Hillary Clinton

I hate it when people say third party votes are wasted. It's the Democrat and Republican votes that are wasted, because you're voting for evil. Evil is not what you want. You vote for it. Your vote is COMPLETELY WASTED.

A vote is to be used to indicate your preference for THINGS YOU WANT. That is its only purpose!

It's not okay that Bush/Cheney got rid of emails, and it's not okay that Hillary did. Listening to you guys is really pathetic. The government can literally do anything it wants according to you, so long as it sets precedent beforehand.

Hillary, as Secretary of State, was grossly negligent with classified information. That's all. She is not fit to be president. Say "no one cares" all you like, but guess what? Some people in this country DO CARE about this country. Just because you and the rest of the slack jawed yokels out there don't give a fuck doesn't make it right.

 

MeAgain:

From your link:

"In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f)."

The FBI had determined that what Nishimura did, he did with no malicious intent. So, tell me again how Clinton's case differs from Nishimura's case.

 

Not voting means you do not care what is happening in this country.

If you feel like you're voting for "the lesser of two evils" how are you going to sleep at night when you voted for what you thought was evil?

Vote your truth.

It's the hippie way.

:rockon:

 

ThanKs Lynn, thats nice to hear, especially since you hear so much negativity about my generation. Which I think is incredibly cliche, after all baby boomers were looked down upon as dirty lazy pot smoking hippies and Gen X was known as materialistic and apathetic. I guess some people get older and get their kicks from making fun of the young whippersnappers

Thanks though, i like my generation too and am interested to see how we shake things up in future politics.

I agree about Obamacare and how it would work a lot better if we had taken the Medicaid extensions.

I like Obama to a certain extent and voted for him in 2008 (the last time i voted for a major party) but i'm morally opposed to some of his policies and I feel Hillary will just be a continuation of the same ol

The billions of dollars in arms deals to the Saudis, for example. I realize this is a reflection of general US policy and not Obama specifically, but he isnt opposed to it.

I cant bring myself to vote Democrat or Republican because I feel like both parties are morally reprehensible.

 

Listverse put out a "10 Dark Secrets Of Hillary Clinton" list today. You can look for yourself if interested; if you hate Hillary then it's about what you'd expect.

http://listverse.com/2016/09/23/10-dark-secrets-of-hillary-clinton/

 

Clinton was believed to have not willfully removed and grossly mishandle sensitive material. And of course we have her word that she wasn't aware that she was doing anything wrong. At any rate, it boils down to whether or not you are gullible enough to belief that our nation's most senior diplomatic official was ignorant concerning protocol when it came to what she was found to have done. Are you gullible enough to believe that the nation's senior diplomatic official did not know that she was being grossly negligent in the handling of sensitive material? Are you going to appeal to an authority that claims to know what was in Clinton's mind? That would be even more gullibility.

But let's assume for the moment that the absurd notion that the nation's senior diplomatic official was unaware that she was grossly negligent in the handling of sensitive material has some basis in reality. Is it really your opinion that such a grossly negligent person would be a swell president? Before answering, remember what Comey said:

"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."

"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."

Not only do you want her to be excused for her ignorance of protocol concerning sensitive material (which she should have been aware of), but you also want her to be the president of the United states.

 

Sorry, but voting for the "lesser evil" never made sense to me.

If I can't vote for a candidate because I don't believe in him/her then I can't.

 

I posted Aeri's ENTIRE post up there so you could see that what you did was take what she said completely out of context, TheGhost. Aeri has never promoted voting for the lesser of 2 evils.

______________________________________



I AM the one that said I would vote for the lesser of 2 evils...but tbh I didn't really mean that because I don't see HRC as being evil.

I know I may be almost alone in thinking that (here at hf anyway). I think when Bill was POTUS, she probably "ran" that office moreso than him (I think so anyway) and we US citizens came out pretty good from that.

