Slashdot Mirror
Hillary Clinton Declares 2016 Democratic Presidential Bid
An anonymous reader writes In a move that surprised no one, Hillary Clinton has officially announced she is entering the 2016 race for the White House. According to the Times: "Ending two years of speculation and coy denials, Hillary Rodham Clinton announced on Sunday that she would seek the presidency for a second time, immediately establishing herself as the likely 2016 Democratic nominee. 'I'm running for president,' she said with a smile near the end of a two-minute video released just after 3 p.m. 'Everyday Americans need a champion. And I want to be that champion,' Mrs. Clinton said. 'So I'm hitting the road to earn your vote — because it's your time. And I hope you'll join me on this journey.'"
"Fuck tech news, post everything that could generate clicks!"
FUCK YOU, DICE.
Please don't vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. We can't continue the oligarchy that is the US government leadership.
Not sure where to go with this. I truly doubt I'll want the Republican candidate, but I don't particularly want Hilliary for President either. That doesn't leave much other choice. You heard me Libertarians/Greens/RonPaulFans
BENGHAZI!!!111!11! !1!!1!!11 11!!1!111 1!!11 !1!!1!!11 !1!!1!!11 !1!!1!!11 11!!1!111 !! !1!!1!!11 !1!!1!!11 !1!!1!!11 1 11!!!!1!! 11!!1!111 !1!!1!!11 !1!!1!!11
(A little bit of drool drips out of mouth)
(Gets modded +5, Insightful by other droolers)
Is this even news at all? I mean there is no chance she was not going to run. She has been in the running for 2016 since the lost the 2008 primary.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
How about all them deleted emails?
...and this is why she'll be president, because her opponents are brain dead monkeys who can't actually criticize her where's she weak, just come up with useless bumfluff like parent did. Good job conservatives! You suck so hard, you can't even run decent oppo anymore.
Yawn.
Benghazi?
If you can't get the citizenry outraged over the 9/11 fuckup what makes you think they'll even wake up for that nothingburger?
Monica Lewinsky?
Who?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
If it ends up being Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush, I will conclude it is time to flee the U.S. for a free country. Unfortunately I don't know of any countries out there that are both free enough to go to and yet stupid enough to let Americans in.
Oh well. There is always the safety of the grave to look forward to.
In both of the last elections there were a bunch of high profile people who claimed they would leave the US if Obama was (re-)elected. But when push came to shove they stayed in the US.
I'm betting that people like you will be making the same vociferous claims, and like those other people will stay in the country regardless of who wins the election. Lets face it, if you were so dis-enamored with the country that you are going to leave, then basing your decision to stay or go on something that only comes around once every 4 years is basically a crock of shit. If you are going, then you are already gone.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Hillary is pretty much poison to any Republican candidate. They already can hardly go 5 minutes without putting their foot in their mouths about women, immigrants or God. Sometimes all three. Hillary will bludgeon ever male candidate with her vagina until they just can't help to say "rape babies are God's punishment for Mexicans," or dumb[-ass shit like that. Admit it, that would not sound the least bit out of place coming out of the mouth of any likely Republican candidate. The only chance the Republicans have would be to nominate a female candidate who's not Carly Fiorina or Sarah Palin. Condoleezza Rice would be a good option and also the only other female Republican I can think of off the top of my head. I see some of you starting to point at some members of the Fox news team, but those are actually animatronic characters that get shut down and put back in the closet at the end of their daily news cycle.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
After almost 7 years of implications that I'm racist when I disagree with the surveillance and foreign policies of the current administration, I can look forward to now being called a sexist instead!
Free at last!
Please don't tell me a politician is America's champion... ever.
Do you honestly think any democrat is better? Look where all the Wall Street campaign donations are going. In 2012, most went to the democrats. Do you think they did that because the democrats were going to rein in corporate malfeasance? Or maybe because the Obama administration and democratic leadership are a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs?
We already dealt with one Clinton, it ended in White House oral and impeachment. Honestly though, I don't think we should allow family members of previous presidents to become president themselves. That means Jeb Bush too.
Buck Feta. You know what to do.
Much though I enjoy the multi-hundred-comment threads where we all scream at each other about politics, why is this here?
How is this 'news for nerds'? I mean, even the summary has given up on trying to even mention technology/nerdy stuff.
Would the media care the same way?
