Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Oct 2016, 12:52 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Translation: "I'll cut and paste some links, but leave the work to you."


If reading a comprehensive analysis, that offers a complete understanding of the failings of both ....
is work. Then its work that should be done.


Right, but if YOU want to make a point, YOU should make it. YOU need to highlight whatever makes YOUR point, not demand someone else sort through it and try to understand what YOU want to say.

Hint: two links are not an argument.

Hillary Clinton is probably the best prepared person to be President in decades. her experience is vast, and her understanding of the legilsative and executive beanches is first hand. She is respected by her peers in the Senate, and by the International Community.


Better than GHWB? I doubt it.

Oh, and she is respected internationally? She's a freaking laughingstock, only behind Obama.

She has limitations. First among them apparently an older persons understanding of technology which lead to her email problems.


Right. Or, she's fundamentally dishonest.

She didn't understand what "C" meant on her emails? That is either a lie or she's a moron. Take your pick.

But then she's hardly alone in coming to grips with the issue of cyber security.
She is however, up to the task of being President.


That's your opinion. Go ahead and vote for her.

Oh. Right. You don't get to vote.

But to even countenance that she is as unqualified and reprehensible as Donald Trump suggests you have been exposed to little media other than that which carry on laregly unsubstantiated conspiracies about her... including her health.


Who said anything about Trump? It's not either/or. She stands unqualified on her own demerits.

I offered you a quick read that I thought would be useful. If you don't care to invest the time in exploring an informed point of view from credible journalists, I'll understand.


If they want to explain why someone so dishonest and vile should be President, I'm not interested.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 13 Oct 2016, 1:14 pm

Loving Hillary is no sin, she does have some special qualifications and plenty of "experience". That's all well and good, throwing your support behind her is fine.
HOWEVER, trying to paint her as some sort of super-candidate is going too far and puts your "reasoned" conclusions into great doubt.

Trying to claim her use of a private server was anything other than her attempt to hide her messages (illegally) from prying eyes is a joke. If she was simply old and ignorant of modern technology then she would simply accept what was offered. Instead she went out of her way to have her own private server ...something few of us can do, the "ignorance" claim is more than a laugh. She had experts set this all up, it was not done by herself and Bill running some wires into the hallway closet.

The ONLY reason was for her to control documents and who could/could not see them. Her deleting over 30,000 and her claim that these were personal emails only? You really want us to believe that? And her claim that none were classified and not knowing what the C meant? C'mon!

Go ahead and support her, you can give some good reasons for doing so!
But stop stop stop the blind partisan nonsense!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Oct 2016, 1:27 pm

GMTom wrote:Trying to claim her use of a private server was anything other than her attempt to hide her messages (illegally) from prying eyes is a joke. If she was simply old and ignorant of modern technology then she would simply accept what was offered. Instead she went out of her way to have her own private server ...something few of us can do, the "ignorance" claim is more than a laugh. She had experts set this all up, it was not done by herself and Bill running some wires into the hallway closet.

The ONLY reason was for her to control documents and who could/could not see them. Her deleting over 30,000 and her claim that these were personal emails only? You really want us to believe that? And her claim that none were classified and not knowing what the C meant? C'mon!

Go ahead and support her, you can give some good reasons for doing so!
But stop stop stop the blind partisan nonsense!


That's about as clear as anyone could be.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 13 Oct 2016, 1:52 pm

RickyP!!!!!

I use exclamation marks to get your attention!!!!

I want to know what the difference between the two people I listed. Here is a hint:

ONE OF THEM IS NOT DONALD TRUMP!!!

I am no fan of Mr. Trump. I despise him and will not be voting for him. I want you to use your brain and tell me the difference between Harold Thomas Martin III & Hillary Rodham Clinton. Why was Martin charged, and Clinton was not. Perhaps our resident legal expert could weigh in on this. Freeman?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 13 Oct 2016, 4:40 pm

Well the criminal complaint includes allegations that Mr Martin III admitted that he took documents from his work station to his residence and vehicle that he "knew" were classified, that he did not have authorization to do so, and he knew he was in the wrong. The complaint notes that a "large percentage" of the material was noted to be highly classified information and 6 documents were found to be "top secret". http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/docume ... -iii/2174/

So this case falls into the typical cases the government brings where people cart off classified material to their house. Here, they also have a confession. So very different from the Clinton case where there was sloppy handling of classified material and a small portion of her emails was found to contain classified information. So it was impossible to prove knowing misuse of classified material.
Last edited by freeman3 on 13 Oct 2016, 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 13 Oct 2016, 7:08 pm

Thank you.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 14 Oct 2016, 8:22 am

bbauska wrote:RickyP!!!!!

