neverleft wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
if donald is such a successful businessman, why have so many of his companies gone bankrupt?

Trump is involved in over 500 businesses according to his election filing. Do you think he is allowed a few bankruptcies out of the 500?

Just think of how many people are employed in those 500 businesses.

Yet the media and Hillary just harp on the few bankruptcies he has had.

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
if donald is such a successful businessman, why have so many of his companies gone bankrupt?

Trump is involved in over 500 businesses according to his election filing. Do you think he is allowed a few bankruptcies out of the 500?

Just think of how many people are employed in those 500 businesses.

Yet the media and Hillary just harp on the few bankruptcies he has had.

hero69 wrote:
if donald is such a successful businessman, why have so many of his companies gone bankrupt?

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
better crooked hillary than PATHOLOGICAL liar donald. how many of his companies ended up bankrupt

State can't account for six BILLION dollars under crooked Hillary-taxpayer dollar dollars. I'd say 'lol', but it's our tax dollars.

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
better crooked hillary than PATHOLOGICAL liar donald. how many of his companies ended up bankrupt

State can't account for six BILLION dollars under crooked Hillary-taxpayer dollar dollars. I'd say 'lol', but it's our tax dollars.

if donald is such a successful businessman, why have so many of his companies gone bankrupt?

I hope you don't expect a answer to this, Donny supporters don't answer question about the Orange one they just reply with a silly insult about Clinton

At the moment, I do not see Trump or any of his family in a soup line. People who criticize Trump's business failures do not understand the inherent risk in starting a business. For every Jeff Bezos Amazon success story, there are dozens of failures. Since Clinton has Zero business background we have to look at her "accomplishments " as a professional politician. And that circles back to my earlier question. What significant accomplishments did she have as Secretary of State or as a US Senator? Has her time in office contributed anything that has improved the lives of American citizens? Is she capable of delivering on all of her promises?

?If you want to stump a Democrat, ask them to name an accomplishment of Hillary Clinton,? Carly Fiorina quipped at Wednesday?s Republican debate. The line got hearty applause?but it also cut to the core of one of the defining lines of attacks against the former first lady and Democratic presidential frontrunner. After nearly forty years in public life, what exactly has she accomplished?

It?s a question that even, at times, has tripped up Clinton herself: During her 2014 book tour, when ABC?s Diane Sawyer asked her about her ?marquee achievement,? Clinton changed the subject and she fumbled over a similar question during a women?s forum in Manhattan last year. ?I see my role as secretary?in fact leadership in general in a democracy?as a relay race. You run the best race you can run, you hand off the baton. Some of what hasn?t been finished may go on to be finished,? she told Thomas Friedman. ?I?m very proud of the [economic] stabilization and the really solid leadership that the administration provided that I think now leads us to be able to deal with problems like Ukraine because we?re not so worried about a massive collapse in Europe.?

The question Fiorina posed has also tripped up members of the Obama administration. When State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki was asked last year to ?identify one tangible achievement? accomplished through one of Hillary Clinton?s key projects as Secretary of State?the first-ever audit of the department?Psaki punted, ?I am certain that those who were here at the time, who worked hard on that effort, could point out one.?

Hillary?s supporters have been stumped too. When Bloomberg Politics? Mark Halperin asked a focus group of Iowans this summer about Hillary Clinton?s accomplishments, one Democratic supporter said, ?I honestly can?t say I followed along [with] everything that was going on.?

So is Fiorina right? Are Democrats really unable to defend Clinton?s record on the merits? To find out, Politico Magazine on Thursday asked the nation?s top Democratic leaders and thinkers to name Hillary Clinton?s biggest accomplishment.

What is the most impressive item on Clinton?s record? Which legislative or policy triumph from her many years in office will be most important on the campaign trail? Not surprisingly, those surveyed all came up with an answer to defend their party?s likely presidential nominee. Whether these count as ?marquee,? ?significant,? or ?tangible?? You be the judge.

***

?It?s kind of hard to pick one accomplishment?

By Bill Burton, former senior strategist for Priorities USA Action, a super PAC in support of President Barack Obama.

It?s kind of hard to pick one accomplishment for Hillary Clinton. Personally, I?m sure she?d say her daughter and grandchild are her greatest accomplishments. Professionally, how about these three?

1. Her China speech on women.
2. Her role in killing Osama bin Laden.
3. Management of the State Department during which time we saw a 50 percent increase in exports to China, aggressive work on climate (particularly at Copenhagen), and the effort to create and implement the toughest sanctions ever on Iran?helping to lead us to the agreement currently on the table.

***

?The sanction on Iran that brought them to the table?

Howard Dean is the former governor of Vermont and the former chair of the Democratic National Committee.

Hillary Clinton was the principal author of the sanction on Iran that brought them to the table. We cannot afford any Know Nothings like Carly in the White House.

***

?Nearly every foreign policy victory of President Obama?s second term has Secretary Clinton?s fingerprints on it?

By Harry Reid, Senate Democratic leader.

American foreign policy was stronger when Hillary Clinton left the State Department than when she arrived. She took the reins from a Bush administration that had left America?s reputation deeply damaged and planted the seeds for the foreign policy successes we see today. From the agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, to the landmark normalization of relations with Cuba, nearly every foreign policy victory of President Obama?s second term has Secretary Clinton?s fingerprints on it.

Her accomplishments extend to health care, as well. As First Lady, she helped create and guide through Congress Children?s Health Insurance Program, a key program that brought health care coverage to millions of children. As a Senator, she worked across the aisle to provide full military health benefits to reservists and National Guard members.

Secretary Clinton was also an outspoken champion for women around the world. She set records for travel while leading the State Department and used every trip to empower the women of the 112 countries she visited. She made gender equality a priority of U.S. foreign policy. And she created the ambassador at large for global women?s issues, a post charged with integrating gender throughout the State Department.

***

?The SCHIP program ? which expanded health coverage to millions of lower-income children?

By Anita Dunn, Democratic political strategist.

After universal health care failed in 1994, the Clinton Administration was reluctant to go anywhere near healthcare again?Democrats lost the Senate and the House in 1994, and losing the house was for the first time in 40 years. Then-First Lady Hilary Clinton ended up being the White House ally and inside player who worked with Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch to create the SCHIP program in Clinton's second term, which expanded health coverage to millions of lower-income children. She has other accomplishments but this one made a huge difference, and came at a time when politically the Administration was cutting deals with Newt Gingrich on the budget and not necessarily all that enthusiastic about revisiting health care.

This obviously isn't her only accomplishment but it is meaningful because she took a political battering after the failure in 1994 but came back to fight again, and was able to work on a bipartisan basis during a very polarized time to get this done. Seems relevant!

***

?Clinton is one of the most accomplished people ever to run?

By Chuck Schumer, U.S. Senator for New York, Democratic party.

Hillary Clinton is one of the most accomplished people ever to run for the Presidency. I?m lucky enough to have seen those accomplishments up close from her time as Senator from New York and as Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton was instrumental in helping secure $21 billion in federal aid to help New York rebuild after 9/11. She fought tooth and nail to protect the first responders who rushed into danger when the towers collapsed and was pivotal in the passage of legislation that helped those first responders who got sick get the care and treatment they deserved. She worked night and day to protect and create jobs in New York, whether that was at the Niagara Falls Air Force base or the Center for Bioinformatics at the University of Buffalo. She also led the charge on the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Equity Act, which is now the law of the land.

As Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton was not only inspirational figure for billions of women around the globe, she also did much to restore the shattered credibility of the United States, which had lost so much influence following the failed foreign policies of the previous administration. She negotiated the cease-fire in Gaza that stopped the Hamas from firing rocket after rocket into Israel. She helped secure the START treaty?s ratification, and has advanced women?s rights in countries around the globe. That?s just a snapshot of what Hillary Clinton has accomplished over a lifetime of public service to New York and the country. If you really want to stump a Democrat, you should ask them which of Hillary?s accomplishments is your favorite?there are too many to choose from

***

?Rebuilding America?s leadership and prestige overseas after the Bush years?

