defense?


btw, do you REALLY think Hillary can, or will, do anything about the topic you keep trying to deflect towards? Nothing she's said so far could give anybody that idea and her boss...Obama...hasn't done anything.

She won't either.
 
Nope, lots of people have gone to jail of such violations, which are very serious, and the idea that maintaining a private server for classified email is permitted is false.

Oh really? Lots?

Who? Name them. What was the crime perpetrated and why was it serious?

I am all for the "full truth", and nothing but the truth. But all I am seeing on this board is innuendo.

C'mon, some real facts please. Try hard ...
 
I'm thinking you protest...and deflect...too much. Could it be that you really have nothing good to say in her defense?

Useless comment.

Moving right along ...
________________
 
When talking about a specific Party, "democracy" shouldn't enter into the discussion at all...unless, of course, that Party says they are democratic. For any private organization, it always has come down to the rules of that organization.

Now, I don't know much about the Democratic Party, so I don't know if they tout being a democratic organization. If they don't, then maybe the members are expecting something they shouldn't. On the other hand, maybe the Party does tout being a democratic organization, but their Elites are two-faced about it.

In any case, I see only three options for anyone who doesn't like their Party Elites controlling things:

1. Use whatever democratic process is available, oust those Elites and replace them with people who are different.

2. Either join the Elites or ignore their actions. Either course has the same result...leaving the Elites alone to do as they will.

3. Leave the Party.
It would be just as ironic if the Republican Party employed a super delegate system to determine a presidential candidate. Republican meant a small government party of the people. Actually, Abe Lincoln's administration was ironic to the republican name.

So, 'a small government party of the people' using a super delegate system to determine a presidential candidate wouldn't be any more (or less) ironic than a 'democratic' party using a super delegate system to determine a presidential candidate.
 
Last edited:
It would be just as ironic if the Republican Party employed a super delegate system to determine a presidential candidate. Republican meant a small government party of the people. Actually, Abe Lincoln's administration was ironic to the republican name.

So, 'a small government party of the people' using a super delegate system to determine a presidential candidate wouldn't be any more (or less) ironic than a 'democratic' party using a super delegate system to determine a presidential candidate.

Just to be clear, it is not I who call the Democratic Party system "ironic". I simply described their system as I see it and suggested possible courses of action for their members.

As far as the Republican Party is concerned, while they also have a super delegate system, it's not as effective from a Party Elite point of view. However, that didn't stop those Elites from trying to place their own selected candidate in the nominee chair.

Maybe the best course for those Democratic Party members would be to neuter their super delegate system.
 
Oh really? Lots?

Who? Name them. What was the crime perpetrated and why was it serious?

I am all for the "full truth", and nothing but the truth. But all I am seeing on this board is innuendo.

C'mon, some real facts please. Try hard ...

Such bad faith. You know perfectly well that those laws are on the books and that people have been convicted of violations of them, especially under this President.
 
Are we still talking about emails; freaking EMAILS.


Yawn. Wake me when she's brought up on charges for selling state secrets, giving classified information to reporters or something that really means something.


And before someone posts a statistic that "some highish % of people think blah blah blah..." ... just remember that 42% of Americans believe in god created humans 10,000 years ago just like we are today. Americans and freaking stupid. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...evolution-but-42-percent-of-americans-do-not/
 
Such bad faith. You know perfectly well that those laws are on the books and that people have been convicted of violations of them

Who the hell disclosed Classified Information to the Press?

What planet do you live on ... ?
________________________
 
Back
Top Bottom