Iceaura, you compared one thing Hillary did with the only thing we know of that Powell did. In that comparison, you can judge them similarly -- but to actually compare them *properly*, you need to consider all the components of the scandal, not just the one that was similar. It's true that while criminal and insubordinate, Hillary's use of a private server in and of itself isn't all that bad. It's like money laundering, though: both exist to hide the more serious crimes. And you guys are ignoring the more serious crime here.
Actually, the role of the Secretary of Defense in the launch sequence is to validate the launch order came from the POTUS. The Secretary of Defense has no authority to override a launch order by the POTUS. And that's under the current set up, the POTUS can change the launch process if he so chooses. And let's remember the Secretary of Defense serves at the discretion of the POTUS. The POTUS appoints the Secretary of Defense and can fire the Secretary of Defense.
That's an empty/pointless statement. Yes, congratulations, we don't know of things that Powell did that are comparable with the main bad acts Hillary did. Agreed! And pointless! Test failed! The correct answer is Hillary's mishandling of classified information. I tend not to assume people are lying about their own opinions (because what would be the point?), but the omission of this most important component of the Hillary email scandl from Every Democrat I've Ever Discussed It With is glaring. There is no way you could possibly be unaware of the issue and even if you disagree with how important Republicans consider it you still should be aware that they consider it important. So in this case, acting like you don't know just isn't plausible. I think I've figured out your issue -- your posts/thoughts are so long winded and disorganized that you forget what you were talking by the time you get to the end (or by the next post). Of course, I could be wrong -- you could be purposely deflecting from a nonsensical comment that was just a thoughtless throw-away, but you'd look better just admitting you exaggerated rather than trying to hide it. You said clearly that "we don't do this to any other politicians; we have no basis for comparison whatsoever", which is just stupid: her husband is an easy example of a politician who was treated just as harshly. To then try to narrowly focus this to where "any other politician" only refers to Colin Powell just makes the initial absurd claim pointless too. Sure, if the only comparisons we can make are with scandals/actions that are *exactly* identical, then you can never compare anyone's treatment to anyone else's and your claim that "we don't do this to any other politicians" is rendered totally meaningless by your own limiting of its scope.
That it is one's responsibility to vote within a democracy is something I strongly disagree with. Yes, it is a fundamental right I have but no, it is not my responsibility to vote. It is the responsibility of those who want to govern to persuade me to their cause so that I might vote for them. It is the responsibility of those who currently govern to persuade me to vote to continue to allow them. But not only do I have the fundamental right to choose who I vote for, I have the more fundamental (if such is a literary possibility?) right - at least in this country of mine - to choose NOT TO VOTE. Some would argue that if one is not persuaded by either party then they should show their dissatisfaction by spoiling their ballot paper, but that's again another choice one is allowed to take to do so or not, in my view. Some argue that people fought and died for our right to vote so we have a duty to do so. I say that they fought and died to give us the right to choose... and that choice starts with whether to vote or not. But I do say that choosing not to vote then gives you no grounds with which to complain about the outcome. If you choose not to vote then you are abstaining, you are delegating your decision to those that do vote. If you are okay with that then so be it, you have the right not to vote (in my country, and in my view) but you don't then have the right to complain about the result. And if I was in a country that gave me no choice whether to vote or not, I'm sure on numerous occasions I would deliberately spoil my paper and express my dissatisfaction at being forced to vote. That said, I do like to be able to whinge (yes, I'm a Pom!) so do vote most of the time, plus the choices are usually quite different that one is more preferable and worth voting for. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And what exactly is being ignored with respect to Powell, and it wasn't only Powell. Rice did the same thing too. Using a private server isn't like money laundering. She never hid her server. She never tried to cover up her server. Any and all emails going to the State Department ore any other government server were recorded and logged on government servers. And you keep ignoring the fact that nothing Hillary has done is criminal or even insubordinate for that matter. Just who do you think Hillary was "insubordinate too" exactly?
People pretend there are only two options (when trying to convince people to pick theirs), but in actual fact there are many more than two options. I also disagree with the choice not to vote, because it is impossible to tell what a person's motivation is from the decision. A vote for a 3rd party or write-in (including Mickey Mouse) on the other hand, makes the message clear.
