"We must let our talking points stand on their merits. "
Then yours can't even sit up.
I don't want you name and social, dumfuck, just a little taste of your germane experience. Some valid references for your horsehit would also be nice. Given their absence, I doubt that you have ever rigorously studied anything.
Paul Penzone, the democrat challenging Sheriff Joe, is leading in a recent poll. we may actually get rid of that obnoxious gasbag. Now if we could only dump our nasally governor.
Eh. We're anonymous here. We must let our talking points stand on their merits. I won't ask you to believe me because of the rank I achieved or who I supervised. And you should not press for the credibility of your judgment based on your career experience, either. That's fine at one of the military web sites where you use your actual name. It doesn't work here.
Look, the takeaway is she's damaged, she's probably got more damage on the way, and this noise about how she's going to wallop Trump in this election, which all of the mainstream pundits seem to say in unison, only makes sense if you ignore her damage and obsess over Trump's, and if you believe polling, which itself is badly damaged by factors pollsters can't control. That's a provable fact, and I gave links which demonstrate it.
Maybe she *will* cream Donald Trump. But there are so many variables in play, it's crazy not to consider how they might change the electoral landscape. It's crazy to pretend that she's unscathed and healthy and invulnerable going into this election. And it's crazy to rely on polls. Polls are not getting at the public will like they used to, and that is a verifiable fact.
Urgelt, see below, King of A. for the tl;dr.But, doing you the favor of a semi-serious response, which is probably a fool's errand (I believe in redemption I guess), but what the hell, let's do it:I asked you not to just regurgitate the extremely vague "neoliberal policy agenda". You did. It's a non-starter in a discussion of what specific sins Hillary is supposed to be have committed. Before we even get into the question of deleted emails hiding quid pro quo evidence - I ask you again, give me a concrete example of a plausible quid pro quo scenario (favors to existing or potential CF donors she could have done as SecState I guess is what you are charging her with). So a plausible scenario for that, with specific parties, please. Then any evidence for that (such a significant and pricey exchange would leave pretty major traces in the public record I would think). If you can do that, then maybe it's time to talk about deleted emails, and what evidence they could be concealing.
When the SecState travels to Africa or wherever, she/he goes with communications specialists and equipment. SecState can't be out of contact with the White House. And never is.
State issues smartphones that work with its servers. She didn't want any part of it. Other Secretaries of State have used private e-mail, but none before Hillary ever used *only* private e-mail, with the server stashed in her house and inaccessible to State's own IS people. None before Hillary ever invented the right to peruse and delete e-mails from her server before handing over the rest. Anyone who thinks what she did was standard and above-board isn't paying attention. She violated federal records statutes, period - that's State Department's finding, not mine. Whether there was criminality or not isn't State's decision.
She's told enough lies about that server to earn a ten-inch nose.
"We must let our talking points stand on their merits. "
Then yours can't even sit up.
I don't want you name and social, dumfuck, just a little taste of your germane experience. Some valid references for your horsehit would also be nice. Given their absence, I doubt that you have ever rigorously studied anything.
Paul Penzone, the democrat challenging Sheriff Joe, is leading in a recent poll. we may actually get rid of that obnoxious gasbag. Now if we could only dump our nasally governor.
Greetings from Baja Arizona.
Hey....my Congress Critter (Raul Grijalva) is more liberal than yours. Ha.
WOMBAT TITTY LIBULZ!!!11!!
looks like clear sailing below the photo of the A10 Thunderbolt
So quintessentially Berniebro. Facts don't matter; all that matters is my subjective feelings!
It worked a lot better before the primaries.
"Neoliberal"
Gigglesnort
I think I may have to share this with a group of ex Turner employees for the lols
Try it from Africa, genius.
Eh. We're anonymous here. We must let our talking points stand on their merits. I won't ask you to believe me because of the rank I achieved or who I supervised. And you should not press for the credibility of your judgment based on your career experience, either. That's fine at one of the military web sites where you use your actual name. It doesn't work here.
Look, the takeaway is she's damaged, she's probably got more damage on the way, and this noise about how she's going to wallop Trump in this election, which all of the mainstream pundits seem to say in unison, only makes sense if you ignore her damage and obsess over Trump's, and if you believe polling, which itself is badly damaged by factors pollsters can't control. That's a provable fact, and I gave links which demonstrate it.
Maybe she *will* cream Donald Trump. But there are so many variables in play, it's crazy not to consider how they might change the electoral landscape. It's crazy to pretend that she's unscathed and healthy and invulnerable going into this election. And it's crazy to rely on polls. Polls are not getting at the public will like they used to, and that is a verifiable fact.
I fabricated nothing.
There are actually more than two parties fielding candidates, y'know.
Unless your idea of democracy requires you to disqualify them from consideration?
Urgelt, see below, King of A. for the tl;dr.But, doing you the favor of a semi-serious response, which is probably a fool's errand (I believe in redemption I guess), but what the hell, let's do it:I asked you not to just regurgitate the extremely vague "neoliberal policy agenda". You did. It's a non-starter in a discussion of what specific sins Hillary is supposed to be have committed. Before we even get into the question of deleted emails hiding quid pro quo evidence - I ask you again, give me a concrete example of a plausible quid pro quo scenario (favors to existing or potential CF donors she could have done as SecState I guess is what you are charging her with). So a plausible scenario for that, with specific parties, please. Then any evidence for that (such a significant and pricey exchange would leave pretty major traces in the public record I would think). If you can do that, then maybe it's time to talk about deleted emails, and what evidence they could be concealing.
Are you serious?
When the SecState travels to Africa or wherever, she/he goes with communications specialists and equipment. SecState can't be out of contact with the White House. And never is.
State issues smartphones that work with its servers. She didn't want any part of it. Other Secretaries of State have used private e-mail, but none before Hillary ever used *only* private e-mail, with the server stashed in her house and inaccessible to State's own IS people. None before Hillary ever invented the right to peruse and delete e-mails from her server before handing over the rest. Anyone who thinks what she did was standard and above-board isn't paying attention. She violated federal records statutes, period - that's State Department's finding, not mine. Whether there was criminality or not isn't State's decision.
She's told enough lies about that server to earn a ten-inch nose.
Too lazy to click the links I provided, eh?
Can't say I'm surprised.
By the way, I was shitting my diapers in the early 1950's.
I'm a couple of years older than you, by your graduation date.
Your degree in PolySci isn't worth much today if you don't know what neoliberalism is. Hint: it wasn't covered in your textbooks in 1976.