Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums

American 2016 Presidential Election thread part three


Recommended Posts

In Lebanon, What Happens to Hezbollah if Syria’s Assad Falls?

BEIRUT, Lebanon | The turmoil in Syria is impacting neighboring Lebanon in more ways than one.

Besides terrifying some Lebanese residents about spillover violence and what the future holds for their small strip of a country, the future is uncertain for Hezbollah, one of the most powerful political and religious organizations in the region.

The Shiite group, known in some quarters as the Party of God dominates large swaths of Lebanon, especially in the south, and currently controls the Lebanese government. Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad has long been a key ally of the group, allowing Iran to ship arms and other supplies into Lebanon overland through his country and across the border.

The possibility of Assad falling from power — as fighting with anti-government forces enters its 18th month — means Hezbollah would lose a powerful ally. Still, in a country where Hezbollah in some ways has more influence than the elected government, some on the streets of Beirut are skeptical that anything can loosen the party’s grip on power.

“The only thing that would affect Hezbollah is the … smuggling of weapons, because weapons come from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah,” said Wissam Ibrahim, 26, manager of a family bakery, who says he supports Hezbollah. “But” he added, Hezbollah “will always find a way, underground maybe, or any other way, to keep smuggling these weapons.”

Some see Hezbollah’s ability to stand up to Israel in the war of 2006 that left more than 1,000 Lebanese dead and severely damaged infrastructure in southern Lebanon as proof that the party’s position is unshakable.

“Hezbollah, who was able to defeat Israel in 2006, is not going to be weakened,” said Ali a 25-year-old resident of Nabaa, a Shiite neighborhood (Hezbollah and Israel have both claimed victory in the 2006 conflict). He didn’t want to share his last name with the NewsHour.

While the chaos in Syria might weaken Hezbollah’s hand in Lebanon, the party’s de-facto leadership role means it’s key to keeping stability.

Hanin Ghaddar, managing editor of NOWLebanon.com, an English language news site dedicated to an independent Lebanon, says it’s in Hezbollah’s interest to maintain stability, even if it appears Syria is threatening it.

“The Syrian regime would have loved to see Lebanon explode, whether internally, between the Shia and the Sunni, or they would have loved to start another war with Israel in order to divert the attention,” she said. “But the only thing that is stopping Lebanon from exploding to that extent … is that Hezbollah … they do not want chaos in Lebanon … because we have the upcoming elections in 2013.”

Recent political dynamics have only reinforced this preference for stability, said Ghaddar. In January 2011, Hezbollah was able to oust its rival March 14th Coalition and install its own prime minister. Any tipping of the apple cart could result in a reversal of these fortunes, a risk that the politically cunning party is not likely to take.

“More chaos in Lebanon, and more clashes, and a real explosion in Lebanon, it means Hezbollah will really have to compromise a lot of its power, its control over Lebanon and of its popular support,” she said.

For many Lebanese, Hezbollah isn’t so much good or bad, as it is just a known political quantity that provides social services for Shiites and military protection from their Israeli neighbor to the south. While opinions of the party vary as widely as the sectarian makeup of the country — there are 18 official sects — there is a sense of fear about what may come next, if and when the long-ruling Assad dynasty no longer has Hezbollah’s back.

“If Syria falls, Sunnis may once again contest power,” said Ali Bazzi, a Shiite from Beirut. “Hezbollah might try to seek a compromise with the other parties to maintain their situation. Otherwise, they will be isolated, and if anyone crosses the line, and tries to challenge their power, there might be a civil war.”

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/hezbollah-lebanon/

---------------

HORRIBLE EVVVVVVILLLLLLL JIHADISTS :dead: AND MY EVIL CONSPIRACY THEORY SOURCES (PBS)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 961
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Mauro

