Hillary Clinton Declares ‘Not Even Remotest Chance’ She’ll Be Charged in Email Scandal

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: Sillyolme

Because liberal loons are fabricating polls that show Hillary beating Trump in the general election.

Just as the RINOs are fabricating polls that show Kasich beating Hillary. I mean come on, even as much as I despise her, Kasich would not stand a chance. ~$heopleNation

Of course. Liberal loons and RINO's are fabricating polls. Perhaps you believe that because the polls do not show what you want them to.

a reply to: introvert

So you're saying Kasich beats Hillary in the general election? Oh ok gotcha then. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: Gryphon66

I comment on the RINO establishment all the time, they are rigging the system against Trump, just as Hillary's people are rigging the system against mad man Bernie. ~$heopleNation

Yes, I see the "but I also criticize X" excuse all the time, but here's your fundamental logical flaw: you just chastised me above for "buying into" a two-sided system ... and now you're defending your actions complaining about one side (or the other) of it.

All of you "I hate liberals but the two sides are really the same" folks suffer this particular form of blindness, IMO.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Gryphon66

Time will certainly tell which constructions on reality bear the closest resemblance to . . .

uhhhhh . . . objective reality.

I don't think the gritchy one as much contact with the truly real . . . or sane . . . or good.

I see your convictions about such things have, evidently, not changed much.

Nor have mine.

Convictions often have little to do with reality; got facts?

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: introvert

So you're saying Kasich beats Hillary in the general election? Oh ok gotcha then. ~$heopleNation

It's possible.

Kasich is a reasonable man that does not spit the same rhetoric and propaganda as the other Right Wingers. He also has a good track record as a governor.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Being aware of the corruption on both sides does not prevent me from bringing to light the irrational beliefs of liberals. At least that is how I see it anyway. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: introvert

No way ever, The guy has not won a single state other than his own. Kasich is just a parasite sticking around to suck off of the host Trump. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: introvert

No way ever, The guy has not won a single state other than his own. Kasich is just a parasite sticking around to suck off of the host Trump. ~$heopleNation

The polls that have been conducted ask people whom they would vote for if it was Clinton Vs. Kasich, and Kasich is well ahead.

I'm not saying he could win the nomination at this point, but it does appear that the polls say he is probably the only person that could beat Hillary.

a reply to: introvert

I just can't see how a guy that has only won his home state beats her in those polls. Maybe they are polling his home state, I don't know.

Personally, I believe that Trump is the only candidate running that could beat Hillary because of his ability to bring over independents, Reagan Democrats & people who would not normally vote. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: Gryphon66

Being aware of the corruption on both sides does not prevent me from bringing to light the irrational beliefs of liberals. At least that is how I see it anyway. ~$heopleNation

Irrational beliefs eh? You mean, like believing that millions of people you label as "liberal" all believe the same thing?

Good point; most beliefs are irrational -- this is why I focus on facts.

a reply to: SheopleNation

I just can't see how a guy that has only won his home state beats her in those polls.

He beats her in the polls because Kasich actually does what you claim Trump can do. He gets independents, Reagan Dems and such...plus the rest of the GOP that would vote for Kasich over Hillary.

A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary, to be honest.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I never said all liberals believe the same thing, But most of them in the media pretty much have the same agenda.

Also, You and I just need to agree to disagree about what are the facts, and what are not. Opinions vary, it's the way of the World. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: introvert

I get your point about Kasich, because yes he is a RINO, so I suppose he would bring over those groups, but I don't think so nationwide if they could vote for Hillary instead.

I also think that those disgruntled RINOs would come around once Trump won the nomination. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: SheopleNation

I get your point about Kasich, because yes he is a RINO,

Perhaps that is part of the problem. Republicans used to be more like Kasich. They were halfway reasonable and were not as partisan as they are now. Kasich is a true republican, and those that have taken the party to new extremes are the RINO's.

but I don't think so nationwide if they could vote for Hillary instead

That's not what the polls show.

I also think that those disgruntled RINOs would come around once Trump won the nomination.

You think, or you hope? Perhaps that is more of that wishful thinking clouding reasonable judgement.

