Why Hillary will obliterate Drumpf.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

.... haven't voted for a Democrat or Republican for President since McGovern in 1972.

McGovern was a soft spoken Bernie.

[CuteOldGuy]

McGovern was honest. Nixon was a crook. Easy choice.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I haven't voted for a Democrat or Republican for President since McGovern in 1972.

That explains a lot. How did you stay out of 'Nam?

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

McGovern was honest.

So was Jimmy Carter. So why didn't you vote for him in 1976?

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by lustylad

That explains a lot. How did you stay out of 'Nam?




So was Jimmy Carter. So why didn't you vote for him in 1976?

I tried to enlist and was rejected due to childhood illnesses. In fact, one of those illnesses came back strong a few years ago, and almost took my life. I found ASPD, and started having a lot of fun on the board while I was recovering. That's when my post count built up so much. It was a different board back then. Even the guys I argued with most sent pms encouraging me and wishing me well. Not that way today! LOL! But it's still entertaining.


I protested the war, but girls thought GIs were cool. I was not a bright kid. Anyway, I tried to get in. My draft number was 12, so I knew I didn't have a choice, but then they turned me down.


I met Jimmy Carter briefly. Seemed like a good guy, but I was a liberal back then and supported Morris Udall through the primaries. Carter actually turned out better than I expected, especially compared to the idiots we've had since then. He just wasn't a leader and couldn't delegate. I don't remember who I voted for, but it wasn't Carter or Ford.


I should mention that I grew up in South Dakota, and George McGovern was a family friend. I don't think there has ever been a more kind, honest and decent man to ever run for POTUS.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by lustylad

That explains a lot. How did you stay out of 'Nam?

Sometime do some "studying" on the actual number of servicemembers who served any time on the ground in S.E. Asia. It is interesting how the "dialogue" has shifted from denial back then to embracing that venture by those now claiming to have served "in country." Back then when traveling around few wore uniforms, which is seriously contrasted to the uniforms one sees today.

http://www.nationalvietnamveteransfo...statistics.htm

"8,744,000 GIs were on active duty during the war (Aug 5, 1964-March 28,1973"

"2,594,000 personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam (Jan. 1,1965 - March 28, 1973)." Of those "between 1-1.6 million (40-60%) either fought in combat, provided close support or were at least fairly regularly exposed to enemy attack."

So, of the 9 million servicemembers on active duty only about 1.3 million were "fairly regularly exposed to enemy attack" ... or roughly 14%.

(And here's a little known fact: 50,000 men served in Vietnam between 1960 and 1964. It is also not well known that when Kennedy was sworn into office he did not know the U.S. had about 8,000 personnel on the ground in S.E. Asia in various capacities involving some aspect of combat and/or combat support, and a support carrier group off shore flying sorties.)

[IIFFOFRDB]

[IIFFOFRDB]

Why Trump will obliterate the Hildabeast...

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You can't possibly be serious. You do know that the emails sent to Hillary included 22 with the highest possible security classification, right? It's called SAP and it covers matters so sensitive that the contents of the 22 emails could not even be divulged to the Inspector General who discovered their existence while investigating this staggering security breach and scandal!

Now tell me again what your argument is, flighty. Are you seriously suggesting those 22 SAP emails found on the hildebeest's private server were erroneously marked UNCLASSIFIED?

Oh, and one more question for you, flighty.... let's assume a US Secretary of State receives an email containing, say, satellite photos of a North Korean nuclear weapons site.... do you think a prudent, competent, and security-minded Secretary of State just might be expected to recognize this as extremely sensitive regardless of its classification label?

1. The emails that were sent to Hillary from the staffers were labeled unclassified, just like in the example in Post #251.

2. There is no USC rule that states the recipient of an email must verify that the label on the email has the correct security classification.

3. The USC rules were put in place for spies and leaks. They were not intended for the SOS communicating with authorized staffers. At this point in time the Justice Department has not set up a Grand Jury. Which usually happens if you are going for an indictment.

http://fortune.com/2016/05/23/clinto...une&yptr=yahoo

From the link:

Legal experts have said it appears unlikely Clinton would be formally charged with committing a crime. The relatively few U.S. laws that govern the handling of classified materials were generally written to cover spies and leakers. Lawyers who specialize in national security matters have told AP it would be a stretch to apply these statutes to a former cabinet secretary whose communication of sensitive materials was with aides — not a national enemy.
The Justice Department also does not appear to have convened a grand jury to examine Clinton’s email use, a likely step if prosecutors were weighing felony criminal charges.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

1. The emails that were sent to Hillary from the staffers were labeled unclassified, just like in the example in Post #251.

2. There is no USC rule that states the recipient of an email must verify that the label on the email has the correct security classification.

