Chess Online

Play online chess!

Pages:  1 2 3 4 5 Next »
From	Message
dmaestro 05-Jul-16, 09:30	Witch Hunt Fails--Hillary NOT Charged www.cnbc.com The right wing campaign to get Clinton failed. Now we must get the right wingnuts out of power.
brigadecommander 05-Jul-16, 09:36	DM But softaire swore to us that HRC would be indicted!!!!. He was very adamant. Has his judgement failed?? Will he now man-up and apologize?? Or go the conspiracy theory route??
dmaestro 05-Jul-16, 10:07	Softaire means well but right wing propaganda is addicting. Fox News et al has been telling us Hillary was a criminal. Those who rely on these sources are known to be low in accurate information.
chaz- 05-Jul-16, 10:19	... y'know, in the event HRC is not indicted, it's because there was "inside collaboration" [of course] in her favor. It's the fallback excuse for such things since the insiders take care of their own. I'm concerned about the utter disregard for substantiated fact checking by ANYone who is considered objective. And, while I believe both parties are guilty of doing this, I believe the Right is far more skilled at data/fact manipulation.
ace-of-aces 05-Jul-16, 10:43	Slick Hillary ! She knows how to wiggle out of the obstacles & outsmart Trump. www.cnn.com Clinton's presumptive Republican opponent Donald Trump blasted Comey's decision an example of a rigged system. "The system is rigged. General (David) Petraeus got in trouble for far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment," Trump tweeted. Related Video: Loretta Lynch addresses Bill Clinton meeting 01:39 And House Speaker Paul Ryan said Comey's announcement "defies explanation." "No one should be above the law," Ryan said in a statement. "But based upon the director's own statement, it appears damage is being done to the rule of law. Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent." While the FBI is saying they are not recommending charges, the final decision rests with the Justice Department. That decision, ultimately, will be made by Attorney General Loretta Lynch who refused to recuse herself after a political furor arose over a chance meeting she had with President Bill Clinton. All indications are that decision will be accepted. Last Friday, Lynch explained that the recommendation would be reviewed by "career supervisors" who will present to her the findings. "I fully expect to accept their recommendations," Lynch said at an appearance last Friday in Aspen. Comey made clear at the outset that he had not forewarned the Department of Justice or the administration what he was about to do. "They do not know what I'm about to say," he said at the opening of his remarks.
chaz- 05-Jul-16, 10:54	... just what "laws" were said to be broken by HRC anyhow?
dmaestro 05-Jul-16, 11:29	Patraeus deliberately gave classified info to a mistress and lied about it. That was criminal. Hillary knew the right wing was out to get her. She did nothing criminal. The partisan reactions of the GOP still demanding her head are based on pure propaganda and show what was already known--the whole matter was a partisan hit job.
ace-of-aces 05-Jul-16, 12:13	Witch Hunt versus Justice It happened in Salem, MA where 19 innocent people were accused of using supernatural power of witchcraft to harm or kill the villagers. They were hanged. Hindsight showed that those people had no such supernatural power of witchcraft. Majority of the town's people were just ignorant and just superstitious. They believed and accused them that they were witches. Having said that DM would like to use that analogy to compare Hillary as a witch. Since people are not superstitious nowadays and no longer believe in witchcraft, DM wants to say that she is presumed to be innocent. GOPs are just doing this to derail her from the track of presidential bid. The analogy is incorrect and ridiculous because the court makes the final decision whether a person is innocent or not. We can speculate the outcome but if it is not presented to the court, how can we make the judgment and justice. We have to trust our judiciary system which is to find the truth. Truth can make her free. Otherwise, people will have lingering doubts about her credibility and will have negative impact of her bid to White House. I don't believe the story will end here. Both parties have lawyers and the fight will continue.
ace-of-aces 05-Jul-16, 12:24	General Patraeus did not lie like president Bill Clinton. He just admitted his mistakes and resigned. Bill Clinton lied until he could longer lie about his sex with her when his semen was found on the dress of Monica Lewinski.
softaire 05-Jul-16, 12:24	This decision simply demonstrates the depth of corruption in our "good 'ol boy's- insiders club" for the establishment politician. The elites are setting the example for businessmen CEO's and military officers to follow. The public cannot help but to also notice. They too are following the examples. Blatant disregard for the law and honesty didn't start with this administration but it has been growing worse incrementally for decades. Lying, cheating, and dishonesty have become commonplace. There is no accountability that can correct or stop it. There is no punishment for wrong doing. America has lost its' values and is becoming a third world piece of trash.
