• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Politics & The CIC/Prez

Forums New posts
She is not being investigated. The emails are. The Clinton aide was a government employee who set up the server, but wanted limited immunity before testifying. No, there is no evidence that anything classified was put on that server, only some items that were later considered secret. There are no felonies here. Much of this is political smoke and mirrors.
 
You know it's times like this I REALLY wish I had John Oliver's job. Ah the fun I'd have with the Trumpiphiles™©®

A little feedback if you will should it be?
Trumpaphiles
Trumpiphiles
Trumpophiles

On second thought maybe I should just go with bunch of morons but I don't think I could trademark that.

Although in this case I'm not really sure who started what, regardless who threw first punch it's not to hard too figure out who has created this atmosphere and no I don't think it's eight years of failed Obama policy. The rot arguably started with Clinton and will continue regardless whose sitting in the seat as nobody is going to pull back on presidential powers/authority.

Although it could be a cultural sickness going around. Too bad Jack Forbes isn't still with us.


Donald Trump supporters, protesters clash in Chicago - CNNPolitics.com
 
Last edited:
That's a right wing source that quotes Fox News, which has had it in for Clinton for years.

The lag and short of it is that material may have later been labeled secret, but there is no evidence that, at the time the messages were sent, any of the material it contained was regarded as secret. The article mentions parallel sources for some material, which means that the source from which the material on those emails was derived was not considered secret.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
That's a right wing source that quotes Fox News, which has had it in for Clinton for years.

The lag and short of it is that material may have later been labeled secret, but there is no evidence that, at the time the messages were sent, any of the material it contained was regarded as secret. The article mentions parallel sources for some material, which means that the source from which the material on those emails was derived was not considered secret.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the article is a fabrication?
 
The article cites confidential sources, and is misleading. The problem is that the people who are making hay of this don't know anything about email systems, or the history of using a private email account by Secretaries of State. Or they are feigning ignorance.

I have set up and run email systems for years. Our web server includes an email system (that's how you receive our newsletters and notices of forum posts), and we secure it with various off-the-shelf apps and an SSL. I would expect Clinton's email server would probably have been set up similarly, assuming the IT person they used knew what he was doing. And there is no evidence he didn't.

The claims that it was unsecured are misleading. Does that mean it wasn't certified for the handling of top secret material by the U.S. government? I'm sure it wasn't. Does that mean that the IT person who set it up didn't use the proper tools for securing its contents? I don't think the critics have a clue.

Don't forget that some of the emails that Colin Powell sent, while Secretary of State, via his AOL account (which is decidedly less secure than what a properly configured private email server would offer) was later classified as secret or above. So?

All these charges imply that Clinton deliberately sent classified material via her private email account. Why would she do that? I grant errors can be made, since nobody is perfect. But nothing I've read so far, when you eliminate forced speculation, politics, and unnamed sources, indicates she actually sent material that was, at the time she sent it, labeled classified and that she knew it was classified.

The charge comes without a motive, without a purpose. This calls for a little common sense.
 
This is all right-wing fear mongering. They've had it out for the Clintons for 24 years, ever since Bill Clinton first ran for President. She can't breathe without a complaint.

No, she hasn't admitted to destroying evidence. Judge Napolitano has an abysmal record for predicting legal matters, and nobody has proved she is a liar. Sure, as a politician, she will exaggerate, a lot sometimes, and that's typical. But lying before the authorities? No way.

If you have some facts, from an independent third-party source (and not a partisan or sensation-mongering newspaper or online portal) that disproves what her campaign staff says about the email matter, that's one thing. I'm happy to see you post it.
 
Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton are all the same monster swapping masks.

I'm amazed people around here don't get this.

Check out the 'Clinton body count' if nothing else to begin to get a sense of who you're really defending when you defend the loathsome thing currently going by the moniker of 'Hilary Clinton.'

Trump is only worth supporting because he seems to be slightly unnerving this ruling dynasty of monsters.

He's probably one of them and just doing a wildcard thing to mess with our dynamics or otherwise they'll certainly top him before he messes with their game. I rate the possibility that he could actually get in to the Presidency at about 1%.