Bill Richardson is a former secretary of energy and governor of New Mexico.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was key in rebuilding America?s leadership and prestige overseas after the Bush years. She restored our alliances with the EU and key Asian allies as well as key relationships in Africa and Latin America.

***

?The Pediatric Research Equity Act?

By Chris Dodd, former U.S. Senator for Connecticut, Democratic party.

Having worked with her in the Senate and on the HELP Committee, the first thing that came to mind was her authorship of the Pediatric Research Equity Act. This law requires drug companies to study their products in children. The Act is responsible for changing the drug labeling of hundreds of drugs with important information about safety and dosing of drugs for children. It has improved the health of millions of children who take medications to treat diseases ranging from HIV to epilepsy to asthma. Millions of kids are in better shape and alive because of the law Senator Clinton authored.

***

?Crippling sanctions against Iran?

By Paul Begala, political analyst for CNN and counselor to President Bill Clinton.

Easy: Iran sanctions. Sec. Clinton accomplished the nearly impossible mission of getting China, Russia, the European Union and the civilized world on board with crippling sanctions against Iran. This is what brought Iran to the negotiating table.

Ms. Fiorina may not see that as an accomplishment, since while she was CEO of Hewlett-Packard the firm sold hundreds of millions of dollars of computer products the the terrorist regime in Tehran, evading US sanctions.

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
better crooked hillary than PATHOLOGICAL liar donald. how many of his companies ended up bankrupt

State can't account for six BILLION dollars under crooked Hillary-taxpayer dollar dollars. I'd say 'lol', but it's our tax dollars.

if donald is such a successful businessman, why have so many of his companies gone bankrupt?

I hope you don't expect a answer to this, Donny supporters don't answer question about the Orange one they just reply with a silly insult about Clinton

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
better crooked hillary than PATHOLOGICAL liar donald. how many of his companies ended up bankrupt

State can't account for six BILLION dollars under crooked Hillary-taxpayer dollar dollars. I'd say 'lol', but it's our tax dollars.

if donald is such a successful businessman, why have so many of his companies gone bankrupt?

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
better crooked hillary than PATHOLOGICAL liar donald. how many of his companies ended up bankrupt

State can't account for six BILLION dollars under crooked Hillary-taxpayer dollar dollars. I'd say 'lol', but it's our tax dollars.

if donald is such a successful businessman, why have so many of his companies gone bankrupt?

And if Hillary is such a statesperson.... tell me one successful diplomatic accomplishment she had as SoS or one landmark bill she authored and pushed through Congress as a senator. The Washington DC crowd love her because she is already bought and paid for.... why waste good money corrupting Trump.

well, if you are so concerned about money being wasted on corrupting donald, then just vote for hillary. Isn't that simple?

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
better crooked hillary than PATHOLOGICAL liar donald. how many of his companies ended up bankrupt

State can't account for six BILLION dollars under crooked Hillary-taxpayer dollar dollars. I'd say 'lol', but it's our tax dollars.

if donald is such a successful businessman, why have so many of his companies gone bankrupt?

And if Hillary is such a statesperson.... tell me one successful diplomatic accomplishment she had as SoS or one landmark bill she authored and pushed through Congress as a senator. The Washington DC crowd love her because she is already bought and paid for.... why waste good money corrupting Trump.

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
better crooked hillary than PATHOLOGICAL liar donald. how many of his companies ended up bankrupt

State can't account for six BILLION dollars under crooked Hillary-taxpayer dollar dollars. I'd say 'lol', but it's our tax dollars.

if donald is such a successful businessman, why have so many of his companies gone bankrupt?

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
better crooked hillary than PATHOLOGICAL liar donald. how many of his companies ended up bankrupt

State can't account for six BILLION dollars under crooked Hillary-taxpayer dollar dollars. I'd say 'lol', but it's our tax dollars.

hero69 wrote:
better crooked hillary than PATHOLOGICAL liar donald. how many of his companies ended up bankrupt

Atsushi wrote:
https://newrepublic.com/article/134949 ... nton-derangement-syndrome

The Return of Clinton Derangement Syndrome

Quote:

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results, then Republicans lost their minds chasing the Clintons down rabbit holes years ago.

