The Many Faces of US Politics...

[muppet]

John Kerry is the first US Secretary of State to primarily rely on a state.gov email address.

Maybe, but did anyone else go back in and delete tens of thousands of emails?

Clinton is the only Secretary anyone is interested in. National Security isn't about national security, it is about politics.

Colin Powell deleted them all. He said he has none to turn over. Nada.

Rice and Albright said they rarely used email, the latter's claim being a lot more credible imho than the former's, remember Rice was Secretary until 2009.

Some common sense would be useful, but we are unlikely to see any.

[whitey]

John Kerry is the first US Secretary of State to primarily rely on a state.gov email address.

Maybe, but did anyone else go back in and delete tens of thousands of emails?

Clinton is the only Secretary anyone is interested in. National Security isn't about national security, it is about politics.

Colin Powell deleted them all. He said he has none to turn over. Nada.

Rice and Albright said they rarely used email, the latter's claim being a lot more credible imho than the former's, remember Rice was Secretary until 2009.

Some common sense would be useful, but we are unlikely to see any.

Can you point me to the link where he said he deleted them....I searched and cant find one


What I read  he said was that "he has none to turn over". Big difference between saying that and willfully and deliberately deleting them from a private server that no one else has access to once they are under congressional subponea

[seafoid]

Just read there about Trump in March who insulted women by talking about Megyn Kelly menstruating in order to get her to STFU which turned off a lot of GOP women. He hasn't a hope of getting elected with that sort of attitude.

[muppet]

John Kerry is the first US Secretary of State to primarily rely on a state.gov email address.

Maybe, but did anyone else go back in and delete tens of thousands of emails?

Clinton is the only Secretary anyone is interested in. National Security isn't about national security, it is about politics.

Colin Powell deleted them all. He said he has none to turn over. Nada.

Rice and Albright said they rarely used email, the latter's claim being a lot more credible imho than the former's, remember Rice was Secretary until 2009.

Some common sense would be useful, but we are unlikely to see any.

Can you point me to the link where he said he deleted them....I searched and cant find one


What I read  he said was that "he has none to turn over". Big difference between saying that and willfully and deliberately deleting them from a private server that no one else has access to once they are under congressional subponea

I am looking and can't find what I thought I read, so maybe I have that wrong.

However, I have found link categorising him as an email user and also something like your quote: 'he has none to turn over' (see bold below), so maybe that is how I made the jump. But I accept your point that the word 'delete' would be too strong.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/

"......So that leaves Powell, a regular email user, as Clinton's only predecessor who serves as a useful comparison. When we reached out to the Clinton campaign, they pointed us to Powell.

Like Clinton, Powell used a personal email address. However, there's a big difference: Clinton hosted her email on a private server located in her home. Powell did not...."

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-personal-email-secretary-of-state-115707

"...The Times story also mentioned that Powell "used personal email to communicate with American officials and ambassadors and foreign leaders."
The statement continues: "He did not take any hard copies of emails with him when he left office and has no record of the emails. They were all unclassified and mostly of a housekeeping nature. He came into office encouraging the use of emails as a way of getting the staff to embrace the new 21st information world......"

[omaghjoe]

Tu quoque

Seriously Muppet what is with you and the Clinton lovein?

[whitey]

John Kerry is the first US Secretary of State to primarily rely on a state.gov email address.

Maybe, but did anyone else go back in and delete tens of thousands of emails?

Clinton is the only Secretary anyone is interested in. National Security isn't about national security, it is about politics.

Colin Powell deleted them all. He said he has none to turn over. Nada.

Rice and Albright said they rarely used email, the latter's claim being a lot more credible imho than the former's, remember Rice was Secretary until 2009.

Some common sense would be useful, but we are unlikely to see any.

Can you point me to the link where he said he deleted them....I searched and cant find one


What I read  he said was that "he has none to turn over". Big difference between saying that and willfully and deliberately deleting them from a private server that no one else has access to once they are under congressional subponea

I am looking and can't find what I thought I read, so maybe I have that wrong.

However, I have found link categorising him as an email user and also something like your quote: 'he has none to turn over' (see bold below), so maybe that is how I made the jump. But I accept your point that the word 'delete' would be too strong.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/

"......So that leaves Powell, a regular email user, as Clinton's only predecessor who serves as a useful comparison. When we reached out to the Clinton campaign, they pointed us to Powell.

Like Clinton, Powell used a personal email address. However, there's a big difference: Clinton hosted her email on a private server located in her home. Powell did not...."

