'Clinton Discussed Executed Iranian Scientist on Email'--Cotton

originally posted by: paraphi
I don't know how you Americans tolerate this. You have been dealt a really bad hand. Trump or Clinton. Even people looking in from the outside can see there's a problem.

It's because most Americans, despite their claims of independence still rally around political parties the way the rest of the world rallies around their football teams. No matter how both of them are, someone is going to get 47% of the vote, someone is going to get 49% of the vote, 2/3 of the country isn't going to vote at all, and only 4% of the vote is going to be split between those who might be worthy of a vote.

We thrive on reality shows and since 2008 the Presidential election has always been the biggest reality show of the year.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Thanks for Correcting The Record.

Durp

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: IAMTAT

Hmm....

Hillary does need to answer for this, however it's a drop in the water.

Mao Zedong's "great leap forward" killed at least 20 million in just a few years. The Khmer Rouge killed at least a million people in four years.

Yes Hillary has blood on her hands but maybe Trump could have more if he keeps up his hypocritical xenophobic tirades. If he gets elected some poor folk could die and if you don't believe me I have two words for you...Desert Storm.

Ahh is that the same Desert Storm Hillary voted for and Trump opposed? Get your facts straight!

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie

Who would you prefer? A woman who has been schooled in international relations

Mainly a failure at every point, don't think that schooling helped much...do you?

or a Man who wants to keep Mexicans and Muslims out (despite the fact that many of his ex wives are foreign?)

He wants to fix the illegal alien issue, if it happens to be mainly Mexican that is just due to the close boundaries not that they are Mexican. Also , out of the 3 billion Muslims in the world a few million want to do us real harm, they would love to come here to do it..911? Do you think that maybe proper vetting of foreigners would be good? Being Muslim just fits the biggest terrorist issue that many are Muslim, so maybe they should be vetted carefully.

Oddly enough, many dont care to acknowledge the illegal aspect of illegal immigrants.

Trump didnt create the law, but believes they should be enforced.....shame on him!!

Of course its his fault. LOL

Another way to look at this is if these emails were damning and exposed information that could compromise the US or her assets, why would they be released, unclassified and not redacted in any way?

I think this is being made out to be a bigger deal than it really is.

originally posted by: introvert
Another way to look at this is if these emails were damning and exposed information that could compromise the US or her assets, why would they be released, unclassified and not redacted in any way?

I think this is being made out to be a bigger deal than it really is.

You got to be kidding ?

You can't possibly defend our Nations secrets in a basement server ?

Not a big deal to you, your family member wasn't killed by her stupidity.

originally posted by: whyamIhere
You got to be kidding ?

You can't possibly defend our Nations secrets in a basement server ?

Not a big deal to you, your family member wasn't killed by her stupidity.

The basement server is par for the course. And for the record, I've had friends and family killed in the line of duty by every President from Reagan when I was born to Obama.

I still don't see the server as a big deal. In fact, I would bet good money that it was planted specifically as a way for the US to leak information to other nations so that we could control what they were getting out of spying on us.

a reply to: whyamIhere

It appears it was not one of our nations secrets, otherwise it would have been classified.

a reply to: Aazadan

I still don't see the server as a big deal. In fact, I would bet good money that it was planted specifically as a way for the US to leak information to other nations so that we could control what they were getting out of spying on us.

Good grief! The lengths some people go to defend this bunch!

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Aazadan

I still don't see the server as a big deal. In fact, I would bet good money that it was planted specifically as a way for the US to leak information to other nations so that we could control what they were getting out of spying on us.

Good grief! The lengths some people go to defend this bunch!

Defend whom?

If these emails contained damning information they would have been classified. The fact that they were released, unclassified and not redacted means they were meaningless to our security.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Aazadan

I still don't see the server as a big deal. In fact, I would bet good money that it was planted specifically as a way for the US to leak information to other nations so that we could control what they were getting out of spying on us.

Good grief! The lengths some people go to defend this bunch!

There has to be a monthly check involved.

How can anyone defend this woman who's only accomplishment is...

She was cheated on.

originally posted by: queenofswords
Good grief! The lengths some people go to defend this bunch!

I'm not defending Hillary, it's just my opinion on how we manage intelligence. Espionage is an important component in maintaining relations between nations. Spying gives a foreign nation assurances that you are acting according to treaties, and plan to continue to act according to them. It also provides assurances that you aren't plotting against them. A nation that is immune to espionage is a nation that cannot be trusted to do anything. It's a good way to destroy your international reputation.

Given that computer security is very much about encouraging would be attackers to move on and find a less well protected target, it would make perfect sense for nations to have a few leaky servers where they can control the information that people are finding.

I don't know if that's what was going on in this case, but I greatly suspect we break security protocol's here and there to do so because that results in stronger security overall. If that's what Hillary were doing, it would explain why she can't come clean with the server. That wouldn't be something she could admit to. It would also explain why the FBI and Congress couldn't move forward with it.

In the case of this scientist though, it wasn't really a state secret.

originally posted by: whyamIhere
There has to be a monthly check involved.

How can anyone defend this woman who's only accomplishment is...

She was cheated on.

I'm a mercenary, if you're willing to offer me a bigger check I'll start defending Trump.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: whyamIhere
There has to be a monthly check involved.

How can anyone defend this woman who's only accomplishment is...

She was cheated on.

I'm a mercenary, if you're willing to offer me a bigger check I'll start defending Trump.

Agree or disagree, that has to be the best line in a political debate thread that I have ever read.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: whyamIhere
There has to be a monthly check involved.

How can anyone defend this woman who's only accomplishment is...

She was cheated on.

I'm a mercenary, if you're willing to offer me a bigger check I'll start defending Trump.

First bit of honesty I've seen in the thread.

After all, it's all about the money.

a reply to: introvert

How do you know some censored emails didn't contain info about this?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

How do you know some censored emails didn't contain info about this?

That could be true, but those emails, if they exist, were not mentioned in any of the articles published.

The stories we are talking about are speculation based on nothing worthy of classification.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Agree or disagree, that has to be the best line in a political debate thread that I have ever read.

Business is business.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: whyamIhere
There has to be a monthly check involved.

How can anyone defend this woman who's only accomplishment is...

She was cheated on.

I'm a mercenary, if you're willing to offer me a bigger check I'll start defending Trump.

Begs the questions: How much are you being paid to defend Hillary ... and by whom?

originally posted by: Snarl
Begs the questions: How much are you being paid to defend Hillary ... and by whom?

It involves multiple revenue streams, you can usually double and triple dip per post. The Clinton Foundation for example pays 1 cent/word for anti Trump sentences, .5 cents/word for pro Hillary sentences. Goldman Sachs offers 50 cents/post where they're positively mentioned. The Kochs offer 25 cents to bash Trump, 10 cents to promote Hillary. Soros offers the opposite, 25/Hillary, 10/Trump.

So if I were to write something like:
Perhaps Donald Trump wouldn't have had 4 bankruptcies if we had elected Hillary earlier and allowed her to improve banking regulations so that banks like Goldman Sachs could have bailed his sorry ass out.

That's 1 sentence/34 words
Clinton Foundation - 34 cents, 17 cents
Goldman - 50 cents
Kochs - 35 cents
Soros - 35 cents

That's $1.71 and it took me about 2 minutes to think of and write.

I'm always open to shilling for the other side though. We can either do it per post, maybe a certain number per day for a predefined amount? Let me know.