Posted: 7/5/16 at 11:25am
FBI said Clinton and her staff were "extremely careless" as there were over 100 emails containing classified information, but recommending no charges for Clinton. As much as it pains me to say this, she has essentially secured her place as the next President of the United States. Better that than the horrors of Donald Trump, though. Congratulations, PalJoey.
Posted: 7/5/16 at 11:42am
It is important to note that the decision not to charge HRC was made by FBI Director James Comey and not Loretta Lynch. Comey is a lifelong Republican.
Posted: 7/5/16 at 11:43am
A solid and less crazy GOP candidate could excoriate HRC with the FBI criticism, but I assume the voters would prefer a few e-mail issues over as LIza stated: the horrors of Donald Trump
Posted: 7/5/16 at 12:25pm
I think so too, brdlwyr, but only time will tell. It's a race between the two most unfavorable presidential candidates in modern history. We'll see.
Posted: 7/5/16 at 12:32pm
Anyone with IT experience will know: these lapses were likely due to tech staffer advice/process and systemic error, not willful, personally subversive misuse. Rabid GOP attack act as if HRC sat at a laptop or Blackberry and covertly set out to talk about China or Syria on her AOL account. The Secretary of State does not make case-by-case IT decisions, and it's terminally naive to presume we know intentionality - when Comey, a Bush-era, Republican appointee, did the thorough and costly investigation. We move on.
Posted: 7/5/16 at 12:46pm
Updated On: 7/5/16 at 12:46 PM
Posted: 7/5/16 at 12:52pm
Liza's Headband said: "I think so too, brdlwyr, but only time will tell. It's a race between the two most unfavorable presidential candidates in modern history. We'll see.
I'd never thought I'd say this but I agree with Liza's Headband. This race is between two of the most unfavorable presidential candidates in modern history.
I'm sorry to say that I won't even go out to vote because I want neither of them in public office let alone the presidency.
The country is going to hell in a hand basket whoever is elected.
Which is the lesser of the two evils?
Neither.
They are both evil as fuck.
I can't stand the site of either one of them.
She's repugnant. He's even more so.
Posted: 7/5/16 at 12:53pm
"Your continued callous disregard of the concerns of minority groups of which you are not a part is astonishing. You seem determined to belittle the feelings of Jews, gays, women, African-Americans and other groups. Try listening before judging sometime."
You're a goofball. If I'm the poster child for the callous disregard for the concerns of minority groups, then you don't get out much. In my world I'm a flaming Liberal. There are so many things to use against Trump, yet you're hakn a tshaynik over this tweet that was lifted from somewhere, do I think this has been blown way out of proportion, yes. If that is belittling the feelings of Jews, sorry.
Posted: 7/5/16 at 1:08pm
I still don't understand what is so "repugnant" about Hillary Clinton. I'm voting for her, supported her in the primary, but I'm far from a Hillary bot (were it not for the pesky Constitution, I'd vote for President Obama again). That being said I have no personal hatred to her, nor do I find her "evil." I would love a good explanation that doesn't include the words "Benghazi" or "emails."
Posted: 7/5/16 at 1:14pm
adamgreer said: "I still don't understand what is so "repugnant" about Hillary Clinton. I'm voting for her, supported her in the primary, but I'm far from a Hillary bot (were it not for the pesky Constitution, I'd vote for President Obama again). That being said I have no personal hatred to her, nor do I find her "evil." I would love a good explanation that doesn't include the words "Benghazi" or "emails."
I find her repugnant because she is a blatant liar. She claims she has been a supporter of the LGBQT community and she has not. She was one of it's worst offenders - - - and the interviews and the evidence is out their to prove it. The only reason for this "change of heart" is because she wants to get elected and she needs all the votes she can get.
THAT is ONE of the reasons I find her R-E-P-U-G-N-A-N-T.
and a hypcorite...and a blatant liar.
Posted: 7/5/16 at 1:16pm
South Florida said: "...yet you're hakn a tshaynik over this tweet that was lifted from somewhere, do I think this has been blown way out of proportion, yes. If that is belittling the feelings of Jews, sorry."
...but the "somewhere" it was lifted from was the white supremacist Internet community.
Posted: 7/5/16 at 1:20pm
Pot, Meet Kettle said: "¡Hola, Carlitos!
....and you are....?
Posted: 7/5/16 at 1:24pm
Trump, ever the moron, instead of jumping on the language used by Comey to criticize Clinton, is comparing this to Petraeus, claiming that Petraeus was charged and convicted for doing far less than Clinton.
