[karmirtsaghik]

Elegance,
I do not watch news channels, any of them. For me they are like reality shows, all of them. I read my news and analyses. If it would have not been for my children I would have given up TV completely.

[osb]

Do you feel safe, for example having a President who shares her email server with the STBXH of Huma Abbedin, who everyone knows never been discrete or judicious with internet use. Huma Abbedin is a dual Saudi and American national who definitely possessed at some  point Top Secret Clearance, and therefore did have access to classified information. Now do we share internet server between husband and wife while we work as a top aid to the Secretary fo State?

Sadly, I think you're tarring Huma Abedin with her husband's brush (as you also tarred Hilary Clinton with her husband's misdeeds, in your post). Factually: no, Clinton didn't 'share a server' with anyone. She emailed her aide Abedin. Who opened some of those emails (according to the FBI, not any classified ones) on her home computer (which was seized in the investigation of Weiner). And as a sideswipe, you kind of impugned Abedin's 'true American' credentials and right to a security clearance, by simply noting she was born in Saudi (a country that doesn't take you off their citizenship roster, even if you relinquish it - so no, Abedin is not actually a Saudi national - but it sure makes her sound scary, no? A Muslim??). 

For one thing, that was a whole lotta innuendo, but nothing to either woman's discredit (and the FBI has confirmed this). Also I truly feel anyone this board who choses to blame a woman for her husband's sexual proclivities (or for not choosing to divorce said husband) might perhaps reconsider that position... given that many on this board are remaining married to spouses who have a few things to answer for. Our spouse's sins don't tar us. They're certainly not 'ammunition' for criminal investigation of us! As Phoenix noted, it's a cognitive dissonance.

[Phoenix]

It is much better to take trump less literally.

The only people that is better for  are those who are uncomfortable supporting him given what he literally said and did.

He is adept at using persuasive language and posturing,

I understand he seems adept to some. I have always found him an insecure, rather stupid, blowhard who is neither persuasive nor impressive.

but a literal interpretation will find constant conflicting statements.

That's because he is an opportunist who says and does whatever he needs to to win over whoever he is speaking to in the moment. Of course that approach will lead to contradiction and conflicting statements.

Did you, by chance, catch the documentary Clinton Cash which is credited as being an important primary source starting the FBI Clinton foundation investigation?  It largely focuses on conflicts of interest.

Yes, I did watch the documentary and read the book by Conservative Republican activist and strategist, Peter Scweizer. I also saw several interviews in which he had to backtrack and admit he has no evidence in regards to Hillary Clinton crimes, nor any good answer when he was reminded that 9 different U.S. agencies approved one of the transactions he most focused on.

An independent government ethics expert, Bill Allison, also determined, in regards to Schweizer's allegations that, “There’s no smoking gun, no evidence that she  (Clinton) changed the policy based on donations to the foundation.”

Also, Schweizer has since had to retract and correct "errors."

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-cash-publisher-corrects-7-or-8-inaccurate-passages-117946

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209

If Hillary Clinton was judged on what she has genuinely done rather than being accused of doing and villified for, she would have a more fair playing field. As I have said repeatedly, no politician--including Hillary Clinton--is perfect. If that is what people are seeking, they won't find it in any party or candidate. However, from all that I know of her, personally and via extensive research, I would vote for her infinitely over Trump. Ultimately, many here will have to agree to disagree if we are confident about our decisions and the reasons why. And I am.
Phoenix

P.S. Right on, OSB.

[MyBrainIsBroken]

Phoenix is correct. It's not hard to find articles like the one she linked to that accuse Trump of all kinds of things. The problem is that those that I looked at were all twisting things Trump said in order to make it appear much worse than it really was. I can provide links for another dozen just like it but that doesn't mean they reflect the truth. So much of this goes on that I have to wonder how much of what people think they know about Trump is actually true.

Politics is a dirty business and it keeps getting dirtier. And it doesn't help when people make decisions about candidates based on articles like the one Phoenix linked to or based on last minute comments by the FBI Director. Too many people involved in politics are pursuing hidden agendas.

I'm sorry this topic was started, even though it's clearly valid since it was listed as Off-Topic. Ideally, THS is a place where LBSes can gather to find support and to support each other and this topic has caused a lot of contention which is hardly conducive to supporting each other. I've read every post and I haven't seen anything good come out of it which is why I'm done following it. I'm going to take my ball and go home.

[Roma]

 karmirtsaghik, I wasn't speaking about you No one in particular. Really I was just inquiring to have a dialog w/ a conservative Republican without contentious disagreement, that enjoyed enlightening me on their views for conversation, and not so much the familiar FOX news talking points.

I'll watch Morning Joe on MSNBC sometimes and enjoy it. He is a conservative Republican.

Like you, I often don't watch tv.