I have seen parts of his New Mexico "performance". Man, this guy is annoying as fuck. Does he even talk about anything he wants to do if he becomes president? I'm unable to figure out. He always starts and after one sentence he changes the topic, usually doing the next personal attack on whoever he can't stand. And he is a liar. All his talk about trade agreements and the reasons for the huge trade deficit of the U.S. (from his perspective that is China of course) is so so wrong. The thing is, the reasons are not even so difficult to understand. It's first semester in business studies. But to his excuse he may not even have a degree. What is shocking is that you can present the truth to the people with the real facts and data, yet they believe the liar because it fits their mindset. And this is indeed why many people around the world believe that the U.S. has gone nuts. And all this talk about Trump being a great businessman. Give me a break. Just saw a documentary about him and his business practices. It was not a nice story. And HC was right to call him out on his Atlantic City endeavers. Building casinos and loosing money. Now that must be a first. Am I surprised? No. His buldings are horrible. Nothing outstanding or tasteful about it. Just as his buldings he is a pompous clown. In addition to that, he is not even such a huge builder. Take NY for instance. There are three or four big companies that build all the huge and impressive and not so impressive buildings for billions and billions of dollars. His name only comes up when he is selling one of his ugly appartments (to finance his nomination?) or if someone tries to sell an appartment in one of his buildings. Maybe he is hiding his involvements because hardly anyone wants to be associated with the guy.

He's a con artist who's declared bankruptcy multiple times and has no prior experience when it comes to public office. He spent the last few years on a fact finding mission determined to prove that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery. The guy is insane.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know he's insane. That doesn't mean he's not honest about who he is. We all know he's insane, has the biggest ego in the entire United States, he's sexist, borderline racist, power hungry, has no experience in public office, etc. and guess what, he's SUCCEEDING. He doesn't care, he just keeps babbling like a psycho and his numbers keep improving. He's even managed to beat Hillary Clinton, the unbeatable candidate, in the latest polls.

You can name call me all you want, because I seriously don't give a shit what anyone cares about me, especially not someone on the internet, but that's a reality. Just keep on calling him psycho, insane, etc. and hope Hillary wins, even though her favorability ratings plummet. :rolleyes: And yes, I do think it's admirable to see someone with NO experience whatsoever come in and beat all of his opponents who were all part of a 150+ year old establishment. He knows how to play Americans, most of whom are a bunch of ignorant imbeciles who vote for candidates based on likability, charm and whether or not they're pro abortion or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clintons Email Deceptions

Updated May 25, 2016 7:53 p.m. ET

271 COMMENTS

Hillary Clinton has said for more than a year that her use of a private email server as Secretary of State violated no federal rules and posed no security risk. Only the gullible believed that, and now everyone has proof of her deceptions in a scathing report from State Department Inspector General Steve Linick.

The report obtained by news outlets Wednesday is ostensibly an audit of the email practices of five secretaries of State. But the majority of the report, and the most withering criticism, focuses on Mrs. Clinton. The IG concludes that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee broke federal record-keeping rules, never received permission for her off-grid server, ignored security concerns raised by other officials, and employed a staff that flouted the rules with the same disdain she did.

Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary, says the report. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Departments policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.

State still has never received emails from her private account for the first six weeks after she became Secretary, and the IG notes that it found (by other means) business-related emails that Mrs. Clinton did not include among the emails she has turned over.

The report says she has also stonewalled requests to obtain her server. And through her counsel, Secretary Clinton declined [the IGs] request for an interview. Former Secretaries Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and current Secretary John Kerry all sat for interviews.

Mrs. Clintons staff abetted her bad practices. The report says the IG learned of extensive use of personal email accounts by four immediate staff members (none of whom responded to the questionnaire). . . . The material consists of nearly 72,000 pages in hard copy and more than 7.5 gigabytes of electronic data. One of the staff submitted 9,585 emails spanning January 22, 2009 to February 24, 2013, averaging 9 emails per workday sent on a personal email account.

The IGwho had better hire a food-tasteralso found that Mrs. Clinton neither sought nor received permission for her private communications. The former Secretary also understood the security risks this posed because she was warned several times.

In March 2011 the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security sent Mrs. Clinton a memorandum that warned of a dramatic increase in attempts by cyber actors to compromise the private home e-mail accounts of senior Department officials, with an eye toward technical surveillance and possible blackmail.

Following that memo, security staff twice briefed Mrs. Clintons immediate staff on this threat. A June 2011 cable, sent over Mrs. Clintons name to all diplomatic and consular posts, warned of this new threat to home accounts, as well as the news that Google had reported cyber attacks on the Gmail accounts of U.S. government employees. Mrs. Clinton and her staff ignored her own warnings.

One official suggested State set up a stand-alone computer for Mrs. Clinton in her office to check the Internet and private email. That never happened. A different official suggested she have two mobile devicesone for personal use and one with a State Department email account that would be subject to [Freedom of Information Act] requests. Her team said no.

As for Mrs. Clintons claim that her private account was secure, the report cites several instances of techies shutting down her server due to hacking concerns. Notification is required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information, says the report. But the IG says it found no evidence that Mrs. Clinton or her staff filed such reports.

***

The Clinton campaign is resorting to its familiar strategy of calling this old news while saying everybody does it because Mr. Powell also failed to keep records of private email while he was in office. GOP will attack HRC because she is running for President, but IG report makes clear her personal email use was not unique at State Dept, tweeted Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon. But Mr. Powells use of private email was limited, and he never set up an unsecure server in his home.

All of this should bear on the FBIs email probe and whether Mrs. Clinton understood the security risks she was running. On the IGs extensive evidence, she clearly didand then she lied about it. Voters should understand that this is precisely the kind of governance Mrs. Clinton would return to the White House.

http://archive.is/RluRf#selection-4173.0-4173.26

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro

We all know he's insane. That doesn't mean he's not honest about who he is. We all know he's insane, has the biggest ego in the entire United States, he's sexist, borderline racist, power hungry, has no experience in public office, etc. and guess what, he's SUCCEEDING. He doesn't care, he just keeps babbling like a psycho and his numbers keep improving. He's even managed to beat Hillary Clinton, the unbeatable candidate, in the latest polls.

You can name call me all you want, because I seriously don't give a shit what anyone cares about me, especially not someone on the internet, but that's a reality. Just keep on calling him psycho, insane, etc. and hope Hillary wins, even though her favorability ratings plummet. :rolleyes: And yes, I do think it's admirable to see someone with NO experience whatsoever come in and beat all of his opponents who were all part of a 150+ year old establishment. He knows how to play Americans, most of whom are a bunch of ignorant imbeciles who vote for candidates based on likability, charm and whether or not they're pro abortion or not.

HE'S NOT HONEST ABOUT WHO HE IS. He changes his story, his opinion, his background, every two seconds. You're just pissed that Bernie crashed and burned and want to see the entire country pay the price for it. Fuck all the progress we've made these last eight years. Turn the Supreme Court Right-wing for a generation and overturn all the good legislation that's gotten through despite Republican obstructionism during Obama's time in office. Chop off your nose to spite your face, throw a temper tantrum.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and I'm not going to sugarcoat all of HIllary's evil lying bullshit just because I hate Trump. And yes, I hate him. He's a toxic, disgusting, opportunistic figure in America who's only making things worse in a country with a broken system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even care about Bernie anymore. I haven't mentioned him in at least a month in this thread. I even said pages ago that it's impossible for him to win, to which people (that british poof who posts here endlessly to make sure we all know how much he hates America and always ridicules me for being of Mexican decent) laughed at me and said I have no backbone.

He was my candidate, I voted in the Global Presidential Primaries, he won by a landslide, then Hillary beat him virtually everywhere that matters and I moved on.

This isn't about that. In under 1 year, either Hillary or Trump will be sworn in as POTUS, and I think they're both horrible, awful people who will set back the country at least 4 years. AT LEAST.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro

Why won't Hillary join the debate with Sanders and Trump?

Because there's been enough debates with Sanders. Sanders wants to debate her because he's out of money and needs the free advertisement in California. She will debate Trump plenty come this fall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro
Trump: Elizabeth Warren Is An 'Ineffective' Woman With A 'Big Mouth'


rdlcaiemqqegryzsi6lr.jpg


Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump again continued his attacks against Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), questioning her Native American heritage and saying that she was a woman who was ineffective and "only has a big mouth."


"I think she is as Native American as I am. OK? That I will tell you. But she's a woman that's been very ineffective other than she's got a big mouth," Trump said at a press conference in North Dakota.


Trump referred to Warren as "Pocahontas" at least twice in the news conference. Someone in the crowd seemed to take issue with his name-calling which made him repeat the nickname.


"Is it offensive? You tell me. Oh, I'm sorry about that," Trump said to someone in the crowd as a reporter asked a question about Warren. "Pocahontas is that what you said?"


He went on to say that Warren only got into schools because she applied as a Native American. Trump and Warren have had significant back and forth on Twitter. Trump has tended to attack her heritage and Warren has criticized his rhetoric toward females.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Because there's been enough debates with Sanders. Sanders wants to debate her because he's out of money and needs the free advertisement in California. She will debate Trump plenty come this fall.

I know you're in-the-know and you clearly know what's going on, much more educated than the rest of us, I'm not going to question that, but regardless of the fact that Bernie wants to debate her to make more money because he's broke, if Trump debates Bernie, the only thing this is going to accomplish is make Clinton look bad with the general public.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro


trump-sanders-debate.jpg


Donald Trump on Thursday said he would "love" to debate Bernie Sanders and raise $10 million to $15 million in the process, even if the Democratic challenger is not well positioned to be his general election foe.


"He's a dream," the presumptive Republican nominee told reporters ahead of an energy-focused speech in Bismarck, North Dakota, when asked about his previous comments in which he appeared to accept Sanders' offer to debate one-one-one ahead of the June 7 California primary.


Then Trump laid out what the arrangement might look like: "What we'll do is raise maybe for, maybe women's health issues or something, if we can raise $10 million or $15 million for charity, which would be a very appropriate amount. I understand the television business very well."


The event would "get high ratings" and "should be in a big arena somewhere," Trump said.


"We could have a lot of fun with it," Trump said, before attempting to drag Sanders back to Earth.


"I'd love to debate Bernie. The problem is he's going to lose" in the primary, Trump said. "Honestly, his system is rigged just like our system is rigged. If I didn't win by mass majorities, I wouldn't be standing here talking to you today. I knocked out every opponent. You have to knock out and Bernie, unfortunately, hasn't been able to knock out but the super delegates for the Democrats so — I mean, it's so unfair."


"So the problem, biggest problem is that Bernie's not going to win, but I would debate him anyway if they wanted to put up money for charity," Trump said. "So we'll see. We have had a couple of calls from the networks already and we'll see."


Screen-Shot-2016-05-11-at-9.12.02-PM-102

Link to post
Share on other sites
trump-sanders-debate.jpg
Donald Trump on Thursday said he would "love" to debate Bernie Sanders and raise $10 million to $15 million in the process, even if the Democratic challenger is not well positioned to be his general election foe.
"He's a dream," the presumptive Republican nominee told reporters ahead of an energy-focused speech in Bismarck, North Dakota, when asked about his previous comments in which he appeared to accept Sanders' offer to debate one-one-one ahead of the June 7 California primary.
Then Trump laid out what the arrangement might look like: "What we'll do is raise maybe for, maybe women's health issues or something, if we can raise $10 million or $15 million for charity, which would be a very appropriate amount. I understand the television business very well."
The event would "get high ratings" and "should be in a big arena somewhere," Trump said.
"We could have a lot of fun with it," Trump said, before attempting to drag Sanders back to Earth.
"I'd love to debate Bernie. The problem is he's going to lose" in the primary, Trump said. "Honestly, his system is rigged just like our system is rigged. If I didn't win by mass majorities, I wouldn't be standing here talking to you today. I knocked out every opponent. You have to knock out and Bernie, unfortunately, hasn't been able to knock out but the super delegates for the Democrats so — I mean, it's so unfair."
"So the problem, biggest problem is that Bernie's not going to win, but I would debate him anyway if they wanted to put up money for charity," Trump said. "So we'll see. We have had a couple of calls from the networks already and we'll see."
Screen-Shot-2016-05-11-at-9.12.02-PM-102

:lmao:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, all this talk about the system being "rigged" is getting on my nerves. It's not a secret that the system is far from perfect and that it needs major changes. BUT everyone involved knew in advance how the system works and what they were in for. Just because you are loosing and crying foul is not changing this fact. For Trump to complain about it is hysterical and hypocrisy of epic proportions considering he won thanks to the way the system works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did Hillary use a private server? Has anybody in the State Department history ever used a private server exclusively, or completely circumvented a State.gov email address?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro

Why did Hillary use a private server? Has anybody in the State Department history ever used a private server exclusively, or completely circumvented a State.gov email address?

Colin Powell. In fact, he told her to do it. :lmao: He's already come to her defense. The State Department is just covering its ass. Condi Rice did the same thing. People used their own private email services. Rules weren't changed until Kerry came along AFTER Hillary left. There should be transparency. Government fixes itself at a snail's pace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

His tweets are disgusting. "Crazy Bernie", "Crooked Hillary". Only dumb people will find this funny. For someone who wants to be POTUS this is highly disrespectful behaviour. How does he think he will do his job which requires a lot of diplomacy. Will he tweet nasty stuff about other world leaders if they do not agree with his positions. I can totally see a new Ice Age of political communications coming. Only this time it's not the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block. It will be the U.S. everyone will refuse to talk and freeze relations. Good luck with being isolated. Making America great again? What a joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro

Seriously, all this talk about the system being "rigged" is getting on my nerves. It's not a secret that the system is far from perfect and that it needs major changes. BUT everyone involved knew in advance how the system works and what they were in for. Just because you are loosing and crying foul is not changing this fact. For Trump to complain about it is hysterical and hypocrisy of epic proportions considering he won thanks to the way the system works.