3. The USC rules were put in place for spies and leaks. They were not intended for the SOS communicating with authorized staffers. At this point in time the Justice Department has not set up a Grand Jury. Which usually happens if you are going for an indictment.

http://fortune.com/2016/05/23/clinto...une&yptr=yahoo

Yeah, flighty, there are rules, regulations and laws governing the handling of classified material, and the recipient is responsible for properly handling classified material regardless of how the recipient came by the classified material, flighty. The fact that Hildebeest is on record directing her minions to strip the classified markings from documents in order to transmit by insecure methods further undermines your fantasy POV, flighty.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

3. The USC rules were put in place for spies and leaks.

So is Patreaus a "spy" or a "leak"?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

From the link:

Legal experts have said it appears unlikely Clinton would be formally charged with committing a crime.

Politically, the "legal experts" may be correct, but there are a sufficient number of intelligence "experts" and lawyers who deal with the laws and regulations regarding the handling of classified material who say otherwise in so far as whether or not she has committed serious crimes.

Just because she is not charged, doesn't mean she hasn't committed a crime! But actually, it doesn't matter.

She has demonstrated her propensity to lie and deceive. She has shown in the past she will conceal evidence.
Now she's admitted she's incompetent for the job by "assigning" her duties to her husband on the domestic front and she has demonstrated her incompetence on the international scene. She wasn't even a productive Senator. We had 8 years of lying in the first Clinton administration, you probably think we had 8 years during the Bush years, and we've had 8 years during Obama of lying. Isn't 24 years of lying enough, or do you want to make it an even 30?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

1. The emails that were sent to Hillary from the staffers were labeled unclassified, just like in the example in Post #251.

2. There is no USC rule that states the recipient of an email must verify that the label on the email has the correct security classification.

3. The USC rules were put in place for spies and leaks. They were not intended for the SOS communicating with authorized staffers. At this point in time the Justice Department has not set up a Grand Jury. Which usually happens if you are going for an indictment.

http://fortune.com/2016/05/23/clinto...une&yptr=yahoo

There were over 52,000 pages of emails found on hildebeest's private server, not including the 30,000 emails that she erased. Are you claiming EVERY SINGLE ONE of them carried a clear and unmistakable marking of UNCLASSIFIED - including those 22 SAP emails that we now know contained information so sensitive investigators are not allowed to access them?

If that's what you are saying, then SPIT IT OUT!

I called bullshit on your claim already. It is a ridiculous claim. You have yet to support it with a shred of evidence. Your latest link contains nothing to back it up either. You are getting more and more wild-eyed and desperate on this subject.

How can anything that falls under the highest level of classification - SAP - be marked and transmitted as unclassified? That's what you are claiming, right? I'm not an expert but that makes no sense to anyone. And how can a US Secretary of State fail to tell the difference between SAP material and unclassified material?

And where the fuck is Old-T on this?

Originally Posted by lustylad

Old-T.... now please - tell us what you got! I assume you've been reading flighty's asinine attempts to minimize, rationalize, obfuscate and excuse all of the hildebeest's crimes....

[lustylad]

Here is an eye-opening story from last August... oh my! Spy satellite secrets on a private server?

Hey kids, be sure to scrub stuff like “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN” before you forward anything to me! All those NSA markings just creep me out!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-s-emails.html

[austin_voy]

One thing to consider/fear is that his supporters are coming out like flies to shit. While I doubt that Sanders supporters would go for Trump in the numbers some have suggested, what I do fear is that they may just say "fuck it" and stay home.

I can't see people like Ted, Carly, Jeb or Marco coming out and endorsing him (you might also that George H. W. and George W. have been very, very quiet, at least since Jeb bailed), they won't say otherwise. They're all looking at 2020.

Of course Drumpf (I watch John Oliver, too) could do something really, really stupid. OTOH, he does that on a regular basis. As in "look, it's almost 11 CDT, time to turn on the news and listen to Trump make W look like the greatest president in 50 years).

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Here is an eye-opening story from last August... oh my! Spy satellite secrets on a private server?

Hey kids, be sure to scrub stuff like “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN” before you forward anything to me! All those NSA markings just creep me out!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-s-emails.html

Wasn't it shrillary, in her guise as Miz. Slick Willy, when they were running for office back in 1992 that threw out the " 2 for 1 " deal to the American people and then famously said on 60 minutes " I'm NOT a Tammy Wynette, stand-by-your-man kinda woman ! " As if to show her feminazi credentials ? Yet she expects the lying sexual predator Slick Willy to not only stand by her but to take care of the "domestic " problems in her administration. I've always thought that she was the more calculating and dangerous of those two criminals !