FBI officially closes Clinton email investigation - she was "reckless" but will face no charges - Polidicks

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50651146]Can someone remind me again why Bernie, the most sane and down to earth candidate, lose?[/QUOTE] Clinton had a headstart because of name recognition, and arguably connections that helped further propel her campaign as well. Identity politics and pandering unfortunately also probably helped to some extent.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;50651132]I'm amazed the BLM's posterboy would accept a woman who's called blacks superpredators, takes money from nations that kill gays and oppresses women, grossly mishandled the nation's secrets and would continue the targeted killing of US citizens(including children) in sovereign countries.[/QUOTE] Why do people keep calling me BLM's poster boy? I've been fairly critical of BLM. It's irrelevant to the topic. It's ad hominem nonsense. Fuck off with it and talk about my views on BLM in the BLM thread.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50651160]Why do people keep calling me BLM's poster boy? I've been fairly critical of BLM. It's irrelevant to the topic. It's ad hominem nonsense. Fuck off with it and talk about my views on BLM in the BLM thread.[/QUOTE] It's incredibly relevant. You're a diehard BLM fanatic that is willing to support a candidate that goes against your own views because the guy across the aisle can't be allowed to win.

[QUOTE=rndgenerator;50651146]Can someone remind me again why Bernie, the most sane and down to earth candidate, lose?[/QUOTE] the demographic that his politics appeal to decided it didn't want an old white man so they'll vote for the old white woman who doesn't give a shit about them instead

[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;50651159]Clinton had a headstart because of name recognition, and arguably connections that helped further propel her campaign as well. Identity politics and pandering unfortunately also probably helped to some extent.[/QUOTE] And the corporate mass media pretty much decided she was the winner immediately by automatically assigning her a large number of superdelegates and giving Bernie a handful, many months before any of those superdelegates make a decision, almost inevitably without clearly pointing out how they're handling this speculative data. The American public has been fantastically misled and Hillary's [I]success[/I] is simply confirmation that this is how politics in America are now and will be going forward until Americans rise up and demand change in their democracy. Clinton was preordained to be the Democratic candidate and the likely next president and everything past that has been democracy theatre to give Americans the impression they're making a choice. The fact that Trump demolished the GOP's plans and is running an insane, broke, populist campaign appealing to bigots is handing her the keys to the country -- whether or not there's any basis for the "Trump ran to throw the election for Hillary" conspiracy theory. Reminder that [URL="https://scholarsandrogues.com/2012/06/13/breaking-donald-trump-is-a-hoax/"]there is a conspiracy theory that states that "Donald Trump" is actually Andy Kaufman[/URL] pulling an epic, career-defining prank after faking his death and assuming Trump's identity while the real Trump has retired to private obscurity on some tropical beach where he can enjoy his golden years without being hounded as a celebrity. Given Kaufman's comedic style and his delight in pulling personas on people, everything significant the Donald has done in the last five years lines up with a Kaufman stunt writ large, starting with Trump making a high-profile jump into the birther movement.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50651232]the demographic that his politics appeal to decided it didn't want an old white man so they'll vote for the old white woman who doesn't give a shit about them instead[/QUOTE] If his politics appealed to that demographic then they would have voted for him. [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50651241]And the corporate mass media pretty much decided she was the winner immediately by automatically assigning her a large number of superdelegates and giving Bernie a handful, many months before any of those superdelegates make a decision.[/QUOTE] This is the first election I've followed where journalists calling up superdelegates and asking where they stand, then reporting those results, was ever brought into question. [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50651241]Clinton was preordained to be the Democratic candidate and the likely next president and everything past that has been democracy theatre to give Americans the impression they're making a choice.[/QUOTE] When I voted Sanders here in Florida I made a choice but more people in Florida supported Clinton so my guy didn't win. I got over it pretty quickly, as I have in previous elections where my guy didn't win a popular vote.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;50651190]It's incredibly relevant. You're a diehard BLM fanatic that is willing to support a candidate that goes against your own views because the guy across the aisle can't be allowed to win.[/QUOTE] Calling me a "diehard BLM fanatic" is as flat-out retarded as people calling Trump a Nazi. It's a total mischaracterization of my views - I've criticized BLM multiple times in the past, over and over. I just don't think they're a hate group and I value the awareness they've raised. I'm not a member, I'm not an avid supporter, I've never gone to an event, and I've never defended BLM beyond what my own political beliefs allow me to. Clinton goes against some of my views. I know the super predator shit. That's a very fair complaint against Clinton and I disagree with her on that enormously. But she is closer to my views than Trump is, so I'll vote for her. It's not that Trump can't be allowed to win - it's that Hillary represents me far more than Trump does, even though I disagree with her on many issues. It's simple shit.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50651345]Calling me a "diehard BLM fanatic" is as flat-out retarded as people calling Trump a Nazi. It's a total mischaracterization of my views - I've criticized BLM multiple times in the past, over and over. I just don't think they're a hate group and I value the awareness they've raised. I'm not a member, I'm not an avid supporter, I've never gone to an event, and I've never defended BLM beyond what my own political beliefs allow me to. Clinton goes against some of my views. I know the super predator shit. That's a very fair complaint against Clinton and I disagree with her on that enormously. But she is closer to my views than Trump is, so I'll vote for her. It's not that Trump can't be allowed to win - it's that Hillary represents me far more than Trump does, even though I disagree with her on many issues. It's simple shit.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't a third-party candidate be more representative of your views? Having to choose between those two sounds like a nightmare to me and I really wouldn't want to be put in this position.

