British Expats - 2016 Election

In all the cases, however -- as well as Clinton's -- the information was not marked "classified" at the time the emails were sent, according to State Department investigators.Powell noted that point in a statement on Thursday."The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't," Powell said. "If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share.""I have reviewed the messages and I do not see what makes them classified," Powell said.

FlaviusAetius

Feb 5th 2016 8:47 am

Re: 2016 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giantaxe (Post 11859071)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

I'm with you. Indict them both. What effect does that have on Hillary's campaign? Answer: it hurts her and that was the original point. That's the problem with raising non sequiturs all the time.

Back to the original discussion: that would, I think derail her campaign and open the door for Biden or one of the others. Obama could do that if he wanted to destroy her, and it would, even if she tries to raise the Powell defence the Right Honorable Eccles pointed to.

Giantaxe

Feb 5th 2016 8:50 am

Re: 2016 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius (Post 11859109)

The non-sequiteur is the belief that Obama would "order" the indictment of Clinton merely because he "decides she can't beat Rubio - or Bush - or whichever viable candidate the Rs come up with".

FlaviusAetius

Feb 5th 2016 8:52 am

Re: 2016 Election

As someone leaning toward Rubio, it pains me to bring to the attention of the rest of you an attack against him raised in Breitbart. You might as well see it.

Marco Rubio's 7 Top Achievements in U.S. Senate - Breitbart

FlaviusAetius

Feb 5th 2016 8:53 am

Re: 2016 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giantaxe (Post 11859110)

The non-sequiteur is the belief that Obama would "order" the indictment of Clinton merely because he "decides she can't beat Rubio - or Bush - or whichever viable candidate the Rs come up with".

Try again. If the FBI recommends an indictment, it will be Obama's call whether DOJ indicts her, unless you think Lynch could make that decision on her own.

sir_eccles

Feb 5th 2016 8:56 am

Re: 2016 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius (Post 11859111)

Breitbart? Who do they back?

Giantaxe

Feb 5th 2016 8:57 am

Re: 2016 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius (Post 11859111)

I do like those "Liberty Scores" in that article. Lower is better... right?

Giantaxe

Feb 5th 2016 8:59 am

Re: 2016 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius (Post 11859114)

Try again. If the FBI recommends an indictment, it will be Obama's call whether DOJ indicts her, unless you think Lynch could make that decision on her own.

That word "If" is all important isn't it?

FlaviusAetius

Feb 5th 2016 9:02 am

Re: 2016 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giantaxe (Post 11859118)

I do like those "Liberty Scores" in that article. Lower is better... right?

Depends on how Breitbart interprets "authoritarian." Probably in Breitbart's view, Stalin would have a Liberty Score of 1 to 0. Hitler a 0.

FlaviusAetius

Feb 5th 2016 9:05 am

Re: 2016 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giantaxe (Post 11859122)

That word "If" is all important isn't it?

Yes. IF the FBI recommends that Hillary be indicted, then the rest follows. Could we agree that then it's up to Obama what happens next?

zargof

Feb 5th 2016 9:09 am

Re: 2016 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius (Post 11859111)

I do think it's strange that any conservative would support Rubio. I mean he gets paid by the Government, but never shows up for work.

Giantaxe

Feb 5th 2016 9:10 am

Re: 2016 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius (Post 11859127)

Yes. IF the FBI recommends that Hillary be indicted, then the rest follows. Could we agree that then it's up to Obama what happens next?

I'm hearing the sound of goalposts moving... your claim was that Obama would order the indictment of Clinton if it turned out she wasn't competitive against the selected Republican. That's beyond his remit.

FlaviusAetius

Feb 5th 2016 10:20 am

Re: 2016 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giantaxe (Post 11859134)

Sorry. The goalposts didn't move. I assumed, as a given to the thesis, that the FBI would recommend indictment and that Obama would then decide yes or no to the indictment depending on whether he thought she would lose to a viable Republican. That would get her out of the way and give the Ds a chance if he though she'd lose, or there was a better D candidate.

I assumed anyone with an IQ above room temperature (which should be at least some on this thread) would understand the original assumption. You understood that assumption well enough to drag the Colin Powell red herring across the path to deflect, get equivalence, or otherwise muddy the pond.

Boomhauer

Feb 5th 2016 10:38 am

Re: 2016 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius (Post 11859126)

Depends on how Breitbart interprets "authoritarian." Probably in Breitbart's view, Stalin would have a Liberty Score of 1 to 0. Hitler a 0.

In Breitbartville the Nazis were socialists which means liberals/socialists are Nazis.

All times are GMT -12. The time now is 12:09 am.

Page 272 of 890

« First

172

222