The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Topper]

Plus the Evangelicals can rally around this strong family values ticket. Six marriages and multiple affairs between them, Trump boasting of his many affairs with married women, Gingrich cheating on his wives, and divorcing one while she was battling cancer. And yet I keep hearing some on the right touting Trump's strong family values.

The GOP needs to drop the family values routine. If you are a national politician, the chances are, you are a schmuck. Plus, I don't care where somebody drops his pants or her dress as it's legal.

[PaloAltoCougar]

This Slate article seems like a pretty good summary of the whole email issue. The conclusion:

Yes, the Clintons are slippery, they have an unpleasant record of doing things their way, they have a problem when it comes to trustworthiness. Beyond that, there’s nothing here, folks, move along.

[Topper]

This Slate article seems like a pretty good summary of the whole email issue. The conclusion:

Move along because Slate is promoting the Clintons. The issue is about judgment and honesty. If you are evaluating a candidate who is both untrustworthy and exercises extremely bad judgment, that is relevant.

[Northwestcoug]

NWC has a pamphlet he'd like you to read.

Yes I do. But I'm taking a break from actively campaigning for the less worse choice until after the GOP nomination.

[creekster]

This Slate article seems like a pretty good summary of the whole email issue. The conclusion:

That's an all too facile explanation and conclusion. Even though not charged with a crime, she acted in a way that would normally cause someone to at least lose a security clearance. Think about that. This person, who was the secretary of state, who was entrusted with the most important security information that this nation has, and who now seeks the very highest office in the land, comported herself while she was in possession of that information in a manner that would disqualify her from having further access to it. And because some writer at Slate thinks we should just move along that makes it all OK? Hardly.

The Slate article's conclusion is a feeble effort to whitewash her conduct and that conclusion, constituted of nothing more than a groundless imperative, simply underscores just how indefensible her conduct is. Thus, if it was almost ANYONE but Trump, she would be immediately disqualified, in my mind. And even though the spectre of a Trump presidency may end up driving many reasonable people to Clinton, it doesn't mean that she should be forgiven, or that her misdeeds should be ignored. So I might end up voting her, but I will not move along. Instead, I want this example of her perfidy to hamstring her in her presidency and I will hope that we endure the next four years and then move on to someone of whom we can all at least be proud.

[YOhio]

This Slate article seems like a pretty good summary of the whole email issue. The conclusion:

Ugh. That was awful, PAC. I totally get that you're just trying to make yourself feel better about voting for her so I'll give you a pass on that one. Especially since he used his experience getting an interim secret clearance from the 70's to contextual an issue regarding email classifications 40 years later and I know you have a soft spot for that decade.

[myboynoah]

Ugh. That was awful, PAC. I totally get that you're just trying to make yourself feel better about voting for her so I'll give you a pass on that one. Especially since he used his experience getting an interim secret clearance from the 70's to contextual an issue regarding email classifications 40 years later and I know you have a soft spot for that decade.

Nobody gets a pass. There are options out there.

Write in Mitt!!!

[YOhio]

Lawyers defending clients for mishandling classified info super pumped to use the Hillary defense. Little do they know that a Slate writer was handed an interim secret clearance in the 70's.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nati...e88042162.html

[Uncle Ted]

Oh good hell... The AP has turned into Fox News!

AP FACT CHECK: Clinton email claims collapse under FBI probe

Key assertions by Hillary Clinton in defense of her email practices have collapsed under FBI scrutiny.


The agency's yearlong investigation found that she did not, as she claimed, turn over all her work-related messages for release. It found that her private email server did carry classified emails, also contrary to her past statements. And it made clear that Clinton used many devices to send and receive email despite her statements that she set up her email system so that she only needed to carry one.


FBI Director James Comey's announcement Tuesday that he will not refer criminal charges to the Justice Department against Clinton spared her from prosecution and a devastating political predicament. But it left much of her account in tatters and may have aggravated questions of trust swirling around her Democratic presidential candidacy.
[...]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/588c1...nder-fbi-probe

[Sleeping in EQ]

Oh good hell... The AP has turned into Fox News!


http://bigstory.ap.org/article/588c1...nder-fbi-probe

Nah. They're just giving legitimate journalism a try.

[byu71]

This Slate article seems like a pretty good summary of the whole email issue. The conclusion:

Just more fodder for my opinion the left is totally into the end justifies the means.

The left, we are smarter than you and we need to tell you what to do.

The right, we are more pure than you and we need to tell you what to do.

I am sick of both the right and left and the only reason I lean right is because their policies won't ship wreck us like the left policies will.

I guess shipwreck is overstating it as there are plenty of socialist counties that seem to manage to float along. I have never thought of America as floating along though.

I heard Hillary is warming up to the Sanders idea on tuition. That will help with the college students who couldn't care less about character if they can get a freebee.

[wuapinmon]

For any of yall considering Canada, just know that the province I'm in raised their "Harmonized" sales tax to 15% on July 1.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This Slate article seems like a pretty good summary of the whole email issue. The conclusion:

Geez, PAC. How dare you consider the possibility that Comey might be doing his job properly?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Lawyers defending clients for mishandling classified info super pumped to use the Hillary defense. Little do they know that a Slate writer was handed an interim secret clearance in the 70's.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nati...e88042162.html

And here is an article from the other side attempting to debunk the various accusations:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201...g-about/211344

This is a sufficiently technical issue that most Americans don't have the legal background or experience to fully and properly analyze what really happened and how egregious it is. Therefore, it seems that everyone is just drawn to sources and analysts that confirm their biases. In the end, I doubt this moves the needle much in the election. Trump is not the right candidate to exploit it.

[imanihonjin]

Shaka, imanihonjin.

Nice try.....I am not pro-Trump. Even if I voted, I would not and could not vote for Trump. I wouldn't vote for Hillary either.

I find it funny that my push back on statements that Hillary is not a less worse option than Trump is an indicator to you that I am "pro-Trump". I am pro-NeverHillaryorTrump. If you need any further help with nuance, let me know.

Also, before you go all search function and find some post where I was sarcastically supporting Trump, make sure you include context as well. TIA