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-personal-email-secretary-of-state-115707

"...The Times story also mentioned that Powell "used personal email to communicate with American officials and ambassadors and foreign leaders."
The statement continues: "He did not take any hard copies of emails with him when he left office and has no record of the emails. They were all unclassified and mostly of a housekeeping nature. He came into office encouraging the use of emails as a way of getting the staff to embrace the new 21st information world......"

See....that's exactly what they want you to think you read. 

They imply that what Hillary did not a big deal because sure didn't all the previous Secretaries of State do exactly the same (when if fact they did nothing of the sort)

The term they use for this technique is a false equivalency

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-false-email-equivalence-1454716185

[muppet]

John Kerry is the first US Secretary of State to primarily rely on a state.gov email address.

Maybe, but did anyone else go back in and delete tens of thousands of emails?

Clinton is the only Secretary anyone is interested in. National Security isn't about national security, it is about politics.

Colin Powell deleted them all. He said he has none to turn over. Nada.

Rice and Albright said they rarely used email, the latter's claim being a lot more credible imho than the former's, remember Rice was Secretary until 2009.

Some common sense would be useful, but we are unlikely to see any.

Can you point me to the link where he said he deleted them....I searched and cant find one


What I read  he said was that "he has none to turn over". Big difference between saying that and willfully and deliberately deleting them from a private server that no one else has access to once they are under congressional subponea

I am looking and can't find what I thought I read, so maybe I have that wrong.

However, I have found link categorising him as an email user and also something like your quote: 'he has none to turn over' (see bold below), so maybe that is how I made the jump. But I accept your point that the word 'delete' would be too strong.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/

"......So that leaves Powell, a regular email user, as Clinton's only predecessor who serves as a useful comparison. When we reached out to the Clinton campaign, they pointed us to Powell.

Like Clinton, Powell used a personal email address. However, there's a big difference: Clinton hosted her email on a private server located in her home. Powell did not...."

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-personal-email-secretary-of-state-115707

"...The Times story also mentioned that Powell "used personal email to communicate with American officials and ambassadors and foreign leaders."
The statement continues: "He did not take any hard copies of emails with him when he left office and has no record of the emails. They were all unclassified and mostly of a housekeeping nature. He came into office encouraging the use of emails as a way of getting the staff to embrace the new 21st information world......"

See....that's exactly what they want you to think you read. 

They imply that what Hillary did not a big deal because sure didn't all the previous Secretaries of State do exactly the same (when if fact they did nothing of the sort)

The term they use for this technique is a false equivalency

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-false-email-equivalence-1454716185

You can persuade me that Hillary is flawed, but I don't expect anyone, let alone politicians to be perfect.

But Trump?

No way.

As for Powell, I liked him. If it were between him and Hillary I'd go for Powell.

[whitey]

IMHO the Clintons have gotten away with murder for years, aided and abetted in large part by a very sympathetic mainstream media.

The problem for them today is that most people don't solely rely on the MSM for their news.....they get it from lots of different sources

The Clintons were/are excellent liars, but in the era of instant fact check their bullshit doesn't fly any more

Perfect example is Bill and Hillary Clinton claiming on the campaign that Bernie also got paid for speeches (the old false equivalency) so why was everyone ganging up on poor Hillary. Bernie gave one speech for $500 which he donated to a real charity (not the Clinton Foundation). Within minutes the Clintons were being ridiculed over social media for making such an outrageous claim.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/sanders-shatters-clintons_b_9276584.html

[J70]

IMHO the Clintons have gotten away with murder for years, aided and abetted in large part by a very sympathetic mainstream media.

The problem for them today is that most people don't solely rely on the MSM for their news.....they get it from lots of different sources

The Clintons were/are excellent liars, but in the era of instant fact check their bullshit doesn't fly any more

Perfect example is Bill and Hillary Clinton claiming on the campaign that Bernie also got paid for speeches (the old false equivalency) so why was everyone ganging up on poor Hillary. Bernie gave one speech for $500 which he donated to a real charity (not the Clinton Foundation). Within minutes the Clintons were being ridiculed over social media for making such an outrageous claim.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/sanders-shatters-clintons_b_9276584.html

What have they got away with though?

Bill Clinton was dogged by sex scandals from before the 1992 NH primary. Then all kinds of scandals and conspiracies were continually thrown up and investigated, culminating in him lying under oath about a bj from an intern and getting impeached. Just because Bill Clinton kept getting up and coming back doesn't mean that the media weren't doing their job. The Washington Post broke and hyped Whitewater. The NY Times hammered him over Lewinsky. Are those not the epitome of the so-called MSM? It wasn't just Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and Fox News going after Clinton, although they did drive the Vince Foster type conspiracy shit. Has there been a president MORE investigated by Congress than him?