OMG, you actually believe that?!? Hillaryous! This is Hillary, we're talking about, right? The woman who invented a whole new and efficient way to peddle influence by setting up an organization dedicated to channeling "friends" her way for favors. So much more efficient than normal lobbying, which is disorganized/chaotic (she's a genius , really).
I would say he's referring to the fact that there is no actual red button that the president pushes that makes missiles. The "system" is the military chain of command he gives orders to.
Well, let me put it to you this way. Society gets exactly what it deserves. I know you probably don't agree with that, but it's the absolute truth. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "The world is what we make of it"? That's more than just some bumper sticker slogan. That phrase cannot be overstated. It's the truth. Also, do you actually think the U.S. government would elect a homicidal maniac into office with no sense of self preservation or value for life? And if by some far off remote chance that it did, remember the System works exactly as intended. It's you, and it's me, it's your neighbor and your neighbor's neighbor. It is the collective consciousness of the global society. Our institutions, including our governments, corporations, religions, etc. are a mere reflection of society itself. Our institutions were formed out of a necessity to meets the demands of society. Our institutions are pretty much the organs of the System. They work very much like the organs of the Human body. The System has had time to grow, develop, and evolve over many thousands of years and has an extremely well adapted immune system. Our institutions work to maintain the System and to ensure the System keeps running as usual. They are stewards of the system. Actually, our institutions are no different than the average mainstream individual throughout society. Like I said they are a reflection of society itself. They are a grander version of us, who happens to hold the majority of the control - serving the System so that the System will continue to provide for them at the expense of all others and everything else. The majority of society acts no differently than our institutions. These institutions are in a sense just another individual who craves creature comforts, instant gratification, to feel important, and to exalt itself above all others, all to serve the demands of the ego. While they may have exclusive control of mainstream society, because we have given it to them, they do not exclusively hold the power. The power ultimately belongs to the majority. The ultimate outcome is determined by the collective consciousness, which also happens to include the individuals who run the institutions. This is why protesting in the streets against our institutions have never solved any of our perceived problems, and they never will. The only real positive I can see with protesting is making other people in society aware of the issues. However, whatever issues that appear to have been resolved through protesting was nothing more than throwing the dog a bone, but it's still the same System because the individuals that comprise it are still of the same mindset and still live the same self-serving lifestyle. When they protest at the doorsteps of our institutions they are basically and unwittingly protesting against their selves. Later there will be another issue and another issue and another. This is why protesting still continues to this day. Egypt is another fine example. While they may have forced Mubarek out of the country and successfully implemented a regime change, it is still the same System, just in a different color. After the people feel they have accomplished their goals through screaming and shaking their fists at their government, then it's "Okay party is over, now back to work!" Years from now, if the current System is still going as it is today, they will probably be protesting something else. And so the cycle continues - nothing more than a bandaid on a gaping wound. It does not resolve the core issue. There is no institution that can resolve our issues because they are not calling the shots. We are the ones who ultimately determine how they will act and react. Like the majority of individuals throughout society, our institutions, which include our governments, are disconnected from each other and society and therefore do not serve in the best interest of society. Like the majority, their only interest is in serving their selves. Most of our institutions, especially those who know how the system works, want the people to protest because this validates for them that the people still perceive them to be in control, and all the institution has to do is spin a new solution while keeping the System intact in order to appease the masses for a time until the next revolt. Protesting is also just another form of distraction from that which our institutions and especially the System itself fear the most, and that is the people throughout society turning to each other and reconnecting with each other and their communities, and then coming to the realization that we are the ones who are in power. This is also another reason why it does not matter who holds the office of President of the United States, or any other country for that matter. Even if there was a candidate who was elected into office with the best intentions imaginable for the benefit of society, there is nothing he can do because he is working within an organization that is an integral part of the System. Leaders of institutions that are within and part of the System are there for only one reason, and that is to make sure that nothing changes. It will make no difference if Hillary or Trump becomes POTUS. We would still have the same system with the same agendas. If the global society were to ever realize that we have the power, and were to reconnect with each other and begin to help and support one another, and that we should serve others before self, then this current self destructive System that has ruled society on this planet for many years will just fade away. I would be more concerned about yourself and your neighbor than I would about the POTUS.
