[RESULTS ARE FINAL] 2016 Election for President of the United States | Donald Trump Victory

[cr47t]

Paul Ryan endorsed Trump

 

What are you talking about? Paul Ryan hasn't endorsed him. Read this. http://www.npr.org/2016/05/25/479451614/ryan-shoots-down-trump-endorsement-as-he-readies-house-gop-campaign-agenda

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

What are you talking about? Paul Ryan hasn't endorsed him. Read this. http://www.npr.org/2016/05/25/479451614/ryan-shoots-down-trump-endorsement-as-he-readies-house-gop-campaign-agenda

read the headlines last night. Ryan aide and trump campaign people say Ryan will endorse Trump this week.

 

After that brilliant Vp pick it's not suprising

[cr47t]

read the headlines last night. Ryan aide and trump campaign people say Ryan will endorse Trump this week.

 

After that brilliant Vp pick it's not suprising

Look, when I saw that article in the news and put it on here it said it was published 1 hour ago.

 

But we'll see. I hope he doesn't because imo he's practically the last sensible Republican who hasn't endorsed.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Look, when I saw that article in the news and put it on here it said it was published 1 hour ago.

 

But we'll see. I hope he doesn't because imo he's practically the last sensible Republican who hasn't endorsed.

*shrugs*

 

http://fortune.com/2016/05/25/paul-ryan-endorsement/

 

It's all cool. Ryan doesn't wanna fake it, and Trump is having trouble finding the GOP spot

 

It's the same struggle most guys go through

 

Meanwhile, I'm just sitting here fuming about how Berns is basically swindling his way through the primary. There is basically no chance he will get more of the popular or pledge delegates than Hillary. He's just sitting there hoping for an indictment cause he can't win this the proper way. Washington exposes Bernie's bullshit. So many more people voted in the primary, and Hillary won that fair and square. But in a caucus, Bernie Bros strong arm people into their camp through public shaming.

 

Some secret ballot y'all run. It's literally the same sheet Cruz people pulled on Trump in the republican primary with Trump shaming

[Aerion Brightflame]

Or....Bernie was standing for more than just the nomination and genuinely wanted to start a movement to change the way politics works in America by getting a new generation active and involved at all stages of the primary; Staying in the race and validating the people who voted for him by fighting till the end is not a bad thing. It shows people that there are politicians still willing to fight for them to be heard, rather than be in there own interests or party interests (Because party interests are not aligned with the will of the people)

 

And your dislike for 'Bernie bros' can be what it is, but Hilary has played a far far dirtier campaign than Sanders. To claim that Sanders is trying to 'swindle' his way into the nomination strange when you consider the rest of the s*** the DNC has been pulling to beat him. There are numerous counts of flat out fraud in cacuses, the shambles that was the NY primary, and examples of votes simply not being counted. So to claim 'Oh he's just swindling because he can't win the proper way' when the proper way hasn't been happening due to fraud is just flat out ignoring issues. Like f***, you ranted on about the electoral fraud against Trump, so why the hell are you almost ignoring it when it's occurring to Sanders? 

 

So no offence to you Winter, but stop talking out of your arse because you dislike Sanders. Yes, he cannot win. But Politics is not about winning, it's about representing the people who vote you in. And it's a nice change to have seen a politician standing on that idea at the highest level of politics, instead of being openly owned by Wall Street, or big business. 

 

EDIT; Yeah, yeah Ad homien arguments a plenty, but your attitude in this thread just irritates me at times. 

[Shalltear Bloodfallen]

And it's a nice change to have seen a politician standing on that idea at the highest level of politics, instead of being openly owned by Wall Street, or big business. 

 

Or is big business. Trump may be promising this and that in terms of taxing the 1%, but what people are forgetting is he's part of the 1%, meaning there's a inherent conflict of interest. It's beneficial to him, to avoid the taxation, and frankly, I dont think he's the kinda guy to actually make things harder on himself, and given the habit of his campaign trail, odds are it's yet another lie spewed out to gain votes.