[karmirtsaghik]

OSB,
Show me one word where I tarred Huma for her husband's deeds. In fact, her boss should have followed Huma' s example.  Actually FBI concluded that there were 22 top secret classified emails out of about 1900 that were found on Huma Abbedin's email server, which she was sharing at home with her husband.  OSB in fact Huma, while at state department had a "special government employee" arrangement whereby she was allowed to work for a private consulting firm, Clinton foundation, and State department simultaneously. She was also allowed to telecommute from her home in NY. HC's email usage was negligent and did not follow the encryption protocol, besides when this investigation broke off her aids were trying to change the confidentiality headings of the emails. She was cleared of CRIMINAL wrongdoing but the practice left the intelligence specialists really puzzled and worried. It is naive to assume that in this day and age Huma Avbedin's or HC's home servers are safe and secure, especially that neither of them had any cybersecurity knowledge or concerns. The IT specialist that helped Clinton set her server took Article 5 protection, in order not to testify.
Also it is ludicrous to suggest that me mentioning Huma Abeddin' second nationality, I am implying "muslim". No, but for the yahoo's like Trump that is really a good target and if you add to it email scandal, there we get serious credibility issues for lots of people.
Neither I suggested that HC should be kept responsible for BC's sexual transgressions. But then she cannot judge Trump who just openly said what unfortunantely is true for many man in power, and her husband is sure not immune of it. It is not HC' s place to aswer for BC's sexual journeys outside the marriage, her responses to it, however are her responsibilities. She is not a poor woman who just chose to safe her marriage at all cost, she has chosen to live an undignified life because her Husband was the President. Just read her memoirs immediately after the Monika Lewinsky scandal.
OSB, do you have any idea how difficult it is to obtain Top Secret Security clearance for dual nationalities? I am sure somebody expedited that for Huma Abbedin. It takes almost 2 years. I live 20 miles outside DC, and have lots of friends whose career is pending upon receiving security clearance, which they are waiting for months if not years.

[Phoenix]

I think you're missing the point MBB. I made one brief comment about this several posts ago because it goes to Trump's views and behavior toward women, even objectifying his own daughter. You said you were unable to find anything about it so I provided the info. linking to the Rolling Stone article the statement came from during an interview with Trump. The exact quote from Trump being, ""Yeah, she's (Ivanka) really something, and what a beauty, that one," he told the magazine. "If I weren't happily married and, ya know, her father..."

And while it seemed you were making light of a different statement Trump made about Ivanka on "The View," I stand by my point of his behavior toward women, including making such a creepy remark in his daughter's presence. You may not see it as inappropriate, but certianly the women on the View did, and so do I. If that is his, or anyone else's idea of humor. Ewwwww   I can't stomach, let alone imagine, my father talking about me this way.
http://fusion.net/story/176716/heres-the-creepy-video-of-donald-trump-saying-hed-date-his-own-daughter/

Just as I find Trump's agreement that Howard Stern could call Ivanka a "piece of @ss"
and such sexualized photos of Ivanka as a child, like the one below, having a huge "ick" factor at best. (And note the giant gold parrots they are sitting on are having sex--no red flags there  )


A man who sexualizes his own daughter, allows others to do the same (because she is just one more trophy to him and he only values women for one things so why should his daughter be any different?)  and even thinks such things, let alone utters them out loud, has problems... We will have to disagree if you see it differently or think hearing Trump say the words himself and seeing the photo with your own eyes is "twisting" the facts. And women who want to see progress under Trump, shouldn't hold their breath.

Phoenix

[elray]

Phoenix,
I'm glad you reviewed the material relating to clintons pay to play foundation.  I agree there is no smoking gun in the public record.  One would need to power of subpoena to find hard evidence.   But I must confess, I am confused and confounded again.  When you discussed trumps potential conflicts of interest, do you also expect to apply a "smoking gun" standard before the threshold of concern is met, or is the standard different.

WRT taking trump literally, you seemed upset that he might have a private position different from a public position, and possibly take opportunistic advantage.  Is that the standard all candidates should be held to? 

My measure of his persuasion skill was not my personal opinion.  I too find him to be a blowhard.  I was simply measuring him based on performance.  He captured and co-opted the Republican Party, and won the general election.  Along the way he trolled the media at will, and defeated both the Bush family and the Clinton dynasty; two families who have ruled American established politics for 30 years.  Love him or hate him, he stood the system on its head and defied all odds along the way.  In recognizing this, is there not some strong persuasive factors involved in closing that deal?

[Phoenix]

I'm not sure what you mean by "upset" though that is often the word used when a woman states her opinion.

No, I don't hold Trump to a different standard, but I'm surprised you don't know of the many conflicts of interests that even Republicans aren't sure how to fully address. Research it. You'll find the information or you can wait to see it become an increasing topic of news as his tenure nears.

I too find him to be a blowhard.  I was simply measuring him based on performance.  He captured and co-opted the Republican Party, and won the general election.

You interpret that to mean Trump performed well. I interpret it differently.

Phoenix

[OldPilot]

Do FOX news viewers ever research on their own or just take what FOX news says? you all seem to say the same things all the time coming from that channel! Just curious. I'd love to have an interesting discussion w/ one,  if only they think on their own and didn't repeat FOX news talking points all day.

So what you are saying is FOX is all wrong and  the NY Times, CNN, ABC, NBC,  CBS, google, facebook and many others are always right.
TBH I believe they are all wrong.

So how do you KNOW that the news is honest?

Where are YOU doing research that is infallible?

I know that watching different points of view is coming up with totally different FACTS.
That does not seem like honest coverage to me.

I understand that the medias job is to get ratings and sell news,
but who keeps them in line?
Who keeps them honest?

Sorry I am not buying what they are selling.