Never understood this. A country attacked from within, thousands dead, hundreds of billions of associated costs, but not a single government official, was to blame? No-one?
You can see why the nutters think it was an inside job.
Hillary does have presidential ambitions, yes. There is a good chance that 8 years older, less attractive, bruised by most recent fuckups such as BenGhazi, Email and her recently exposed Bosnia sniper fire falsification, will lose to younger W. Warren.
From Republican side Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz will be rolled out. There is a chance that Rand Paul and Ted Cruz will be on one ticket.
I wish there was a third choice...
Whatever one party comes out with, the other party has to approximately match. Think of it as weight class in sports. That keeps it at least mildly competitive. Hillary has a lot of baggage so the Republicans now must choose someone in the same weight class, which means a candidate as detestable as Hillary. Then the public can complain about how bad the candidates are but at least there candidate is not as bad as the other.
Personally I'm hoping that we see Bush III vs Clinton II, only so the public can see how silly and corrupt the whole thing is.
Vote third party or don't bother.
Monica Lewinsky?
Hillary Clinton was responsible how exactly?
Nerds care about politics too...
I'm Liberal. I want clean government, an end to shitty subsidies, no corruption, representatives that actually represent me, equality and justice for all... All the usual.
I can't stand Hillary. I actually turned myself into a Democrat (You can easily switch parties in Oregon. There's a website. it takes just a few moments.) so I could vote AGAINST Hillary in the primary. I think she's a giant tool, and a bit of a war monger. I think she'll be the same bank and war friendly President that we got out of Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, and Obama. She's not a progressive. She doesn't care about the little guy. She's a career politician.
If Warren won't run, I'll vote for Bernie Sanders, the only Independant in Congress.
To end this, I would say to you all that our country is having some problems and it's OUR fault. Large swaths of the US citizenry are political morons who vote for hot button issues (And really, when did the R's ever get rid of abortion? When did the D's ever really help the poor? They just SAY that shit, they don't mean it.) or for the "character" of a candidate. Voter turnout is really low, making it possible for candidates to play to the base instead of playing to the swing voter.... Don't blame Washington. Blame yourself. And don't give me that "I don't vote so it's not my fault" B.S. You give them your taxes and then don't hold them responsible for what they do with them. Those people make me sick....
If you one hasn't done anything significant, they don't have any decisions or records to criticize. Humans make mistakes, and those with experience will have a history of mistakes just by being human.
You can do 999 things right and 1 wrong, and the news & opponents obsess on that one wrong one, just as you don't hear about all the planes that land safely.
Warren hasn't been through the grinder of real experience and hounding critics. The Middle East is a tough, chaotic place to work with, and experience there shouldn't be dismissed.
Table-ized A.I.
Geez, even NIXON didn't burn his tapes when caught doing something illegal.
He later regretted that decision. Many of his advisers later said that not destroying the tapes was a big mistake. If he had destroyed them as soon as their existence was publicized, but before they were subpenaed, the Watergate investigation would have gone no where.
Hillary was smart to destroy her emails. The political price will be minimal. She may be evil, but she isn't dumb.
Yes, a ton of jobs get created when you decide to move all the factories overseas. They just leave eventually and don't come back. Job growth since Clinton left has been flat or arguably just barely positive for both succeeding Presidents. Barack Obama's new jobs are flipping burgers because he loves the H1-B visas so much.
All hail our next President. The Republicans will nominate someone who will look like Satan biting the heads off of babies and drinking their blood compared to Hillary.
So Hillary will be our next president. And because Manning embarrassed her with the leak, she's going to clamp down on what little freedoms we have left. She's going to make Obama look like he's been a huge support of freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
Maybe after 8 years of Hillary, we'll get someone who actually thinks our basic freedoms are a good idea.
I'll vote for a third party candidate as a protest. If enough people join me, maybe someone will notice.
As someone that is currently planning on voting 3rd party because the any of the major Rep candidates (other than Rand Paul and he won't get anywhere unfortunately) Looks just as bad, I doubt they will notice as the media purpose fully ignores or demeans any candidates without a D. or and R. after their name.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
same as the old boss
We Americans will get the government we deserve, once again. I'm too jaded to be disappointed.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
It reads: Run Hillary Run!
You put it on the front of your car.