They spent the 1990s turning every gnat fart in the Clinton White House into a six-part inquiry, and at the end of it, Bill left office historically popular. They?ve spent the better part of the 2010s doing the same thing to Hillary, and though she is emphatically not historically popular, Republicans have, in the process, tended to humiliate themselves and abet Donald Trump?the one person politically incorrect enough to call her crooked and accuse her of playing the woman card, at last, at last.

What we witnessed Thursday was part of a pattern that goes back more than 20 years. A Clinton does something?in some cases innocuous, in this case worthy of criticism?and her political nemeses respond completely out of proportion. They?ve invested so heavily in the fantasy that Hillary?s one email or utterance away from complete self-destruction that they can?t bring themselves to accept anything less than the highest return. A sunk cost fallacy of power politics and partisan score-settling.

The pattern has become familiar enough that reporters now anticipate it. When FBI Director James Comey excoriated Clinton for her sloppy email protocol, it was almost a foregone conclusion that Republicans would peer so deeply into the mouth of the gift horse he?d just given them that they?d pop out the other end. On Thursday, they hauled him up to Capitol Hill knowing that any number of right-wing members on the House Oversight Committee might attack his integrity, and sure enough they did. Now the chase continues.

What made this episode unique is that the same media that expected Republicans to overreach played a critical role in increasing their expectations of a political windfall.

Republicans in Congress and their conservative media allies largely brought this upon themselves. They were the ones who made right-wing sop out of baseless speculation that Clinton might be indicted for violating a law nobody?s ever been convicted of violating.

But due to a strange brew of incentives that proved toxic?the competition for eyeballs, the lack of subject matter expertise, the industry standard of reportorial balance?the mainstream media did nothing to puncture this myth. To the contrary, it treated the threat of indictment as a permanent question mark hovering over Clinton?s campaign like a dark cloud. In a different media ecosystem, this wouldn?t have happened. A mix of common sense and truly basic research and reporting would have established a consensus that Republicans were trying to gin up intrigue and damaging innuendo, but that an indictment was extraordinarily unlikely. Instead, the remote odds of one came to be seen as something like a 50-50 proposition, to the point where even professional Democrats began to worry Clinton might be charged with a felony and prosecuted.

By the time Comey handed down his utterly predictable recommendation that prosecuting Clinton would not be reasonable, it had become a foregone conclusion on the right that an indictment was imminent, and could only be sidestepped through corruption.

The ensuing dissonance between what this unimpeachable, Republican FBI director had concluded and what the Republican Party had trained its voters to expect explains why some members of the oversight panel felt compelled to question Comey?s honor. It also made it impossible for Republicans to congratulate themselves on a job well done, thank Comey for laying out the truth about Clinton?s ?extreme carelessness,? and use his statement as ammunition in the election.

The only other way to resolve the inconsistency was to suggest that Clinton must have lied criminally along the way?to Congress under oath, or to the FBI in an effort to obstruct justice, or both. Jason Chaffetz, the committee?s chairman, thus promised to refer Clinton to the FBI for another investigation.

This will likely produce another disappointing finding (Clinton may have presented facts in a misleading way, but there?s no reason to believe she perjured herself). It will leave the conspiracy-minded GOP base blindsided once again, and give way to some other tangentially related but probably fruitless inquisition. We will be dealing with the fallout of the email investigation well into Clinton?s first term in the White House, unless Democrats reclaim the House and Senate. But now, instead of investigating Clinton for endangering national security or for some other crime related to her public service, it will transform into a shameless witch hunt. The kind of partisan onslaught that only seems to make the Clintons more powerful. And thus the insanity begets itself.

"Clinton may have presented facts in a misleading way, but there?s no reason to believe she perjured herself."

neverleft wrote:
CNN (Clinton News Network)? still has a too strong of a stable of liberal voices for me.

neverleft wrote:
I have never read such twisted posts. You should rename yourself as the Twister. You take what someone posted and completely twist it around and reply to your twisted version of the post. You even twisted FBI Director Comey?s transcript from the fbi web site. That?s ballzy .

neverleft wrote:
You are right I know nothing about IT after 40 years nothing has sunk in yet. I am still stuck on how to use the computer punch card machine. The damm thing keeps jamming.