saintinsanity 05-Jul-16, 13:13	Yeah, I would have liked to see a recommendation for indictment. But like DM and BC said, we can only prove she acted incompetently, but not with intent to deceive. Even though it's pretty obvious her intent was to avoid FOIA requests and do back-room deals. I still think we are going to see some major corruption exposed with the Clinton Foundation some day. Anyways, it won't be our first incompetent president. It's honestly hard to say who will make worse decisions, Clinton or Trump. I'm going to have to guess Trump would be worse.
chaz- 05-Jul-16, 13:27	ace ... ... are you familiar with the English idiom 'witch hunt'? It seems from your 12:13 post you may not be. Just asking.
ace-of-aces 05-Jul-16, 13:37	chaz's question What "laws" were said to be broken by HRC anyhow? chaz and I are both veterans. To be in the military we needed security clearance and strict discipline in handling of classified information. For example, look at the situation when the allied troops invaded Normandy in second world war. Most of the invasion troupes did not know where they were going. The secrecy was important because if the Germans knew beforehand, they would concentrate their forces and annihilate the allied landing troupes at the exact spot. As secretary of state, HRC was responsible to handle the security of both civilian and military. Recently, there was a report that Russian hackers got into DNC files. It is unknown whether any hackers got into her private server but I am sure it will be more vulnerable to hackers than that of state servers and computers. There will be a lot of damage if terrorists or our enemies got into her private email servers and got the state secrets. =========== Let me give the analogy of whether I break the law or not on the following situation. I was driving at night on highway at the speed limit of 70 miles per hour. The speed limit changed to 60 mph but I did not notice it. All of a sudden, the police car with flashing lights appeared behind me. The COP gave me a $ 200 speeding ticket. 1. Could I beg the COP that I did not deserve it because I did not know or see the speed Limit ? I don't believe the officer will listen to my plea but FBI Comey will listen to HRC in real life situation. Is HRC very dumb enough that using her private email sever violates the law ? 2. Could I beg the police officer again that I did not deserve the speeding ticket since I did not Have any accidents or injured anybody although I was over speeding and breaking the law. I don't believe, the cops will buy my argument. 3. If I did not believe that the cop was doing the right thing, I could still go to the court and challenged the cops findings but usually I would pay the fine because going to court is more costly and time consuming. It is not that I don't trust the court. HRC is lucky because FBI said that there is no reason for her to go to court. So, she is spared to go to court by FBI endorsement. Attorney General Loretta Lynch will decide whether to indict HRC or not depending on FBI recommendation. 4. Trump's fair and legitimate question. " Is the system rigged or is there conspiracy. You decide.
chaz- 05-Jul-16, 13:51	ace ... ... are you not aware that HRC handled these things in a similar fashion as previous secretaries of state? ... even presidents have had private servers. Do you know how many documents Bush shredded because he didn't want to disclose anything like this either? This is not what you are characterizing this to be. It is indeed a witch hunt put together by those who are very much anti-Clinton. It is characteristic of the divisiveness we now have in Congress and politics. I would agree that something needs to be done to improve transparency and ethics in WashDC. I hope you're not suggesting that someone like Trump is the answer. How much further chaos can you imagine THAT would bring? Should we discuss that?
dmaestro 05-Jul-16, 14:58	A decision not to prosecute means it does not go to court for a decision. So the presumption of innocence is in effect. What we have is a rabid right wing mob who have already made up their minds and want to take the law into their own hands and ally punishment. It will never be over. The vast right wing conspriacy has always hated the Clintons. And they always will. But the right wing nuts are no better than a lynch mob. They need to be stopped. When Hillary becomes President it will be a fitting rebuke to those scumbags. Move on...
saintinsanity 05-Jul-16, 15:20	I'll not let you sweep this under the rug as some vast right wing conspiracy. I'm some damned hippy and I tell you, she displayed horrible judgement. It's bad enough just with what it is. Hillary Cilnton, knowing she wanted to run for president and knowing that she would be under incredible scrutiny, made such a foolish decision to operate a private email server out of her own home that she got sucked into an FBI investigation. That's just ridiculous. She does not want transparency at all. And we really need transparency.