He declared last week, and wasn't on the front page. Why not? I'm guessing it's because Paul is a favorite object of man-love here on slashdot while Hillary is a favorite punching bag. You don't get many readers in to a celebration, but you get plenty of them for a pseudo lynching.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Clinton reigned during a big economic boom, which actually largely turned out to be a bubble. It was called the Dot-Com Boom. The Internet became commercialized, and computers became powerful enough and easy enough to use, and the Internet because commonly available enough, that it was a technological and social revolution. This happened to occur while Clinton was in office. It had little to nothing to do with Clinton's actions. (It did have to do with his VP's actions; Gore helped the internet along legislatively, but this was many years before the internet boom of the 90s.)
Clinton even tried to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. His administration pushed the "Clipper Chip" fiasco: he signed laws which banned "strong encryption" (over 40-bit), regulating any such crypto as a "munition" and banning it from being exported. But worse than that, he pushed for a law requiring ALL strong encryption to be done with a special chip called a "Clipper chip", which all computing devices would be required to have built-in, and which the NSA would have the keys for, called "key escrow". That way, the government would be able to snoop on any communications they wanted. This of course didn't go over too well, and lots of companies moved crypto operations out of the US.
The Clintons, and the Democrats in general, are big friends with the NSA and obviously want the government to be able to spy on everyone, all the time. It sucks because the Republicans probably agree with them, only more secretly, but with the Dems it's overt: just look at how "Mr. Transparency" Obama reacted when the NSA spying came to light via Snowden.
Anyway, yes, a lot of jobs were added during the dot-com boom days; a lot of them promptly disappeared when the bubble burst. These events were neither Clinton's nor Bush's fault; they were natural occurrences in an economic bubble. Lots of these jobs were "web developer" positions which paid ridiculous sums for people with little to no skill in programming; it wasn't a big loss when these people lost their cushy jobs after the bubble burst and had to go back to truck driving or whatever; most of them weren't actually producing anything of value anyway.
Just...go away.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
You didn't read his whole comment, obviously. He said that he doesn't know of any countries that are free enough to go to, and also stupid enough to let Americans into.
Leaving the country, for an American, really isn't that easy. That's why most people who talk about it never do it. There are quite a few countries with higher standards of living (in western Europe mostly), but they're really not easy to emigrate to from here unless you have some critical skill, and even then they treat you like a guest worker. Even Canada isn't that easy to move to. There are other countries which are probably easy to move to, but they're not anyplace you'd want to live, they're 3rd-world shitholes like El Salvador where 1 in 9 adult males die by murder.
Based on the "choices" we've had over the lasts several decades, I've concluded that the whole thing is rigged just like professional wrestling, and it deserves no more of my attention that that does. Nothing else can explain the farce that's been going on when it comes to the people who are chosen to lead this country.
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
So why aren't you bashing Nixon for opening up relations with China? Oh, right, Nixon was a Republican.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Or another Bush. We founded this nation to get ourselves out from the rule of royal families. Of all the people that the Democrats could come up with they put her forward.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
She already lost multiple times. Her last campaign irresponsibly ran millions of dollars into a deficit, which is precisely how people fear Democrats will run the country. She's incredibly fake all the time despite actual, legitimate political experience. Then there's the secret private illegal e-mail server that she lied about and then possibly erased. She has a 0% chance of winning.
If it ends up being Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush,
Who would move the US more to the right: Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush?
My current thinking is that Hillary would.
How about all them deleted emails?
Yawn.
I am pretty liberal and I can hardly imagine voting Republican again for a while, but even I cannot understand why the email thing isn't a bigger deal. I guess that is because I am not a lawyer. From what I can tell, deleting potential evidence that you even think might be subpoenaed later is a crime. A pretty serious one. And the Republicans have been threatening to subpoena for those records since the scandal started.
This doesn't seem like some little transgression to me. I think the Benghazi nonsense is just that, nonsense. But the email deletions literally seem like a jail-able offense to me. And honestly I think they should be. As far as I can tell the only reason she isn't in more trouble is because Eric Holder is a very political attorney general.