And then you have to factor in that the POTUS is only a puppet of the ultrarich and their warplanners anyway, so his effectiveness once in the position would be virtually nil.

The most interesting thing about him, to me, is why he has never considered getting a better wig.

Elevate the level of political discourse, please, folks.

It's depressing when I see people around here still arguing about this bs along partisan lines.

Evolve beyond the puppet show.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're falling for the Republican's decades' long efforts to discredit the Clintons with phony scandals. Certainly there are legitimate things for which to criticize her, rather than fake stuff such as Benghazi and the exaggerated email issue, where she did nothing different from her predecessors.

But regardless of which party is involved, it's all a reality show and little more.
 
One more thing: The Trump phenomenon is the outgrowth of allowing the crazies free reign on cable TV news and radio talk shows. That extreme nonsense has become the mainstream, and Trump was coddled for far too long. But he's also catering to a large portion of the electorate that was left behind in the economic recovery, and they want a voice and their needs addressed. It's not that Trump can help them, of course, but he's pandering to the disaffected and getting a sizable level of support, and a sizable level of hatred.

So into that vacuum arose a Trump, not that Senator Cruz has ideas that are substantially different. Take a look and see. If the Republicans actually paid heed to that "autopsy" after the 2012 election, saner people would have gotten into the race and performed well. Gov. Kasich would have probably been nominated. His record is also highly flawed (the Ohio economic recovery began months before he took office in sync with U.S. stimulus package), but at least it's defensible.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
But regardless of which party is involved, it's all a reality show and little more.
Click to expand...

Most aware people would agree, yet it seems that it is very easy to get sucked back into the illusory drama of it all as if it actually matters.
 
There are fine differences between the way the two parties handle matters when in office. The system is too highly entrenched. When they move beyond the norm, such as Bush 2's attempt to privatize social security, it gets shot down pretty fast. Thank goodness. Imagine if that happened, and the economic slowdown killed retiree's benefits.

I was troubled by Rubio's assertion during one of the debates that nothing would happen to the benefits of current Social Security recipients, such as his mom. But changes would have to be made, which would mean later retirement ages, lower benefits, and, unsaid, the move to privatize. If he were to get into office, though, it wouldn't happen. But I won't debate Social Security, speaking as a recipient. It's solvent till the mid-2030s, and the fix is easy and could be done with a few lines in the tax laws to raise the income cap at which deductions are made.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
One more thing: The Trump phenomenon is the outgrowth of allowing the crazies free reign on cable TV news and radio talk shows.
Click to expand...

I'd say Trump is just the most successful manifestation so far of the majority's desperate, suppressed need to break the two-party stranglehold and elect 'anybody else'. Previous incarnations include Perot, Nader, Kucinich and Paul.
 
Trump's problem is that a lot of the things he claims are just plain B.S., however. Did you know that, in recent years, more Mexicans have left the U.S. than have entered it? That the total number of undocumented immigrants is slightly less than it used to be? That the number of border agents at the southern border has doubled in the past decade?

But if people think Mexico will pay for a wall, and they can't see the wall between that and logic, they deserve Trump.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Trump's problem is that a lot of the things he claims are just plain B.S., however. Did you know that, in recent years, more Mexicans have left the U.S. than have entered it? That the total number of undocumented immigrants is slightly less than it used to be? That the number of border agents at the southern border has doubled in the past decade?
Click to expand...

No, I didn't know these 'points', Gene.

If they went from being assertions to verifiable facts, I'd say they were very interesting.
 
Do the research. They are provable facts. They aren't talking points. It's well known, even though some people want to gloss over it and talk of porous borders. Sure, it can be better, but that requires planning and funding, not fear-mongering about the invaders. Also look at the largest number of undocumented these days, and it's not Latins.

Here's one set of verifiable facts:

More Mexicans Leaving Than Coming to the U.S.

Pew Research is a non-partisan think tank. Go through the site for information on immigration, health care and so on and so forth. Lots of numbers that certain media outlets will not report.
 
Back
Top