 

The value I see in not voting comes when you have a hold your nose choice in both directions. If the turnout is low, the political class will read this as voter apathy and lull themselves into thinking they have an open license to steal. As we saw with Obama, technically a rookie with only 140 days of actual work in Washington before announcing he would run for the top seat, a huge surprise ensued. The Republicans actually thought they could wheel out that old fossil and beat Hillary. He was just as blind sided as Hillary was when Obama shut down the infamous Clinton Machine.

I'm positive the establishment favorites, McCain and Clinton figured voter turnout was going to be the lowest in years. And come on, Palin? Really? Obama drove voter turnout beyond decades of expectations. Not only was black voter turnout higher than in history, but a substantial number of new white voters put Obama over the line. Leaving Hillary and Johnny crying in the rain. I was glorious!

I don't see a surprise like Obama this time around. Trump and Clinton couldn't be more different. Which is why it was so easy for Trump to beat the rest of the GOP and why they're all butt hurt about it now. The republicans were already fractured. That's what made it so easy for Trump to humiliate them. I only wish John Kerry was in the mix now. I'd LOVE to see Thurston duke it out with warpaint Donny.

 

Yes she did. That's why I quoted only that part. If you have two candidates and you trust neither then you shouldn't vote. If you do vote you vote for the lesser evil.

And Aeri said "Not voting means you do not care what is happening in this country."

So.

 

There is a 3rd party candidate, although I don't know who it is.

Also, you can write someone in...as in "vote your truth".

But in a round about way, I do get what you're saying.

 

Yeah I know ... the liberal guy right? Still, if you had 15 candidates and they were all corrupt ....

Aaaahhhhh .....

 

This in no way answers the points I presented in my post. Nishimura was convicted because he knew what he was doing when he did it, though it has been established that he had no malicious intent. Clinton was not convicted because she claims to have been unaware that she was being grossly negligent with sensitive material. You are of the opinion that the most senior diplomatic official in the nation was not aware of necessary protocol when it comes to handling sensitive material, and you believe this because . . . she said so. You know as well as anyone that ignorance is no excuse for the law.

So, again, not only do you want her to be excused for her ignorance of protocol concerning the handling of sensitive material (which she should have been aware of), but you also want her to be the president of the United states.

 

And If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass on the ground.

 

I've wondered about this as well. If I don't know the speed limit, and I'm speeding, I will still get a ticket for speeding if I'm pulled over. Malicious intent has nothing to do with it. And that's for something as minor as a traffic violation. I find it hard to understand why Hillary couldn't be charged with something for mishandling state documents.

 

Are you saying that, as Secretary of State, she wasn't aware that she was involved in gross negligence in the handling of sensitive material?

That puts her in the same boat as Nishimura.

Under the heading “Safe Handling of Information” on page 21 the bureau boasted of its efforts to quickly bring new Obama administration appointees up to speed on security issues.

“DS contributed to the smooth transition of U.S. government officials by providing more than 180 members of the new Obama administration–ranging from Secretary Clinton to various ambassadors and other presidential appointees–with security training, and immediate access to highly classified systems and other information products critical to their new roles.

“In 2009, DS delivered information security educational briefings to nearly 6,000 State Department employees, contractors and personnel from other government agencies.”

This should clear up any misunderstandings concerning the question of her ignorance of proper security protocol.

 

The circus comes to town! Bill Clinton's ex-mistress Gennifer Flowers AGREES to attend debate after Hillary invites 'dopey' billionaire Mark Cuban to sit in the front row as her guest

Clinton's [SIZE=1.2em]campaign told [/SIZE]CNN [SIZE=1.2em]on Friday that they had invited Cuban to the debate.[/SIZE]
'He has the best seat we have access to,' an aide said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3805768/Trump-threatens-invite-Bill-Clinton-s-mistress-Gennifer-Flowers-debate-Hillary-choose-dopey-billionaire-Mark-Cuban-row.html