TheBigGuy wrote:
Pebbles is the is the most insufferable BS artist on this blog... he makes the most outrageous personal attacks when he is proven wrong or challenged. His lightweight opinions are dressed with this faux intellectual superiority that would embarrass even the extreme narcissist. His pompous attitude must be barely tolerable to friends and family. What an empty suit.

JCMan8 wrote:
Pretty sure it's a she. And my description of "our resident know it all dope" is probably the most accurate thing ever said about her.

There's enough articulation and confidence that you think she actually knows what she's talking about, but when you probe the substance, it's a bunch of hot air. A classic example of the Dunning Kruger effect in action.

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results, then Republicans lost their minds chasing the Clintons down rabbit holes years ago.

They spent the 1990s turning every gnat fart in the Clinton White House into a six-part inquiry, and at the end of it, Bill left office historically popular. They?ve spent the better part of the 2010s doing the same thing to Hillary, and though she is emphatically not historically popular, Republicans have, in the process, tended to humiliate themselves and abet Donald Trump?the one person politically incorrect enough to call her crooked and accuse her of playing the woman card, at last, at last.

What we witnessed Thursday was part of a pattern that goes back more than 20 years. A Clinton does something?in some cases innocuous, in this case worthy of criticism?and her political nemeses respond completely out of proportion. They?ve invested so heavily in the fantasy that Hillary?s one email or utterance away from complete self-destruction that they can?t bring themselves to accept anything less than the highest return. A sunk cost fallacy of power politics and partisan score-settling.

The pattern has become familiar enough that reporters now anticipate it. When FBI Director James Comey excoriated Clinton for her sloppy email protocol, it was almost a foregone conclusion that Republicans would peer so deeply into the mouth of the gift horse he?d just given them that they?d pop out the other end. On Thursday, they hauled him up to Capitol Hill knowing that any number of right-wing members on the House Oversight Committee might attack his integrity, and sure enough they did. Now the chase continues.

What made this episode unique is that the same media that expected Republicans to overreach played a critical role in increasing their expectations of a political windfall.

Republicans in Congress and their conservative media allies largely brought this upon themselves. They were the ones who made right-wing sop out of baseless speculation that Clinton might be indicted for violating a law nobody?s ever been convicted of violating.

But due to a strange brew of incentives that proved toxic?the competition for eyeballs, the lack of subject matter expertise, the industry standard of reportorial balance?the mainstream media did nothing to puncture this myth. To the contrary, it treated the threat of indictment as a permanent question mark hovering over Clinton?s campaign like a dark cloud. In a different media ecosystem, this wouldn?t have happened. A mix of common sense and truly basic research and reporting would have established a consensus that Republicans were trying to gin up intrigue and damaging innuendo, but that an indictment was extraordinarily unlikely. Instead, the remote odds of one came to be seen as something like a 50-50 proposition, to the point where even professional Democrats began to worry Clinton might be charged with a felony and prosecuted.

By the time Comey handed down his utterly predictable recommendation that prosecuting Clinton would not be reasonable, it had become a foregone conclusion on the right that an indictment was imminent, and could only be sidestepped through corruption.

The ensuing dissonance between what this unimpeachable, Republican FBI director had concluded and what the Republican Party had trained its voters to expect explains why some members of the oversight panel felt compelled to question Comey?s honor. It also made it impossible for Republicans to congratulate themselves on a job well done, thank Comey for laying out the truth about Clinton?s ?extreme carelessness,? and use his statement as ammunition in the election.

The only other way to resolve the inconsistency was to suggest that Clinton must have lied criminally along the way?to Congress under oath, or to the FBI in an effort to obstruct justice, or both. Jason Chaffetz, the committee?s chairman, thus promised to refer Clinton to the FBI for another investigation.

This will likely produce another disappointing finding (Clinton may have presented facts in a misleading way, but there?s no reason to believe she perjured herself). It will leave the conspiracy-minded GOP base blindsided once again, and give way to some other tangentially related but probably fruitless inquisition. We will be dealing with the fallout of the email investigation well into Clinton?s first term in the White House, unless Democrats reclaim the House and Senate. But now, instead of investigating Clinton for endangering national security or for some other crime related to her public service, it will transform into a shameless witch hunt. The kind of partisan onslaught that only seems to make the Clintons more powerful. And thus the insanity begets itself.

