Oh, I think he was just making a joke. Fairly good one at that, frankly.

I agree that he thought he was making a joke. At least I hope he was. But I strongly disagree that it was a good one.

Clearly he was joking.  And it was an easy one at that; it probably should have been left for someone not running for President to say.  

Edited July 27, 201610 yr by PseudoSABR

If he was saying it as a joke, why did he double down 30 minutes later and say it again on Twitter? (Although it was a little toned down)

Edited July 27, 201610 yr by DaveW

 

If he was saying it as a joke, why did he double down 30 minutes later and say it again on Twitter? (Although it was a little toned down)

 

Because it wasn't a joke. 

 

If Hilary made that joke, Foxnews would explode.......and why do you think it was a joke? He doesn't care about anything other than himself and his family.....

Sure.  But this **** goes both ways.  Trump said something stupid to deflect the issue back to Clinton (it may or may not have worked).  Clinton has also said some dumb stuff to deflect the seriousness of issues (wiping her server comment).  Both are dumb.  Trump's was a tad funnier but - as John Oliver has said - Trump can be legitimately funny.  

Interesting article about Assange (wikileaks) in regards to leaked email/correspondence.  Notice someone involved with this got like 35 years in prison.  Clinton isn't even charged.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-to-harm-hillary-clinton/ar-BBuW1Q3?li=BBnb7Kz

Edited July 27, 201610 yr by jimmer

Oh, I think he was just making a joke.  Fairly good one at that, frankly.  

There's such a thing as kidding on the square. Pass it off as a joke, but if it comes true, hey, worse things could happen in Trump's view...

 

  Clinton isn't even charged.

Just stop.  Clinton's alleged misconduct, setting up a private server (even carelessly), is not at all the same as intentional, and flagrant leaks of information known to be classified.   In fact, there's no alleged harm caused by Clinton's server. 

 

The rule of law matters.  You can't disregard it because you don't like the outcome.  As the Republican nominated FBI director averred, "no reasonable prosecutor would have brought charges."

 

Was it stupid and careless and arrogant to set up a private server? Yes.

Is it or should it be the basis of a criminal offense? No.

 

 

Was it stupid and careless and arrogant to set up a private server? Yes.

Is it or should it be the basis of a criminal offense? No.

 

Being careless, stupid, and arrogant absolutely can be a criminal offense.  Again, I'd argue if someone with less prominence had done the same exact thing, there would have been far worse consequences.

 

I don't know why anyone would argue differently.  Same goes for Colin Powell, he likely got away with it for the same reason.  

 

The right is pounding away too hard on this, but the left's dismissive nature of it is just as bad.  If her name was Bush we'd just take opposite sides on it - that's the worst part.

 

Being careless, stupid, and arrogant absolutely can be a criminal offense.  Again, I'd argue if someone with less prominence had done the same exact thing, there would have been far worse consequences.

 

I don't know why anyone would argue differently.  Same goes for Colin Powell, he likely got away with it for the same reason.  

 

The right is pounding away too hard on this, but the left's dismissive nature of it is just as bad.  If her name was Bush we'd just take opposite sides on it - that's the worst part.

Colin Powell didn't just get away with it, he faced no scrutiny whatsoever. He got away with it because he wasn't Hillary.

 

And if the left would have been just as bad, why didn't they go after him like the Republicans did Hillary?

 

There is only a one-way street on this one. It is not a case of the 'left would have been just as bad' because they weren't.

 

Colin Powell didn't just get away with it, he faced no scrutiny whatsoever. He got away with it because he wasn't Hillary.

 

And if the left would have been just as bad, why didn't they go after him like the Republicans did Hillary?

 

There is only a one-way street on this one. It is not a case of the 'left would have been just as bad' because they weren't.

 

Well, yes, Powell has a far less dicey track record than Hillary.  He sort of earned more leniency.  

 

Sorry, that's just the way it is.

 

Well, yes, Powell has a far less dicey track record than Hillary.  He sort of earned more leniency.  

 

Sorry, that's just the way it is.

What dicey track record? Oh, right ... all of these ... especially that last one.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/all-the-terrible-things-hillary-clinton-has-done-in-one-big-list-2016-02-04?mod=mw_share_facebook

 

What dicey track record? Oh, right ... all of these ... especially that last one.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/all-the-terrible-things-hillary-clinton-has-done-in-one-big-list-2016-02-04?mod=mw_share_facebook

Oh, and here's a new one ... charges pending ...

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/fox-new-evidence-hillary-killed-lincoln

I think in your very fair, even handed take you forgot to bogusly claim she kills puppies for fun.  

 

But that's ok, if you want to disqualify yourself as someone willing to talk about it fairly that's fine.  That's your decision.

 

I think in your very fair, even handed take you forgot to bogusly claim she kills puppies for fun.  

 

But that's ok, if you want to disqualify yourself as someone willing to talk about it fairly that's fine.  That's your decision.

By talk about it you mean acknowledge that you're right in this. I think you are wrong. While there is little I could say that would make you take a different tack, there is little you could say that would do the same. I honestly think that much if not all of this has been fabricated over the years. You call someone untrustworthy so many times, people start to believe it. And it's much easier when the victim in this is female. That I do believe. It's not an intentional, conscious response, but it's there. Sorry, but as much as you claim fair in this, I call equally bogus.

I'd wager most finalists for POTUS and most POTUS could have been found guilty in the court of law of something or other.

 

The fact is if you have a lot of money or a lot of power the rules are different for you, like it or not that is how things have more or less been since the dawn of man.

 

People need to let the Hillary thing go. She certainly is hands down more trust worthy then trump.