 

Because honestly dont think even one of his stances have remained consistent since his campaign started

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Or....Bernie was standing for more than just the nomination and genuinely wanted to start a movement to change the way politics works in America by getting a new generation active and involved at all stages of the primary; Staying in the race and validating the people who voted for him by fighting till the end is not a bad thing. It shows people that there are politicians still willing to fight for them to be heard, rather than be in there own interests or party interests (Because party interests are not aligned with the will of the people)

 

And your dislike for 'Bernie bros' can be what it is, but Hilary has played a far far dirtier campaign than Sanders. To claim that Sanders is trying to 'swindle' his way into the nomination strange when you consider the rest of the s*** the DNC has been pulling to beat him. There are numerous counts of flat out fraud in cacuses, the shambles that was the NY primary, and examples of votes simply not being counted. So to claim 'Oh he's just swindling because he can't win the proper way' when the proper way hasn't been happening due to fraud is just flat out ignoring issues. Like f***, you ranted on about the electoral fraud against Trump, so why the hell are you almost ignoring it when it's occurring to Sanders? 

 

So no offence to you Winter, but stop talking out of your arse because you dislike Sanders. Yes, he cannot win. But Politics is not about winning, it's about representing the people who vote you in. And it's a nice change to have seen a politician standing on that idea at the highest level of politics, instead of being openly owned by Wall Street, or big business. 

 

EDIT; Yeah, yeah Ad homien arguments a plenty, but your attitude in this thread just irritates me at times. 

Electoral fraud? Yeah I was pissed off when Colorado canceled the election and polls showed that Trump would have massacred Cruz and Kasich there. But it's w/e, people like me protested, and Colorado responded and put the primary back next year. What have the Bernie Bros achieved through throwing chairs?New York was well established to be closed long before Bernie made a fuss out of it, and even if you gave all the independents to Bernie, he still wouldn't have been able to catch up to Hillary

 

I'm saying the Caucus system is a pile of horse sheet, cause people can and will influence your vote using everything from threats to demeaning ad hom. I don't dislike Sanders, I admire most of what he's done. Especially his push to kill super delegates. But the fact he has not spoken out against causes (cause they benefit him) goes to show that in the end he's just a politician in a populist suit.

 

At this point Sanders is just helping Trump, 20% of Bernie supporters say they will vote Trump, do you really want that number to go to 30%. He's playing Ralph Nader hinging on the idea that Hillary might get indited. For a man speaking for the people, he's done an awful job listening to the people. Hillary has won, more Americans don't want him than do.

 

For all your criticism of Trump and not doing what he says he's gonna do, you do realize that outside of Warren, nobody is really keen on doubling the debt and out doing the aggregate of both our terrible last 2 presidents right? He's a populist talking just to get votes, even if you don't like to accept it

Or is big business. Trump may be promising this and that in terms of taxing the 1%, but what people are forgetting is he's part of the 1%, meaning there's a inherent conflict of interest. It's beneficial to him, to avoid the taxation, and frankly, I dont think he's the kinda guy to actually make things harder on himself, and given the habit of his campaign trail, odds are it's yet another lie spewed out to gain votes.

 

Because honestly dont think even one of his stances have remained consistent since his campaign started

Evidence? Cause for most of his life Trump has been promoting a liberal agenda, which does corroborate his current stance of taxing the 1% (or most of it, cause in a few states 250K is 1% somehow)

 

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize politicians can't adapt. Guess Hillary still is against the gays then right?

 

In Tom's words, stop talking out of your arse. 

[Shalltear Bloodfallen]

Evidence? Cause for most of his life Trump has been promoting a liberal agenda, which does corroborate his current stance of taxing the 1% (or most of it, cause in a few states 250K is 1% somehow)

 

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize politicians can't adapt. Guess Hillary still is against the gays then right?

 

In Tom's words, stop talking out of your arse. 

 

Evidence: Look who he's running for.

If he's actually intent on being liberal with his policies, whooooo BOY did he pick the wrong crowd to run for

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Evidence: Look who he's running for.

If he's actually intent on being liberal with his policies, whooooo BOY did he pick the wrong crowd to run for

Evidence: He openly admits he supports most of planned parenthood on a debate stage with troglodytes like Cruz

 

It's pretty clear that he's center right, or slightly center left based on his policies 

 

Is it possible for you to be objective for once?