He's using reverse psychology, rudimentary level. He's trying to get Bernie or Bust supporters to his side. He's been tweeting for Bernie to run as an Independent. In fact, had Bernie debated Trump, Trump would have gone easy on him and spent most of the debate trashing Hillary and expressing sympathy for him just to peal off Bernie's disgruntled supporters. Trump's tweets to Bernie are almost comical. It's almost like a love affair: "Please, please, PLEEEEEEASE RUN AS AN INDEPENDENT. It's not fair what they're doing to you!" Trump really should be forced to take a basic civics test.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Colin Powell. In fact, he told her to do it. :lmao: He's already come to her defense. The State Department is just covering its ass. Condi Rice did the same thing. People used their own private email services. Rules weren't changed until Kerry came along AFTER Hillary left. There should be transparency. Government fixes itself at a snail's pace.

Articles I have read said Powell used a private email address but didn't use a personal sever.

"Powell also noted some ways his situation was different from Clintons, for example, that he used a commercial email account. I had no private server, no private domain. I did not take [any messages] anywhere when I left the department, he said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/fbi-colin-powell-email-probe-218748#ixzz49naWRLC7

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did Hillary use a private server? Has anybody in the State Department history ever used a private server exclusively, or completely circumvented a State.gov email address?

Hillary was the first to use a private server EXCLUSIVELY, yes.

I think the only thing that's troubling about all of this is new information keeps coming to light is that her story keeps evolving as more information comes to light. At the end of the day, she didn't do anything wrong, per se, BUT she manipulates the truth to make it seem like everyone is just overreacting, which makes people trust her even less than they did so during her 2008 run.

-----------------------------

4 things Hillary Clinton got wrong in her latest statement about those emails

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/26/hillary-clinton-is-sticking-to-her-story-on-the-email-controversy-that-doesnt-make-it-true/

n the wake of a scathing inspector general's report regarding her exclusive use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton didn't say much. But what she did offer up — in an interview with Univision's Maria Elena Salinas in California — showed, yet again, that Clinton will stick to her story on her email server even if the increasingly indisputable facts get in the way.

Here's what Clinton told Salinas:

It’s the same story. Um, just like previous secretaries of state, I used a personal email. Many people did. It was not at all unprecedented. I have turned over all my emails. No one else can say that. I have been incredibly open about doing that. I will continue to be open. And it’s not an issue that is going to affect either the campaign or my presidency.

Now, a few bits of context.

1. "Um, just like previous secretaries of state I used a personal email. Many people did. It was not at all unprecedented."

Er ... yes, previous secretaries of state have used personal email addresses while in office — Colin Powell most notably and extensively. But, and this is really important, Clinton is the first secretary of state to ever use a private email address exclusively to conduct her business. Period. That was and is unprecedented.

2. "I have turned over all my emails. … I have been incredibly open about doing that."

Let's take the second sentence there first.

The inspector's report notes Clinton (a) shouldn't have exclusively used a private server for her email correspondence and (b) given that she did, should have turned over all of her correspondence to the State Department immediately after she left office in February 2013. Clinton eventually turned over a portion of her emails — more on that below — but didn't do so until December 2014 and "only after the State Department requested them as it prepared responses for the Republican-led House committee investigation into the 2012 attack on U.S. diplomats in Benghazi, Libya," according to a piece by WaPo's Roz Helderman and Tom Hamburger.

As for Clinton's assertion that she has turned over "all" of her emails, remember that Clinton deleted more than 31,000 emails that she deemed personal before ever turning anything over to the State Department. There was no third party brought in to make judgments on what was entirely private and what might be closer to the professional line. We have to, quite literally, take Clinton's word for it.

3. "I will continue to be open."

Clinton refused to sit down with the inspector general at the State Department, which is not exactly a testament to her commitment to openness. According to news reports, she has not yet been interviewed by the FBI, but there is an assumption that talk is coming.

4. "It’s not an issue that is going to affect either the campaign or my presidency."

