On 7/7/16 4:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 12:57:01 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

It is really about both of them. Maybe we should have a do over on the
candidate selections. The GOP knows Trump is a losing proposition and
Hillary is not much better.
It really means the parties will need to get out the vote for their
down ticket because there is not much reason to get excited by the
presidential candidates from either party. This could really be a
"stay at home" election.

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing earlier. Most voters this election will probably be going to the polls to vote *against* a candidate, not for one.

That is the perfect storm of low voter turn out, particularly when
both candidates have more than half the country not trusting them.

Presidential elections always come down to the same 8 states and those
are the ones we need to watch. I know there are Hillary ads showing up
here every 10 minutes right now, trying to rehabilitate her image but
they are largely bull****. From the ad, you would think she did
volunteer work "for the children" all of her life. They don't mention
her time as a corporate lawyer or her time on the board of walmart,
only the few months she spent after college, while looking for a real
job.



Considering how many groups Trump seems willing to insult and **** on, I
suspect the turnout for the Dems will be pretty decent, if not
record-setting. The Dems smell a chance to retake the Senate, have a
real shot at the House, and don't want the Repubs to name three or four
Supremes.

I don't know what will motivate the Repubs other than their hatred of
Hillary.

On 7/7/16 4:20 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:04:15 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 7/7/16 4:00 PM, wrote:

I find it amusing that this is the same government that Harry wants to
have total control over every aspect of our lives.


You are projecting again. I've never said or intimated that I wanted
"government...to have total control over every aspect of our lives."

It is pretty hard to find something, other than abortion and sexual
conduct that you don't want them to control and when you imply that
the preeminent agency for enforcing all of those laws is either
incompetent or corrupt, it calls the whole process into question.



As I suspect, you have nothing on which to base your projection that I
want "government...to have total control over every aspect of our lives."

Thank you for playing.

OK Rick Perry time.
Which government regulatory agencies would you eliminate?


Never considered that.

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:58:40 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 7/7/16 4:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 12:57:01 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

It is really about both of them. Maybe we should have a do over on the
candidate selections. The GOP knows Trump is a losing proposition and
Hillary is not much better.
It really means the parties will need to get out the vote for their
down ticket because there is not much reason to get excited by the
presidential candidates from either party. This could really be a
"stay at home" election.

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing earlier. Most voters this election will probably be going to the polls to vote *against* a candidate, not for one.

That is the perfect storm of low voter turn out, particularly when
both candidates have more than half the country not trusting them.

Presidential elections always come down to the same 8 states and those
are the ones we need to watch. I know there are Hillary ads showing up
here every 10 minutes right now, trying to rehabilitate her image but
they are largely bull****. From the ad, you would think she did
volunteer work "for the children" all of her life. They don't mention
her time as a corporate lawyer or her time on the board of walmart,
only the few months she spent after college, while looking for a real
job.



Considering how many groups Trump seems willing to insult and **** on, I
suspect the turnout for the Dems will be pretty decent, if not
record-setting. The Dems smell a chance to retake the Senate, have a
real shot at the House, and don't want the Repubs to name three or four
Supremes.

I don't know what will motivate the Repubs other than their hatred of
Hillary.

You just confirmed what I said. Democrats will come out against Trump
and Republicans will come out against Hillary. The open question is
who they would actually vote for because there is a significant
overlap (15% or so) in those who don't like either one of them.
Since this is based on telephone polls the negatives might even be
worse because frustrated people are more likely to hang up on a
pollster.

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:58:56 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

Thank you for playing.

OK Rick Perry time.
Which government regulatory agencies would you eliminate?


Never considered that.

No ****, you never saw a government regulation that you didn't like.
Thank YOU for playing

On 7/7/2016 3:45 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/7/16 3:12 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/7/2016 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 11:42:32 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

But Hillary is being pilloried by the GOP for using a private server?

No Hillary's qualifications are being questioned because she was
"sloppy", "negligent" and "Very careless" with top secret materials
that "any reasonable person would know were secret at the time".
Some were even marked that way according to Comey.
There is also the question about her lying under oath about it.
It is also interesting that Comey said he will not release the details
of these recovered E-mails until after the election so we do not know
what else may have been discussed.
Bear in mind, the details of Watergate were not released until after
the election too. I remember how that worked out.
I think she is the most likely president to be impeached since her
husband.



It also appears that she has lied (again) to the public and in
congressional hearings while under oath.

I feel for Harry. It must be tough to mindlessly support his party's
choice in their candidate when it is obvious to the most oblivious
observer that her reputation for lying and deceitfulness is so well
deserved (and confirmed).

This isn't about Trump. It's about Hillary.

I don't have any problems voting for Hillary. There isn't a Republican
on that list of 17 I would have voted for, under any circumstances, for
many reasons.

I'd respect your position more if you *had* some problems regarding
Hillary but chalked it off to the lesser of two evils. I could never,
ever say I had "no problem" voting for a proven liar with the history of
deceitfulness represented in Hillary Clinton.