I would love for someone to convince me this isn't a big deal, and considering the media doesn't cover this more I am probably just wrong about how bad it is. I thought the email scandal was ridiculous when it was just about using her private server, but the second she admitted to deleting the emails things just became far less trivial.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
All you say is true, but you should interweave into that that Clinton's penchant for free trade deals with unequal economies meant the decimation of good paying manufacturing jobs in America in exchange for low pay service jobs. Free trade between comparable economies is totally fine because they are competing on a level playing field -- free trade where the workers think 50 cents/day wage is awesome is a recipe for disaster for most people, and massive profit for a very select few.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I'm somewhat skeptical of the whole corrupt system, all the way through, but all the muck brought up on Clintonia is NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING compared to the death, destruction, global disruption actions of the war criminals Dubyah and Dick
Please have respect for people with different abilities, especially children.
they bring up Benghazi, a non story (1)
there are some minor scandals, like travelgate (2)
there are some deranged fantasy arguments like vince foster suicide (3)
that all you got ?
maybe she has some small skeletons, but you compare her to the crazys (T Cruz , R Paul) the right wing guys who want us all to be underpaid slaves (S Walker) the retread of the past (J Bush)...HIllary stands head and shoulders over these midgets
1) the republicans in congress *created their own committee* which they *ran* ....zilch
and the committee investigated and found
2) ok, innuendo aside, someone fired a few timeservers in the whitehouse. Bush started a war for no reason that killed 4,000 americans, cost well north of a trillion, and destabilized the mideast...
3) If you think this is an issue, I have a special white jacket for you
You do realize that the money people are indeed fleeing the US in record numbers? Even just a quick google can show you that this is a disturbing trend...and with Barry O actual musing on national fucking television about a death tax, exit tax, and taxing the rich even more expect the exodus of rich people to get worse if Hilly gets elected. Sucks but the Dem need a LIBERAL candidate or the US is fucked. http://www.cnbc.com/id/1024134...
Yes, I forgot to mention that part. NAFTA was a very bad deal for lower-income, lower-skill workers, because it meant moving a lot of their jobs to Mexico. This is the problem with Democratic voters: they buy into the party's free-trade dogma, and then tout the stock market performance as proof that the economy is great for everyone, while ignoring the fact that stock market performance doesn't mean squat to some guy with a high school education who has a low-skilled job.
The Economist speaks of her candidacy very much in terms of inevitability.
I don't believe they understand how deeply this woman is disliked in the U.S. I'm not taking about policy or history, I'm talking about on a personal level. Her first act as a political climber was working on the Watergate case, from which she was dismissed without a recommendation letter...the fellow later said she wasn't so bad, coincidentally with her husband's presidency of course...
-Styopa
we needed universal health care to go with the free trade but DUE to the GOP all we got was the ACA out side of some people useing the jail / prison for it.
And now with automation on it's way things can get very bad.
Don't blame Washington. Blame yourself.
I firmly believe that if Americans want their government to change, they first need to change themselves.
You know that this period of the US will read about in history books as such an obvious time of corruption. The occurrence of dynasties is not a good sign of a healthy democratic republic. Save the last two terms, there has been a Bush or a Clinton as President since 1989. Counting VP, they've occupied those two offices since 1981. If you start to count Secretary of State and such, these two families have held top offices continuously for nearly 35 years. And the next race may well be a Bush vs a Clinton, again.
Of the more than 100 million eligible citizens in the US, is the best candidate for President another Bush or Clinton? Really???
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Unlike Benghazi, nobody was killed because of the Watergate scandal.
Hillary's email scandal is much worse than Nixon's Watergate cover-up.
Whereas Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace, Democrats are swooning over a candidate who make Nixon look like a boy scout.
Always has been, she has made that very clear, many time.
So now it's tech. Everybody happy?
People hate her because she is the wrong gender. Considering IT's views on women the this on this site is not surprising. Sad, but the internet has not created a better world. We should just ditch it and get back to face-to-face interaction.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I'm somewhat skeptical of the whole corrupt system, all the way through, but all the muck brought up on Clintonia is NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING compared to the death, destruction, global disruption actions of the war criminals Dubyah and Dick
So?
Lets say that we all agree with you... then what? Vote in Clinton because... of what Bush did?
Two wrongs make a right?
How about we get someone fresh and new in who hasn't been in Washington for 30 years?
If you'd like to recover the e-mails she wrote for the entire life of the server I'd bet you could throw a FOIA request on the Chinese government.