[mido9]

Or is big business. Trump may be promising this and that in terms of taxing the 1%, but what people are forgetting is he's part of the 1%, meaning there's a inherent conflict of interest. It's beneficial to him, to avoid the taxation, and frankly, I dont think he's the kinda guy to actually make things harder on himself, and given the habit of his campaign trail, odds are it's yet another lie spewed out to gain votes.

 

Because honestly dont think even one of his stances have remained consistent since his campaign started

I mean, in the USA the efficiency with which government money is spent is only 30%. 70% of tax money goes to sanders and friends themselves and the rate has been going up for years. Don't you think that's kinda a conflict of interest? http://www.softwaremetrics.com/Economics/Private%20Charity%20versus%20Government%20Entitlements.pdf

[Dad]

I mean, in the USA the efficiency with which government money is spent is only 30%. 70% of tax money goes to sanders and friends themselves and the rate has been going up for years. Don't you think that's kinda a conflict of interest? http://www.softwaremetrics.com/Economics/Private%20Charity%20versus%20Government%20Entitlements.pdf

 

Every politician involved has had gains from this entire campaign.  Bernie less than others, but mostly Shillary.  You wanna talk about conflict of interest?  Hilary is Bernie's opposite.  Hell, Trump is on a better track than Hilary if we're talking about tax money.

 

Especially entitlements.  The difference between Bernie and Hilary in charity is pretty stellar.

 

But Hilary has a bigger backing, a bigger namesake, and almost as much history if not more than Bernie.

 

I like Bernie, but he's got no chance.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Electoral fraud? Yeah I was pissed off when Colorado canceled the election and polls showed that Trump would have massacred Cruz and Kasich there. But it's w/e, people like me protested, and Colorado responded and put the primary back next year. What have the Bernie Bros achieved through throwing chairs?New York was well established to be closed long before Bernie made a fuss out of it, and even if you gave all the independents to Bernie, he still wouldn't have been able to catch up to Hillary

 

I'm saying the Caucus system is a pile of horse s***, cause people can and will influence your vote using everything from threats to demeaning ad hom. I don't dislike Sanders, I admire most of what he's done. Especially his push to kill super delegates. But the fact he has not spoken out against causes (cause they benefit him) goes to show that in the end he's just a politician in a populist suit.

 

The issue in New York wasn't the fact it was a closed primary that required registration 6 months or something before the primary happened (So before most of the country was even thinking about the election). It was the fact that within a week of the actual voting something like 100,000 registered voters were removed or were missing from the electoral register for the actual voting despite registering properly. 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/19/new-york-independent-voter-registration-frustration-sanders-democratic-primary

 

This went way beyond it simply being a closed primary. Even if it's just a demonstration of how undemocratic the process is, it is and was far more than it simply being a case of it being a closed primary. 

 

And you say populist like it's a bad thing. Since you know, there's a reason that people might find someone fighting for them instead of the 1% agreeable. And it is demonstrable in the fact both Trump and Sanders have done far far better than anyone would have thought going into the election. Because seriously; Who would have thought a reality TV star and a 70 year old socialist would have gotten this far against a Clinton and a Bush?

 

But hey you, let's ignore the fact that Sanders consitently talked about starting a process, starting to get behind and interested in politics at all levels, and being frank about his inability to do everything he imposed without public support, and you know running an incredibly successful grass-root campaign, not being beholden to Wall Street. And let's ignore that he did this whilst being marginalised by the media, and despite very visible instances of electoral fraud or undemocratic procedures being caught on camera and such that just highlight how little the establishment gives a funk about us in trying to keep the status quo. 

 

Yeah just ignore all that sheet because some Bernie Bro's threw a chair right? And because he didn't call out every instance of the democratic electoral process being undemocratic right? Or because his ideas are unrealistic? Let's just ignore everything else because of this sheet. Let's ignore the fact he's more openly progressive about electoral reform than the rest of the democratic candidates were. 