This is a subjective assertion and, therefore, sort of impossible to fully prove or disprove. But, there is plenty of polling evidence that suggests that voters aren't convinced that Clinton is being entirely truthful in relation to her email server.

When asked last September whether Clinton has "honestly disclosed the facts about her use of personal e-mail while secretary of state or has tried to cover up the facts," 54 percent of respondents in a Washington Post-ABC News poll chose the latter option. Just one in three (34 percent) said they believed she had honestly disclosed the facts.

And, it's not a far leap from voters doubting Clinton's honesty about her email setup to broader doubts about her veracity. Large majorities of Americans regularly tell pollsters that they don't view Clinton as either honest or trustworthy — a massive hurdle that Clinton will have to clear between now and November.

There remains zero allegation of criminal wrongdoing by Clinton in all of this. And what she continues to say about why she set up the email server and whether she was allowed to has pieces of truth in it. But, it isn't totally true. And she has to know that.

-------

I have no idea if Colin Powell came out in Hillary's defense like Poli-Sci expert Mauro said above, but what I do know is that as part of their investigation, the State Department interviewed Colin Powell, who admitted to using his personal email for sending classified information. If he did "defend her", it's probably because IF it were determined that Hillary broke any law (which at this point this is very unlikely), he, along with Condaleezza, would most likely be in trouble, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro

Articles I have read said Powell used a private email address but didn't use a personal sever.

"Powell also noted some ways his situation was different from Clintons, for example, that he used a commercial email account. I had no private server, no private domain. I did not take [any messages] anywhere when I left the department, he said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/fbi-colin-powell-email-probe-218748#ixzz49naWRLC7

If you're SOS, I would hope you would use a private server and not frigging AOL. That being said, in hindsight, THERE SHOULD BE TRANSPARENCY. No one's debating that. You have to understand though that this is a throwback to the 90s Republican Monica Lewinsky baloney. Republicans are convinced that Hillary covered something up in her emails. They've poured through them and they still have found nothing. So now they're left with, did she break the law using a private server, and if she didn't, how can make whatever she did seem like she set puppies on fire? In the 90s, they said that she killed Vince Foster, was a lesbian, Bill had people murdered, was a rapist, and on and on and on. Ken Starr was hired and all he could find was a blowjob with an intern. He even revisited Whitewater. So they had to turn a blowjob into the biggest scandal in history. The end result: Bill became more popular than ever. They're trying to do it again with the emails. It's not working. The country doesn't care. They tried it with Benghazi. Even pushing that stupid movie which bombed. We can discuss Did she fill out the CC correctly or not? until the end of time. Nobody cares.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're SOS, I would hope you would use a private server and not frigging AOL. That being said, in hindsight, THERE SHOULD BE TRANSPARENCY. No one's debating that. You have to understand though that this is a throwback to the 90s Republican Monica Lewinsky baloney. Republicans are convinced that Hillary covered something up in her emails. They've poured through them and they still have found nothing. So now they're left with, did she break the law using a private server, and if she didn't, how can make whatever she did seem like she set puppies on fire? In the 90s, they said that she killed Vince Foster, was a lesbian, Bill had people murdered, was a rapist, and on and on and on. Ken Starr was hired and all he could find was a blowjob with an intern. He even revisited Whitewater. So they had to turn a blowjob into the biggest scandal in history. The end result: Bill became more popular than ever. They're trying to do it again with the emails. It's not working. The country doesn't care. They tried it with Benghazi. Even pushing that stupid movie which bombed. We can discuss Did she fill out the CC correctly or not? until the end of time. Nobody cares.

I love how your story just changed. Apparently Colin Powell CAME OUT IN HILLAR'S DEFENSE. :dead:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did Hillary Clinton delete about 30,000 emails?

Hillary Clinton just made a rather astonishing admission.

At the Tuesday afternoon news conference in which she attempted to dismiss concerns about her use of a private email system for official business, Clinton revealed she deleted about 30,000 messages.

She characterized the messages that were erased as personal correspondence and said she had "no reason to save them."

"In going through the emails, there were over 60,000 in total, sent and received. About half were work-related and went to State Department, and about half were personal that were not in any way related to my work," Clinton said. "I had no reason to save them, but that was my decision because federal guidelines are clear ... For any government employee it is that government employees responsibility to determine what's personal and what's work related."

Clinton said she "chose not to keep" the messages and said she expected people would understand her need for "privacy."

