Why would anyone want to vote for Hilary Clinton?

[Shadow Wolf]

I still say people just like picking on the Clintons. They call the Clinton liars, as if Congress is actually full of honest people. They say the Clintons are crooks, as if Washington isn't a den of thieves.
Now, with that said, I wouldn't say I want to vote for Hillary, but Trump just is not qualified for president. He has no political experience and his bullying and threats of suing are not going to get him anywhere in the White House. I also don't want to hear the world sigh, groan, and laugh in unison, and I'm not too keen on the idea of the person leading America pumping out good raw footage for terrorist recruitment ads. I don't want to vote for Hillary, but there is the potential to swing the Supreme Court to the Left, so I'll vote for Hillary because it's better than the alternative.

 

[Shaul]

It's good to hear from the judge, jury, and prosecuting attorney in the case.

LOL, touché. But seriously, it WOULD be nice to see this adjudicated in a court of law. The fact that it hasn't been is troubling to many. It raises the specter that because of her influence and political corruption she hasn't been so tried. Consider what would happen if some other person had kept FBI files and Top Secret documents in their residence. Wouldn't such a person be inducted and stand trial? Yet Hillary has not. And THAT is another good reason to oppose her candidacy.

 

[Falvlun]

Well show me instances where trump totally messed up Benghazi./

It's pretty easy to have a perfect political record when you have zero political experience.

 

[metis]

LOL, touché. But seriously, it WOULD be nice to see this adjudicated in a court of law. The fact that it hasn't been is troubling to many. It raises the specter that because of her influence and political corruption she hasn't been so tried. Consider what would happen if some other person had kept FBI files and Top Secret documents in their residence. Wouldn't such a person be inducted and stand trial? Yet Hillary has not. And THAT is another good reason to oppose her candidacy.

They were not labeled as such when she received and responded to them, at least as far as we know.

BTW, I wonder if Bernie is staying in the race at least partially because of what the FBI investigation could hypothetically show, and if it's damning, he could become the nominee? Seems like a sensible strategy to me.

 

[Shaul]

They were not labeled as such when she received and responded to them, at least as far as we know.

BTW, I wonder if Bernie is staying in the race at least partially because of what the FBI investigation could hypothetically show, and if it's damning, he could become the nominee? Seems like a sensible strategy to me.

Today (May 26), the Inspector General is the State Department released report which highly criticized Hillary Clinton's use of her personal email server. Quoting from it, "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 Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act." And there was much more the IG found wrong. http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/politics/state-department-report-faults-clinton-over-email-use/

And, lest we forget, the FBI is investigating whether there was criminal wrongdoing.

 

[metis]

Today (May 26), the Inspector General is the State Department released report which highly criticized Hillary Clinton's use of her personal email server. Quoting from it, "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 Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act." And there was much more the IG found wrong. http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/politics/state-department-report-faults-clinton-over-email-use/

And, lest we forget, the FBI is investigating whether there was criminal wrongdoing.

Yep. I think she did it out of her paranoia, some of which is understandable. Nevertheless, it was a terrible decision, imo.

 

[columbus]

Yep. I think she did it out of her paranoia, some of which is understandable. Nevertheless, it was a terrible decision, imo.

I don't see how this could be all that terrible. I'm not saying it was OK.
But if it were a crisis, why didn't anybody complain and investigate back in 2009? Everyone from foreigners to the CIA all knew about it, including the rest of the State Dept.
I think it is mainly a manufactured scandal.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see how this could be all that terrible. I'm not saying it was OK.
But if it were a crisis, why didn't anybody complain and investigate back in 2001? Everyone from foreigners to the CIA all knew about it, including the rest of the State Dept.
I think it is mainly a manufactured scandal.
Tom

2001?

 

[columbus]

2001?

Shut up kilt boy.

Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Shut up kilt boy.

Tom

Yessir!

 

[metis]

I don't see how this could be all that terrible. I'm not saying it was OK.
But if it were a crisis, why didn't anybody complain and investigate back in 2009? Everyone from foreigners to the CIA all knew about it, including the rest of the State Dept.
I think it is mainly a manufactured scandal.
Tom

I think it's both, but the Pubs have already convicted Hillary, apparently forgetting "innocent until proven guilty". Hey, they are obviously playing offense because Trump's rants and some of his previous actions simply are not defensible.

 

[4consideration]

I don't see how this could be all that terrible. I'm not saying it was OK.
But if it were a crisis, why didn't anybody complain and investigate back in 2009? Everyone from foreigners to the CIA all knew about it, including the rest of the State Dept.
I think it is mainly a manufactured scandal.
Tom

According to the linked article, the Inspector General's report shows that a couple of staffers did bring it up, questioning the sole use of a personal email as being a problem, and were told it had been approved and not to talk about it.

How is a manufactured scandal if the people that were questioning it internally were told it had been approved (when it had not) and to shut up about it?