 

I know I am biased towards Sanders in this election, but do you seriously think that these instances you name discount everything else he's doneand that we could use his campaign to build upon Winter? Imagine if we used the benchmark of Sanders campaign to put a national directive to start more grassroots campaigns at local positions? Or get a new generation interested and motivated in politics? You are willing to overlook Hilary despite her being beholden to Wall Street, the incompetance and the general behavoir? Or Trump despite him having encouraged violence and generally having ludicrous policies (In a way that would destroy all goodwill the US has with other nations? Why does Sanders have to be this untouched paragon for his campaign to mean anything?

 

It's just funking tiring you know. One second you post in super favour of Trump heralding him as the coming of the new age of the US, then the next it's about Trump being insane and Hilary being the best option. It's so tiring to have to make the same points to you over and over and over each time your opinion flips. Since this is all sheet I've said to you before. Same as every discussion I've ever had with you, I have to say sheet over and over and over, and you just never seem to consider it before making the exact same point two weeks later. It's just so funking tiring you know? 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Double post but I wanted this to be it's own point; 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36382104

 

The Email Scandal has developed a little more - Now the state department is actually laying the blame on Hilary for her actions. Which you know is something. Maybe something they sling against the jabroni will stick. 

 

Especially since her defence is that 'It's nothing that her predecessors hadn't done' - Nice to know she's willing to call her predecessors incompetent to cover her own arse. 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/25/hacker-who-claims-breached-clinton-server-pleads-guilty-strikes-deal-with-feds.html

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/281211-hacker-guccifer-pleads-guilty

 

This is fox news, so it's probably a lie, but it's important to consider. Because proof of this guy hacking Clinton's server means that a) It's proof her actions directly endagered national secrets as opposed to only theoretically doing so. And it also means it's also very likely that some foreign power got there hands on access at some point. Which is a massive security issue. 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4l052h/megathread_state_department_email_audit_re/

Oh and a spokeperson from the State Department did and Q&A that this somewhat sums up despite being a reddit thread. It doesn't look good for Hilary 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The issue in New York wasn't the fact it was a closed primary that required registration 6 months or something before the primary happened (So before most of the country was even thinking about the election). It was the fact that within a week of the actual voting something like 100,000 registered voters were removed or were missing from the electoral register for the actual voting despite registering properly. 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/19/new-york-independent-voter-registration-frustration-sanders-democratic-primary

 

This went way beyond it simply being a closed primary. Even if it's just a demonstration of how undemocratic the process is, it is and was far more than it simply being a case of it being a closed primary. 

 

And you say populist like it's a bad thing. Since you know, there's a reason that people might find someone fighting for them instead of the 1% agreeable. And it is demonstrable in the fact both Trump and Sanders have done far far better than anyone would have thought going into the election. Because seriously; Who would have thought a reality TV star and a 70 year old socialist would have gotten this far against a Clinton and a Bush?

 

But hey you, let's ignore the fact that Sanders consitently talked about starting a process, starting to get behind and interested in politics at all levels, and being frank about his inability to do everything he imposed without public support, and you know running an incredibly successful grass-root campaign, not being beholden to Wall Street. And let's ignore that he did this whilst being marginalised by the media, and despite very visible instances of electoral fraud or undemocratic procedures being caught on camera and such that just highlight how little the establishment gives a funk about us in trying to keep the status quo. 

 

Yeah just ignore all that sheet because some Bernie Bro's threw a chair right? And because he didn't call out every instance of the democratic electoral process being undemocratic right? Or because his ideas are unrealistic? Let's just ignore everything else because of this sheet. Let's ignore the fact he's more openly progressive about electoral reform than the rest of the democratic candidates were. 

 

I know I am biased towards Sanders in this election, but do you seriously think that these instances you name discount everything else he's doneand that we could use his campaign to build upon Winter? Imagine if we used the benchmark of Sanders campaign to put a national directive to start more grassroots campaigns at local positions? Or get a new generation interested and motivated in politics? You are willing to overlook Hilary despite her being beholden to Wall Street, the incompetance and the general behavoir? Or Trump despite him having encouraged violence and generally having ludicrous policies (In a way that would destroy all goodwill the US has with other nations? Why does Sanders have to be this untouched paragon for his campaign to mean anything?