"We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails and deliver them to the State Department," she said. "At the end, I chose not to keep my private, personal emails. Emails about planning Chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements. Condolence notes to friends, as well as yoga routines, family vacations: the other things you typically find in inboxes.

"No one wants their personal emails made public," she added, "and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy."

Even if all the emails that were erased were indeed personal, the deletion of those messages could have implications for potential investigations into Clinton's communications.

Clinton's emails have been the subject of a growing controversy since a New York Times article published last week revealed she exclusively used a private address on the domain "clintonemail.com" when she led the State Department from 2009 through early 2013. The Times suggested this may have been a violation of federal recordkeeping regulations.

The former secretary of state and her team have said her use of personal email for official business went above and beyond regulatory requirements. At the news conference Tuesday, Clinton said she and her team engaged in a "thorough process" to identify all work-related emails and turn them over to the State Department.

In spite of these defenses, many Republicans have said they still have questions about Clinton's emails, and some have called for her allow an independent arbiter to examine her server. Clinton on Tuesday rejected the idea of an independent investigation. And the fact her personal emails were deleted would seem to eliminate the possibility an independent arbiter could even determine whether she gave the State Department all work-related correspondence.

Clinton's decision to delete her email also could affect the House of Representatives committee dedicated to investigating the 2012 terrorist attack on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Republicans have been critical of Clinton's handling of the attack, and the committee has long sought to obtain her emails.

Last Wednesday, the committee issued a subpoena for Clinton's emails. In a statement about the subpoena, the committee's spokesman also announced that it "issued preservation letters to internet firms informing them of their legal obligation to protect all relevant documents." However, Clinton's decision to delete her emails may have affected what was preserved and could prevent the committee from issuing further subpoenas.

A committee representative did not immediately respond to a request from Business Insider asking whether there was concern about the deleted emails.

In addition to closing off these potential investigations, Clinton's decision to delete her emails would also seem to eliminate the chance she could ever make these messages accessible to historians and archivists as many other major figures have.

Clinton hasn't really made her rationale for deleting the personal emails clear beyond saying she "chose" to do so and had "no reason to save them." Her team did not respond to multiple requests from Business Insider asking for clarification on why she deleted the messages. However, a written statement Clinton's office distributed after the news conference seemed to attribute the decision to a desire to "ensure the continued privacy" of the messages.

"Government officials are granted the privacy of their personal, non-work-related emails, including personal emails on .gov accounts. Secretary Clinton exercised her privilege to ensure the continued privacy of her personal, non-work-related emails," the statement said.

Indeed, it seems that even though her communications have attracted the attention of investigators, her mass deletion will ensure they remain private forever.

--------------

And this is EXACTLY why you don't use your damn personal email server to send emails as secretary of fucking state. It doesn't matter if it's Powell, Rice or Clinton. 30,000+ emails that POOF just disappeared. If she had used the email she was supposed to use, every single bit of information that she sent as Secretary of State would've been properly investigated. :rolleyes:

But yes, let's all focus on Trump saying one of his opponents has a big mouth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro
Donald Trump pledges to rip up Paris climate agreement in energy speech


gettyimages-534504456.jpg?itok=ti5Q5R3U


In a rare prepared speech, Donald Trump outlined his energy policy in Bismarck, North Dakota.


Trump is known for bucking conservative orthodoxy but, on Thursday, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee largely hewed to the typical Republican line. Reading from a teleprompter, Trump called for reducing restrictions on energy exploration, opening up more federal lands to drilling, and reducing dependence on foreign oil. He said he would try to reopen negotiations to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which President Obama rejected.


Trump railed against the “totalitarian tactics” of the Environmental Protection Agency. He pledged to dismantle the EPA entirely in an April town hall, although he referred to it at the time as the “Department of Environmental” and “DEP.” He assailed Hillary Clinton for saying in March that fracking projects would be unlikely to pass muster under her environmental regime.


“Hillary’s agenda is job destruction. My agenda is job creation,” Trump said.


He railed against “draconian climate rules” and said he would “cancel” the Paris climate agreement and withdraw any funding for United Nations programs related to global warming. Trump has repeatedly called climate change a “hoax” in the past, bucking the overwhelming international scientific consensus that man-made emissions are spurring a dangerous increase in global temperature.


Trump was joined by North Dakota Congressman Kevin Cramer, an early supporter now serving as an adviser to the candidate on energy policy.


Beyond vague promises to create jobs in whatever resource is most prevalent in a given state, Trump’s energy platform has been relatively unknown until now.