Same with Hillary. If even a quarter of the effort was put into investigating the Iraq War as has been put into investigating and hyping Benghazi and these emails, the Bush administration would have been tied in knots fighting scandals. If you want to talk about a compliant media, look no further than the rush to the Iraq war. And how many congressional and agency investigations have there been into Benghazi and the emails?

Is the real "problem" not that they usually seem to beat these charges, whether due to them being trumped up or lacking in evidence, rather than them not being investigated and reported?

[heganboy]

the actual issue with false equivalence is the perpetuation of the myth that the make up of both parties in the US is broadly similar in terms of moderates and hardliners.

The truth not surprisingly is somewhat different:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/how-the-press-can-deal-with-the-benghazi-committee/410251/

[whitey]

the actual issue with false equivalence is the perpetuation of the myth that the make up of both parties in the US is broadly similar in terms of moderates and hardliners.

The truth not surprisingly is somewhat different:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/how-the-press-can-deal-with-the-benghazi-committee/410251/

Maybe....but I was using the terms in direct reference to one specific topic....Clinton surrogates stating  that Colin's Powells email issues were the same as Hillarys.....which they are NOT

[whitey]

IMHO the Clintons have gotten away with murder for years, aided and abetted in large part by a very sympathetic mainstream media.

The problem for them today is that most people don't solely rely on the MSM for their news.....they get it from lots of different sources

The Clintons were/are excellent liars, but in the era of instant fact check their bullshit doesn't fly any more

Perfect example is Bill and Hillary Clinton claiming on the campaign that Bernie also got paid for speeches (the old false equivalency) so why was everyone ganging up on poor Hillary. Bernie gave one speech for $500 which he donated to a real charity (not the Clinton Foundation). Within minutes the Clintons were being ridiculed over social media for making such an outrageous claim.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/sanders-shatters-clintons_b_9276584.html

What have they got away with though?

Bill Clinton was dogged by sex scandals from before the 1992 NH primary. Then all kinds of scandals and conspiracies were continually thrown up and investigated, culminating in him lying under oath about a bj from an intern and getting impeached. Just because Bill Clinton kept getting up and coming back doesn't mean that the media weren't doing their job. The Washington Post broke and hyped Whitewater. The NY Times hammered him over Lewinsky. Are those not the epitome of the so-called MSM? It wasn't just Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and Fox News going after Clinton, although they did drive the Vince Foster type conspiracy shit. Has there been a president MORE investigated by Congress than him?

Same with Hillary. If even a quarter of the effort was put into investigating the Iraq War as has been put into investigating and hyping Benghazi and these emails, the Bush administration would have been tied in knots fighting scandals. If you want to talk about a compliant media, look no further than the rush to the Iraq war. And how many congressional and agency investigations have there been into Benghazi and the emails?

Is the real "problem" not that they usually seem to beat these charges, whether due to them being trumped up or lacking in evidence, rather than them not being investigated and reported?

I don't have the time to research specifics as much of Bill Clintons issues occurred pre Internet so I would be going solely off memory at his point.

But looking at this election cycle....take the NY Times as an example of MSM pro Clinton bias:

They wrote a mildly flattering piece about Bernie a couple of months back, then went back in and edited it that same morning taking out the flattering piece.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/publiceditor/2016/03/17/new-york-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/?referer=


A couple of days ago they attempted a hit piece on Trump which has backfired spectacularly as one of the people interviewed came out within hours and stated that her statements were  completely misrepresented.

Pre social media, egregious bias like this would pass unnoticed but not anymore.

[screenexile]

IMHO the Clintons have gotten away with murder for years, aided and abetted in large part by a very sympathetic mainstream media.

The problem for them today is that most people don't solely rely on the MSM for their news.....they get it from lots of different sources

The Clintons were/are excellent liars, but in the era of instant fact check their bullshit doesn't fly any more

Perfect example is Bill and Hillary Clinton claiming on the campaign that Bernie also got paid for speeches (the old false equivalency) so why was everyone ganging up on poor Hillary. Bernie gave one speech for $500 which he donated to a real charity (not the Clinton Foundation). Within minutes the Clintons were being ridiculed over social media for making such an outrageous claim.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/sanders-shatters-clintons_b_9276584.html

What have they got away with though?

Bill Clinton was dogged by sex scandals from before the 1992 NH primary. Then all kinds of scandals and conspiracies were continually thrown up and investigated, culminating in him lying under oath about a bj from an intern and getting impeached. Just because Bill Clinton kept getting up and coming back doesn't mean that the media weren't doing their job. The Washington Post broke and hyped Whitewater. The NY Times hammered him over Lewinsky. Are those not the epitome of the so-called MSM? It wasn't just Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and Fox News going after Clinton, although they did drive the Vince Foster type conspiracy shit. Has there been a president MORE investigated by Congress than him?

