but then she lied about it for several years.

And THIS is the woman so many here think should be President?

I am not going to vote for someone I see as evil, just because the other candidate is even more evil. Sort of like do I want to be boiled in oil or burned at the stake? Either way I'll die a terrible death.

Hillary and Donald, either one, will be bad presidents on an epic scale. The precise damage they do will be quite different, depending on which one is in office, but either one will damage this country.

I'm not going to convince you to vote Hillary in November, I get it. Either you'll come to it on your own, or you wont.

To me, Trump is really terrifying for a lot of reasons. Hillary is a continuation of Obama. To some people that's horrible. To you, I guess it's equally horrible as Trump.

Me? I'm not going to die a terrible death whether Hillary or Trump becomes president. Neither are most Americans. We'll go on with our lives, just that if Trump is president, things will be worse. For some people, a lot worse. So that's why I will vote for Hillary.

BTW, Clinton hasn't gotten the prerequisite number of pledge delegates, but even if she did, your choices are vast:

Clinton
Trump
Write-in Sanders
Stein


And a bunch of others: http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm

never existed..

Similar to Clinton and Monica Lewinski

nothing like denying the country the benefit of real leadership, but still refusing to step down and let somebody not so encumbered lead.

its a form of voter nullification.

Triangulation is a means of voter nullification too.

Writing in Sanders is the same as writing in "YouDig". Waste of a vote. Irrelevant. The future of the country is at stake.

Am I going to convince you not to waste your vote? No. But that's what you're doing.

If I vote for the Green Party, maybe they'll get the 5 percent necessary to get federal matching funds.

See - not a waste.

Liberals are going to have to find another home if the Democratic Party keeps going rightward.

Nevada was so far over the line that everyone in my family who supports Bernie left the Dem Party the following week. We were all life long Dems before that.

How is listing the several other candidates running promoting one person over the other?

I know they have rules about that here.

means that person is supporting Trump... very interesting theory you got there.

your state's law on writing in someone for President. In some states, so doing renders your entire ballot useless.

Unfortunately, whoever started the Bernie or Bust thing doesn't seem to have done much research.

Then again, from what little I read about it (mostly just L0onix's dooming post), it was supposed to be only a threat.

Especially not on foreign policy. Obama is cautious and restrained and wary of new military entanglements; Hillary favors a much more activist foreign and military policy.

On domestic policy, they are not terribly far apart, but she is cozier with Wall Street and less committed to campaign finance reform and fundraising transparency. On the other hand, I think she will be more inclined than Obama to push for improvements to the ACA, and perhaps more willing to halt deportations, at least going by what she has said in the debates with Bernie.

Then again * was probably just a continuation of Poppy, Ronny and Dick all of which wasn't good. Carter must of got a some kind of micky half way through his term and swallowed so the deregulation bunch could be in power.

We have been sold the down the river for the last fifty years. Question is, when are we going to stand on our hind legs and stop taking it?

Nice false dichotomy you were trying for there, though.

Did Trump join the Democratic Party? Or are we still in a primary between Clinton and Sanders?

Just as your vote is yours to waste.

The prohibition against personal servers wasn't put in place until 2014 - 2 years after she left. In hindsight IT says it would have said "no," if asked. So now she's says she "thought" it was allowed. Perfectly reasonable. When the story changes, rational people adjust their response.

This is the woman you think is responsible, trustworthy, and suited to be President. I disagree.

Plus, she wanted to pull in an advisor (I can never recall who this is) that Obama specifically didn't want on board. By not using State Department equipment, she could circument Obama's orders. On purpose. And then she tried to erase all the emails. Attorneys know that doing that sort of think is illegal, or at the very least skirting the law. And what about telling assistants to delete the Secret designation on certain reports so it would be okay to send them as ordinary emails. Is that what an honest and trustworthy person does?

And this kind of behavior goes back a very long way. Remember the billing records back when she was an attorney in Arkansas? They mysteriously disappeared for a very long time, and then just as mysteriously showed up again.

... the server as POTUS. Why would she think it was a bad idea?

Source for "tried to erase all e-mails???????"

Here's another person's take on this:

the home in Westchester Country, so he couldn't have used that server.

He's also on record for saying, back when this first blew up, that he'd only ever been on the internet twice. Doesn't sound like a man who's even as tech savvy as Hillary.

And Clinton being a notorious technological imbecile makes it even more striking. She clearly didn't give a flying fuck about security, just that she could access emails the easiest (for her) way possible. Personally, I'd prefer a President who either understands a bit more about technology and security, or who has the good sense to find out.

