FBI agreed to destroy laptops of Clinton aides with immunity deal, lawmaker says
127 replies, posted
[QUOTE=normandie;51148166]so please explain to me why someone who has worked in politics their whole life (which by the way is more of a negative thing in the context of a free society) is capable of making wise decisions that pertain to the REAL world (not the fake world of politics)?
failing businesses? proof?[/QUOTE]
Is this another one of those "people are sick of experts" things.
[QUOTE]Immunity deals for two top Hillary Clinton aides included a side arrangement obliging the FBI to destroy their laptops after reviewing the devices,[/QUOTE]
that's not so bad
give it to mr kjerr to spin something to this degree
wait [I]woops[/I] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Bg0U84w.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51148188]So the FBI gets their info, and then destroys it to stop it from being tampered with/stolen?
What's the problem?[/QUOTE]
it makes sense: it's standard policy for devices that have stored classified documents
[QUOTE=joshuadim;51148237]I'll take status-quo over an unpredictable manchild who doesn't have the composure (or temperament :^) ) to be a world leader.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Govna;51148229]Neither one of these people is fit to run for office of any kind, and yet here we are having this discussion. Really shows how shitty our country is when we're debating over who's the "lesser of two evils", and it also shows how fucking broken the system we have in place is when it's producing these kinds of terrible candidates and clearly is not working for us (the people) and towards our best interests.[/QUOTE]
The status quo is not working. Things could be better, things more importantly [i]should[/i] be better, and we should be demanding more out of these people and holding them accountable so they have no choice but to deliver.
That's why I hate people like Normandie with the "big gubment/small gubment" mindset. It's not one or the other, it's a false dichotomy. What matters is having [i]efficient[/i] government and government that's actually held accountable and forced to do its fucking job... you know, serving the people.
This debate is so old and worn out, and we're not even to November yet. But the last thing we should be doing is settling for what we've been given in this situation. That kind of apathy is terrible for democracy.
[QUOTE=Govna;51148264]The status quo is not working. Things could be better, things more importantly [i]should[/i] be better, and we should be demanding more out of these people and holding them accountable so they have no choice but to deliver.
That's why I hate people like Normandie with the "big gubment/small gubment" mindset. It's not one or the other, it's a false dichotomy. What matters is having [i]efficient[/i] government and government that's actually held accountable and forced to do its fucking job... you know, serving the people.
This debate is so old and worn out, and we're not even to November yet. But the last thing we should be doing is settling for what we've been given in this situation. That kind of apathy is terrible for democracy.[/QUOTE]
The status-quo is shit.
That's why I voted for Bernie in the primaries.
Unfortunately that didn't work out. So the grassroots movement has to grow now.
I hate it as much as you do but the status-quo is better than Trump.
[QUOTE=Foda;51148260]it makes sense: it's standard policy for devices that have stored classified documents[/QUOTE]
Legitimately basic operational security for potentially highly confidential information. I have no idea why people are getting worked up about this.
The usage of "agreed" makes sense, as both parties have to actually agree to the destruction of the devices. Usually just handing them over is implicit agreement from one party, the other has to reciprocate that agreement.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;51148278]Legitimately basic operational security for potentially highly confidential information. I have no idea why people are getting worked up about this.
The usage of "agreed" makes sense, as both parties have to actually agree to the destruction of the devices. Usually just handing them over is implicit agreement from one party, the other has to reciprocate that agreement.[/QUOTE]
Nah dude, it's because of Crooked Hillary and the establishment covering their slimy tracks, they pull all the strings in the FBI!
Trump will MAGA and put em all away! /s
[QUOTE=Govna;51148264] But the last thing we should be doing is settling for what we've been given in this situation. That kind of apathy is terrible for democracy.[/QUOTE]
What would you have us do?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;51148278]Legitimately basic operational security for potentially highly confidential information. I have no idea why people are getting worked up about this.[/QUOTE]
Because the title is spinning it to make it sound like the FBI is being forced to get rid of secret information to protect Hillary's ass by not mentioning that they're only destroyed AFTER they're reviewed, basically making it sound worse than it actually is pretty much just to get the attention of people so they click/read the article and give views to the website, sensationalist headlines 101, this is why foxnews isn't a good news source.
We all know no one here reads past the title either.
[QUOTE=Radical_ed;51148209]You know that trump actually wants to cut taxes for the wealthy, right? He wants to cut taxes for EVERYONE, but mostly wealthy business owners for ~trickle down~ (which doesn't work at all).
Trump's tax plan will actually put us at a loss of 5.3 trillion, while Hillary's will be somewhere between 200 billion and balanced- whilst she RAISES taxes for the wealthy (not be an insane amount, but it's the OPPOSITE of what Donald's "plan" is doing)[/QUOTE]
hillary will raise taxes on the wealthy like obama did
not at all
[editline]3rd October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=joshuadim;51148275]The status-quo is shit.
That's why I voted for Bernie in the primaries.
Unfortunately that didn't work out. So the grassroots movement has to grow now.
I hate it as much as you do but the status-quo is better than Trump.[/QUOTE]
if you think status-quo is bad and needs to go, why would you still vote for it? you do know you don't have to vote for trump, there are third party options (even though they're not good options, it will still have you sleep better at night knowing you didn't vote for hillary or trump).
