Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even as a person who usually leans liberal on most social issues, I don't buy her "it was convenient" story. What hogwash.
You want me to believe that it was easier for her to go to the trouble of setting up dedicated email servers in her house than to use the government email for her job? I'm surprised she didn't feel stupid telling us that.
A career politician like Clinton, especially one who is crafty and has presidential ambitions, could surely have predicted how shady this would look when it got public. So she must have perceived a damn good reason to do it...not "it was convenient." And I'm going to guess that damn good reason had to do with her own advantage, not the benefit of her job and service to the nation.
I don't know if she'll win or lose if she runs, but this is going to screw her and definitely just worsened her chances. Even if you can't trust politicians, the perception of relative degree of trust matters to people when they're in that voting booth.
Even as a person who usually leans liberal on most social issues, I don't buy her "it was convenient" story. What hogwash.
You want me to believe that it was easier for her to go to the trouble of setting up dedicated email servers in her house than to use the government email for her job? I'm surprised she didn't feel stupid telling us that.
A career politician like Clinton, especially one who is crafty and has presidential ambitions, could surely have predicted how shady this would look when it got public. So she must have perceived a damn good reason to do it...not "it was convenient." And I'm going to guess that damn good reason had to do with her own advantage, not the benefit of her job and service to the nation.
I don't know if she'll win or lose if she runs, but this is going to screw her and definitely just worsened her chances. Even if you can't trust politicians, the perception of relative degree of trust matters to people when they're in that voting booth.
Just think how easier her life could have been if she had chosen honesty and being upfront.
We don't need yet another President like this at all.
I'm guessing you also believe her vote to give Bush authority to go to war with Iraq will be a positive as well.
Her vote for the Iraq war -- like everything else about her -- is old news. There are no unknowns with this lady. That's what makes her such a formidable candidate, and the Republicans know it. The usual cycle goes like this (doesn't matter if I'm talking about a Republican candidate or Democratic candidate here btw... the formula is the same).
Party A nominates candidate -- he/she looks great. Party B gets worried. General public and even some Party B members like candidate so much they strongly consider voting for him or her
Party B digs up some dirt and publicizes it -- you thought Party A candidate was so great? Well did you hear about (insert faux scandal here)???
Numbers for Party A's candidate goes down.
This isn't going to work for Clinton. I was wondering what dirt the Republicans could possibly dig up on her that hasn't already been rehashed ad naseum. And now comes revelations about her email. This just isn't going to stick. We're in the first week of "email-gate" so this seems like ... oh, the woman you thought you knew so well???? Well did you know this????
At the end of the day, this does little to alter her overall image. Those who were going to vote for her are still going to vote for her. Those who weren't, aren't -- and I just don't see this getting much traction with the swing voters who will decide this election.
I could be wrong of course, but I'd put good money on my prediction.
Anyone else have an issue with this potential linear political continuum:
Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, (Clinton)/(Bush)?
Yes. I don't like it, but it is what it is. I think Clinton is our strongest candidate and Bush is the GOP's strongest candidate, so I see both getting the nomination and one of them being the next president.
she is covering up for Benghazi and how she screwed up and other things in her emails and private server.
Benghazi. The truth is in her e-mails. Wonder if she is going to use her famous line, "what does it matter, now?"
We need someone with backbone, to stand up to challenges that face our world. Sure, I would love to see a woman as president; but not this particular gal. What would she do in another crisis (like Benghazi) that would demand critical thinking on her part? Cry and run the opposite way?
Your telling me, that because she holds a government office that that she does in her home, is pivy to a government oversight? Without a warrant, without just cause, they can come in and say, okay now, hand it all over?
I don't care if she was selling bandwidth out of her home. It is her home.
She did not have sex with Bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb
Her vote for the Iraq war -- like everything else about her -- is old news. There are no unknowns with this lady. That's what makes her such a formidable candidate, and the Republicans know it. The usual cycle goes like this (doesn't matter if I'm talking about a Republican candidate or Democratic candidate here btw... the formula is the same).
Party A nominates candidate -- he/she looks great. Party B gets worried. General public and even some Party B members like candidate so much they strongly consider voting for him or her
Party B digs up some dirt and publicizes it -- you thought Party A candidate was so great? Well did you hear about (insert faux scandal here)???
Numbers for Party A's candidate goes down.
This isn't going to work for Clinton. I was wondering what dirt the Republicans could possibly dig up on her that hasn't already been rehashed ad naseum. And now comes revelations about her email. This just isn't going to stick. We're in the first week of "email-gate" so this seems like ... oh, the woman you thought you knew so well???? Well did you know this????
At the end of the day, this does little to alter her overall image. Those who were going to vote for her are still going to vote for her. Those who weren't, aren't -- and I just don't see this getting much traction with the swing voters who will decide this election.
I could be wrong of course, but I'd put good money on my prediction.
I might take your bet.
I think it is the democrats who are after her, not the republicans (although they get their shots in when they can).
Think about it---she looked better on paper six years ago and yet she was ousted from her chance to reign by an unknown Chicago junior senator, and the entire media shifted in his direction.
Some people don't want her as the candidate-maybe all the foreign donations, charity money lost, all the scandals in the Clinton administration, Benghazi, constant lying, or pretending she had to keep her public and private emails together so she could choose which 30,000 to delete, etc.
The Associated Press filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against the State Department to force the release of email correspondence and government documents from Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. It's about time the press finally grew some balls.
As to her hypocrisy. The NYTimes wrote:
"In 2007, Mrs. Clinton, then a senator from New York and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, accused the George W. Bush administration of using “secret White House email accounts” along with secret wiretaps and military tribunals.
“You know, our Constitution is being shredded,” she said at the time."
NYTimes, "Hillary Clinton Tries to Quell Controversy Over Private Email"
By AMY CHOZICK and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDTMARCH 10, 2015
Her vote for the Iraq war -- like everything else about her -- is old news. There are no unknowns with this lady. That's what makes her such a formidable candidate, and the Republicans know it. The usual cycle goes like this (doesn't matter if I'm talking about a Republican candidate or Democratic candidate here btw... the formula is the same).
Party A nominates candidate -- he/she looks great. Party B gets worried. General public and even some Party B members like candidate so much they strongly consider voting for him or her
Party B digs up some dirt and publicizes it -- you thought Party A candidate was so great? Well did you hear about (insert faux scandal here)???
Numbers for Party A's candidate goes down.
This isn't going to work for Clinton. I was wondering what dirt the Republicans could possibly dig up on her that hasn't already been rehashed ad naseum. And now comes revelations about her email. This just isn't going to stick. We're in the first week of "email-gate" so this seems like ... oh, the woman you thought you knew so well???? Well did you know this????
At the end of the day, this does little to alter her overall image. Those who were going to vote for her are still going to vote for her. Those who weren't, aren't -- and I just don't see this getting much traction with the swing voters who will decide this election.
I could be wrong of course, but I'd put good money on my prediction.
So she has lied, told you about it and you are good with it....dirt...what dirt...you know everything...
Well hell then, why have an election, just put her in the WH....right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm surprised she didn't feel stupid telling us that.
*