SOS wrote:
56 percent of Americans disapprove of FBI decision to exonerate Hillary Clinton

But the bad news for Trump -
"Among all voters, 60 percent say the outcome makes no difference in their vote choice, including an identical share of political independents. Republican voters are the most likely to say the outcome discourages them to support Clinton ? 49 percent ? though the vast majority of this group was already strongly opposed to her candidacy before the FBI's announcement."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/th ... -915am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

TheBigGuy wrote:
Pebbles is the is the most insufferable BS artist on this blog... he makes the most outrageous personal attacks when he is proven wrong or challenged. His lightweight opinions are dressed with this faux intellectual superiority that would embarrass even the extreme narcissist. His pompous attitude must be barely tolerable to friends and family. What an empty suit.

Monroe wrote:
Pebble is a guy.

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote: FULL STOP!
Let?s get some facts out there. CNN is not ?lefty?. They are centrist, if anything. Mostly, they are crap and just pander to the top story.

Fox News had an employee whose wife worked on Bush?s campaign. They thought it was fine that their reporter remain covering the Bush campaign and thought there was not conflict.

CNN had a person covering Kerry during the campaign. They found that the person had a spouse which worked for Kerry. They removed that person from covering Kerry.

You wonder why I think you don?t know what you?re talking about. That?s an example. One organization saw a clear conflict of interest and removed the person. The other kept them on staff and on message. The fact that you think this is some sort of argument shows how far removed you are.

You do realize that CNN (Clinton News Network) just decided this year that there are other people in America besides Liberals right? They added a few conservatives to boost their ratings during this election year. It still has a too strong of a stable of liberal voices for me.

WSJ May 2016: ?I think it was a legitimate criticism of CNN that it was a little too liberal,? Mr. Zucker said. ?We have added many more middle-of-the-road conservative voices to an already strong stable of liberal voices. And I think that we are a much more-balanced network and, as a result, a much more inviting network to a segment of the audience that might not have otherwise been willing to come here.?

Gee if you want to talk about employees let?s not forget how CNN?s Candy Crowley inserted herself into the 2012 presidential debate.

?Obama objected, telling Romney to check the transcript. At that point, Crowley attempted a rare feat during a presidential debate: fact-checking in real time. ?He did in fact, sir,? Crowley told Romney referring to the president?s initial description of the assault on the U.S. Consulate.?

I have never read such twisted posts. You should rename yourself as the Twister. You take what someone posted and completely twist it around and reply to your twisted version of the post. You even twisted FBI Director Comey?s transcript from the fbi web site. That?s ballzy .

?He answered, ?Yes, and I?m not looking to pick on Gmail. Their security is actually pretty good. The weakness is in the individual users. But, yes, Gmail has full time security staff, and thinks about patching and logging and protecting their systems in a way that was not the case here.?(aka Hillary?s "unsophisticated" bargain basement server)


Quote:

Pebble wrote: "The word ?unsophisticated? is your term. Given your current technical knowledge I accept that description as much as I accept what Cookie Monster might describe a nuclear fusion reactor to be like?

un?so?phis?ti?cat?ed: not complicated or highly developed; basic. "unsophisticated computer software"

You are right I know nothing about IT after 40 years nothing has sunk in yet. I am still stuck on how to use the computer punch card machine. The damm thing keeps jamming.

.

Pebbles is the is the most insufferable BS artist on this blog... he makes the most outrageous personal attacks when he is proven wrong or challenged. His lightweight opinions are dressed with this faux intellectual superiority that would embarrass even the extreme narcissist. His pompous attitude must be barely tolerable to friends and family. What an empty suit.

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote: FULL STOP!
Let?s get some facts out there. CNN is not ?lefty?. They are centrist, if anything. Mostly, they are crap and just pander to the top story.

Fox News had an employee whose wife worked on Bush?s campaign. They thought it was fine that their reporter remain covering the Bush campaign and thought there was not conflict.