[QUOTE=_Axel;50651363]Wouldn't a third-party candidate be more representative of your views? Having to choose between those two sounds like a nightmare to me and I really wouldn't want to be put in this position.[/QUOTE] Yes - but voting third party in the American election system steals votes from the second worst candidate and increases the chances that the worst worst candidate will win. It's a terrible part of our electoral system - and me voting third party would do nothing but spoil the election for Hillary. I'd rather have Hillary get 55% and Trump get 45% than have Stein get 15%, Hillary 40%, and Trump 45%. It's a shitty system with no fix in sight - but voting purely on conscience actually worsens it and increases the chance that policies I vehemently disagree with will be implemented.

Next time someone asks "How come someone like Trump gets so many votes by spewing so much bullshit?" Remember this....

Can't say I'm surprised. What a shame, and to think people are going to vote for this woman who is demonstrably bad at her job, and has more than likely gotten Americans and our assets abroad discovered and possibly killed, all while being a direct and plain as day enemy of the constitution.:goodjob: Not quite to the point where I'm voting Trump, but man, the more I read about this woman, the more it makes me want to vote against her and for anyone contesting her.

Hmm. I work at a government contractor that touches classified to top-secret info and such. When I started, there were so many meetings about "If I was to ever leak an ounce of that info, I would be thrown into prison immediately". That is very aggravating news that she get a finger-wave no-no.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50651506]Yes - but voting third party in the American election system steals votes from the second worst candidate and increases the chances that the worst worst candidate will win. It's a terrible part of our electoral system - and me voting third party would do nothing but spoil the election for Hillary. I'd rather have Hillary get 55% and Trump get 45% than have Stein get 15%, Hillary 40%, and Trump 45%. It's a shitty system with no fix in sight - but voting purely on conscience actually worsens it and increases the chance that policies I vehemently disagree with will be implemented.[/QUOTE] Well it is a bit a matter of not letting Trump win then. Not that I blame you, I wouldn't want Lepen to become president either.

[QUOTE=The Duke;50650509]Totally not manipulation of the law, guys.[/QUOTE] Make me a prosecutor, I'll bring that case in a fucking heartbeat

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50651506]Yes - but voting third party in the American election system steals votes from the second worst candidate and increases the chances that the worst worst candidate will win. It's a terrible part of our electoral system - and me voting third party would do nothing but spoil the election for Hillary. I'd rather have Hillary get 55% and Trump get 45% than have Stein get 15%, Hillary 40%, and Trump 45%. It's a shitty system with no fix in sight - but voting purely on conscience actually worsens it and increases the chance that policies I vehemently disagree with will be implemented.[/QUOTE] This attitude is so stupid; you assert that the system is corrupt/flawed but then play right into it, whats the point of voting at all? Even if we had to suffer through 4 years of Trump, so what? Maybe it would make the parties wise up and not push/nominate such shit people in the first place.

[QUOTE=Commando1234;50651622]Hmm. I work at a government contractor that touches classified to top-secret info and such. When I started, there were so many meetings about "If I was to ever leak an ounce of that info, I would be thrown into prison immediately". That is very aggravating news that she get a finger-wave no-no.[/QUOTE] There's a world of difference between purposefully leaking material, and being negligent. One is a concious choice to give people material they shouldn't have, the other is a fuck up caused by misunderstandings, incompetence or just neglect of duty. Leaking is worse, it ensures your secrets are made public. Of course the punishment is harsher and I'm certain if Hillary had leaked material she'd be getting a severe sentence.