It appears that you have already come to a conclusion, with a goal in mind and trying to twist logic to fit your desired outcome.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think that there are a raft of conservative patriotic researchers who have presented plenty of facts.

And, some of us have had personal connections with folks with personal factual EXPERIENCES [vs mere opinions] that bear tons on the character of the gritchy one.

However, while many hereon scream at top volume about proof . . . very few folks seem able to fair-mindedly evaluate serious evidence--even evidence that conclusively proves facts about such characters.

I no longer get all that hot and bothered about trying to prove facts. It's an exercise in futility. I'd rather keep my blood pressure calm and offer my perspective for those who care to bother reading it. Folks seriously interested in proof know how to look it up.

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: Gryphon66

I never said all liberals believe the same thing, But most of them in the media pretty much have the same agenda.

Also, You and I just need to agree to disagree about what are the facts, and what are not. Opinions vary, it's the way of the World. ~$heopleNation

Ah, so when called on it, you're willing to adjust your comment to "most of them in the media" ... so, at best, it would seem that you've tended to grossly exaggerate the facts here for ... what ... rhetorical space? LOL.

But then, of course, you want to denature everything to the predictable "we all have opinions" and pretend that says something about the truth, or about provable observable and reasonable facts. It is true we all have opinions, but opinions are not facts. By any means. And it is a Fact that to gesture at "all liberals" is fallacious.

Good day.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think that there are a raft of conservative patriotic researchers who have presented plenty of facts.

Where? Here? Questionable and vague. Who? What? When?

Also, please ... what a pompous statement "a raft of conservative patriotic researchers" ... as if conservatives have the lock on patriotism, not to mention, honesty. Absurd. Talk about something specific.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Gryphon66

And, some of us have had personal connections with folks with personal factual EXPERIENCES [vs mere opinions] that bear tons on the character of the gritchy one.

And some of you watch Fox and read your Bibles and decide what reality is somewhere between the two sources. /shrug

And please, "the gritchy one" sounds ridiculous and childish. Why can't you simply refer to Clinton by her name? That, at least, is in the spirit of the ATS T&C.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Gryphon66

However, while many hereon scream at top volume about proof . . . very few folks seem able to fair-mindedly evaluate serious evidence--even evidence that conclusively proves facts about such characters.

Yeah, yeah. Present some evidence then. Just pull some off "the raft" you were referring to earlier.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Gryphon66

I no longer get all that hot and bothered about trying to prove facts. It's an exercise in futility. I'd rather keep my blood pressure calm and offer my perspective for those who care to bother reading it. Folks seriously interested in proof know how to look it up.

Color me unsurprised that you don't care about facts and are content to go on belief or whatever passes for belief in your mind.

What a silly cop out. Fortunately, there's a better standard here at ATS than "look it up if you don't agree" ... if you don't have the facts to back up your claims, then, like several unique body parts, that's just your opinion, and most everyone's got them.

Period.

Here's a few basic facts for you guys to chew on ...

1. Anyone who used Hillary's personal email address (hr22@clintonemail.com) was well-aware that it was not the "@state.gov" one. 100's of State Department employees and others in government realized and were aware that Clinton used her private address (for the sake of convenience, LOL in retrospect) EVERY DAY ... this did not have to be revealed to them.

2. Prior Secretaries had used their own private emails some completely unsecured.

3. A Politifact analysis also confirmed that Clinton's practices complied with laws and regulations, including support from the former director of a prominent government accountability organization: "In Clinton's defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it). Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account. Because these rules weren't in effect when Clinton was in office, 'she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time,' said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization." (Reference)

4. The FBI investigation regards security protocols and is not a "criminal investigation." This has been repeatedly stated and repeatedly ignored.

5. None of these facts will make a tiny bit of difference to Clinton-haters nor this current iteration of the Bash Fest.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SheopleNation

I just can't see how a guy that has only won his home state beats her in those polls.

He beats her in the polls because Kasich actually does what you claim Trump can do. He gets independents, Reagan Dems and such...plus the rest of the GOP that would vote for Kasich over Hillary.

A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary, to be honest.

Why is he in last place!

You don't make any sense.