Or you can just cut to the chase and elect someone that believes in the Constitution, will stop monitoring all of our citizens, and will fundamentally change the thugs at the IRS into servants. http://randpaul.com/
That's not what Monica Lewinsky is famous for.
No, we got what we got due to Obama. He was still touting the public option even after he made a back room deal with the insurance lobby to implement Nixon's health care plan:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
But SHE would be WAY worse! No more Bush's, no more Clinton's! Term limits on all federal politicians, judges...no more terms for life!
NOWHERE in the articles of impeachment did the GOP write "eeeeew, he had icky sex". The ONLY reason Clinton's political problems involved sex was that the Democrat political strategists and the Democrats in the press WANTED that as a political tactic. The Clintons and their hard-core supporters knew he was in real trouble if the serious accusations stuck, but they also knew that American people sould sour on a prosecution over censensual sex... so they started to argue loudly and in all forums that it was all about sex. Here's why:
Bill Clinton got electoral support from women, in part, by signing a bill into law that said that if a woman accused a man of sexual harrassment, she could drag him into court and ask him about his entire sexual history UNDER OATH in order to expose any pattern of behaviour (this increasing the likelihood of a guilty verdict). Any average Joe, so accused, would be prosecuted and jailed UNDER BILL CLINTON's LAW if he lied about his sexual history to try to win his case. Unfortunately for Mr Clinton (and his wife, the current candidate who helped run his "bimbo eruption squad" (the name the Democraats gave the outfir that trashed any of his conquests who did not go away quietly)) there was a woman named Paula Jones who sued Mr Clinton for sexual harassment and used his own law against him. When Mr Clinton, the man running the executive branch of government (therefore the chief law enforcer of the nation), got dragged into court and asked those new questions about his sexual history, he lied. Under Oath. By his own law, he shoud have gone to prison for perjury. He was NOT prosecuted, not impeached, nor eventually stripped of his law license "for sex".
As your your other mindless idiotic rantings, apparently you have no problem with the idea that Hillary falsely accused a little-known video maker who uploaded a video to YouTube of inciting crazy Muslims in a faraway nation and vowed to jail him for it (while violating federal records laws and destroying her emails so the public will never know what went on "behind the scenes") .... and then he was rounded up and thrown into prison for over a year. I hope YOU never upload a video to YouTube that Hillary can find a way to blame for something somebosy else did (or, actually, on second though.... go ahead...)
If Dick Cheney had done ANY of the above, you'd be spitting his name out as you called for his imprisonment..... but you are probably just dishonest (about what you claim is "right" and "wrong") and hyporcritical enough to vote for her.
Nothing came of all the Benghazi investigations, and most of the others. Innocent until proven guilty. And the laws about email at the time were vague. Yes, what she did is a bad practice, but many other politicians made the same error in judgement.
Table-ized A.I.
Why would anyone vote for the democrat or republican candidates? You can't possibly believe that either candidate has any concept of what your life or concerns are like. These candidates are funded by private industry and will act on values they are directed to act on, after they are elected. Their campaign platforms mean nothing. Just like Obama, just like Bush, just like Clinton, on and on. The data is no longer hidden. Step 1. Pander to the public for votes. Step 2. Ignore the public after that with periodic press releases telling the vocal majority, what they want to hear. Step 3. The media supports these half-truths. Step 4. Repeat. This corruption is ingrained all the way to the state level in most of the US of A (Maryland is not too bad, iirc). The federal government, alone, is attacking freedoms DAILY in a myriad of ways. You think Net Neutrality was won? Hah. You think either party is interested in progressive taxation? Hah. What about that section 702 of the Patriot Act? How many cycles before these issues are quietly readdressed? At some point, you need to decide if you have a responsibility to protect your own self-interests. Even if this means something as appalling as choosing a different box.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
How about all them deleted emails?
Yawn.
I am pretty liberal and I can hardly imagine voting Republican again for a while, but even I cannot understand why the email thing isn't a bigger deal. I guess that is because I am not a lawyer. From what I can tell, deleting potential evidence that you even think might be subpoenaed later is a crime. A pretty serious one. And the Republicans have been threatening to subpoena for those records since the scandal started.
This doesn't seem like some little transgression to me. I think the Benghazi nonsense is just that, nonsense. But the email deletions literally seem like a jail-able offense to me. And honestly I think they should be. As far as I can tell the only reason she isn't in more trouble is because Eric Holder is a very political attorney general.