lord_shiva 05-Jul-16, 16:09	Justice In order for there to be a criminal trial there must first be reasonable expectation a crime has been committed. We don't charge people willy nilly and let the courts sort it out. If justice worked this way we would charge Ace with premeditated murder. He might have killed SOMEONE. Then we let the jurors decide. Or, in the case of Hillary, there is a claim she broke some law. Back in reality, there was no law she was guilty of having broken--otherwise the justice department would be remiss in NOT filing charges. But before charges can be filed there must be a crime. What was the crime? Using a private email server? Was this a violation of federal law? Can ANY of Hillary's detractors point to which specific law was broken? No. All they can do was insist the server use was against policy. And that, of course, is some sort of crime. It is much like the example Ace gives, but instead of his failure to notice the change in speed limit, the 70 mph sign was torn down and replaced with a "suggested" 50 mph sign two years after he last used that road. NOW all Ace's enemies insist Ace must be prosecuted for doing 70 in a 70 mph zone. It's madness. What is the fine for driving 70 when the speed limit is 70? Prison? Ask any conservative, he'll say Hillary should be executed. Or give a life sentence at the very minimum. Their sense of proportionality is distorted beyond all reason or sensibility.
saintinsanity 05-Jul-16, 16:11	I think all reasonable people just think that she shouldn't be president. But our other choice is Trump so f***. www.youtube.com
lord_shiva 05-Jul-16, 16:15	Trump's Transparency He cannot be bothered to release his income tax statements, because he has far too much to hide. But we can trust him not to keep any other matters of state secret? Honestly, I think he would accidentally spill state secrets like crazy, except where keeping secrets (such as public policy) would stand to personally benefit him financially. If Trump wins, his personal fortune will grow far faster than did Putin's in the same amount of time. Putin is now worth $200 billion. That fortune took him 16 years to amass. I bet Trump would easily parlay his $2 billion into $200 billion in just four years. I pray we never find out, though.
saintinsanity 05-Jul-16, 16:18	But we don't mind Clintons selling out for the maximum possible?
saintinsanity 05-Jul-16, 16:23	Oh, right. They don't do that. Another big serving of bullshit from the powers that be
lord_shiva 05-Jul-16, 16:35	Selling Out Selling out what? Bill and Hillary's combined current net worth is about $100 million. Truman is about the only president of the "modern era" who did not benefit substantially from his post presidential experience. Ronald Reagan went from $4 million to $13 million. Pretty poor performance for a supposed conservative. George W. went from $11 million to $20 million. Really paltry. George H. W. Bush is worth $25 million now, and $2 million back in 1988. Awfully good. Does anyone anticipate the Clinton's will be worth a billion dollars after Hillary's second term, in 2024? You're kidding yourself if you do.
saintinsanity 05-Jul-16, 16:40	I'm just saying that their interest isn't aligned with the good of the nation. They will make their paltry "as many million as possible" because they have the chance. They don't really care about us and it shows.
dmaestro 05-Jul-16, 17:11	Both she and Bill compartmentalize and have strong right wing enemies which creates errors in judgement. However neither Bills consensual sex or Hillary's sloppy email practices are criminal. The right wing has an agenda. Not enough people care enough about money and influence in politics. It takes money to be successful at that level. Better the best practical choice than a worse alternative. Thinking that opposing Hillary will help on that issue is erroneous.
saintinsanity 05-Jul-16, 17:13	We could have torn them all down just now, but the exact same system took Bernie down. Screw all of this.
dmaestro 05-Jul-16, 17:21	Bernie followers needed to be active in 2014 to defeat the Tea Party congress.
dmaestro 05-Jul-16, 17:23	Much too little to late. We needed them in 2010 and 2014.
saintinsanity 05-Jul-16, 17:26	Oh, right, blame this on the people who just realized they have a say and then immediately after realized that their say doesn't matter one good god damn.
dmaestro 05-Jul-16, 17:46	That's your problem. We could and should have dealt with this plutocracy after the 2008 crash when Obama was elected. Instead those who are now for Bernie abandoned the field while the tea party did not. Midterms were a wipe out and nothing can be done. A few full election cycles and we can break down the walls. But it can't be done at the 11th hour...
lord_shiva 05-Jul-16, 17:54	Trump's Interest is far, far less aligned with the good of the nation. And Bill and Hillary have both done a lot of good for our country, working to help secure the interests and meet the concerns of the working class. While there is no argument Bernie would have been better, not a single GOP candidate comes close to matching Hillary's agenda or ability. Not even close.
Pages:  1 2 3 4 5 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, Internet chess league, chess teams, monthly chess tournaments, chess clubs, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.