Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	COTUS learns about another scandal from the media
Date:	3/8/2015 11:36:07 AM

Clueless of the United States finds about about yet another scandal about his administration from the media.  You know, if the guy weren't mentally disabled by narcissistic personality disorder he would actually be ashamed to realize that for six years Billary's email address not ending on .gov was not an official government email address. I am again reminded why this imbecile has spent millions to keep his academic records secret because he is either profoundly stupid or lying......most likely both.

I know, he never once got an email for his Secretary of State, right?  Please one of our left wing nuts say this!!!

I suppose if we want to see all her emails we will need to FOIA the Chinese, Russians or North Koreans.  I am quite sure they have them all.  In a normal world this type of scandal would end the career of a politician, actually much less would, and send them to prison where they belong.  Sadly not so for the Clintons which says way more about their useful idiot defenders than it does about them.  Who can blame them for thinking they are above the law?  

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	COTUS learns about another scandal from the media
Date:	3/8/2015 6:16:19 PM

Doubt the President of the United States is getting emails from the Secretary of State (or Defense for that matter).  Principles generally don't email each other.  They have staffs to pass infomation to other staffs.  Principles might email people on their staff, but not other principles. They would generally either speak on the phone or in a meeting or send a formal paper over.  Sorry to burst your bubble. 

Name:	jersey boy -	Reply
Subject:	COTUS learns about another scandal from the media
Date:	3/8/2015 6:21:25 PM

Bring on the dirt then Vote

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	COTUS learns about another scandal from the media
Date:	3/8/2015 6:24:09 PM

I'm not sure that the people that will support Hilary in the next election will be swayed by her email situation.  Republicans will try to make it an issue, but it won't sway Hilary supporters.  Just my opinion.  And I'm not a Hilary supporter.

Name:	jersey boy -	Reply
Subject:	COTUS learns about another scandal from the media
Date:	3/8/2015 6:59:01 PM

     If the election was held without voting for politicians and get real business CEOS in we would be better off.  The money doesn't warrant the position though.  So sad the country will be run by politicans trying to better their familys and supporters with pork belly added to bills and families that will be (on the payroll).  I guess I misse the family with politicans, we were Navy Warriors all the way back to the Old Ironsides except for my son, the went and became an Air Force Pilot.  He broke the chain.  I need to get in my truck and get back to the lake.  We sold the Folks house last year on Suzanna Slough and I miss the whole thing.  My buddy down there passed away years ago but I can go to Marcel<s place next door.  I NEED TO GO.  986 miles and I'm there.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Not buying it
Date:	3/9/2015 8:47:04 AM

Sorry but in this day and age. especially given their penchant for instant communications, I am unconvinced that in six years they never exchanged an email.  Sorry but I am not buying your explanation in the least.  

But let's for a moment accept your premise.  If true and his staff never alerted someone to the fact that Hillary was using a personal email address for sensitive, national security interest emails then it is even more shameful.  But the fact is that everything happening in his administration that turns into a scandal is learned through him reading the paper, watching the news or surfing the web.  If you actually beleive that then you are talking about the most disengaged chief executive in modern history.  Any way you look at it this further points to his incomeptence and her corruption......two hallmarks of the modern Democrat party.

On a related note, I suspect they are getting a little nervous with O'Malley making noises about jumping in.  Given this latest scandal and the Clinton fatigue, not to mention the abject fear that it will be revealed that Slick Willie frolicked with underage girls on numerous occasions with his multi-millionaire pedophile buddy, I suspect a move toward anyone but Hillary is going to gather steam.  We shall see how many people suddenly start to jump into the race on their side as evidence that she is once again in trouble.  And imagine, all this negativity and she has been almost silent other than raising money.  One thing I believe for sure is she is not going anywhere.  She thinks this is her birthright and will not go silently.  Isn't going to happen.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	So much for that "insider info"
Date:	3/9/2015 3:24:01 PM

All of that experience and exposure inside the beltway really served you well.  I am speaking of the fact that it has now been confirmed that of course the SOS and POSOTUS emailed back and forth.  But you so emphatically stated that this wouldn't happen.  They have people to do such menial tasks for them.  Just another example of your not having a clue, but speaking with such authority.  Of course nobody but you and possibly the trio of braindead, err I mean brainwashed, liberal posters thought for a minute that they didn't email. 