CNN had a person covering Kerry during the campaign. They found that the person had a spouse which worked for Kerry. They removed that person from covering Kerry.

You wonder why I think you don?t know what you?re talking about. That?s an example. One organization saw a clear conflict of interest and removed the person. The other kept them on staff and on message. The fact that you think this is some sort of argument shows how far removed you are.

You do realize that CNN (Clinton News Network) just decided this year that there are other people in America besides Liberals right? They added a few conservatives to boost their ratings during this election year. It still has a too strong of a stable of liberal voices for me.

WSJ May 2016: ?I think it was a legitimate criticism of CNN that it was a little too liberal,? Mr. Zucker said. ?We have added many more middle-of-the-road conservative voices to an already strong stable of liberal voices. And I think that we are a much more-balanced network and, as a result, a much more inviting network to a segment of the audience that might not have otherwise been willing to come here.?

Gee if you want to talk about employees let?s not forget how CNN?s Candy Crowley inserted herself into the 2012 presidential debate.

?Obama objected, telling Romney to check the transcript. At that point, Crowley attempted a rare feat during a presidential debate: fact-checking in real time. ?He did in fact, sir,? Crowley told Romney referring to the president?s initial description of the assault on the U.S. Consulate.?

I have never read such twisted posts. You should rename yourself as the Twister. You take what someone posted and completely twist it around and reply to your twisted version of the post. You even twisted FBI Director Comey?s transcript from the fbi web site. That?s ballzy .

?He answered, ?Yes, and I?m not looking to pick on Gmail. Their security is actually pretty good. The weakness is in the individual users. But, yes, Gmail has full time security staff, and thinks about patching and logging and protecting their systems in a way that was not the case here.?(aka Hillary?s "unsophisticated" bargain basement server)


Quote:

Pebble wrote: "The word ?unsophisticated? is your term. Given your current technical knowledge I accept that description as much as I accept what Cookie Monster might describe a nuclear fusion reactor to be like?

un?so?phis?ti?cat?ed: not complicated or highly developed; basic. "unsophisticated computer software"

You are right I know nothing about IT after 40 years nothing has sunk in yet. I am still stuck on how to use the computer punch card machine. The damm thing keeps jamming.

.

Pebble wrote: FULL STOP!
Let?s get some facts out there. CNN is not ?lefty?. They are centrist, if anything. Mostly, they are crap and just pander to the top story.

Fox News had an employee whose wife worked on Bush?s campaign. They thought it was fine that their reporter remain covering the Bush campaign and thought there was not conflict.

CNN had a person covering Kerry during the campaign. They found that the person had a spouse which worked for Kerry. They removed that person from covering Kerry.

You wonder why I think you don?t know what you?re talking about. That?s an example. One organization saw a clear conflict of interest and removed the person. The other kept them on staff and on message. The fact that you think this is some sort of argument shows how far removed you are.

Pebble wrote: "The word ?unsophisticated? is your term. Given your current technical knowledge I accept that description as much as I accept what Cookie Monster might describe a nuclear fusion reactor to be like?

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote: Nothing you have written here demonstrates a remote knowledge of IT systems let alone a server. What you know of computers is exceptionally minimal.

You write this ?The FBI does have evidence that her staffs email accounts were hacked because they were on a private company server. Which means any emails Hillary sent to them were hacked.? And want me to take you seriously as someone that knows IT. Do you even know what a hack is? That an email was hacked means someone got in, not that they have repeated access. You also assume that the hole wasn?t sealed when the hack occurred. This is willfully simple thinking and a largess of assumptions for someone that has been in IT for 40 years.

Nothing in the FBI report states that her server?s security was ?unsophisticated.? They only noted that it is possible someone could have hacked it without detection. This is a fact that applies to every server on the planet with internet access.

This is from the FBI Directors statement from the other day. Are you saying he made this up? That the private commercial email accounts that Clinton sent email to were not hacked?

? We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.?

** **
Also if the hostile actors (aka hackers) got into a private commercial system do you think they didn?t get into Clintons basement setup?