I would love for someone to convince me this isn't a big deal, and considering the media doesn't cover this more I am probably just wrong about how bad it is. I thought the email scandal was ridiculous when it was just about using her private server, but the second she admitted to deleting the emails things just became far less trivial.
You mean after actually giving the State Department the emails that were work pertinent? People seem to think that no one has seen 'any' of her emails, but that actually isn't the case.
The Republicans would love to access to every email she had at that point. They would find *something* so that they could splash more mud on her. Because they are terrified of Hillary Clinton as president canidate.
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
but never could figure out what her qualifications were. Sure, she was the president's wife, but did she participate in decision making?
It seems to me that the press has elevated the status of the first lady to co-president. I don't buy it. Being married to a president doesn't make you presidential material any more than being married to an engineer makes you an engineer.
If there was something wrong with my car I wouldn't call the mechanic's wife/husband, I'd call the mechanic.
From what I can tell, deleting potential evidence that you even think might be subpoenaed later is a crime.
Isn't it just that her email was supposed to be public record. It's not okay to use a personal email for official purposes that needs to be part of public record.
But it's not evidence... in general you also have the right to not incriminate yourself... But it's not relevant here...
What I don't see is whether or not she even used it... Somehow I suspect high-level officials don't do a lot of email, but have assistants to keep track of correspondence.
A pretty serious one. And the Republicans have been threatening to subpoena for those records since the scandal started.
Aren't they only threatening to subpoena it so they can make a scandal out of the emails not being public record...
There have been too many non-stories blown way out of proportions like "Obamas birth certificate" and "Benghazi", all complete crazy talk. So when republicans cry wolf, I don't really bother checking if it's a non-story or not... Those stories seems to have the credibility of a tabloid magazine (same credibility level as critical slashdot stories, seriously try digging beyond the summary of all outrageous slashdot stores for a week -- it's depressive how much of it is spin/twits and non-stories blown up to make an outrageous headline and summary).
I wasn't after a partisan approach, but interesting.
My interest was piqued by the Benghazi accusations of intelligence mismanagement, especially by Fox. To be able to say 'this was on your watch, it's your fault' about a terrorist raid in N Africa seems fine, but to do it about Sept 11th isn't. This contradiction stinks of the grossest hypocrisy (I know, quelle surprise).
Hadn't heard about the Sandy Berger accusations. Turns out there's a reason why (they weren't true)
http://mediamatters.org/resear...
If you remember the AIR Presidental Election Algorythm, you'll find that she has to get a damn good vice president, because she's no governor, no head of any college, nothing. She scores a 0, while Martin O'Malley scores a 88 (8 years Maryland governor).
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
At least in 2 jobs I've worked the lawyers came before a lawsuit and said it reasonable to expect a subpoena in the future so we need to preserve a copy of EVERY email/file/paper/whatever TODAY (the day the the lawyer found out). Once you suspect something could be legal evidence in the future you are knowingly destroying evidence. You may not be thrown in jail, but the other side can tell the jury to assume the worst in what you destroyed - and the court can just say "it's your fault for destroying the things you say prove your innocence. Too bad for you."
Unless she is dumber than than any republican on the planet thinks, she had reason to believe that Congress would want to see the emails (not the courts but still a legal issue where subpoenas, perjury, etc apply). And if she was "too busy" to understand what was happening her lawyers, who were involved in selecting emails to delete, certainly know. And they decided to allow her to destroy evidence rather than risk having the emails exposed.
Even if there was not a single email that implicated her in anything illegal or anything that Congress was even interested in, it was "destroying evidence". They can't be used to show her innocence - some questions cannot be resolved either way because of the choice she (intentionally) made.
Arguing on the internet is like playing ultimate Frisbee golf. It doesn't matter what happens, because nobody cares and everyone involved looks like a loser.
That being said, both political parties are corrupt as hell and pander to special interest groups. If the POTUS could accomplish even a quarter of what people blame them for, the executive branch would have WAY too much power (which it doesn't).
As for scandals and corruption: Remember how everything is ***GATE...That's because Watergate (a Republican scandal) ended a president. So no, Republicans can't escape that (although they have tried). Democrats are no better, but the GATE suffix is a Republican brand.
Democrats and Republicans agree that their candidate is a little less bad than the candidate of the other party.