It's quite a bit more complicated than that. The President and JCS aren't sitting alone together in a room with a red button. Even if we ignore the rest of the chain of command (assume the orders would be carried out), I wouldn't rule out an insta-coup if one tried to give a crazy order.
No, I said Hillary is being ignored, not Powell. You guys are focusing on Powell and essentially ignoring Hillary's role in her own scandal! it's remarkable! Use of the personal server was insubordinate (against policy) and a minor crime (Federal Records Act). the much more significant crime it helped cover up was the mishandling of classified information.
A demonstration of just how stupid the supposed Democratic blinders are (if I believed it wasn't on purpose), here's an article from TWO YEARS AGO, listing the crimes, in order of significance: http://ijr.com/2015/03/264655-3-federal-laws-hillary-may-violated-secret-email-accounts/ With so much press discussing the issue so thoroughly for YEARS! it is just plain not believable that no Democrat is even aware of what the scandal is about. [edit] FYI, the article lists a 3rd, violation of the FOIA. While true, it is rendered moot by the fact that through numerious lawsuits it was able to be largely rectified.
Well, from a command point of view it isn't. The JCS isn't involved in the launch decision. There is one admiral in charge of America's nuclear weapons and the POTUS has a direct line to him. He is metaphorically sitting in a room a red button at all times. So you are relying on a insta-coup to prevent Armageddon. Well, that's a scary thought. If you know anything about the military you should know soldiers, Marines, airmen, and sailors are trained to obey orders. It's ingrained from day one.
Sorry, I misspoke; you said SecDef and that's what I meant; Point still stands. No, I think the whole line of discussion is laughable fantasy nonsense. If you watched your military movies a bit more closely than you did, you'd know that isn't exactly true. And for the people who matter - the officers - it is very, very wrong.
You don't get to call them crimes. They were investigated and they were deemed to be far from demanding a criminal prosecution.
No. Contrary to your assertion, there is a person waiting at all times to launch the nation's weapons. As previously pointed out to you, it's his job - actually, there are a few of them because they have backups. It's not the JCS as you asserted. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a man waiting around for the launch orders. If it's laughable, if it's nonsense, it's your assertion. You are relying on a coup to prevent Armageddon, and it's not a fantasy. There are real concerns here. You don't have to be a genius to recognize Trump's erratic behaviors, his ignorance, and his total unsuitability for the job. And you are relying on a coup to keep him from damaging the world. The fact that he has secured the Republican Party nomination has damaged US standing in the world. You should listen to what world leaders are saying about The Donald.. LOL....well unfortunately for you, I have done more than watch military movies. I'm a military veteran. My son is active duty military, and I have dozens of cousins and nephews who are either ex-military or are currently serving in the military...oops. I do know it is exactly true. It's the very first thing military members are taught. It's called the chain of command. All members of the military are taught to obey orders from day one. And there is only one exception, and that is an illegal order. If a military person refuses to obey an order because they believe it to be illegal, they had better be damn sure it is an illegal order. Because it's their ass if isn't. And an order to launch nuclear weapons from the president isn't under any stretch and for any reason illegal. It's well within the president's power to launch nuclear weapons at any time and for any reason. If Trump wanted to nuke Syria, China or any other country, he could. The order would be perfectly legal. It would be ill advised but it would be legal. Your assertion that a coup would be a check to the powers of the president isn't laughable. It's downright scary. But, hey, that's where the Republican Party is at these days. They want to throw their political opponents in jail without evidence or legal merit. They want to bring back Baby Bush's torture program and expand upon it...sounds downright banana republic. But that's where Republicans are taking the nation.
As you have already acknowledged, he cannot physically launch the weapons himself -- other people actually push the buttons that launch the weapons. That was my point: You implied a more direct action than is the reality. Er: So you did know! It's like you are arguing just to argue and don't mind being wrong and arguing with yourself if it means you get to argue more with me! Well, this is your fantasy, so you'll have to tell me what reason Trump would have for launching a nuclear attack that would be legal - because if you are as knowlegeable as you claim to be, you'll certainly know the "except" in this case as well. Is this just another example of you arguing with yourself just so you can argue with me too?
I don't need to; plenty of reasonable people have pointed them out. You chose your words almost as carefully as Comey did: what you/he said is not inconsistent with them being crimes: He just chose not to recommend prosecuting the crimes, because Hillary is Hillary and therefore above the law.