Billary better start worrying about the left wing nuts bringing them down cuz if that server ever were to see the light of day I am sure it would start a domino effect of rich and powerful folks doing perp walks.  There has to be some really great reading between Bill and the billionaire pedophile stored on that machine, most likely with pics.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry Lifer but don't count on it
Date:	3/9/2015 3:36:36 PM (updated 3/9/2015 3:38:35 PM)

I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that the server has been scrubbed so clean that NSA couldn't find an incriminating email or file, assuming the server hasn't been totally wiped clean or isn't at the bottom of the Hudson River somewhere.  The best we can hope for is the implication that something really bad was on there and they removed it.  I suspect this was done months ago when gawker first raised the issue of her being on a private email account.  They may be unscrupulous and evil but they are not dumb.

A good summary of the report from the White House that they did in fact email each other as one would certainly expect.  

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/235077-white-house-obama-emailed-to-clintons-private-account

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry Lifer but don't count on it
Date:	3/9/2015 4:23:01 PM

Of course you are right about that server. I was being fecituos about it ever being examined. According to reports the billionaire pedophile had 21 contacts for billy boy. It was a combination of phone and emails but I doubt those emails would be on anything that Hillary had access too but then again with the sick relationship those two have who knows. Hillary may have been using the pedphiles stable also.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Ugh!!!
Date:	3/9/2015 4:35:16 PM

I could have done without the last sentence......I am trying hard to rid my brain of the mental image.........save me now......save me now....

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Not buying it
Date:	3/9/2015 6:39:19 PM

They do not email.  Sorry you don't buy it, but that's the way it works.  They may have phone calls, or meetings but they don't email.  The reason that they don't email is that it is too dangerous politically. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Well sorry but you are wrong
Date:	3/9/2015 8:56:42 PM

See below or pretty much any news organization as the WH admitted today that Obama did exchange emails with Hillary. Hound, in this particular case your inside the beltway knowledge has failed you and my instincts were right.  So it turns out he is both incompetent in not questioning her violation of federal rules and a liar claiming he found out about it on the news. 

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Well sorry but you are wrong
Date:	3/10/2015 8:16:31 AM

A good 7-8 hours into the news cycle and she still hadn't seen the reports.  Maybe ole Morning Joe will give her the details this morning, but then again probably not, because after all, that is now yesterdays news.

Hound ya gotta stay better informed if you want to play with the adults. Switch from pMSNBC to any other network every few hours jus to see if any real news has broken.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Well sorry but you are wrong
Date:	3/10/2015 8:20:08 PM

Opps, I stand corrected.  But this is a good example of why principles don't normally email each other and you can bet there will be no more of it.  But seriousy, how often do you really notice the server extention when someone emails you?  I think most people assume that most people have a work account and a personal account.  I know that back in the day I have responded to a work email from my personal email account, not to be deceitful, but because I was home when I responded to it.  But when I was still working, there was no rule in place and I was not a principle. 

I thought Hiliary's press conference today was just awful.  Her body language and her eyes seemed to indicate she was very uncomfortable and likely lying.  Frankly, I hope this derails her Presidential bid, but it won't.   Republicans hope that it will, because none of them want to face Hiliary in an election.  She's a very smart woman.  But I don't like her politics.  Never have.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Agree she is going nowhere
Date:	3/10/2015 8:36:47 PM

This is her birth right for putting up with Slick Willie.  After watching her press conference, such as it was, I am almost to the point of hoping she is their nominee. She is awful and I am 100% certain she lied constantly.  Didn't you love the planted question at the beginning?  The one about whether she would be treated like this if she were a man.  Her entire campaign is going to be about us needing a woman president.  That is pretty much it.  She can't run on her time as a Senator or SOS.  All she has is her gender.  And sadly it may actually work. 

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Well sorry but you are wrong
Date:	3/10/2015 9:11:19 PM

Plus, it is a sophomoric act to configure a smart phone (even a Blackberry) for business and personal emails.  Before I retired from my company I had a Blackberry that they provided, and all company email sent back and forth from that device was encrypted using the AES 256 algorithm, and to gain access to any of the phone's capabilities I had to enter an eight character password.   On that same phone were my AOL and Gmail capabilities, and I don't assume they have any protection, even if they do.   And I was just a lowly bottom-feeding scum of the earth defense contractor!

and yes, I do believe that it was well known that her email was not .gov.  Even if the published name might be "Her Royal Princess PAin in the A s s", when you reply the true Internet name is included in parentheses.  I doubt seriously that it wasn't common knowledge.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Well sorry but you are wrong
Date:	3/10/2015 9:30:25 PM