What a great time we live in.
I'm somewhat skeptical of the whole corrupt system, all the way through, but all the muck brought up on Clintonia is NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING compared to the death, destruction, global disruption actions of the war criminals Dubyah and Dick
So?
Lets say that we all agree with you... then what? Vote in Clinton because... of what Bush did?
Two wrongs make a right?
How about we get someone fresh and new in who hasn't been in Washington for 30 years?
Just because two wrongs don't make a right doesn't mean that all wrongs are equal.
Starting two pointless wars is not in the same ballpark as getting a blow job.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You mean after actually giving the State Department the emails that were work pertinent? People seem to think that no one has seen 'any' of her emails, but that actually isn't the case.
Hillary and her people were the ones who went through the emails to determine which were work related. That is no different than a suspect telling the police he searched his home for the murder weapon and found nothing, so move along.
The Republicans would love to access to every email she had at that point. They would find *something* so that they could splash more mud on her. Because they are terrified of Hillary Clinton as president canidate.
I completely agree the Republicans only wanted the emails to drum up more scandal. They would have scanned through them to find emails that sounded hostile towards working mothers, poor people, etc. so they can take them out of context and create mud to sling at her.
But I don't think "I thought the evidence would hinder my political ambitions" is a reasonable defense.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Don't forget that Nixon lived in a time when destroying such evidence would guarantee the public would destroy him. This came from both sides as well not just one. So either way he was screwed and he tried his best to hide what he did, but there was no way he was going to get out of it. Everyone was so infuriated they didn't care who he was. Unfortunately though today people just look the other way when politicians do everything they can to hide or destroy evidence of the truth.
You think? I liked Ron Paul, if nothing else he at least talked a good line, but everything I've seen of Rand Paul suggests he is so deep in the pocket of the corporatocracy that he can't even hear an echo from the people he wants to "represent".
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Such claims often appear to be a "mind trick" variation of the 6 Degrees to Kevin Bacon game.
See also "Small-world experiment": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Table-ized A.I.
Democrats and Republicans agree that their candidate is a little less bad than the candidate of the other party.
I used to be a Republican, until I opened my eyes and saw they were just the other side of the Democrat coin.
Now I dislike both sides, we have a nasty two party system that gives the illusion of choice.
Just because two wrongs don't make a right doesn't mean that all wrongs are equal.
Starting two pointless wars is not in the same ballpark as getting a blow job.
True, but I wasn't talking about Bill.
His wife is much worse... I'd rather have him back than her, if those were my only two choices...
Hillary is now the official front runner for the Democrats. She will raise a ton of money do doubt. But she was also the front runner back in 2008 until this obscure Senator named Obama came out of nowhere...and the rest is history.
For many Democrats, Clinton is too centrist. Certainly to the right of Obama. They see her as being just a little to cozy with business types. She has a lot of well documented baggage - past and present. Democrats are torn between supporting someone they believe can win (Clinton) and a less flawed candidate with a lesser chance of winning.
Her resignation from the Clinton Foundation is quite timely. I'm sure that we are going to hear about questionable donations from foreign heads of state to her foundation and allegations of pay-for-play. It all ties in with the secretive email server and the subsequent disappearance of thousands of email messages that were not only never turned over they were willfully destroyed.
I think that some in the Democratic party fear there is a smoking gun and that if someone manages to get to the bottom of it their chances of retaining control of the White House drop to nearly zero. It would not surprise me to suddenly see Elizabeth Warren emerge as a candidate, despite her repeated denials that she is running.
Having said all of that I don't think that Jeb Bush is the answer. We need someone new and fresh ideas.
I would be shocked if all of the copies of all of the emails have actually been deleted. I suspect it's actually a lie -- not that that's any better -- and that even if it's not, the drives weren't wiped to the extent necessary to scrub all of the data. I have no idea why the drives, and any possible backups, haven't been subpoenaed explicitly.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
In democracy it's your vote in elections that counts; In FEUDALISM it's your count that votes;
Casteism
You can't vote in Party A's primaries unless you are registered for Party A.
"There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
I think if the next president is a Republican, he'll probably get to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices. Ginsberg's getting up there, for example. If the majority on the SCOTUS swings just one more vote to the right, it will likely have a noticeable effect on reproductive rights (and not only abortion), what's left of the labor movement, separation of church and state, and so on. I mean, look what happened to McCain / Feingold.