Same with Hillary. If even a quarter of the effort was put into investigating the Iraq War as has been put into investigating and hyping Benghazi and these emails, the Bush administration would have been tied in knots fighting scandals. If you want to talk about a compliant media, look no further than the rush to the Iraq war. And how many congressional and agency investigations have there been into Benghazi and the emails?

Is the real "problem" not that they usually seem to beat these charges, whether due to them being trumped up or lacking in evidence, rather than them not being investigated and reported?

I don't have the time to research specifics as much of Bill Clintons issues occurred pre Internet so I would be going solely off memory at his point.

But looking at this election cycle....take the NY Times as an example of MSM pro Clinton bias:

They wrote a mildly flattering piece about Bernie a couple of months back, then went back in and edited it that same morning taking out the flattering piece.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/publiceditor/2016/03/17/new-york-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/?referer=


A couple of days ago they attempted a hit piece on Trump which has backfired spectacularly as one of the people interviewed came out within hours and stated that her statements were  completely misrepresented.

Pre social media, egregious bias like this would pass unnoticed but not anymore.

There's no way Trump is clean though surely something will come out to nail him I can't think that he's whiter than white when it comes down to the nitty gritty. There has to be a safe somewhere with all the dirt in the world on Trump!!

[J70]

IMHO the Clintons have gotten away with murder for years, aided and abetted in large part by a very sympathetic mainstream media.

The problem for them today is that most people don't solely rely on the MSM for their news.....they get it from lots of different sources

The Clintons were/are excellent liars, but in the era of instant fact check their bullshit doesn't fly any more

Perfect example is Bill and Hillary Clinton claiming on the campaign that Bernie also got paid for speeches (the old false equivalency) so why was everyone ganging up on poor Hillary. Bernie gave one speech for $500 which he donated to a real charity (not the Clinton Foundation). Within minutes the Clintons were being ridiculed over social media for making such an outrageous claim.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/sanders-shatters-clintons_b_9276584.html

What have they got away with though?

Bill Clinton was dogged by sex scandals from before the 1992 NH primary. Then all kinds of scandals and conspiracies were continually thrown up and investigated, culminating in him lying under oath about a bj from an intern and getting impeached. Just because Bill Clinton kept getting up and coming back doesn't mean that the media weren't doing their job. The Washington Post broke and hyped Whitewater. The NY Times hammered him over Lewinsky. Are those not the epitome of the so-called MSM? It wasn't just Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and Fox News going after Clinton, although they did drive the Vince Foster type conspiracy shit. Has there been a president MORE investigated by Congress than him?

Same with Hillary. If even a quarter of the effort was put into investigating the Iraq War as has been put into investigating and hyping Benghazi and these emails, the Bush administration would have been tied in knots fighting scandals. If you want to talk about a compliant media, look no further than the rush to the Iraq war. And how many congressional and agency investigations have there been into Benghazi and the emails?

Is the real "problem" not that they usually seem to beat these charges, whether due to them being trumped up or lacking in evidence, rather than them not being investigated and reported?

I don't have the time to research specifics as much of Bill Clintons issues occurred pre Internet so I would be going solely off memory at his point.

But looking at this election cycle....take the NY Times as an example of MSM pro Clinton bias:

They wrote a mildly flattering piece about Bernie a couple of months back, then went back in and edited it that same morning taking out the flattering piece.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/publiceditor/2016/03/17/new-york-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/?referer=


A couple of days ago they attempted a hit piece on Trump which has backfired spectacularly as one of the people interviewed came out within hours and stated that her statements were  completely misrepresented.

Pre social media, egregious bias like this would pass unnoticed but not anymore.

And some prominent liberal outlets are all in for Bernie and hammering Hillary at times (check Salon, for example).

That's not my point though - my point is that the Clintons' various scandals and problems, real or conspiracy, have been covered to death. Hillary's unfavourable polls reflect the cloak and dagger perception that is out there amongst a substantial portion of the population.

And on this cycle, everyone knows about Benghazi and the emails. Whatever the FBI decides in terms of recommending charges or no charges is going to receive blanket coverage. If the latest congressional Benghazi investigation should uncover something Hilary actually did wrong in terms of her directions that night, THAT will receive blanket coverage.

The NY Times dedicated an editorial to telling her to release the transcripts of the Goldman Sachs speeches a couple of months back. That was hardly welcomed in the Clinton campaign HQ.

[screenexile]

Now Trump's tweeting about "The Energizer"... what the f**k has that got to do with running the country.

If Trump gets voted in as President then America will go down as the most stupid nation on the face of the planet!!!