Originally posted by Robtard
Honestly, it's looking less and less like anything will come of this. I wouldn't hold my breath for Emailgate to bring Hillary's campaign to a stop, is what I'm saying.
This is the exact opposite of the current situation, its only getting worse for her.
FBI Director says he is directly involved.
Loretta Lynch says she cannot confirm nor deny that a grand jury is being selected.
The FBI has now offered immunity to her staffer who pled the fifth originally in fear of self incrimination. Immunity which the FBI just does not hand out like candy.
Originally posted by Robtard
Honestly, it's looking less and less like anything will come of this. I wouldn't hold my breath for Emailgate to bring Hillary's campaign to a stop, is what I'm saying.
Lulz, look the ONLY reason this is going to be dismissed if because of her name. If that is what you meant then we can agree. If you mean its because she did no wrong, well then we part paths.
It wasn't illegal to have a private server, it is illegal to store govt secrets on said server.
She also gave her emails to her attorney who doesn't have govt clearance. Immunity to someone means a federal judge is involved and now let the excuses begin.
Oh my blog!
Ted Cruz decides his strategy is to go after *Rubio* in Florida
Does he just not get math? Trump's almost assured of getting a simple majority if he winner-takes-all in Florida, and Cruz can't get that state. Cruz is better off if Rubio gets it because at least it's more likely to go to convention.
Also: This is Jeb Bush's strategy. 'Clear the lane, then fight Trump.' Who thinks copying Bush's strategy is a good idea?
Especially since, unlike with Bush, this time it means handing his strongest opponent one of the biggest states and even if Rubio drops out after and Cruz starts getting states that almost certainly means being second place in a convention where Trump automatically wins the first vote, which gets Cruz nothing.
Can anyone make any sense of this?
Originally posted by Robtard
Honestly, it's looking less and less like anything will come of this. I wouldn't hold my breath for Emailgate to bring Hillary's campaign to a stop, is what I'm saying.
Here's a new article, confirming there's no evidence of hacking.
Note that the barrier for criminal is 'gross negligence.' It's been admitted to be unwise by Hillary some time ago, but does "having the information in the secretary of state's house, none of it labeled as classified as the time, all of it on a server that was secure enough that it was never breached, and also is no longer in use," count as 'gross negligence'? In court? Considering both Department of Defense and Department of State have come out and said it's no big deal?
I'm going to go with 'no.'
It's increasingly obvious that the people pushing on reminding us of it constantly are just trying to spin a narrative of assumed-guilt. It's not even 'guilty until proven innocent,' because they're also trying to spin it so that the fairly-inevitable innocent verdict really means 'guilty'. It's an attack tactic, and not actually one that's too hard to recognize, especially when one can't help but note that each time it's brought up, no new evidence is added, just the exact same circumstances we knew from the start being treated as signs of guilt. When someone repeatedly hammers on the same thing in a deceptive way, that raises red flags.
Originally posted by Q99
Oh my blog!Ted Cruz decides his strategy is to go after *Rubio* in Florida
Does he just not get math? Trump's almost assured of getting a simple majority if he winner-takes-all in Florida, and Cruz can't get that state. Cruz is better off if Rubio gets it because at least it's more likely to go to convention.
Also: This is Jeb Bush's strategy. 'Clear the lane, then fight Trump.' Who thinks copying Bush's strategy is a good idea?
Especially since, unlike with Bush, this time it means handing his strongest opponent one of the biggest states and even if Rubio drops out after and Cruz starts getting states that almost certainly means being second place in a convention where Trump automatically wins the first vote, which gets Cruz nothing.
Can anyone make any sense of this?
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Quote the post in which the assertion that trump supporters are racist because they're rural whites was made.
I believe he is referring to this one:
Originally posted by Lestov16
Between the Romney attack and the Trump counterattack tonight's debate will be interesting to say the least. But more than likely he will just (rightfully) claim that it took the 2012 loser to be man enough to do what his opponents couldn't do for nearly a year.Romney, Rubio, Cruz, and the rest of the GOP are now coming to the horrific realization that the past 8 years of pandering to racists to discredit Obama has, surprise of all surprises, led to the majority of the base being racist and flocking to the most racist candidate, making the GOP the official party of America's bigotry in the public eye, which of course makes them unelectable in any kind of general election.
This is why McConnell, Romney, and others have vilified Trump's racism. It isn't because they care about civil/human rights, but they know the majority of the nation does. Americans aren't going to vote Republicans into elected office if the most powerful person in the party is an unabashed fascist.