Sure, I'd like a real progressive – a real liberal – to be elected, but that's not going to happen. And, anyway, were it to happen, we'd see even more paralysis at the Federal level. We'd probably see even more polarization in our society, which is not a good thing (look at some of the nastiness on this very thread, for example).
Sadly, I think the best we can hope for is someone who's willing to battle at the margins of our slide into complete domination by big money and the far right. Clinton is, at least, a moderate (especially compared to people like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito). If elected, she'll stay a moderate. Given the chance, a Republican President will hasten our descent.
The only way that a woman would be president in the U.S.A is if she is installed by the powers that be to be the president that runs the country to the ground.
The real power in the world are the "old boys clubs". If Billary gets 'voted in', I would be very, very worried about the future of America.
Personally I have no problem with women or blacks or whoever getting into positions of power. I'd like to see more diversity of race and gender in those positions.
But to the real power - the racist, sexist old boys - the only thing worse than a black president is a female president.
This whole presidential race smells like trouble to me. America is going to hell in a handbasket.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
The problem with your assertion is there is no way to prove it. That's why the government is supposed to be the oversight and not the law breaker.
Great! So, whomever you are, just post your contact information so we can have the government submit all FOIA and other inquiries through you since you apparently think that you are the arbiter for whether something used in the conduct of government is pertinent.
and again, why is something okay if Bush did it? Do congressmen start throwing interns off of bridges to their deaths commemorate Ted Kennedy?
"You've made it clear that you listen to rush Limbaugh"
This is a great example of the word "assume" making an "ass" out of "u" and "me".
Fair warning. I get to use this in conversation over lunch. Should get quite a laugh from the actual Beck and Limbaugh dittoheads around the shop. :)
The Clintons openly accept money from countries that murder women for even daring to speak, but Rand Paul is in some "pocket of the corporatocracy" you fail to even describe?
It's not about the money - it's about the policies they put their support behind. Everything I've seen of Rand Paul says he's a libertarian extremist of the sort that can't wait to hand the last shreds of democracy over to the elites. (No, they never say as much, but history has time and again proven what happens when the populace fails to hold the elites in check)
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Great! So, whomever you are, just post your contact information so we can have the government submit all FOIA and other inquiries through you since you apparently think that you are the arbiter for whether something used in the conduct of government is pertinent.
When did I ever claim that? Claiming a third party should be involved is not the same as saying I am qualified.
And I don't even think a third party should have been involved. I think the email controversy was stupid ... until she deleted the files.
I do think shredding sessions, digital or physical, are wrong. And as far as I know, destroying documents you could reasonably expect may be subpoenaed in the future is illegal. And not traffic ticket kind of illegal, prison kind of illegal. At least for average people without enough political clout it seems.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
If we actually elect her, I'm moving overseas.
Thankfully, American culture is built to combat that problem. A majority of the Armed Forces are common people that have been paid less than dirt, and inspired through nationalism to protect the homeland. Good luck on an elite revolt. People want to live here for a reason. Still scratching my head at what the hell a libertarian extremist is? Does that mean the person really really wants to guarantee your liberty? Sounds pretty good to me.
If you didn't know about it before, it was informative to you.
Again, Hillary Clinton orchestrated the character assassination of the women who were sexually assaulted by her husband.
It's not my opinion, it happened.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Do not vote in elections till your Presidential Candidate submits his/her fMRI report;
It'll prevent many untoward incidents in future;
Casteism
Yet somehow the first priority of the more extreme libertarians always seems to be eliminating the rules that protect me from my neighbors selfish short-sightedness. Especially my corporate "neighbors". We already know what happens when the wealthy have the freedom to leverage their wealth without regard for anyone else - it's called feudalism, and has been the dominant socioeconomic system for most of recorded history.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Do I like Hillary Clinton? No?
Do I trust her? No, she's a career politician.
Is there a Republican candidate that's better? Right now, there's not one that doesn't make me want to spit on the sidewalk and curse.
As usual, we have the choice of the least awful. It may be a marginal difference, but it's what we have in our current oligarchy pretending to be a democracy.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Thanks for bringing up Mena, as the State politics set the stage for the national election. The Drugs, the connection between WJC and GHWB, the black ops and CIA etc...
resist propaganda