New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

Questioning our NATO allies commitment to the deal is legitimate. We are paying the for the vast majority of Europe's protection. It's in our best interest to remain in NATO, but our other allies have to keep their end of the bargain, ie contribute 2% of GDP at minimum towards defense. Only Brtain, US, Poland, Estonia, and Greece have met those obligations and overall spending has reduced in recent years. This is a trend that needs to be corrected for the sustainability of NATO. Threatening to walk away from NATO altogether isn't a good idea, but it's just Trump's way of "negotiating."

Willingness to use nuclear weapons? He said he wouldn't take it off the table, which you shouldn't, unless you can ensure every other nuke holding nation will do the same. The only conversation I recall this being discussed is the following: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...nald-trump-talked-about-using-nukes-against-/

I'm not saying you shouldn't consider his position on nuclear weapons, but I don't believe he ever threatened to use them. Unless you consider "not taking them off the table" as a threat to use them.

 

I know what kind of guy you are so your attempt to get at me via my son falls way short. You sir have to live with being a scumbag. Good luck with that.

 

Sure, if you want your president being a vindictive jack***. Ideally, a winning candidate would take the high road and just be sure that said criminal never holds a high political office again in order to try to bring the country together after a highly partisan election cycle. However, the Republicans thrive off of the country being divided so that wouldn't be likely.

 

A guy who blames the Russians for hacking e-mails and thinks that cancels out the content of the e-mails wants to talk about deflection. That's rich.

 

Getting the DOJ to do their job instead of giving immunity to a politician due to their status isn't really being vindictive. Also, the way that you are sure that the criminal never holds high political office is by putting pressure on the DOJ to do their job. If they did their job, that person would be barred from holding any government office ever again and likely they'd see some time in jail or at the very least on probation.

It is kind of funny that you blame Republicans for divisiveness given that Obama is absolutely huge when it comes to dividing the country. In just 5 or 6 years of him in office he managed to set race relations back 50 years with his divisive rhetoric.

Anyway, I get the anti-Trump stance, but you don't have to go full potato when you are doing it.

 

Huh? I didn't say anything about your son.

Not sure why you have a chip on your shoulder, but it is your burden to live with.

 

Bobby you have been fighting the liberals lately. What gives? LOL

 

Where did I say that? Even if I don't like the methods being used, I'm inclined to pay attention to anything damaging in the emails. What's different from you and I is that while I see both sides of the issue, you are interested in what is in the emails while at the same time vehemently defending Russian intervention in an election because you find it politically beneficial.

 

Sure, you didn't use that slur that way? I don't have a chip on my shoulder. I'm an advocate for not only my son but also for others with Autism of all races, ages and backgrounds. I run a charity that makes a difference for people like my son.

My responsibility as his father is also to remind people that word is offensive to families of special needs people. I have mentioned it to you before. If you keep using the word, that's on you. No skin off my back, I just thought you'd need to know there are people who think you are an ******* for doing it. I'm a better man for having been my son's father for the last 20 years. He taught me more than I could have ever taught him. I have definitely moved past caring what a man like you thinks.

 

I'm not defending what the Russians did. It's wrong, if they actually did it. That's an entirely different thing though.

Post edited

 

From time to time I end up fighting partisan Democrats and partisan Republicans because I'm not a member of either and I think they are both bad. I'm against the overall philosophy in most cases when it comes to Democrats and.....well Republicans just nominated Donald F'n Trump.

 

Hahahaha.

Hilary Clinton has become Donald Trump on twitter and her speeches the last week.

Trump has actually toned it down lately.

 

and now the russkies just released the marc rich pardon file too. they need to be stopped! can the UN help? can ban ki-moon ban pootin?

 

Well in fairness they have a lot in common given that they represent the bottom of the barrel in American politics. Hell that's why Trump was such a big fan of hers before he decided to pretend to be a Republican.

 

That's because he knows he's losing and thinking about life after the election. Lots of fences to mend.

 

I am glad that you are a better man for being the father of an autistic son......... but that has nothing to do with anything being discussed, or what I said. I am sure that it weighs on your mind, but not everything people say to you or in context to the topic at issue is a slight against your son.

As far as someone looking like an "*******", I suggest you look in the mirror.... you post some of the most negative and nasty comments on these boards. I don't care, other than I find it grin worthy that you are so quick to judge others but are oblivious to your own failings.

 

He is winning bigly.

 

the purpose of banning Muslims to protect national security. they aren't exactly having alot of success assimilating to any modern civilization. countries all over Europe are trying to undo/solve their mistake of letting in Muslims.

oh good grief. Yea i bet Russia was never going to hack hillary until they got the green light from trump......

its only banana republic style if shes innocent which we all know she isn't. Why do you think it s a personal vendetta? Why couldn't be for teh same reason every FBI official is saying ; because she broke the damn law and greatly weakened national security.

weapons of mass destruction quite often bring national security. see WWII. nobody has invaded the US since we had weapons of mass destruction.

 

The point is that if you constitute a "religious test" for entering the country, becoming a citizen, etc., you basically crap all over the founding principles of the country. You also set a precedent for such types of "tests" to be issued for *other* groups. This is an extremely dangerous path to go down that honestly doesn't offer anything in the way of security. At best, it's the TSA for thought crimes.

It's not about Hillary, it's about the US electoral process. You can't have the leader of the country flippantly suggesting our enemies interfere with our state business.

This is the type of kangaroo court nonsense I just warned you about. Apparently you are too blinded by your own bias to see how disturbing it is. This is the exact justification the Kim Jong Un's of the world use when they go after someone they deem a criminal or enemy of the state. You can't wield the presidency like a weapon, and suggesting that you would is scary.

Peace through power is one thing. Peace through threats is different (and historically unsuccessful).

 

The FBI is also subject to FOIA, so I think I do get the transparency I'm owed from Comey as well. Unless he has a private server through which he operates some kind of shadow-FBI.