Posted: 7/5/16 at 1:24pm
Pot, Meet Kettle said: "I am you.
Girl, you need a hobby...or intense psychotherapy. Go play yourself...da fuq outta here.
Updated On: 7/5/16 at 01:24 PM
Posted: 7/5/16 at 1:27pm
madbrian said: "Trump, ever the moron, instead of jumping on the language used by Comey to criticize Clinton, is comparing this to Petraeus, claiming that Petraeus was charged and convicted for doing far less than Clinton."
I had that same thought. Any competent politician would have latched onto Comey's (totally reasonable) rebuke of Clinton. But Trump decides to compare her to Petraeus?! Huh?!
Posted: 7/5/16 at 1:29pm
Twitter took Trump to task over his ridiculous claim that the Jewish star was supposed to a sheriff's star:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-star-of-david-trolled_us_577b58f9e4b0a629c1aa98d7
Posted: 7/5/16 at 1:31pm
adamgreer said: "I still don't understand what is so "repugnant" about Hillary Clinton. I'm voting for her, supported her in the primary, but I'm far from a Hillary bot (were it not for the pesky Constitution, I'd vote for President Obama again). That being said I have no personal hatred to her, nor do I find her "evil." I would love a good explanation that doesn't include the words "Benghazi" or "emails.""
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/12/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-scandals-ranked-from-/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/90s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clintons-strength-with-women.html?_r=0
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-hillary-clinton-and-boeing-a-beneficial-relationship/2014/04/13/21fe84ec-bc09-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/role-of-hillary-clintons-brother-in-haiti-gold-mine-raises-eyebrows/2015/03/20/c8b6e3bc-cc05-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html
The first three mention "emails" and "Benghazi," but expand to include all 1990s scandals including Whitewater. The final two, from the left-leaning Washington Post, focus exclusively on potential conflict-of-interest and 'pay for play' scandals that are constantly overlooked.
Posted: 7/5/16 at 1:32pm
CarlosAlberto said: "adamgreer said: "I still don't understand what is so "repugnant" about Hillary Clinton. I'm voting for her, supported her in the primary, but I'm far from a Hillary bot (were it not for the pesky Constitution, I'd vote for President Obama again). That being said I have no personal hatred to her, nor do I find her "evil." I would love a good explanation that doesn't include the words "Benghazi" or "emails."
I find her repugnant because she is a blatant liar. She claims she has been a supporter of the LGBQT community and she has not. She was one of it's worst offenders - - - and the interviews and the evidence is out their to prove it. The only reason for this "change of heart" is because she wants to get elected and she needs all the votes she can get.
THAT is ONE of the reasons I find her R-E-P-U-G-N-A-N-T.
and a hypcorite...and a blatant liar.
Using that logic, most political allies of this community, including the President and Vice-President, would be "repugnant." Maybe I'm optimistic, but I do believe politicians have the ability to admit they were wrong about an issue and change their mind.
Posted: 7/5/16 at 1:32pm
CarlosAlberto said: Girl, you need intense psychotherapy.
Sí, lo hace, la cabeza de la patata
Posted: 7/5/16 at 1:33pm
Even the buffoons on Morning Joe found Trump's sheriff's star excuse laughable:
http://www.salon.com/2016/07/05/watch_morning_joe_panel_loses_it_listening_to_trump_try_to_explain_away_anti_semitic_tweet_with_talk_of_plain_stars_and_basic_stars/
Posted: 7/5/16 at 1:38pm
Carlos, you're aware that trans people can now easily obtain a passport that reflects their gender identity far more easily- and more easily than most state's driver's licenses or ID card- because of Clinton, right? It was low-key, but the benefits for the trans community are substantial.
Posted: 7/5/16 at 2:02pm
adamgreer said: Using that logic, most political allies of this community, including the President and Vice-President, would be "repugnant." Maybe I'm optimistic, but I do believe politicians have the ability to admit they were wrong about an issue and change their mind.
There is a difference between changing one's minds and not admitting what you have said in the past or blatantly denying it...when the proof is right there.
Posted: 7/5/16 at 2:17pm
Carlos--seriously: Nothing you're saying about her is true. Everything you're saying about her is false. You have somehow bought into a bunch of Fox News/Bernie bro lies about her--and not a single thing you're saying is true.
Seriously.
The fact that her position on gay marriage changed between 2004 and 2008--along with every gay person's relatives and co-workers--doesn't make her EVIL.
It makes her heterosexual.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
