Efini~FC3S

iTrader: (4)

Gary Johnson?

Chiburbian

iTrader: (1)

that's my choice for this election. I'll be happy if he can even get to 15% so he can be in the debates. We deserve another voice at the table.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Let's imagine for a moment that our enemies breached Clinton's server and has any information that was sent over it.

OK, now imagine that you're the CIA. What would you have to ASSUME, and how would you OPERATE based on those assumptions? Do you sit around and go...hmmmm, ya think China, Iraq and Russia (and everyone else) now know about these classified documents? Do you think they're going to pull every asset that may be in danger out of the field? Perhaps they'll commit dozens (hundreds) of agents for damage control?

I forget, did Hillary quickly and openly hand over the email to the CIA so they could potentially protect our information and assets, or was it slow drip that still has 30,000+ emails missing from the chain?

Monk

iTrader: (3)

Some were quickly handed over, some were sloppily deleted by her attorneys and then reconstructed, and the rest have been painstakingly recovered from several servers.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

15%? lol.

Should we elect a president with only 33% of the vote?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

Let's just flesh this thing out to a year from now...

Hillary has been President for about 6 months.
Somehow, the AP gets ahold of "additional documents" with proof that her servers were compromised and all her emails have been in the possession of China and NK and Iran for years.
The "classified" documents (even the TS stuff) is mostly minor **** that couldn't help any of those countries hurt us even the info was fresh.

She's still guilty of stuff that would have put me in jail for a long time.
She still hasn't been charged with a crime, neither has anybody who was complicit with her, including dozens of staffers and IT dudes who are guilty of the same things she is (ie, they didn't even scapegoat anybody).
She still has 7.5yrs left to go as President and the email thing has gone nowhere.
Now what?

NiklasFalk

iTrader: (1)

Life continues.

Deviations in high enough places will always have ways to be diluted and if that's not enough scapegoating is always an option.

She seems to have a tendency of getting caught in messy stuff on the normal scale, on the other site is one who thinks he can get away with murder on Times Square (quite a different scale).

I certainly hope that Trump lose (with a margin), or the price of gold will skyrocket.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

FTFY

I guess the question is really So what?

Old news: https://mic.com/articles/113340/the-...war#.B5oySV3Ew

George W. Bush didn't just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.

The Human Cost of the War in Iraq

At least the Brits have enough ***** to confront things: Everything You Need To Know About Britain's Scathing Iraq Inquiry - Digg

rleete

iTrader: (21)

So, by your reasoning, if I kill all your family in a shower of bullets, it's all okay because Bonnie & Clyde did it.

Past wrongs don't mean someone else gets a pass.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

+




+





We The People tend to ascribe way too much power to the executive. We blame them for things that aren't their fault, praise them for things that aren't their accomplishment, and fear them for things which aren't within their power.

I believe what NikBah is saying is that, in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter all that much which server the President used for her email back when she was Secretary of State. Maybe some people will die as a result of it, maybe they won't. But if using the wrong email server is the worst offense committed by this particular president, then she's still ahead of the game.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Not overly sure where you got that reasoning from.

They surely don't. A lie is still a lie. But, when we're all passing judgement on the crime let's put things in perspective...

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Trying to cover it up costs us almost as much as her believing she is above the law to start with. We need to know what information was compromised to protect ourselves as damage control.

I tell my daughter constantly, "Attitude is everything." If you screw up, fine. If you fail, fine. If you were trying to do the right thing, if you're trying to do your best, if you have a kind and gracious heart, I will help you all I can.

I see demonstrations of arrogance from Hillary at every turn. There must be something to it. I see disdain for the law. I see disdain for the populace. These are not qualities I wish to reward. I still recall the Clinton high level employees who worked directly for them vandalizing the White House and stealing heirlooms from Air Force One as they departed. They didn't respect the office, the country, or its people in what I would characterize as a fitting manner. Attitude is set at the top of any organization and the foot soldiers often bear it out in their behavior. Respect and discipline comes from the top and individuals at the top are responsible for those in their charge.

As much as I believe Trump to be a bit silly and buffoonish, I see Hillary as something much more dangerous to our country. She cares for nothing more deeply than herself and already believes she is above the law. I say with no intention for hyperbole that something in her attitude carries a sinister undertone. I do not agree with her political goals, but her attitude is much more concerning. When she speaks I feel as I did when the evil emperor was trying to turn Luke Skywalker in Return of the Jedi. I fear that something very dark lies within. This is an honest appraisal with no intention to provoke a response or to throw stones. It's just something I sense.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I take it you listen to the podcast "More Perfect"?

Chiburbian

iTrader: (1)

According to a quick wikipedia search, only 54% of the voting age population voted in 2012. 65 million people voted for President Obama. There were 235 million voting age adults in the U.S. in 2012. That means that only 27% of the voters selected President Obama.

If we assume that only the same 124 million people vote and no substantial changes in the number of those of voting age, 33% is 40,9 million people. 40.9 million into 235 million is 17% of the total number of those at voting age.

So yes, theoretically it will be possible for our country to have a president that only 17% voted for. As compared with 27%, i'm not exactly seeing a huge difference. If we really wanted to fix the system we would change to something like the alternative vote or similar.



Or single transferrable vote


Why "First past the post" sucks:

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

I guess we see different things. Great to be an American and live in this great country!

What I see in Mr. Trump is what's wrong with this country. What you see as silly I see as vile and irresponsible. What you call buffoonish I see as arrogance and looking at his history I see a businessman who is willing to **** over anybody to make a buck including his creditors and short changing those small business owners he now claims to be the champion of.

Here's a man who decided his education was more important than his country while some of us wore a uniform to give him his right to speak the trash he does today and to have the audacity to say he'll "make america great again" and "take back our country".

What you see as arrogance I see as someone who's had so much **** thrown at her over the decades she built up immunity to it.

What I want to know is what measure do we use for our greatness and exactly who're we taking the country back from? I happen to think it's pretty ******' great now.

But, like I said, it's great to be able to have that opinion. Right?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Serious answer: we need to take the country back from that portion of the electorate who rely upon entitlement programs for direct income. Eg: by disenfranchisement.

hi_im_sean

iTrader: (3)

Serious Q:

Which figure is larger: The amount of money spent on entitlement programs, or the amount of money "hidden/lost/whatever" due to "crony capitalism"? And by how much? The entitlement program data should be easy enough to find, the latter not so much. So im afraid we are left with our opinions. Not saying I lean one way or the other, but its a question ive asked myself many times over the last few years.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

By far, the amount spent on entitlement programs. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security alone account for nearly 50% of the entire federal budget.

bahurd

iTrader: (8)

Ah, thanks for clarifying that for me. I must live a pretty jaded life 'cause I don't think I know anyone I can say fits into that.

Realize the link might be a bit old (data) but it shows that Income Support programs account for 1.9% of all personal income. So basically, 1.9% of my/your/our income was spent on those programs. You think that's too much? What would be an appropriate number? 0%? Should we fall back to the old "let the church do it's thing" mentality? I'm not particularly religious...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...-map.html?_r=0

Maybe the 3.1% spent on Medicaid for low income? **** it, let 'em die...

Don't say Social Security, Medicare or Unemployment Insurance as those programs are funded via taxes and if our Congress kept their grubby little hands off them they'd be self funded.

Maybe it's our Congress that we need to take it back from.

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

EDIT: Not trying to argue for the sake of arguing... I'm as conservative financially as anyone on this site.