The most politically charged case was in Iowa, where he championed renewable fuel requirements that spurred local ethanol production while arguing that rival Sen. Ted Cruz opposed them because he was reliant on oil industry donations. Trump told reporters on Thursday would meet with the governor of Iowa before making any changes to ethanol policy.


Adopting a rally cry of conservative ethanol opponents, though, he remarked in his speech that “the government should not pick winners and losers” in energy. He did not directly address the issue in his remarks.


In recent days, Trump has pledged to reopen mines in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia — something experts say is unlikely given that the industry is in a long decline thanks to competition from cheaper alternatives like natural gas.


“We’re going to save that coal industry, believe me, we’re going to save it,” Trump said on Thursday.


Asked before his speech whether he was over-promising based on these obstacles, Trump said “market forces are beautiful,” and he wouldn’t interfere with competition. But he predicted he would be able to restore coal jobs by removing environmental regulations.


Trump’s contempt for regulations did not seem to extend to renewable energy, though, where he complained that wind turbines were “killing all of the eagles” and predicted the industry would fail without subsidies.


Despite this, he said he was “into all kinds of energy” and added in his speech that nuclear, solar, and wind power would play a role in the future.


In a statement, the League of Conservation voters criticized Trump’s new policy outline for failing to protect the environment.


“As Big Polluters’ new best friend, Trump’s ‘plan’ is pro-drilling, anti-EPA and is dangerous to our clean air and water,” spokesman David Willett said. “It does nothing to arrest our rapidly changing climate and the extreme weather already impacting Americans.”



Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen parts of his New Mexico "performance". Man, this guy is annoying as fuck. Does he even talk about anything he wants to do if he becomes president? I'm unable to figure out. He always starts and after one sentence he changes the topic, usually doing the next personal attack on whoever he can't stand. And he is a liar. All his talk about trade agreements and the reasons for the huge trade deficit of the U.S. (from his perspective that is China of course) is so so wrong. The thing is, the reasons are not even so difficult to understand. It's first semester in business studies. But to his excuse he may not even have a degree. What is shocking is that you can present the truth to the people with the real facts and data, yet they believe the liar because it fits their mindset. And this is indeed why many people around the world believe that the U.S. has gone nuts. And all this talk about Trump being a great businessman. Give me a break. Just saw a documentary about him and his business practices. It was not a nice story. And HC was right to call him out on his Atlantic City endeavers. Building casinos and loosing money. Now that must be a first. Am I surprised? No. His buldings are horrible. Nothing outstanding or tasteful about it. Just as his buldings he is a pompous clown. In addition to that, he is not even such a huge builder. Take NY for instance. There are three or four big companies that build all the huge and impressive and not so impressive buildings for billions and billions of dollars. His name only comes up when he is selling one of his ugly appartments (to finance his nomination?) or if someone tries to sell an appartment in one of his buildings. Maybe he is hiding his involvements because hardly anyone wants to be associated with the guy.

True, his buildings are ugly. And have you seen the inside of his jet? All that plated gold. It's an outdated look (very 80s). He should update to this century and go with a brushed stainless steel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Trump: Elizabeth Warren Is An 'Ineffective' Woman With A 'Big Mouth'
rdlcaiemqqegryzsi6lr.jpg
Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump again continued his attacks against Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), questioning her Native American heritage and saying that she was a woman who was ineffective and "only has a big mouth."
"I think she is as Native American as I am. OK? That I will tell you. But she's a woman that's been very ineffective other than she's got a big mouth," Trump said at a press conference in North Dakota.
Trump referred to Warren as "Pocahontas" at least twice in the news conference. Someone in the crowd seemed to take issue with his name-calling which made him repeat the nickname.
"Is it offensive? You tell me. Oh, I'm sorry about that," Trump said to someone in the crowd as a reporter asked a question about Warren. "Pocahontas is that what you said?"
He went on to say that Warren only got into schools because she applied as a Native American. Trump and Warren have had significant back and forth on Twitter. Trump has tended to attack her heritage and Warren has criticized his rhetoric toward females.

Trump saying someone else has a big mouth? That one is rich.

I also don't understand how people stay through an entire rally of his. He just rambles on about NOTHING!!!!!!!!!! Not a damn freakin thing!!!! Like was said all he does is talk about how great he is and make childish remarks bashing people he is against. If he becomes President life will have fully imitated art as America has officially become the plot to the movie Idiocracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...