'The report draws attention to two staff members in the Office of Information Resources Management, who back in 2010 "discussed their concerns about Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email account in separate meetings with the then-Director" of their office.

The report says, "According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary's personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further." The same director reportedly "instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary's personal email system again."

But the report notes that interviews with officials from the Under Secretary for Management and the Office of the Legal Adviser found "no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff" of the server.'

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/politics/state-department-report-faults-clinton-over-email-use/

 

[columbus]

the Director stated that the Secretary's personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff

OK.
So it was reviewed and approved. Where is the problem in 2016?

Given Wikileaks and stuff, it is not like there was a security issue that the government might have saved us from. What is the problem now?
Tom

 

[4consideration]

OK.
So it was reviewed and approved. Where is the problem in 2016?

Given Wikileaks and stuff, it is not like there was a security issue that the government might have saved us from. What is the problem now?
Tom

It was not reviewed and approved. According the report it seems it was lied about being approved and hushed up from people talking about it.

Did you read the last paragraph that I quoted from the article?

 

[columbus]

It was not reviewed and approved. According the report it seems it was lied about being approved and hushed up from people talking about it.

Did you read the last paragraph that I quoted from the article?

Yes but I don't understand the one aspect I care about.

Why is this an important issue now, but wasn't five years ago? Or six? Or seven?
It was not a secret. Everyone who cared knew about it. But the first time it appears to be an issue is when the GOP need something to use against the Democrats.
That's what I'm talking about. I see this as a purely partisan issue.
Tom

 

[4consideration]

Yes but I don't understand the one aspect I care about.

Why is this an important issue now, but wasn't five years ago? Or six? Or seven?
It was not a secret. Everyone who cared knew about it. But the first time it appears to be an issue is when the GOP need something to use against the Democrats.
That's what I'm talking about. I see this as a purely partisan issue.
Tom

OK. Well, it seems to me it has been being talked about for a few years, since I've been aware of it since before the election cycle began. I started that thread back in March of 2015 about it, and I first saw the story on the Rachel Maddow show: http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...retary-of-state-business.174572/#post-4192885

I don't think it's a made up scandal.

As I understand it, there were a number of requests made under Freedom of Information that were returned by the federal government as there being no information to provide -- that there really was information -- but it was just on Clinton's private server at that time, and not accessible as it should have been. There has been an ongoing battle/lawsuits by some groups to get access to information about the federal government's activities, through an official of the U.S. government (Clinton, at the time) whose official communications were not available to the federal government, until she decided (a couple years after leaving office) when and what official communications to return. I can't see how anyone would think that's not something to be very concerned about.

 

[Acim]

In other words, how on EARTH can ANYONE vote for Hilary? Seriously I don't understand you people at all.

Maybe by page 12 of this thread someone will have a reason to vote for her, and not frame it as a vote against Trump.

From what I found in this thread in first 6 pages, there is no reason to vote for her.

 

[fantome profane]

Maybe by page 12 of this thread someone will have a reason to vote for her, and not frame it as a vote against Trump.

From what I found in this thread in first 6 pages, there is no reason to vote for her.

I think Hillary will make an excellent president. I think she will protect the rights of women, I think she will take steps to improve Obama care without dismantlement it, I think she will protect lgbtq rights and continue the fight for equality. Those are reasons that someone would vote for Hillary.

Go ahead and disagree with these reasons, but don't claim no one has given you reasons.

 

[Acim]

I think Hillary will make an excellent president. I think she will protect the rights of women, I think she will take steps to improve Obama care without dismantlement it, I think she will protect lgbtq rights and continue the fight for equality. Those are reasons that someone would vote for Hillary.

Go ahead and disagree with these reasons, but don't claim no one has given you reasons.

Not going to disagree, just nice to see a post that's in this direction.

The claim stands as accurate for what the first 6 pages showed. I was all prepared to list the 1 or so reasons I thought I would find. When I found zero, it made the point even easier to make. Glad I chimed in, or it could've gone another 6 pages without someone expressing reasons to support her.

 

[Shaul]

I think Hillary will make an excellent president. I think she will protect the rights of women, I think she will take steps to improve Obama care without dismantlement it, I think she will protect lgbtq rights and continue the fight for equality. Those are reasons that someone would vote for Hillary.

Go ahead and disagree with these reasons, but don't claim no one has given you reasons.

These are the BEST reasons you can offer? Ignoring for the moment that they don't speak to the important aspects of the Presidency such as the role of Command-in-Chief or head of the Executive branch, I would say that she has a terrible record on women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and that she would be the least likely to fix the ACA.

But I will invite you to try to support your claim. Hillary Clinton was a Senator for eight years. Tell us what legislation she drafted that supports women's rights or LGBTQ rights. Also tell us what her proposal is, in detail, to "fix" Obama care.