[QUOTE=Commando1234;50651622]Hmm. I work at a government contractor that touches classified to top-secret info and such. When I started, there were so many meetings about "If I was to ever leak an ounce of that info, I would be thrown into prison immediately". That is very aggravating news that she get a finger-wave no-no.[/QUOTE] Not the same situation.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50651691]There's a world of difference between purposefully leaking material, and being negligent. One is a concious choice to give people material they shouldn't have, the other is a fuck up caused by misunderstandings, incompetence or just neglect of duty. Leaking is worse, it ensures your secrets are made public. Of course the punishment is harsher and I'm certain if Hillary had leaked material she'd be getting a severe sentence.[/QUOTE] Hillary did purposefully misuse secret documents. She knowingly sent and recieved top secret documents on an unsecured and unapproved private server. The ONLY reason we dont know that outside actors accessed her server is because it was so absolutely insecure. It was so easy to access that we can't even know if people accessed it. This basically means that you can do whatever you want as long as it's in the name of doing your job. There's a reason intent isn't required by the law when it comes to secret documents.

And I'll still vote for her, because it's still a better option than gouging our own eyes out of spite. [editline]5th July 2016[/editline] What a fucking world we live in.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50651734]Hillary did purposefully misuse secret documents. She knowingly sent and recieved top secret documents on an unsecured and unapproved private server. The ONLY reason we dont know that outside actors accessed her server is because it was so absolutely insecure. It was so easy to access that we can't even know if people accessed it. This basically means that you can do whatever you want as long as it's in the name of doing your job. There's a reason intent isn't required by the law when it comes to secret documents.[/QUOTE] Over here no law will say anything about intent, but its something that's always considered by both the judge and the department of justice. You can be found guilty of a crime in court and get neither a fine, a official warning or any kind of punishment. Which is a huge waste of time and money for everybody involved, so the DOJ might choose not to prosecute.

It was so fucking blatant that what she did would put any lesser person in cuffs, but oh well at least we know now how much influence the Clintons actually have. Bring on 4 years of Hillary, hope someone decent can step up in the DNC or even the GOP to give her the boot in 2020 if she doesn't self destruct in the next few years anyways. I'd like to know what cases of administrative sanctions have been used in the past to compare the severity of those to this and then compare this to cases where a negligent Government employee has actually done enough to be charged with a crime.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50651691]There's a world of difference between purposefully leaking material, and being negligent. One is a concious choice to give people material they shouldn't have, the other is a fuck up caused by misunderstandings, incompetence or just neglect of duty. Leaking is worse, it ensures your secrets are made public. Of course the punishment is harsher and I'm certain if Hillary had leaked material she'd be getting a severe sentence.[/QUOTE] Agreed. Really, I was just stating it is outrageous to me that someone can be at that point and still not understand how to handle top secret information.

[QUOTE=unrezt;50651664]This attitude is so stupid; you assert that the system is corrupt/flawed but then play right into it, whats the point of voting at all? Even if we had to suffer through 4 years of Trump, so what? Maybe it would make the parties wise up and not push/nominate such shit people in the first place.[/QUOTE] The GOP didn't push or nominate Trump, republicans at state primaries did. If anything it would make electing an "outsider" harder if Trump was a disasterous president because people could just say "Hey remember the last time we elected someone who didn't know what the fuck they were talking about?". It's not stupid to look at a system you can't realistically change quickly enough to affect the outcome and work within that system to get the best possible result. That's perfectly logical.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50651899]It's not stupid to look at a system you can't realistically change quickly enough to affect the outcome and work within that system to get the best possible result. That's perfectly logical.[/QUOTE] if you aren't voting for change, you aren't interested in change, the timeline is irrelevant.

[QUOTE=unrezt;50651963]if you aren't voting for change, you aren't interested in change, the timeline is irrelevant.[/QUOTE] The timeline is absolutely relevant. It would be far easier to suggest scrapping FPTP and implementing a new representation system in the months immediately following an election rather than in the months preceding one.

[QUOTE=Disgruntled;50651742]And I'll still vote for her, because it's still a better option than gouging our own eyes out of spite. [/QUOTE] They're both equally terrible, and i cant consciously vote for either knowing that.

Hey, remember this? [quote]Former CIA Director and retired Gen. David Petraeus was sentenced to two years of probation and handed a $100,000 fine for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, in the form of notebooks he shared with his lover.[/quote] He only got off as light as he did because of a plea deal Yet Clinton gets off scot free. What a world

well if Clinton was sharing classified material we'd be in a different situation

[QUOTE=TheTalon;50652058]Hey, remember this? He only got off as light as he did because of a plea deal Yet Clinton gets off scot free. What a world[/QUOTE] Hey anyone remember this entirely unrelated case involving something completely different? I, too, get my legal precedent arguments from @realDonaldTrump

Instead of arguing over which leg you would like cut off, you could vote for Gary Johnson. Please don't tell me "it's a waste", no vote is a waste. The reason a third party never seems viable is because of that mentality. I think this election will see a record number of votes for a third party, which will bring them into the debates and make the eligible for federal funding next election, effectively dismantling the two party system that has nearly destroyed this country. Johnson was last polled at 11% and only needs 15% to enter debates and reciever funding iirc.