What is going on is that Trump is the one that the press and others are calling out for having fiascoes of press conferences. That and Trump has also banned several media outlets, something that even Ninxon did not do. Trump also has had interviews that have been fiascos, but Hillary has a way with then.
Maybe. I just find the idea that she shows grace under pressure laughable. Read Game Change if you want to see how Clinton actually handles pressure. Being able to smile long enough for the cameras and tell some well scripted lies is not grace under pressure. Not cussing out your staff for every little thing that goes wrong(and which is your own fault, not your staff’s) is grace under pressure.
Yes. Trump sets a very low bar.
Well, not sure that gossip should be praised, I have seen the reviews and they are mostly like the Financial Times noted.
“It transports you to a parallel universe in which everything in the National Enquirer is true….More interesting is what we learn about the candidates themselves: their frailties, egos and almost super-human stamina.” —The Financial Times
Seems that they treated it as a great fun book, but like bubble gum, good enough to chew but not to swallow.
1/100 of 1% of her emails were marked, in the body of the text, with a [C]. That means the paragraph following the marking is classified. The documents are also suppose to have the word CLASSIFIED in the header, which they did not. Screw up or an intentional act?
Voting for you Hillary.
Say, did Trey Gowdy ever get something else to eat after Hillary ate his lunch?
It would, if possible, make such a person even more shallow and ignorant than Trump.
Chuckle of the day.
You forgot to note that 0% of those emails should have been on her private server in the first place and that was fully intentional.
You want to support Hillary*, fine. But at least be honest about what she did.
Slee
*They both suck. Clinton and Trump. Mainly because we (as in the general public) no longer care about honesty and integrity.
Her private server was not in conflict with any government guidelines at the time, so I not sure how you came to that conclusion.
You’re going to be very disappointed after the first Clinton/Trump debate. I wonder how you’ll spin her trouncing of Trump as anything but that. Or, maybe you’ll finally see the light.
I defy anyone to look honest or like they have integrity after 25 years of nearly-constant Republican shitstorming. Do you think you could?
Seriously, why the fuck would I care whether Hillary tried to erase emails or technically violated the law by storing classified information on the wrong server?
Is any of that going to increase or lower my wages? Is that going to have an impact on interest rates in the coming 4-8 years? Is that going to affect whether we get out of Afhganistan without runaway deficits? Is that going to determine whether we get fairer tax policy?
Oh Hillary lied, so vote for the fraudster who snookered unsuspecting dupes out of “university” tuition money and the guy who probably has no understanding of foreign policy or macroeconomics? Nice try, silly rabbit, but tricks are for kids.
Politics sucks because nobody really takes the time to understand whom or what they’re voting for.
Karnak 'luci says it ain’t gonna happen. He’ll make up an excuse, probably unfair media tilt towards Hillary. But he won’t do it.
Well-put.
Yes. This is the Big Lie on which the entire house of cards, the ‘Clinton Email Scandal’, has been built: that 'Hillary Clinton was given the option of using an email system that was safe and secure from hacking, and she refused.’ The house of cards then rises higher and higher with tut-tutting about her Bad Judgment in Refusing To Use the Safe-and-Secure State-Department System. A system which did not exist.
There was no safe-from-hacking system offered to her; she was probably correct at the time in thinking that the server she chose to use would be safer than the State Department option offered. (Of course when job #1 is to cover one’s ass, choosing the ‘official’ option, unsafe as it was, would have been the best CYA move. If you get hacked you can at least say ‘hey, I didn’t set up that system.’ Clinton did relinquish that opportunity.)
But none of these facts matter to those desperate to smear Clinton; the arguments may be clumsy or they may be fluid (as in our own Mr. Tiger’s thread in this very subfolder)–but they are all disingenuous. They all ignore the fact that she did not “irresponsibly” turn down a system safe and secure from hacking, because she was not offered a system safe and secure from hacking.
Does such a thing even exist? When the defenders work 9 to 4:30 and the offense works 24/7/365?
^ This.
All I have to offer the Smear Machine is what it has earned: Charmin.
asahi basically nails it. I think that the private email server was probably an attempt to keep embarrassing emails out of the public eye. And in the process there were probably some leaks that were damaging to national security, although we’ll probably never know exactly how much or how bad. I think that’s disgraceful and she shouldn’t have done it… but come on. It’s small potatoes.
There are real fucking problems in our world to deal with, and as far as I can tell, Trump will make most of them worse.
Oh what a load of crap. This is not remotely a “Big Lie”. Saying there was no explicit rule about having a private server is bullshit tap dancing. There are rules about keeping info safe and she flagrantly thought that her unmonitored basement server was good enough and/or there was nothing confidential on it anyways.
You can say this won’t change your vote but pretending this is purely partisan bullshit is no way correct.