Come to think of it, are there any 30 year olds we could turn to? Okay, I know you have to be at least 35 to be President, but maybe we should be looking at someone at least younger than 50.

Reason I ask is what would your reaction be, if one of them:

They secretly did something rather outrageous without asking for permission.

Then told his/her younger sisters and brothers not to mention it to anyone.

Then told a baby sitter that "it was approved".

Then when you found out and said that it was wrong and that you would never have given permission, said - there is no problem because he/she really did think it was allowed.

... and said "not to mention, a couple of kids down the block did it too."

It is completely unreasonable that the top part of any government department would be allowed to run its email on the Secretary's private server. Not to mention, there were FOIA and Congressional inquiries even when she was secretary that should have had access to some of these emails and didn't. To make matters worse, she had to KNOW that there would be many more after she left - taking everything with her. Did she really expect Kerry to cover for her - looking either incompetent or corrupt - when he is decidedly neither?

In the first place it shows her inclination to not be transparent - breaking or stretching rules as necessary. her action of not leaving email shows the types of gambles she is willing to make. Did she really think that no one would ever catch on?

Lots of people at state knew about it. I didn't come out before because she wasn't asked.

As to not being asked - the State Department in 2012 (when she was still there) was asked by Issa whether there were other email addresses she used. The question was never answered.

his way into being slaughtered by the GOP.

... postings AND it was more secure than the State Department's for non-classified. (SD had a different system for classified communication). Even then, no hacking was discovered.

“As for the department’s unclassified system, the inspector general's report demonstrates that it was horribly insecure, and that hackers obtained terabytes worth of documents out of it; on the other hand, Clinton’s email system was quite secure and, when evidence emerged that someone was trying to hack in, the security officer overseeing the server immediately shut it down, then notified the relevant officials at State. In other words, while boxcars of documents were digitally pulled out of the agency, there is no evidence a single email was snagged out of Clinton’s server. So it could be the Clinton arrangement didn’t follow the security procedures laid out in the federal regulations—the inspector general did not reach a conclusion as to whether it did or not—but, as often happens, private security contractors did a better job than the government.”

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-not-scandal-464414

Any fool can see that just by searching the email database. She sent classified info to Blumenthal, which is a felony. Right here: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/16223

Anything now classified that she sent was not classified at the time.
She had no control over what Sidney Blumenthal chose to send her.

Accurate or not, it's what most people think.

So for purposes of the election, it's true.

Sidney Blumenfeld was receiving top secret information and emailing it to her on that server regularly. It was classified that at the time. See here(he even writes on it confidential):

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/7160

if you want people to take you seriously.

... with gray areas. But in this case there really was no prohibition against using personal servers. IT said if they'd been asked they'd have said "no," but why would someone ask? Everyone was wrestling with an antiquated (OIG word) system. They did put a prohibition in place in 2014, 2 years after Hillary left.

But I really do like your comparison of Swiftboating and e-mail gate.

My opinion: if you think you might be running for president while you're secretary of state, don't use a private email server. Especially if your name is Clinton.

Is it fair that Clinton's get special scrutiny? No. Is it true? Yes. Did she know that already? Yes. She should have known better.

Oh well, it's done. We'll still probably win. But it would have been easier without this.

Like I said, it's not fair. At all. But it's politics.

She was a great SoS. The repubs had to make up anything that could not be proven to go after her.

picking a fight with you - just want you to read other sites.

skip the ones from last year - a lot has happened since then. I'll read the current ones tomorrow.
I like to go to BBC and Guardian - overseas press is less biased.

Thanks again.

-Hillary's server was backed up by Google and McAfee (nothing was ever lost or deleted most likely). Likely there were regular backups anyway, but they have kept that quiet.
-Hillary's lawyers had top secret clearance, and easily provided a thumb drive with State emails on it upon the request of the FBI.
-Hillary knew how to use the secure system, and used it by herself from home during the Benghazi crisis.
-The private contractor who set up the Clinton's system worked for a company that sold an encryption system, so if she wanted to Hillary could have sent encrypted personal documents; and even if they recovered the server it may have been difficult for the FBI to see the encrypted documents without a key. No one has said much about this, but it may be why the FBI granted immunity in return for cooperation.
- The Clintons likely didn't trust the GOP moles (FBI, CIA, SS, etc.) who were government employees, so the server stopped leaks. It worked as planned. There have been virtually no leaks even though all the release 55K emails are available. Neither hackers or insiders have revealed a single personal email that we know of so far. Prior to releasing her work emails, almost none were leaked.
- There is no question that high-level gov officials knew of the server. It didn't raise concern since lots of other politicians set up servers or contracted private companies and used them for official business. Heck, the Bush administration did not archive a single email out of millions!

in 1971. I am completely appalled that you suggest he "did something" that made Bush allies attack the official Navy record that he deserved the silver star, the Bronze star with valor and 3 purple hearts in his honorable service where he risked his young, privileged life.

