Clinton Email Scandal: It's Time Hillary Suspended Her Campaign
IBD is usually middle of the road and doesn't seem to aggressive, but this looks pretty strong. It also illustrates the dividse in our moral compass as a country, where one side will willingly ignore clear issues with ethics as long as it is their politician lying (along with all the issues of ethics the Obamanation gang has had). Yet the media and Republicrats will skewer and push hard on Trump. Maybe the Republicrats lack the will to ignore all the bad things...strange..
Even if the candidate slides by without punishment, at the very least she's exhibited incompetence and carelessness with regard to handling of sensitive government information. For someone presenting herself as the model of a powerful female leader, she hasn't hesitated to play the "helpless" card when it suits her. She's played witless "grandma", and even "dumb blonde" (Wipe the server? You mean, like with a cloth?). She's a dangerous, conniving, unscrupulous, merciless political figure who shouldn't ever be allowed the reins of power.
it, "No one ever went broke underestimating the
intelligence of the American public."
you can never lose when betting on the stupidity of the Americanpeople OR no one has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses ...
Lose? I can't get anyone to take the bet even at 100 to 1 odds. I'm going back to buying lottery tickets the odds are more in my favor 50 - 50
http://www.investors.com/politics/edi...
The hiding of emails so she can erase them in case they are discovered and would make her "look bad" is despicable. Its a reincarnation of the Nixon self serving philosophy. People should realize that a Hillary presidency would be one of secret deals, ulterior motives, and hiding of anything that might damage her. Helping us citizens just isnt on her plate, no matter what she says.
This illustrates how the course of politics follows cultural philosophical beliefs like altruism and Pragmatism. In the 1970s the country's sense of life was still enough to stop the worst of the explicit bad philosophy with the landslide defeat of McGovern, who didn't mention socialism or progressivism and whose policies were far less extreme than the left today. Today it isn't; the sense of life has degraded much farther into welfare statism as a mentality.
Exposes of Obama's socialism and nihilism from the beginning didn't cause a blink, and he was re-elected despite the controversies over his intrusive destruction and dismissal of Constitutional limitations. People are voting their false ethics of altruism, resentment, and multiculturalism over economic success and despite the scandals and corruption, and are immune out of Pragmatism to appeals to principles about the nature of government in what is supposed to be the American free society.
At least the Italians had the good sense to hang Mussolini.
Everyone of those who does is a plus for her opponent...
This editorial says Hillary Clinton should "do
the right thing". What a laugh! When has she
ever done the right thing?!
Nothing.
After all it moral values have nothing to do with government and the media nor the candidates. People get wihat they deserve.
To me a moderate right-wing publication would be the WSJ. IBD, at least when I last picked it up, is a far right publication. I read about half of the article. The fact that her critics are still on about this shows me they have absolutely nothing to criticize about her. It way too early to say this, but I don't see how Clinton can lose.
It seems like they're using begging the question, though. They're saying her private e-mail system is a huge deal because people are writing articles about it. They say this in an article about it, so to me it comes off as "this is a scandal because I say it is." It comes off as using a transparent fallacy to criticize her for political reasons.
Begging the question? Come on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/...
His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.
And the typical lying BS from the Dumbocraps:
Conservative “super PACs” plan to seize on “Clinton Cash,” and a pro-Democrat super PAC has already assembled a dossier on Mr. Schweizer, a speechwriting consultant to former President George W. Bush and a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution who has contributed to the conservative website Breitbart.com, to make the case that he has a bias against Mrs. Clinton.
And the newly assembled Clinton campaign team is planning a full-court press to diminish the book as yet another conservative hit job.
A campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, called the book part of the Republicans’ coordinated attack strategy on Mrs. Clinton “twisting previously known facts into absurd conspiracy theories,” and he said “it will not be the first work of partisan-fueled fiction about the Clintons’ record, and we know it will not be the last.”
Where are the investigations into all this crap? By the time they get around to it, the servers are wiped, the witnesses all have amnesia or are dead and the Beast is in the WH. This has become so blatant with the Obamanation Administration, I think the dictatorship is here and the Sheeple just haven't caught up to it. All there is to oppose the takeover has been huge amounts of gas from the right wing gasbag collection in the media and congress.
Is this actually true? I've heard it's common practice of officials to use their own e-mail systems. I've also heard the information was not classified at the time she received it.
I think we're overboard about classifying stuff, not to protect US secrets, but to protect officials from people learning about unpopular or questionable actions they take.
I suspect the reason they use their own e-mail service is they reason e-mail is more akin to a phone call and they don't want every word they utter publicized. The truth is they don't want the public looking over their shoulder while they do their job. I am not saying I agree with that they should have private e-mails. The existence of them makes me wonder what they have to hide. But unless there's evidence she was using the private e-mail to hide illegal activities, I consider it a nothingburger.
