Have You Voted?

You mean the part of the electorate that says there are only two choices when in fact there are more? Yes, you are right, voting for a 3rd party does make a clear statement about the idiocy of the electorate that claims there are only two chocies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, here is the thing; just because a specious right wing website publishes something it doesn't follow that it is correct. It almost always isn't. Clinton and her predecessors at the State Department mishandled information. That's true. Clinton has admitted same. But that doesn't make it criminal. And for Republicans to not recognize that fact speaks to their ignorance, intellectual deficits, partisan zealotry or some combination thereof.

The fact is Republicans have for nearly 3 decades accused Hilary of everything from simple malfeasance to serial murder all without a shred of evidence. The fact is Republicans have spent tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars investigating Hillary over the course of nearly 3 decades and found not a shred of evidence to support any of the many and often repeated Republican allegations of criminal wrong doing by Hillary. Republicans have appointed 3 special prosecutors. When the 2 previous special prosecutors found nothing, Republicans fired him and appointed a Republican partisan to continue the investigation. Hillary has been investigated by a number of Republican congressional investigations and an FBI investigation and still Republicans have found nothing. This is getting old. It got old decades ago. But that's all Republicans have.

I find it ironic that those with the heaviest and biggest blinders are the first to accuse others of being limited by blinders. But unfortunately, it happens all too often.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hmm, is there a point buried in their somewhere? The fact is America's nuclear forces are tested and practiced on their willingness and ability to launch nuclear weapons. There is no doubt, that given a valid order they will launch nuclear weapons. It's what they signed on for. They didn't sign on to second guess the POTUS.

Er: what? And just how am I arguing with myself exactly?

The fact is, and contrary to your assertion, the military is taught to obey orders from day one.

Well, it's your fantasy, remember? It's your idea that a coup would prevent the POTUS, (i.e. Trump) from launching a nuclear attack.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/have-you-voted.158169/page-3#post-3413109

As you have been previously instructed, the POTUS can at any time and for any reason order a nuclear attack. And as that order goes down the chain of command, it will not be questioned. It will be executed.

"Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it.[2][3][4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

I'm assuming you are relying on the 25th Amendment to save your derriere. But that doesn't help you either. Are you going to tell me that if Trump is elected Pence and a majority of the cabinet are going to oust Trump by declaring him incapacitated in order to prevent nuclear Armageddon? That's a big stretch. That assumes the vice president and cabinet know about Trump's orders. That's a big assumption. Hell, there is nothing stopping Trump from firing his entire cabinet.

And how are you going to explain that to Trump's supporters? Trump is erratic. Trump is crazy now. If he is elected, he wouldn't be any more or less crazy. The very fact that his mental stability is a serious concern disqualifies the man. The fact that Republicans are willing to go this far and to so seriously fracture the nation so as to considered the 25th Amendment, shows just how much Republicans value party over the health and well-being of Americans and how wrong they are.

Your reliance on a coup to prevent Trump from doing something damaging to the nation is ludicrous.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That isn't the point. The point is Every Democrat Ever pretending the've never even heard of the issues.

 

See... I'm a registered Independent, but have always leaned Democrat... and my issue is simple:

Now, a clever man can see the wrongs that the candidate the Republican Party has placed in front of us has wrought, and only a great fool would vote for him. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the candidate in front of you. But the DNC must not have known I was not a great fool, they would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the candidate in front of me, knowing the wrongs she has wrought.

(yes... I just butchered that quote... shoot me)

Point being, both of the "primary" candidates suck... they have zero obligation or desire to help the middle class, and we have no reason to believe they will do so out of a sense of morality or ethics (which I do not believe either of them have). Trump is motivated by Money and Power. Hillary is motivated by Power and saving her own ass.

What we need is a public servant... not some self-serving egomaniac that only wishes to further their own wealth...

 

Naan, I'll give you that; it's clever and I more or less agree.