?Comey was asked whether a previous statement he made comparing Clinton?s servers to Gmail was implying ?that the private email servers of Secretary Clinton?s were perhaps less secure than a Gmail account, that is used for free, by a billion people around this planet??

He answered, ?Yes, and I?m not looking to pick on Gmail. Their security is actually pretty good. The weakness is in the individual users. But, yes, Gmail has full time security staff, and thinks about patching and logging and protecting their systems in a way that was not the case here.?

Aka an ?unsophisticated? bargain basement server setup.

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote: Do you even know what a hack is?That an email was hacked means someone got in, not that they have repeated access.

Here maybe this will help you understand when email is HACKED. Gee just think if someone HACKS your account they don't necessary have to change the password which means they could have access to your email repeatably for a very long time. Not an in and out HACK.

9 Things You Need to Do When Your Email is Hacked

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/top-th ... acked/story?id=19715483#1

neverleft wrote:
This is what I do I read/watch CNN (lefty) and I read/watch FoxNews (righty).

TheBigGuy wrote:
@ Pebbles

Totally wrong... they hacked the accounts of many of the creepy people like Sidney Blumenthal she consulted with during her Libya catastrophic crusade. You can enter unsecured networks via unsecured email.... ever get a letter from you friend saying the are vacationing in Mexico, have been kidnapped and need $1000? Do you really think foreign governments are going to admit to breaking into Clinton.com? If Hillary is as stupid as the FBI say she is.... I would not be surprised to discover she received an email from scamnigeria.com and sent her SS# and bank account# to claim $6 million from her long lost aunt in Lagos Nigeria. Don't click that link Hillary!

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Ted Cruz Accepts Trump's Offer To Speak At The RNC Without Endorsing Him

But wait...not long ago Donald referred to Cruz as 'Lyin Ted' - so what gives? Did Cruz somehow become 'honest' in the last month? Is it Donald that was lying when he called Cruz a liar? Was it all political theater? Does Donald think this is a new season of The Apprentice? If Donald was telling the truth and Ted is still a liar - we can assume anything that Cruz says at the convention is a fib . Donald is making this election cycle so confusing. And dangerous.

Growup... it is called shoring up the base after a bloody primary. Unlike the democrats there are a number of different voices in in the republican party and Trump needs that support at the state level . Whatever the personal stuff, beating Hillary is #1. HRC would be foolish not to let Sanders speak even after what he did to her publicly in their primaries. It will be interesting to see if she can overcome her personal arrogance and give Sanders a primetime slot. According to her, nothing Sanders proposed would work in today's economic climate. Bernie was just making up numbers.

SOS wrote:
Ted Cruz Accepts Trump's Offer To Speak At The RNC Without Endorsing Him

But wait...not long ago Donald referred to Cruz as 'Lyin Ted' - so what gives? Did Cruz somehow become 'honest' in the last month? Is it Donald that was lying when he called Cruz a liar? Was it all political theater? Does Donald think this is a new season of The Apprentice? If Donald was telling the truth and Ted is still a liar - we can assume anything that Cruz says at the convention is a fib . Donald is making this election cycle so confusing. And dangerous.

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Ted Cruz Accepts Trump's Offer To Speak At The RNC Without Endorsing Him

But wait...not long ago Donald referred to Cruz as 'Lyin Ted' - so what gives? Did Cruz somehow become 'honest' in the last month? Is it Donald that was lying when he called Cruz a liar? Was it all political theater? Does Donald think this is a new season of The Apprentice? If Donald was telling the truth and Ted is still a liar - we can assume anything that Cruz says at the convention is a fib . Donald is making this election cycle so confusing. And dangerous.

friend - bernie told you already that donald is a pathological liar!

SOS wrote:
Ted Cruz Accepts Trump's Offer To Speak At The RNC Without Endorsing Him

But wait...not long ago Donald referred to Cruz as 'Lyin Ted' - so what gives? Did Cruz somehow become 'honest' in the last month? Is it Donald that was lying when he called Cruz a liar? Was it all political theater? Does Donald think this is a new season of The Apprentice? If Donald was telling the truth and Ted is still a liar - we can assume anything that Cruz says at the convention is a fib . Donald is making this election cycle so confusing. And dangerous.