I use exclamation marks to get your attention!!!!

I want to know what the difference between the two people I listed. Here is a hint:

ONE OF THEM IS NOT DONALD TRUMP!!!

I am no fan of Mr. Trump. I despise him and will not be voting for him. I want you to use your brain and tell me the difference between Harold Thomas Martin III & Hillary Rodham Clinton. Why was Martin charged, and Clinton was not. Perhaps our resident legal expert could weigh in on this. Freeman?


This is too funny ... Ricky had many opinions without opening your link. That's a new level of confirmation bias.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 14 Oct 2016, 8:26 am

freeman3 wrote:Well the criminal complaint includes allegations that Mr Martin III admitted that he took documents from his work station to his residence and vehicle that he "knew" were classified, that he did not have authorization to do so, and he knew he was in the wrong. The complaint notes that a "large percentage" of the material was noted to be highly classified information and 6 documents were found to be "top secret". http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/docume ... -iii/2174/

So this case falls into the typical cases the government brings where people cart off classified material to their house. Here, they also have a confession. So very different from the Clinton case where there was sloppy handling of classified material and a small portion of her emails was found to contain classified information. So it was impossible to prove knowing misuse of classified material.


I've noticed a pattern where people who are generally honest, but have a slip end up getting in trouble because they are unwilling to lie about their slip to get out of it. It's no different than the child who shows on their face that they stole a cookie from the cookie jar. However, the child that shows no remorse and is willing to lie to get out of any punishment is generally able to beat the rap. I think Hillary is that 2nd child, but it's hard to tell without a confession or a conviction.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 14 Oct 2016, 9:28 am

Ray Jay wrote:
freeman3 wrote:Well the criminal complaint includes allegations that Mr Martin III admitted that he took documents from his work station to his residence and vehicle that he "knew" were classified, that he did not have authorization to do so, and he knew he was in the wrong. The complaint notes that a "large percentage" of the material was noted to be highly classified information and 6 documents were found to be "top secret". http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/docume ... -iii/2174/

So this case falls into the typical cases the government brings where people cart off classified material to their house. Here, they also have a confession. So very different from the Clinton case where there was sloppy handling of classified material and a small portion of her emails was found to contain classified information. So it was impossible to prove knowing misuse of classified material.


I've noticed a pattern where people who are generally honest, but have a slip end up getting in trouble because they are unwilling to lie about their slip to get out of it. It's no different than the child who shows on their face that they stole a cookie from the cookie jar. However, the child that shows no remorse and is willing to lie to get out of any punishment is generally able to beat the rap. I think Hillary is that 2nd child, but it's hard to tell without a confession or a conviction.


Exactly. What child do you want?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 14 Oct 2016, 10:51 am

Too funny, we are talking about them as children, seems about right?
(ok, Trump is FAR more childlike but you get the picture)
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 Oct 2016, 10:55 am

Well, the child that confesses will probably turn out to a better person but they are not going to be president. No politician owns up to their sins unless that is thought to be politically advantageous of course.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 14 Oct 2016, 11:37 am

bbauska wrote:
Ray Jay wrote:
freeman3 wrote:Well the criminal complaint includes allegations that Mr Martin III admitted that he took documents from his work station to his residence and vehicle that he "knew" were classified, that he did not have authorization to do so, and he knew he was in the wrong. The complaint notes that a "large percentage" of the material was noted to be highly classified information and 6 documents were found to be "top secret". http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/docume ... -iii/2174/

So this case falls into the typical cases the government brings where people cart off classified material to their house. Here, they also have a confession. So very different from the Clinton case where there was sloppy handling of classified material and a small portion of her emails was found to contain classified information. So it was impossible to prove knowing misuse of classified material.


I've noticed a pattern where people who are generally honest, but have a slip end up getting in trouble because they are unwilling to lie about their slip to get out of it. It's no different than the child who shows on their face that they stole a cookie from the cookie jar. However, the child that shows no remorse and is willing to lie to get out of any punishment is generally able to beat the rap. I think Hillary is that 2nd child, but it's hard to tell without a confession or a conviction.


Exactly. What child do you want?


I have one who wouldn't dream of even stealing half of a cookie, and one who will lapse on occasion but feel guilty about it. I don't think either of them has a political career in their future, thank god.