 

You forget about the part where you were advocating writing in "Mickey Mouse".

 

Do you ever get tired of telling lies?

 

I did no such thing. I merely stated a fact/reality that it is an option. Stating the fact in nour more way means I advocating it than stating Hillarry's crimes means I advocate her committing them!

 

I've never tried, so I wouldn't know. Do you ever get tired of being a trolling asshole?

I mean, let's be real, here; you trolled (repeated Comey's troll, really, but still), I caught you and simply pointed it out, and with nothing left to discuss, you just switch to personal attacks. Don't get me wrong, I'm not insulted, I actually love it, but my god, I can't imagine the mindset of what drives such a person to be that way!

 

All I did was make the completely accurate statement that Powell's email handling as Secretary of State during a time of war was significantly worse, as a security risk, than Clinton's - private server and all.

When you pressed for context, I expanded into the flagrant and apparently criminal context of the entire W&Cheney administration's years of "mishandling" of government records and emails and official business documents, including at least one criminal breach of security that cost the US major intelligence and expertise and possibly lives of agents directly involved with the Iranian nuclear programs (Plame), and at least one instance with serious financial criminal implications (Cheney's private meetings with military contractors and big oil execs on the eve of the Iraq War).

And since there was and has been no serious investigation into any of that by the current persecutors of Clinton, and there was and is no call for any such investigation from the current persecutors of Clinton, clearly neither the security risk nor the criminal implications of Clinton's comparatively minor and safer email mishandling are - in themselves - a significant concern of theirs.

Someone going apeshit over gopher entrances, while ignoring what the backhoe is doing next to their foundation where it is not supposed to be, is clearly not focused on holes in the yard.

So lots of people voting for Clinton are well aware of what this "scandal" is actually about - same thing all the other Clinton "scandals" have been about.

Look: If the Republican Party had nominated a reasonable candidate for President, or was even capable of nominating a reasonable candidate for President or Congress or anything else, these teapot tempest hypocrisies might be enough to shade a reasonable person's vote - there's enough there to once again reaffirm my low opinion of Clinton's basic competence and connections, as well as the Democratic Party's influences and agenda. But the current Republican Party has made such a foul circus of itself that there isn't much reason to pay any attention to anything any Republican says or does. Seriously: the lot of them have trashed their credibility, completely. No honest and reasonable and competent national politician can associate themselves with that Party, and so any politician who does can be ignored with prejudice and voted against by presumption.

It doesn't take a maniac. All it takes is an incompetent of a bad kind, faced with a crisis or what they take to be one.

The US voting public does the electing. A significant fraction of them can be (have been) manipulated, conned, cheated, defrauded, and fooled at times - enough of them to swing an election.

They elected W&Cheney's administration in 2000, re-elected W&Cheney's administration in 2004. And we saw how the System worked in such hands as those - the valuation of human life they displayed, the role of competence in self-preservation.

Well, we are in the process of deciding much of what "society" will "deserve" from the next President. That's kind of the issue here.

 

Which reminds me, I've heard so many people say that if you don't vote then you deserve whatever President gets elected. Well, ummm, yeah of course. However surely these same people don't believe that if they voted for the candidate that lost they're not responsible for the one that won?

Just out of fun curiosity I'm actually considering going to the polls and entering the voting booth and then just walk out without locking in my vote just to see what would happen. I'm guessing they would just reset the booth? I'm not sure how the voting booth mechanics work.

 

Accurate for what it was, but not complete, so therefore not completely accurate: it was a lie of omission. The omission is Hillary's primary criminal act, her mishandling of classified information. So even if you believe that Powell's handling of his unclassified communications was worse than Hillary's handling of her unclassified communications, you can't possibly believe that Powell's handling of his unclassified communications was worse than Hillary's handling of her classified communications. Or, more succinctly: Hillary sent classified information via her unsecure email and Powell didn't. That makes Hillary's crime a lot worse than Powell's poor computer literacy.