On 7/7/2016 4:07 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/7/16 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:45:49 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:


I don't have any problems voting for Hillary.
Of course not, You would vote for Al Sharpton if he was the democrat
candidate.

There isn't a Republican
on that list of 17 I would have voted for, under any circumstances, for
many reasons.

Me either. The closest might have been Kasich but he is still an empty
suit



I certainly would vote for The Rev. for POTUS before I would vote for
any of the Gang of 17.

BTW, did you catch this exchange:

MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I
have the manual here, marking national classified security information.
And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three
documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented?
Were they properly marked according to the manual?

JAMES COMEY: No. [...]

MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify
something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?

JAMES COMEY: Correct.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've
discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?

JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the
text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about
what's classified and what's not classified and we're following the
manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those
three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.


You forgot the part where Comey said Hillary probably didn't know what
the (C) meant, even if it was included in error.

Comey said that the FBI investigation revealed that classified data was
found in emails on her server, sent and received by her. He also
reported that Hillary acknowledged to the FBI that she sent and received
classified information on her unsecure, personal server. Up to now she
had claimed publicly and under oath to a Congressional hearing that she
had not. So, what are we to believe?

On 7/7/2016 4:29 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:07:43 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 7/7/16 4:02 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:45:49 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:


I don't have any problems voting for Hillary.
Of course not, You would vote for Al Sharpton if he was the democrat
candidate.

There isn't a Republican
on that list of 17 I would have voted for, under any circumstances, for
many reasons.

Me either. The closest might have been Kasich but he is still an empty
suit



I certainly would vote for The Rev. for POTUS before I would vote for
any of the Gang of 17.

BTW, did you catch this exchange:

MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I
have the manual here, marking national classified security information.
And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three
documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented?
Were they properly marked according to the manual?

A lot of the things the SoS does will not even get a security
classification until after she does it. She is supposed to know the
difference. That is why diplomatic cyphers are supposed to be the most
secure of any in the government. There is no indication that she was
ever using any encryption at all in spite of being in places with very
sophisticated state actors trying to spy on America. Wannabe ISIS guys
in California are smarter than her.

I don't believe she was malicious or even criminal, just "extremely
careless", "negligent" and "sloppy".
Unfortunately she also lied about it under oath, assuming she is not
just too stupid to know what should be a state secret.

That certainly calls into question, her ability to be the president.


Agreed. Meanwhile, I caught some of Trump's "rally" last night. He
was talking about his recent trip to Scotland for the grand opening of
the golf resort that his son Erik had managed the renovations of.
Knowing that this was the day that Great Britain voted to exit the EU,
Trump said he purposely did *not* even pick up a golf club while he was
there, knowing that the press would be all over him for playing golf in
the middle of such an important, international event. Well, the press
didn't jump on him but the Hillary Clinton campaign did. They
immediately released an attack ad supposedly showing Trump golfing
during his visit. Problem is, the video was of him teeing off on a
different golf course at least two years ago. The way Trump presented
the story made me chuckle.

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 4:45:08 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Well, the press
didn't jump on him but the Hillary Clinton campaign did. They
immediately released an attack ad supposedly showing Trump golfing
during his visit. Problem is, the video was of him teeing off on a
different golf course at least two years ago. The way Trump presented
the story made me chuckle.

Richard, does that constitute more Clintonian deceit?

On 7/7/16 5:28 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/7/2016 3:45 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/7/16 3:12 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/7/2016 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 11:42:32 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

But Hillary is being pilloried by the GOP for using a private server?

No Hillary's qualifications are being questioned because she was
"sloppy", "negligent" and "Very careless" with top secret materials
that "any reasonable person would know were secret at the time".
Some were even marked that way according to Comey.
There is also the question about her lying under oath about it.
It is also interesting that Comey said he will not release the details
of these recovered E-mails until after the election so we do not know
what else may have been discussed.
Bear in mind, the details of Watergate were not released until after
the election too. I remember how that worked out.
I think she is the most likely president to be impeached since her
husband.



It also appears that she has lied (again) to the public and in
congressional hearings while under oath.

I feel for Harry. It must be tough to mindlessly support his party's
choice in their candidate when it is obvious to the most oblivious
observer that her reputation for lying and deceitfulness is so well
deserved (and confirmed).

This isn't about Trump. It's about Hillary.

I don't have any problems voting for Hillary. There isn't a Republican
on that list of 17 I would have voted for, under any circumstances, for
many reasons.

I'd respect your position more if you *had* some problems regarding
Hillary but chalked it off to the lesser of two evils. I could never,
ever say I had "no problem" voting for a proven liar with the history of
deceitfulness represented in Hillary Clinton.




I've had "problems" with every presidential candidate I've ever voted
for, but, as I said, I don't have any problems *voting* for Hillary.

As for lying, the fact checkers state that Trump has let loose more
colossal lies than any other candidate, and by a long shot.

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 18:15:32 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

As for lying, the fact checkers state that Trump has let loose more
colossal lies than any other candidate, and by a long shot.

That just demonstrates why more than half of the country does not
trust either one of them.