[QUOTE=Pops;51148324]hillary will raise taxes on the wealthy like obama did
not at all
[editline]3rd October 2016[/editline]
if you think status-quo is bad and needs to go, why would you still vote for it? you do know you don't have to vote for trump, there are third party options (even though they're not good options, it will still have you sleep better at night knowing you didn't vote for hillary or trump).[/QUOTE]
Because I happen to be from a swing-state. Florida.
Which is a big factor this election, more so than previous ones.
I vote Hillary so we don't send the United States down the shitter.
Edit:
Not only that, but Trumps terrible policies negatively impact immigrants and families of immigrants. And my family happens to be immigrants. So there you go.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;51148349]Because I happen to be from a swing-state. Florida.
Which is a big factor this election, more so than previous ones.
I vote Hillary so we don't send the United States down the shitter.[/QUOTE]
but we're going down the shitter no matter what.
[QUOTE=Pops;51148324]if you think status-quo is bad and needs to go, why would you still vote for it? you do know you don't have to vote for trump, there are third party options (even though they're not good options, it will still have you sleep better at night knowing you didn't vote for hillary or trump).[/QUOTE]
again
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/media]
there is no point in voting for a third party in a first past the post voting system
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51148114]We don't. Hillary is just the lesser of two evils.[/QUOTE]
How does one rationalize voting for a evil? It must really flip your moral compass into a spin.
[QUOTE=Vasili;51148380]How does one rationalize voting for a evil? It must really flip your moral compass into a spin.[/QUOTE]
I vote for the candidate that doesn't fuck over immigrants or potential immigrants as well as the one that has the proper composure to be a world leader.
[QUOTE=Vasili;51148380]How does one rationalize voting for a evil? It must really flip your moral compass into a spin.[/QUOTE]
Because there isn't really a choice.
Nobody other than Clinton or Trump have a chance of winning this election.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51148378]again
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/media]
there is no point in voting for a third party in a first past the post voting system[/QUOTE]
cgp grey...right..........
[QUOTE=Pops;51148366]but we're going down the shitter no matter what.[/QUOTE]
Clinton said she would uphold Obama's legacy. That means maintaining his policies. That means more recovery from the recession and shit like that.
That's not going down the shitter.
[QUOTE=Vasili;51148380]How does one rationalize voting for a evil? It must really flip your moral compass into a spin.[/QUOTE]
What is there to rationalize? When given two choices, you pick the one that's the least bad. That's the case no matter how good or bad your choices are.
what is a moral choice if not the choice that results in the least amount of human suffering?
[editline]4th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=normandie;51148395]cgp grey...right..........[/QUOTE]
well..... that's a pretty good argument..................
I guess I'm wrong, you win.........................................................
[QUOTE=normandie;51148395]cgp grey...right..........[/QUOTE]
Oh hi, can you respond to my arguments on the previous page instead of selectively ignoring posts that contradict you and going after low hanging fruit?
Or is that too difficult for you?
[QUOTE=normandie;51148395]cgp grey...right..........[/QUOTE]
Is that video inaccurate?
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;51148063]I can't believe there are nutjobs out there that actually think either Donald or Hillary will be a good president.[/QUOTE]
I dont think he would be a good president. I think he would be the lesser evil. Here is a video to explain why:
[video=youtube;6JGS-SrHI0M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JGS-SrHI0M[/video]
[QUOTE=Vasili;51148380]How does one rationalize voting for a evil? It must really flip your moral compass into a spin.[/QUOTE]
It really says something when someone manages to be worse than her.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51148416]Nah he just doesn't want to make a counterargument against the position "first past the post is shit, and is in place to ensure that a 3rd party statistically can't win".[/QUOTE]
that's because there is no counterargument to make
this isn't even up for debate
the sky is blue, water is wet, a third party can't exist in a first past the post voting system and so voting for them is completely and utterly pointless
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51148448]I mean it'd not be a waste if you could build a HUGE support base. Something a grassroots movement isn't going to do, and something the current 3rd parties aren't going to be able to do.
So yea, it's completely and utterly pointless.[/QUOTE]
any situation in which you have 3 parties with equal power would be like a house of cards that would quickly and inevitably collapse back into a two party system again
and since the johnson is projected to win less than one electoral vote, something tells me the libertarians won't be replacing the republicans or the democrats anytime soon
it may be pointless in the overall grand scheme of things, but i won't compromise my integrity by going with the majority.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51148398]What is there to rationalize? When given two choices, you pick the one that's the least bad. That's the case no matter how good or bad your choices are.
what is a moral choice if not the choice that results in the least amount of human suffering?[/QUOTE]
Personally I'd abstain from voting for either candidate.
From what I have read in this thread: people are willing to sacrifice a lot, including ethics - maybe too much.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51148470]Then don't vote? I'm flat out staying home because fuck going out, standing in line, finally getting to vote, all for a candidate that doesn't represent my views in the slightest.[/QUOTE]
actually i'm most likely going to skip the president part and just do whatever else is on the ballot.
[QUOTE=Vasili;51148468]Personally I'd abstain from voting for either candidate.
From what I have read in this thread: people are willing to sacrifice a lot, including ethics - maybe too much.[/QUOTE]
what is the point of ethics if they lead you to make choices that leave the world worse off
if anything refusing to make a difficult choice just because you don't like it is the height of selfishness
Sensationalist headlines is living up to it's name I see.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.