 

It's just funking tiring you know. One second you post in super favour of Trump heralding him as the coming of the new age of the US, then the next it's about Trump being insane and Hilary being the best option. It's so tiring to have to make the same points to you over and over and over each time your opinion flips. Since this is all sheet I've said to you before. Same as every discussion I've ever had with you, I have to say sheet over and over and over, and you just never seem to consider it before making the exact same point two weeks later. It's just so funking tiring you know? 

Let's start with New York, the VAST majority of complaints ended up being about voters having to register as republican or democrat. Some of them didn't renew their voter registration w/ party affiliation, and are now upset that the government didn't warn then. It's not the government's duty to cuddle you through it. They were adults, they didn't look into what was required ahead of time. That's their fault. I'll get into this later, but Sanders only has a problem against the system when it hurts him. 

 

It's not fraud or un-democratic, there was a very strict Democrat or Republican rule, and people slacked on making sure they were good. That's not the state being fraudulent, although I will admit that it's an unrealistically early deadline.

 

I did NOT say populist was a bad thing, I said Bernie is just a clever politician wearing a populist suit. If he truly gave a funk about the process why would not back down once the people have spoken? More of them don't want him than do, Tom. Why not criticize the caucus system where people are not allowed to vote their mind? Cause those don't benefit him. They help validate him, so of course he'll jabroni about anything else he cant find. He's a better politician than Hillary is what I will concede cause he damages himself less.

 

He wanted to start a movement, he had the media against him. He failed thus far. Trump had the same odds if not worse and he pulled through. I'm praising the victors. What merit do you want me to give to Sanders? Trump started off with worse odds and pulled through better. I'm not fond of his policies so I'm not going to praise them, just as I wouldn't expect you to praise the Wall or Muslim bans.

 

Why do I bring up the Bros? Cause while it took Trump espousing violence (something, I once again condone), Bernie Bros are willing to do it without even being told to. I'd rather have crazies that follow orders than don't. It's not only a chair, yesterday they assaulted riot police and wounded them. The point being, Sanders can't control his people, or doesn't really want to. That's dangerous. 

 

Now back to Bernie's selective vision:

 

Would Sanders have given a flying funk about the voters if he had won? Cause Trump would have won by even larger margins if independents and certain republicans in Brooklyn were able to vote for him. My complaint about Sanders is he only whines about things that don't benefit him. That's not for democracy, that's not being a populist, that's serving yourself. 

 

I'm bias towards Trump, and was towards Hillary at one point, but I've never been above criticizing them. Something y'all are incapable of doing towards Sanders. I'm willing to overlook Hillary's ties cause she's a tested politician with clear policies that do work. Do I agree with them all? Not even close. But I do know they won't add more to the debt that Obama and Bush did together. I'm willing to overlook Trump's cause 1) I criticize the plans I have problems with over and over and over, those I don't overlook 2) He's more in line with the direction I want this country to go towards. Ie. bias. I find the vast majority of Sander's ideas to be devastating to the US, so why would I praise him on those? I think Super Delegates are cancerous, so I did praise him on that. I don't think Universal Healthcare is a good thing, so why am I expected to support him on that? Just cause he's running against Hillary? 

 

Bernie's policies I liked, have all been done better by Trump, except for Super Delegates.

 

Let's set the record straight. I voted for Hillary in the primary cause she had the most flushed out policy. I didn't trust or know enough about Trump on Super Tuesday, also I was a registered Democrat in a Democrat family. Worse case we have four more years of Obama that can be fixed in 2020. I'm in 90% agreement with Trump over his policies and DO think he's the future of the US and that the Centrist he represents should be the ideal to go for. So I do intend to vote for him. That being said, Hillary does out do him in policies so I praise her on that. If Sanders does that too, I will praise him too, but until then not.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Is it possible for you to be objective for once?

Winter it's difficult to take you seriously anymore with how much hypocrisy you spew. I don't want to start anything but I keep seeing you say things that should be said to you in many instances.

 

Nobody rep this btw I don't want anything to come from this except maybe some reflection time.

[Shalltear Bloodfallen]

Evidence: He openly admits he supports most of planned parenthood on a debate stage with troglodytes like Cruz

 

Meanwhile he's also willing to send them into severe financial trouble by denying federal funding.