 

There is another reason to "help the middle class" in the US, which seems hellbent on wrecking itself via fascistic politics but nevertheless deserves representation: the desire and ability to govern competently according to basic liberal and humanist principles, thereby avoiding the disasters attendant on extreme economic inequality, leading to success in office and respectful praise from one's peers and heirs.

Clinton would be far more likely than Trump to harbor something like that as a motive, and far more likely than Trump to be capable of it.

But I did not omit that. I specifically referred to that issue, in my reference to Powell's setup.

His setup was worse. Nobody knows how he used it. The fact that he could change the classification on anything he touched confuses the entire matter, anyway.

You don't know that. And you don't know what kinds of info Powell deemed "classified", in the first place.

We don't know how severely his usage compromised national security in fact, because we haven't checked, so we can't compare it with Clinton's. But we can compare their basic setups. Powell's setup was worse, much worse, from a security standpoint.

 

That's an interesting tack. Based on the Florida recount I would guess that it does indeed register a no vote. There are of course more things on the ballot then just the presidential election and you are of course not obligated to vote for all of them. However, my concern with this approach is that generally the no votes are not publicly or prominently reported.

 

Depends on which State you are in. In my State you can't do that, physically - you'd have to leave your ballot itself in the booth, which would be illegal (and treated as a fouled ballot). Ask your election judges - there will be a formal procedure, they should know what it is.

 

You have not anywhere in this thread made any reference to Hillary's mishandling of classified information. In order to compare two things, you actually have to state the two things you are comparing. Just saying "Powell was worse" doesn't say worse than what.

Oh, I see - this explains your incoherent nonsense in Post #24: you are FANTASIZING that Powell did worse things than Clinton! So not only are you lying by omission of Clinton's mishandling of classified information, but you are also lying by making up crap (fantasy) to slander Powell with!

I mean, jeez, given all of the flak I get for stating the facts of Clinton's crimes that no one wants to hear about, can you imagine how much worse it would be if I just made crap up like you (and apparently Tiassa and others) are? Wait, lemme try: I fantasize that Hillary conspired with Trump to rig the election against the Republicans. Hey, you're right, fantasy is more palatable than reality! Thanks, iceaura, it is so liberating to be free from the constraints of facts/reality!

 

I said, specifically, that Powell's email setup was a significantly higher national security risk than Clinton's, pointing to illustrative features. I said that actual mishandling could not be compared, because Powell's was unknown and uninvestigated. I did not compare Powell's uninvestigated and unknown mishandlings with anything.

Post 24 is short, and fairly simple, and makes two claims of fact that are simply accurate: Powell's email setup was less secure than Clinton's; Powell was allowed (as Clinton was not) to classify and declassify the email traffic in his accounts.

I am stating, clearly and accurately, that Powell set up an email system that was significantly less secure and more vulnerable to abuse and mishandling - worse - than Clinton's significantly more secure and less vulnerable to abuse and mishandling - better - one.

Powell did worse than Clinton, at securing his emails - official and private. That's what I said.

I am stating clearly that Powell's use of a vulnerable and easily abused email setup has never been criticized, even, let alone investigated, by the persecutors of Clinton - despite the criminal context and rampant security issues of the entire administration of which he was a central part. And drawing the obvious conclusion - they don't care about that stuff, and never have.

You cannot quote me posting a single thing that Powell has done that he has not done. I have "made up" nothing, and referred to nothing anyone else has made up as event.

On the other hand, this which you post as a parody of what I have not done, has actually been done by the Hillary persecutors:

That's been posted as a legitimate claim, by the same people you are relying on for your accounts of Clinton's crimes.

 

I think the best they have is one low level classified document. They don't have much. For all the drama, there is absolutely no evidence national security was compromised.

She wasn't in compliance with freedom of information laws which require each email to be printed, logged, and filed, but neither were her predecessors. It's a tempest in a tea pot and it's the genesis of many right wing conspiracy theories.