• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Will Hillary's email problem be her undoing?

Will Hillary's email issue eventually cost her bid for the Presidency?

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
tytlyf said:
How'd that work in the Bush/Cheney case?
Click to expand...
Relevance?
Of course not
Typical. of persons of this political persuasion response to something that debunks or goes against their ideology is ..........oh look a squirrel.
Wondering about my "discretion"
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Revoltingest said:
Options.....
A) Blame Bush, Trump or Reagan
B) Call it a "manufactured controversy".
C) Say that Republicans do it too, so she shouldn't be singled out.
D) Give Hillary credit for her well deserved success.
Click to expand...
I'll go with B, C, and D. Except I don't say she shouldn't be singled out, I'm saying if you're going to single her out, for stuff that she actually did do and not the manufactured crap, then it really makes no since to put such an emphasis on her because it should be put everyone. If we put all politicians under such scrunity, we'd probably be screaming for more prisons so there'd be room for them all.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
esmith said:
As we can see from the following article those with political "clout" do not have to answer for their screw-ups whereas those that don't are punished. Note the close similarities to the Hillary issue
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-investigation-hillary-clinton-223646
Click to expand...
Seems to me like it's time the government make an official electronics policy that addresses such things. The military is just now getting those who've pretty much have always had a phone and camera with them, so it seems they may need to formally address that.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Shadow Wolf said:
I'll go with B, C, and D. Except I don't say she shouldn't be singled out, I'm saying if you're going to single her out, for stuff that she actually did do and not the manufactured crap, then it really makes no since to put such an emphasis on her because it should be put everyone. If we put all politicians under such scrunity, we'd probably be screaming for more prisons so there'd be room for them all.
Click to expand...
I'm willing to pay taxes to imprison more politicians.
Besides, the imminent threat of sanctions for illegal behavior would modify their behavior.
 
4consideration

4consideration

*
Premium Member
Shadow Wolf said:
Seems to me like it's time the government make an official electronics policy that addresses such things. The military is just now getting those who've pretty much have always had a phone and camera with them, so it seems they may need to formally address that.
Click to expand...
According to this article, the rules for preserving emails from a personal server were updated in 2009, the year she took office.

That means the rules that would apply to her would be different from what applied to those before her.

"But while the report acknowledges personal email use by previous secretaries, it also notes that the rules for preserving work emails sent from a personal email account were updated in 2009, the year Clinton took office."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/politics/state-department-report-faults-clinton-over-email-use/
 
tytlyf

tytlyf

Not Religious
esmith said:
Relevance?
Of course not
Typical. of persons of this political persuasion response to something that debunks or goes against their ideology is ..........oh look a squirrel.
Wondering about my "discretion"
Click to expand...
You stated the administration is covering for Hillary. Yet there is no proof. It's a conspiracy theory.
 
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
Shadow Wolf said:
Seems to me like it's time the government make an official electronics policy that addresses such things. The military is just now getting those who've pretty much have always had a phone and camera with them, so it seems they may need to formally address that.
Click to expand...
Oh look a squirrel
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
esmith said:
Oh look a squirrel
Click to expand...
This apparent failure to address changing technology is how Chelsea Manning got information out (people thought she was listening to songs on a CD-R, but it was blank and she burnt the information to the disc). We're not talking about one or two isolated incidents, but a number of events that are revolving around issues that stem around the way technology has totally changed information and data storage, retrieval, and transfer.
 
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
tytlyf said:
Just because your media says it, doesn't mean it's true. RW media is notorious for conspiracy theories. They rely on confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

and you sources are right
rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif
 
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
tytlyf

tytlyf

Not Religious
esmith said:
and you sources are right
rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif
Click to expand...
More right than 'conservative' media.
esmith said:
I don't think, at this time, that the administration is covering for the Hillary. It is an Obama appointee as the State Dept IG that has shot down her lies.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/ig-report-on-clintons-emails/

Seems that the Bernie has finely seen the light
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/29/bernie-sanders-ig-report-was-not-good-for-hillary-video/
Click to expand...
Of course it's damaging. I don't deny that. But prison isn't in order. I could care less if it's Bernie or Hillary. The person who wins the popular vote (not special delegates) should get the nomination.
 
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
tytlyf said:
Of course it's damaging. I don't deny that. But prison isn't in order. I could care less if it's Bernie or Hillary. The person who wins the popular vote (not special delegates) should get the nomination.
Click to expand...
But that isn't how it works. Don't you want to run from a party that the big guns/big money control who their nominee is? Hillary is the darling of the big money people on Wall Street. I though you abhorred those type of individuals?
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
esmith said:
Hillary is the darling of the big money people on Wall Street. /QUOTE] You might want to rethink this through, especially in terms of the Pub's loooooooooong association with Wall Street as well.
Click to expand...
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
esmith said:
Hmmm facts don't lie
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...vative-pac-attacks-clintons-wall-street-ties/
Clinton has received more money from the financial sector than any of the remaining candidates.
Click to expand...
So what? That wasn't my point. Do you think the many Pubs complained when they got donations from Wall Street to the point whereas they returned the money?

On top of this, if this was of great concern to you, then Bernie should clearly be your choice-- but he ain't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top