But because they don't care and are trying to act as if they do, it makes them look two faced, which is why GOP voters are ignoring their covert racism and gravitating towards Trump's overt racist message. But what this does is expose to the American public and the entire world the racism that lies in the heart of the GOP.
So this is why Romney's attacks and all other GOP attempts to stop Trump will not work. Because Trump is not succeeding because he is proselytizing racism and willful ignorance into the base, but because he is exploiting the racism and willful ignorance already shared by the majority of the base, making it the office party ideology. And that racism and ignorance exists because it was cultivated by the GOP establishment ever since Obama took office.
So now the GOP establishment is trying to clean up its own mess and convince the public that the GOP does not stand for fascist bigotry, but it falls on deaf ears because the proof is in the poll/vote numbers, which shows the true ideology of the GOP, and the establishment will have to accept the racism/fascism that now defines its party, and the humiliation it will bring, because at the end of the day, it's all their fault.
As I stated, polls prove the predominant percentages of his supporters are white, come from rural areas, and are uneducated (aka ignorant). As also stated by myself, and innumerable analysts, his policies on foreign policy, national security, and domestic job creation are impossible to implement and would only have negative consequences, so his supporters aren't idolizing him for the actual logical practicality of his policies. There is only one other thing they could be attracted to, and that's his xenophobic and racist diatribes. So I'm not saying all whites are racist, but a lot of whites are swarming around a clear racist, so just as you can not ignore Islam's impact on terrorism, you can not ignore white supremacist elitism's impact on Trump's support base and the GOP in general.
To go back to what I said about the GOP's hypocrisy and covert racism, look at Ted Cruz. He slams Trump for the David Duke fiasco as if he cares about black civil rights, but at the same time Cruz and CPAC, the GOP party's major conservative gathering, have no problem being supported by Phil Robertson, who is just as racist and homophobic as Duke. This is what I mean. The GOP have been surreptitiously cultivating this racism for nearly if not over a decade, and now that Trump has opened the lid to the public and made it's racism overt for the entire US and the world to see, the GOP can do nothing but panic because their horrible machinations have been exposed.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Cruz just said recently that he doesn't want a brokered convention--he thinks he can win the nomination outright and won't accept any other way. He wants Rubio out of the race so that he's the only alternative to Trump.
But, math! That doesn't work! It makes it easier for Trump to get a flat majority- which he's already on track for.
And do you know what's better than a 1v1 with Trump? A 1v1 with Rubio! It still makes more sense to attack Trump!
Or alternatively, focus all his attention in state he may win! How is coming in second ahead of Rubio supposed to help in a winner take all state?
Ted Cruz seems like he either, A, fails at addition, or B, is just that big a jerk.
Originally posted by Q99
Here's a new article, confirming there's no evidence of hacking.Note that the barrier for criminal is 'gross negligence.' It's been admitted to be unwise by Hillary some time ago, but does "having the information in the secretary of state's house, none of it labeled as classified as the time, all of it on a server that was secure enough that it was never breached, and also is no longer in use," count as 'gross negligence'? In court? Considering both Department of Defense and Department of State have come out and said it's no big deal?
I'm going to go with 'no.'
It's increasingly obvious that the people pushing on reminding us of it constantly are just trying to spin a narrative of assumed-guilt. It's not even 'guilty until proven innocent,' because they're also trying to spin it so that the fairly-inevitable innocent verdict really means 'guilty'. It's an attack tactic, and not actually one that's too hard to recognize, especially when one can't help but note that each time it's brought up, no new evidence is added, just the exact same circumstances we knew from the start being treated as signs of guilt. When someone repeatedly hammers on the same thing in a deceptive way, that raises red flags.
You must have had a cup or crazy when you typed this.
They are not definitive, and forensic experts can sometimes spot sophisticated hacking that is not apparent in the logs, but computer security experts view logs as key documents when detecting hackers.
I realize you probably didn't even look at the wiki link that defines security. That doesn't diminish the ridiculousness of what HIllary did.
Do you and everyone that follows Hillary believe her to be intelligent and thoughtful? Do you believe her judgement is such that she makes sound decisions?
Because if you believe those things to be true then there is no conspiracy theory in stating Hillary kept govt secrets on her private server. Her very job is such that she has to communicate things that are sensitive.
Now I realize you are simple on this subject. Hillary will get a pass eventually with this, thats how it works. That doesn't diminish what she did, it does put into question the judgement of her followers though.