I'm sorry you were saying?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Meanwhile he's also willing to send them into severe financial trouble by denying federal funding.

I'm sorry you were saying?

He's not pro-choice. If planned parenthood cares more about abortions than cervical cancer that's their problem.

Winter it's difficult to take you seriously anymore with how much hypocrisy you spew. I don't want to start anything but I keep seeing you say things that should be said to you in many instances.

 

Nobody rep this btw I don't want anything to come from this except maybe some reflection time.

Literally how? I criticize Trump all the damn time....

 

You can say I'm soft on Hillary, and I'll admit I'm not being as critical of her as say Tom, but that doesn't make me a hypocrite

[Shalltear Bloodfallen]

He's not pro-choice. If planned parenthood cares more about abortions than cervical cancer that's their problem.

 

Last reported statistic, the "abortion" part covers 3% of the total services PP provides, and they are complying with federal law that says the funding they recieve covers abortions only resulting from rape, incest, or life-threatening complications.

 

Now lets try that again, this time, give me a argument.

 

This is not Trump praising PP.

This is Trump praising PP to gain liberal voters, while simultaneously cursing it and dooming it to bankruptcy, to gain conservative voters.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

they are complying with federal law that says the funding they recieve covers abortions only resulting from rape, incest, or life-threatening complications.

 

Now lets try that again, this time, give me a argument.

Citation please, not trying to be condescending, just having trouble finding that particular validation. As for the three percent. That's well known isn't it? That abortions are a minor portion? PP has a lot more to lose than gain from abortions was the point I was trying to make.

 

Trump would deny them federal funding if they don't meet his standards for abortion. Which are rape, mother's life, or incest.

 

Personally don't like abortions, but don't particularly want to shove my view on everyone else in this regard.

 

I'd also add child's health as a 4th class, cause bringing a child with Downs or so into a life of suffering shouldn't be forced IMO, but *shrugs*

 

Trumps not perfect

[Shalltear Bloodfallen]

Citation please, not trying to be condescending, just having trouble finding that particular validation. As for the three percent. That's well known isn't it? That abortions are a minor portion? PP has a lot more to lose than gain from abortions was the point I was trying to make.

 

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/6714/1996/2641/2013-2014_Annual_Report_FINAL_WEB_VERSION.pdf

 

Yes it's only for 2013-2014, but it's the only one I have personally found and been able to read.

 

This does elude to the statistics not having changed, if they're avaliable publicly

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/02/donald-trumps-incredibly-bizarre-relationship-with-planned-parenthood/

 

And his "standards", are already beeing met, as far as the public knows.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/6714/1996/2641/2013-2014_Annual_Report_FINAL_WEB_VERSION.pdf

 

Yes it's only for 2013-2014, but it's the only one I have personally found and been able to read.

 

This does elude to the statistics not having changed, if they're avaliable publicly

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/02/donald-trumps-incredibly-bizarre-relationship-with-planned-parenthood/

 

And his "standards", are already beeing met, as far as the public knows.

Ah, right, it's prohibited under the Hyde amendment right? That ties in federal Medicaid funding for abortions. 

 

"Passed by Congress in 1976, the Hyde Amendment excludes abortion from the comprehensive health care services provided to low-income people by the federal government through Medicaid. Congress has made some exceptions to the funding ban, which have varied over the years. At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury"

 

There might be another law that prohibits any manner of funding for abortions (which I will look into)

 

There are people above the poverty line seeking abortions too. So it's doesn't seem like a 100% adherence. I'll have to fact check the Washington post claim a little more, which I cannot do on my phone. But assuming you're right, Trump has clearly had his demands met and should back down

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So Trump's within 10 points of Hillary in California, but over 20 away in New York. Wonder what the increased allure in Cali is for him. 

 

Oh and he got 1238 delegates so it's over

[Shalltear Bloodfallen]

Oh and he got 1238 delegates so it's over

 

As if it wasnt over the moment he became litterally the only person still running for the GOP

[Aerion Brightflame]

Hilary's Email scandal updates:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/26/hillary-clintons-inner-circle-refused-to-cooperate/

 

Turns out that members of Hilary's staff were also using unsecure email accounts, which means negligence should not be an argument anymore. Because the chance of multiple high ranking security officials not understanding the seriousness of passing secure information on un-secure accounts has to be astronomical. Additionally the refusal of all such members to assist in questioning as the article suggest does imply some high level systematic cover-up or organisation attempting to subvert the Freedom of Information Act. 