Edited July 28, 201610 yr by DaveW

 

Being careless, stupid, and arrogant absolutely can be a criminal offense.  Again, I'd argue if someone with less prominence had done the same exact thing, there would have been far worse consequences.

You can argue that until you're blue in the face, it doesn't make it true.  I know of no legal standard (beyond strict liability crimes like statutory rape) that makes carelessness, stupidity or arrogance not rising to recklessness a crime.   And thank god.    

 

The whole comparison to a person a less prominence is a false analogy.  The notion that a non-agency head would set up a private server or even have need to is just silly (again Clinton is being held accountable not just for her own actions but the actions of the agency, which makes this comparison unfair). Moreover, the legal standard is still the same: non-intentional, non-reckless behavior wouldn't survive a grand jury indictment, much less summary judgment or a jury trial.   You can't change the law to suit hypothetical facts.

 

Sure, if a lower employee was found to be careless with confidential information, that person may lose their job or have their security clearance revoked or lowered.  But believe it or not, security clearance is robust with due process, hearings, and its own appellate review.  DOHA case law is online, and people have to be exceptionally sloppy to face harsh consequences.  But that is fire cry from charging that person with a crime, much less convicting that person of such a crime. 

 

Edited July 28, 201610 yr by PseudoSABR

 

Well, yes, Powell has a far less dicey track record than Hillary.  He sort of earned more leniency.  

 

Sorry, that's just the way it is.

What is Hillary's dicey track record?  From a legal stand point, there should be no more scrutiny because of although widespread, unsubstantiated allegations.

 

How Colin Powell earns leniency in his part to the lead up to the Iraq War, I don't know.  He testified to the UN (and Congress I think) that Iraq had WMDs; it was just Cheney saying these things.

 

By talk about it you mean acknowledge that you're right in this. I think you are wrong. While there is little I could say that would make you take a different tack, there is little you could say that would do the same. I honestly think that much if not all of this has been fabricated over the years. You call someone untrustworthy so many times, people start to believe it. And it's much easier when the victim in this is female. That I do believe. It's not an intentional, conscious response, but it's there. Sorry, but as much as you claim fair in this, I call equally bogus.

 

Thing is, you're right, she has been treated unfairly.  It can also be true that she has been involved in a fair share of shady activity.  It'd be hard not to with being in politics for 3-4 decades.  

 

She and Colin Powell aren't different because of their sex.  They're different because one is a distinguished, squeaky clean general and the other has been on-again, off-again associated with scandals for as long as I've been alive.  But they both skated away from the server thing because of their prominence.  If it had been some lowly public servant they'd never be allowed near classified info again at minimum.

What dicey track record? Oh, right ... all of these ... especially that last one.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/all-the-terrible-things-hillary-clinton-has-done-in-one-big-list-2016-02-04?mod=mw_share_facebook

 

A divorced taxi driver in Florida told me that if Hillary is elected president, “women will take over everything.”

 

That's the first time I've heard a conservative come even close to admitting that the gender of the POTUS has any correlation to the gender in control of everything. Progress.

 

Oh, and no. 67 on her list of vices: our greatest presidents have all been men.

 

... and the other has been on-again, off-again associated with scandals for as long as I've been alive.

Why?

 

Why?

 

I think Vox wraps up my view rather nicely on this.  Some of this is unfair targeting and some of this is the Clintons just don't give a rip.

 

By talk about it you mean acknowledge that you're right in this. 

Amen. 

Hillary = perfect.

 

Got it.  That delusion is going to hurt extra hard when she continues this losing pace of hers.....

 

Hillary = perfect.

Levi fights with straw-man, round 1000.

Hillary = perfect.

 

Got it.  That delusion is going to hurt extra hard when she continues this losing pace of hers.....

Who said that? Right ...

 

Levi fights with straw-man, round 1000.

 

Absolutely, is that not exactly the response I got above?  A ridiculous strawman?

 

Look, Powell and Clinton both got away with it because of privilege.  Powell got less scrutiny because he's a largely respected man of honor by both parties.  (Even with his own history of mistakes)  Clinton is unfairly reviled by half the country and luke-warmly accepted by the other half.  Of course that person is going to get more scrutiny.  Doubly so when she, as you put it, was carelessly stupid.  It's not a gender thing, that **** is going to get real old, real fast if it's the comeback for every criticism.

 

Obama is despised by nearly half the country as well and somehow has managed to avoid anything other than ridiculous claims that he's Muslim and Kenyan.  Hillary has walked herself into plenty of problems all by herself.

 

Who said that? Right ...

 

So your ridiculous link you posted was an honest attempt at discussion? 

Absolutely, is that not exactly the response I got above?  A ridiculous strawman?

 

Look, Powell and Clinton both got away with it because of privilege.  Powell got less scrutiny because he's a largely respected man of honor by both parties.  (Even with his own history of mistakes)  Clinton is unfairly reviled by half the country and luke-warmly accepted by the other half.  Of course that person is going to get more scrutiny.  Doubly so when she, as you put it, was carelessly stupid.  It's not a gender thing, that **** is going to get real old, real fast if it's the comeback for every criticism.

 

Obama is despised by nearly half the country as well and somehow has managed to avoid anything other than ridiculous claims that he's Muslim and Kenyan.  Hillary has walked herself into plenty of problems all by herself.

Again, and what is the difference between Hillary and Obama?

So your ridiculous link you posted was an honest attempt at discussion?

 

Well, I posted this one a while ago and it was dismissed as being wrong, because, well, we are not dealing with any sexism or misogyny.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen