I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She's not even going to try.

What.

the.

fuck.

does.

this.

mean?

She's not going to send a bill to Congress? She's not going to review a bill that makes it past the first step to becoming a law? She's not going to pointlessly push for shit that has no chance of passing?

You and I keep having the same conversation, whether we're talking about Obama's ability to change state laws or any executive's ability to push for legislative action.

Please express how Bernie or Hillary or anyone gets anything Bernie wants passed.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

In 2008, she and Bill behaved like petulant children when Obama became a serious challenger. They thought then and still think now that they're entitled to the White House.

First, I asked about her, and you refer to Bill as well, which I'm not sure you would do for a man. Just sayin'.

But to your point, I agree with your recollection, and I was more sympathetic to Obama. She surely felt like she had paid her dues within the party for a long time, and who was this upstart? I'm not sympathetic to her on that score, but I think it was much more an issue with the people around her, who have always talked too much.

But in the big scheme of things, so what? It doesn't make her a scumbag.

(And they didn't mind playing racial politics back then, as I recall.)

1. Can't recall what you're on about here.
2. So? Are you that offended by politicians who "play racial politics"?

And her taking on all of Bernie's positions, and basically plagiarizing his speeches, knowing full well she's going to give his followers nothing? It's as bad as Trump telling rubes in WV he's going to bring coal jobs back, or that he plans to rein in free trade.

No, it's how coalition politics works, and the Democratic Party is a coalition. The Bernie people proved their strength, and to win them over she needs to move in their direction. I agree that her instincts are centrist, but the party is pushing her to the left. It's just like every Republican politician in the last two decades who have moved to the right because the party's right-wing have applied pressure.

She's too pure a politician. She stands for nothing.

That's BS. She stands for things that you don't care about, but she doesn't stand for nothing. She has always worked for incremental progress on non-sexy issues.

I also detest neocons. I believe Wolfowitz, Perle, and all the other followers of Irving Kristol who crafted the Bush Doctrine are murderers. There's very little daylight between Hillary's and Bill Kristol's foreign policy.

You exaggerate, but I hear you. I don't care for her instincts.* OTOH, she was by all accounts a workaholic Secretary of State who spent a lot of time in nuts and bolts of diplomacy, and the people you have lumped her with her would not see the value in that. So, as with your other complaints about her, you haven't really said anything about her that isn't true of a lot of other people, and you don't seem to have an explanation of why you think she so deserves the vitriol. As I said before, you're not alone in this, and I don't get it.

* On foreign policy and many other issues (financial regulation, trade, the economy), HRC seems to me to have internalized the centrist Democrat "defensive crouch" of the 80's and 90's.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

The fact that you jump to the worst case scenario is all the evidence anyone needs to know that the constant refrain of Hillary's corruption has worked on you. The simplest explanation is that she doesn't want to have every single email she wrote studied for the next 5 years and each nasty thing she said about the left, the right, Obama, the Pope, Putin, Cameron, Merkle, whoever released and held up for everyone to see. And it seems reasonable to believe that she knew she'd be subject to this level of scrutiny based on her 30 years experience going through the right's same bullshit at every level.

TM

That's a fair critique. But these things are not mutually exclusive.

And Colin Powell, on the other hand, destroyed none of his private emails in which he discussed state dept matters. Nor did Rice.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Obama detests them. He's just protecting his legacy, and views Trump as a serious danger.

You are, once again, testing the limits of your asshole's rim integrity.

If he truly despised the Clintons, he would have pushed for Biden 2 years ago, behind the scenes. But none of that shit matters because you don't know shit about what he likes or dislikes. The only thing that matters is he is supporting her completely.

"He's protecting his legacy." Your dimestore psychoanalysis is comical.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

What.

the.

fuck.

does.

this.

mean?

She's not going to send a bill to Congress? She's not going to review a bill that makes it past the first step to becoming a law? She's not going to pointlessly push for shit that has no chance of passing?

You and I keep having the same conversation, whether we're talking about Obama's ability to change state laws or any executive's ability to push for legislative action.

Please express how Bernie or Hillary or anyone gets anything Bernie wants passed.

TM

She's not going to lift a finger on debt forgiveness because the banks and funds in that business would flip out at even her hinting at seriously considering such a bill.

The trying is the thing. That was Bernie's genius. He started the conversation on these third rail issues. She will not only refuse to do so, but actively seek to suppress it within her party.

The left's going to get pushed down quite hard in a Clinton Presidency. Just as it was triangulated out of the conversation during her husband's.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's not right wing bullshit. Her surrogates destroyed 30,000 emails. You know civil litigation. Imagine the spoliation arguments in a case where that happens. The inference against the party destroying them would be enormous.

If you've been in the position to have done something like this, you know - no order to do so is ever given from the top. It's implied. It's what occurs when you are engaged in an enterprise where the people who can get rid of paper trails understand the need to do so while preserving plausible deniability for the people at the top.

We'll never know for sure, but his statement seems clear... Comey didn't have enough of a case to win because he couldn't find intent. The email destruction could have been an honest error. But the facts in total indicate the fingerprints of people - lawyers, mostly - who understand, when facing the high criminal burden of proof, it's better to argue over why evidence was destroyed than the evidence. There is no inference of guilt in criminal case such as hers would be without a charge for some predicate criminal act. (See Frank Quattrone's saga through the justice system involving a collateral destruction of evidence charge).

I think you're saying, if you could plausible accuse her of having done anything wrong, the way she handled her email would be pretty damning. Maybe so, but it just underscores that no one is plausibly accusing her of having down anything wrong, even after wading through a lot of email.

If you're batshit crazy, you can conjure up a conspiracy to effectively hide what was in those other emails. Or, you can think that her staff destroyed a lot of personal email that they thought had nothing to do with official business, and needn't be seen by the people who like to go through her history to try to tear her down.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You are, once again, testing the limits of your asshole's rim integrity.

If he truly despised the Clintons, he would have pushed for Biden 2 years ago, behind the scenes. But none of that shit matters because you don't know shit about what he likes or dislikes. The only thing that matters is he is supporting her completely.

"He's protecting his legacy." Your dimestore psychoanalysis is comical.

TM

Biden was weak, and deemed too old. Only when it was too late did he emerge as the guy who'd easily win. And Obama couldn't push the guy because Joe legitimately was consumed with other concerns. Like his son dying of cancer.

Your analysis is naive, and for shit.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She demanded he give her the [Secretary of State] post. It was a trade.

Do you just make shit up? No one thinks this.

And he fucking hates them.

Again, where do you come up with this shit? It is nice to see you following Obama as a thought leader, though.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I once was involved in a case where a company run by a two people who were engaged had to have all of its email over a two year period subjected to discovery. One of the two had a proclivities to affairs on the side. The other had a proclivity to long, intense discussions about theoretical mathematics. Myself and a litigator spent a weekend with paralegals coming to us with their emails asking if we cared.

Sometimes I forget that having read all of multiple people's emails is not a universal experience.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

1. Can't recall what you're on about here.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-sm...is-word-006674

And the general consensus is that she let her people run with the Muslim rumors in states where that would benefit her. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-...b_9312004.html

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

2. So? Are you that offended by politicians who "play racial politics"?

Uh...Yes? Is this a trick question?

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The email destruction could have been an honest error.

I'm willing to assume she explicitly ordered it. So what?

But the facts in total indicate the fingerprints of people - lawyers, mostly - who understand, when facing the high criminal burden of proof, it's better to argue over why evidence was destroyed than the evidence.

Maybe.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

First, I asked about her, and you refer to Bill as well, which I'm not sure you would do for a man. Just sayin'.

They're a team. And really - how could she shut up Bill? You know he's going to interfere like crazy.

But to your point, I agree with your recollection, and I was more sympathetic to Obama. She surely felt like she had paid her dues within the party for a long time, and who was this upstart? I'm not sympathetic to her on that score, but I think it was much more an issue with the people around her, who have always talked too much.

But in the big scheme of things, so what? It doesn't make her a scumbag.

See below.

1. Can't recall what you're on about here.
2. So? Are you that offended by politicians who "play racial politics"?

1. http://theweek.com/articles/567774/h...-2008-campaign
2. I am. What W did to McCain in South Carolina earns him a special ring in hell.

No, it's how coalition politics works, and the Democratic Party is a coalition. The Bernie people proved their strength, and to win them over she needs to move in their direction. I agree that her instincts are centrist, but the party is pushing her to the left. It's just like every Republican politician in the last two decades who have moved to the right because the party's right-wing have applied pressure.

She has unparalleled power within the party. Matched with the power of the office, she'll squash the left.

You exaggerate, but I hear you. I don't care for her instincts.* OTOH, she was by all accounts a workaholic Secretary of State who spent a lot of time in nuts and bolts of diplomacy, and the people you have lumped her with her would not see the value in that. So, as with your other complaints about her, you haven't really said anything about her that isn't true of a lot of other people, and you don't seem to have an explanation of why you think she so deserves the vitriol. As I said before, you're not alone in this, and I don't get it.

She's "product." Poll produced product, as I stated before. And what she does believe in, neocon foreign policy, is dangerous and deluded.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And he fucking hates them.

Sure doesn't seem like it. Definitely didn't look like it on stage in Philly. And he sure seems to be willing to help her out.

You're the only one who cares about a "pile on."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Do you just make shit up? No one thinks this.

He's detested them since Bill started with the race dog whistles in 2008. That's just fact. And a shitload of people in DC think exactly this.

It is nice to see you following Obama as a thought leader, though.

That's awesome. Well done, sir.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Sure doesn't seem like it. Definitely didn't look like it on stage in Philly. And he sure seems to be willing to help her out.

You're the only one who cares about a "pile on."

She's running against Trump! Legacy, and love of country. He'd bear hug a thorn bush on stage if it were guaranteed to beat Trump.