One can say the limits are changing/overboard, but who sets the limits? The agencies. Definitely not some GS 14! Regardless, her behavior is aggreegious. You could not avoid prosecution if you did it.
The "other guys did it too" regarding servers is 1) a lame, irrelevant argument, and 2) a lie! Earlier Sec States used personal email addresses for personal emails and some fringe work emails. The ONLY examples of classification issues are from post-elevation of the classification level, where it was changed after the email was sent, generally after they left office. This is not a valid argument.
Hillary is a nasty, self-interested (in a one step ahead, non objective way), oligarchican. She considers the rules for others. She killed an ambassador and support staff. Just a nasty person.
I do not think Trump is smart enough to be this bad.
Now with regard to political appointees, sometimes political appointees have a chip in the grand political game that they can cash in at any time. For an example, see the following clip from Clear and Present Danger regarding the Potomac Two-Step:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWwN-...
That's one opinion, which is different from my understanding of the article.
You dismissively said you only read about half the article. The very first paragraph says "She is consistently battered by news that reminds voters just how corrupt she is and now is facing a report that the FBI director is convinced she broke the law."
"Reminding voters" how corrupt she is does not mean scandal because they say so. A report that the FBI director is convinced she broke the law does not mean that there is scandal because he said so.
Dismissive evasions of Clinton's actions are apologetics for an idol regardless of what it does.
I should have said claim, proposition, or assertion.
I still don't see the news reminding voters how corrupt she is. It seems like reaching, as if her critics truly have nothing and are reaching far to find something to criticize.
If you don't see news reports for months reporting the corruption then that is your fault. It doesn't turn a straightforward article referring to what she did and the FBI investigation into "reaching" as if "her critics" "have nothing" and are "reaching far to find something to criticize". No one has to "reach far" to criticize and denounce Hillary Clinton.
If you can show me an IBD "anti-choice" or editorial that references God, then I will reassess my opinion.
As far as the WSJ, I wouldn't call them "moderately right-wing", but very tepidly, afraid of offending, very slightly "right-wing". About one degree from "middle-of-the-road".
I was more liberal and less libertarian when I last read IBD 15 years ago, so I may have a different perspective if I read it now. It could have changed too.
I don't detect a bias in WSJ, which is exactly what I want-- the facts, not someone starting with a desired answer and then looking for facts. That's the whole reason scientific studies are blinded. We want the truth, despite human frailty. The WSJ op-ed page, though, last I read it a few years ago, did not seem at all afraid to publish potentially offensive opinions.
For the Left it is somewhat the center of the left with two points.
For Public consumption they claim between Democrats and Republicans apply the PT Barnum dictum fool most all of the time. Republicans or Rinos to the right of their center. Democrats or Dinos to the left . Neither one anywhere close to the Constitution.
Their second center is the extremist leftist to one side and moderate leftists by their definition to the other.
Thus International and National Socialists way out there and Secular Progressives and Socialists/or Dinos as the balance.
They can do that because they really don't recognize any one else and you'll find that repeated constantly in Lakoffs writings.
But if you view it as Constitution as the true center in an objective manner the bunch of them are left wing...all supporting one another.
Their term for anyone else when they do go beyond RINOs is Conservatives. No matter if they are or aren't. It's a catch all and largely meaningless
It also nicely explains why the Republicans constantly practice cross or bi-partisan ship two terms meaning one party system and cave more often than not.They aren't a separate party they are just the right wing of the left. Some may be there just to get elected and do come from the center or even right of center at times e. g. libertarians but they are few and far between.
Only Constitutionalists stand in the center. All two dozen of us - I say that tongue in cheek.
Off to the far extreme right there are anarchists who believe in no government a bit closer are some who believe in some government thus Libertarians fit but not much else.
And as I said it all fits, explains the unanswered questions of the existence of Boehnerts and McCollums and is far more exist than the PT Barnum system.
Most here are discussing or arguing to what degree of left wing fascist socialism they are willing to kowtow. A few of us say nothing that isn't constitutionally based is acceptable. near half the nation has no representation in the current system....to us it is a counter revolution.
Investor's Business Daily (IBD) has much better editorial policy.
Calling anything "far right" or "right wing" is a leftist smear with no meaning other than expression of leftist contempt.
The notion that any focus on Clinton's arrogantly illegal security breaches means that there is nothing else over which to criticize her, let alone "absolutely nothing to criticize about her" is of course preposterous and reflects a leftist head-in-the sand mentality emotionally protecting their idol.
Clinton should have stopped her life-long campaign when she became an open Alinskyite in 1969. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
IBD - Investor's Business Daily - Last time I read it (over 10 years ago) it had a political bias in the news, which is only useful if you want the facts that support a certain political view instead of the truth.