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/ap-origin-of-key-clinton-emails-from-report-are-a-mystery-2016-5?r=US&IR=T

 

Hilary did not infact turn over all of the emails that she was required to. At least 3 unreleased emails by her have been discovered when the files of four of her former aides were investigated supposedly detailed things such as:

 

 

But the agency's watchdog found three emails never seen before by the public, including Clinton's explanation for why she wanted her emails kept private — "I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible," one of Clinton's emails read in November 2010 — and details of hacking attempts on her personal computer server, written by her former IT director in January 2011.

 

So you know, this is yetmore damning evidence of a deliberate cover-up and worse of an actual attempted security breach as a result of her actions, which is evidence she endangered national security. This in addition to the fact that before handing over the emails in the first place, she is known to have deleted some 30,000 of them due to them being 'personal in nature'. Which is again worrying considering she is mixing personal and professional. However the FBI has access to both the physical server, and to a cloud storage facilty which may allow recovery of some of these emails to verify the contents. 

 

Finally testimony from the first deposition on this matter has been made public (Apparently?):

 

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/first-deposition-testimony-clinton-email-discovery-released/

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4l7s8e/first_deposition_testimony_from_clinton_email/

 

Now I can't get the site to actually show me the testimony, so I have to settle for the r/politics thread discussing it, (So what I draw from here might be outright lies), but we have such answers as:

 

[spoiler=Quote One]

 

 

Q During your time at the State Department over the course of 27 or so years, you said, have you ever been instructed or provided guidance about the Freedom of Information Act?
A No.
Q While you were executive director, did you receive any guidance about the Freedom of Information Act?
A No.
Q Did you receive any guidance regarding the Federal Records Act?

A No.

 

.....

 

Q Mr. Lukens, you testified earlier that you didn't receive any guidance on the Freedom of Information Act or the Federal Records Act. Did you mean during your tenure as executive director or at any point in your career at State?

A I meant during my tenure in this job as executive director.

Q Do you recall whether at any point in your career you received guidance on records management?

A Yes.

Q Do you recall whether it included the Freedom of Information Act?

A Yes.

....

 

Q You mentioned that you did receive during your career guidance about the Freedom of Information Act. Do you recall when you received that guidance?

A As part of new employee orientation when I joined the State Department.

Q And when would that have been?

A The summer of 1989.

 

Apparently a high ranking federal employee did not receive yearly training on the FOIA, whereas say a marine would. He's either lying or something seems wrong there. Especially the idea he didn't receive additional training on it at least once in 27 years or employment. 

 

[spoiler=Quote 2]

 

Q: And so the system that was set up -- or that you proposed setting up on Mrs. Clinton's desk, she would not have had to change her password every eight to 12 weeks?
A: She wouldn't have had a password.

Q: So the computer would have just been open and be able to use without going through any security features?
A: Correct.

 

Apparently passwords are just too hard to remember when you are the funking Secretary of State. 

 

Other information that has come from this:

 

Hilary Clinton apparently only knows how to send emails on her Blackberry, not through an email account. No one bothered to teach her such a thing, and as such that means that the only possible way she could have been sent classified information was on her unsecure phone. That means either her initial claim, that 'no classified information was sent via this' is either a lie, or she simply never got sent any classified within her tenure as Secretary of State. Not because she used her server as an alternative to her US government address, but because she simply did not have a government email address to send sheet on.

 

She has also been confirmed to have taken this unsecured device (Which she used Opennet to access the internet on) with her on business, say to China, which means unless foreign intelligence agencies are morons, they got access to her private files. As did her staff. 

 

 

 

 

No matter what the reason is for Hilary's actions her, it should be pretty damn clear she should not be able to run for president. She shouldn't be allowed to have a security clearance for fucks sake. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/a-dialogue-with-a-22-year-old-donald-trump-supporter/484232/

 

Fascinating little read