Could Kerry have imagined then that he could run for the Presidency? His goal, per what he wrote while in Vietnam, was to become a lawyer or run for Congress - in addition to marrying his then fiancee and having children. Could he have imagined the Presidency? At 27, after he spoke to the SFRC, Morley Safer, who recently died, asked him if he ever wanted to be President in. His answer - after asking President of what, was - yes, but that there were important things he had to do and he was not sure he could do them and keep people happy enough with him. (Note the Boston Globe book ended this quote at them - totally distorting what he said.)

The difference is that Kerry is and should be proud of what he did in 1972. No one in their right mind thinks HRC should be proud of how she handled her email or how she disrespected Congress's and the media's right to information.

I am so sick of HRC supporters trying to "borrow" the legitimate outrage that Republicans lied about John Kerry's service in war to defend HRC against ANY criticism at all. Note that HRC herself has said what she did was a mistake. Kerry, on the other hand, in a recent talk on Vietnam - referred back to the end of his comments where he emotionally had called for "Vietnam" to be remembered as where US foreign policy turned.

job. I agree, Kerry should be proud of his service in Vietnam.

Both Hillary and Kerry were/are unfairly targeted by the GOP because of some irrelevant or imagined slip-up. The moral is, if you're going to be president, it's not enough not to do anything wrong, you also have to worry about appearances.

It was THAT record they disputed with lies. Even the Nixon administration, which investigated him, concluded that he was both a war hero and clean -- so they opted to be the first to lie about him, but they did not lie about what he did in Vietnam.

As to his protests, the reason why Nixon feared him was because he was clean and articulate. His testimony before the SFRC was covered for the full 5 minutes of his speech on each of the three network's evening news. Safer's reaction was not untypical, people were extremely impressed by the eloquence, demeanor and passion of Kerry 1971.

Both his service and his protests were to his credit and he is rightfully proud of both -- and spoke of both in his acceptance of the nomination.

Note that the SBVT opted to attack his service itself with lies -- rather than his very well known service.

I agree, both Kerry and Hillary are targeted unfairly. But that's the point. If you're going to run for president, you're going to be targeted unfairly. It's not enough just to be an exemplary public servant, like both of them are. You also have to guard against anything that can be twisted by the GOP.

THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT and it is real. It is completely independent of how good a Secretary of State she was.

In Kerry's case, there was no question that he was a war hero. He was.

You can dispute the importance of following administration and SD rules on archiving email - especially when there were requests for it before she even left, but you can not deny it happened. As to Kerry's war service, the media created a false narrative that it was his version vs theirs. In fact, it was the Navy's version vs theirs -- and the media never asked them for proof. (Kerry has very very rarely spoken of any heroism or details of his own service - it is clearly still too hard.)

The reason people - HRC fans included - use the word swiftboating, rather than "smearing" or a less specific word, is that for all but the RW, swiftboating is seen as a particularly disgusting campaign to smear a man putting his life at risk for his country.

was installed under the supervision of and was monitored by the Secret Service (who have had cyber security jurisdiction since 2001) for use by a former president and his family.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your story line.

Clinton said the server was merely on premises guarded by the Secret Service.

The server Bill had previously might have been, but hers was not.

The only question is whether her station in life will prevent her from being charged.

We all know there is one rule for the oligarchy and another complete set for the rest of us.

Donald Trump's pretty happy about it though.

Hillary's shenanigans will likely make Trump president.

I like Sanders, but I wish we had more candidates like him to choose from. Our party should be choosing between a number of progressives who are more personable and have better connections with the party than Sanders. The problem is, our party discourages progressives, preferring to support hordes of not-quite-Republicans who want to ban abortion, execute more criminals, subsidize corporations, privatize the government, and generally act like Republicans. It's difficult for progressives to be Democrats.

Loyal liberal democrats deserve better than this.

John Kerry did nothing to cause that. She did.

" ... I wish Kerry hadn't done whatever thing I still haven't figured out that he did that got him swiftboated."

You just lost any cred right there. Jeezus!


Not even touching the rest of the fallacies in the post. This one is egregious enough.

Please elucidate.

John Kerry ran for President of the United States of America, against an incumbent President George W Bush. That is why he was swiftboated.

Criminally negligent comes to mind.

Seeing how much of what it contain was "erased," other words may apply.

She shouldn't have exposed herself to a right-wing swift-boat attack full of lies.