I have no doubt her staff knew it. I don't know about the President.  I never pay much attention to email server names.  I think I've said before that I'm surprised that the State Department lawyers were not all over it, but at the end of the day, she was the boss.  I thought it was interesting that she would not dream of turning over her server.  I think she should turn it over to a 3rd party and let them pull the emails that are purely personal.  I can't help but think that Hiliary used a personal server for a reason - most likely as a matter of control.  This is one of things I don't like about her.  I don't think she can be trusted to do the right thing.  She too sure everything is a right wing conspiracy.  Funny, my observation is that even Obama doesn't seem to like her very much. 

Sadly, I think one of her issues will be gender equality.  I hardly think it is one of the most pressing issues in this country.  But, I doubt women will vote for her solely on that issue.  You can pass all the laws you want, but until there is an attitude shift, nothing changes.  I have to say that I have never been aware of being discriminated against because of my gender.  IN fact, I think it helped me far more than it ever hurt me.  So it would never be a voting issue for me. 

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Well sorry but you are wrong
Date:	3/10/2015 11:43:00 PM

And the opposite seems to be the case with race.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Well sorry but you are wrong
Date:	3/11/2015 10:39:42 AM

Do you mean you think race will be an issue in the next election? 

I generally do not think that there is as much racial inequality as portrayed.  There are certain segments of society that want to blame all their problems on "inequality", when in fact, they refuse to place the blame where it belongs - on themselves.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Well sorry but you are wrong
Date:	3/11/2015 11:31:28 AM

No, that a greater percentage of blacks/African-Americans would vote for one of their race because of race than females would vote for a woman because she is female.  Just a very unscientific observation/opinion.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	I'm not so sure
Date:	3/11/2015 11:41:02 AM

If you look at the last two cycles Obama got about 10% more of the black vote (which is already mostly on the Dem party plantation).  In 2004 Kerry got 88% of the balck vote and Obama's numbers were around 97%-98%.  Would an additional 10% of women vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman?  I suspect they might, especially those enlightened independents that go with whatever direction the wind is blowing and the low information voters that are susceptible to all sorts of spurious reasons.  High information women voters will not be swayed in either direction.  But a hefty percentage of independents and low information types have to be women.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	I'm not so sure
Date:	3/11/2015 2:02:52 PM

I think I am an Independent voter and I'm not swayed by whatever direction the wind is blowing.   And I wouldn't vote for a woman just because she is a woman, and I wouldn't vote for a black person, man or woman, just because I believe in equal rights.  I don't consider myself to be a low information voter.  I don't think  following a particular party on every issue makes you "informed".  I realize that I will never know everything there is to know about a given issue or every issue that is out there which may or may not become an issue in an election, and there will never be a candidate the I agree with on every issue; but that doesn't mean I shouldn't vote. 

MM, I understand that you are a conservative Republican and that's fine with me; but please don't delude yourself into thinking that everyone who doesn't believe as you do is stupid or "low information".   I have no idea who I am going to vote for in the next election, (but know it will not be Hiliary), but you can be sure I will be reading and listening carefully.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	I'm not so sure
Date:	3/11/2015 5:22:52 PM (updated 3/11/2015 5:34:48 PM)

Now, now Hound, you are taking this personally.  If you are an informed independent voter then my comments don't apply to you do they?  There are lots of liberals who are well informed, wrong in my opinion, but well informed.  But if you don't think we have a large number of low information voters and that probably half of them are women (just based on demographics) you haven't been paying attention.  Go look at the polls they have done where people can't answer basic civics questions, don't know who the VP is, don't know much of anything about the world around them and still vote.  Those are low information voters and independents by their very nature go in whatever direction the wind is blowing, hence the desire of both parties to pander to them and woo their votes.  They do it because it works.  No amount of pandering could get me to vote for a Democrat over a qualified, conservative Republican.

Let me make my point another way, go and look at the numbers from the primary in 2004 when Hillary got waxed by Obama.  Look at the demographics of those that voted for her and you will see she did exceptionally well with women, even some that were of color.  If she gets the nomination I will bet you a nice dinner at the restauraunt of your choice that she gets a disprportionate number of women's votes.  Heck, I won't even dine with you if you find me so objectionable.  I'll just pick up the tab.  But if I win, you pay and we eat together.  Deal?

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	I'm not so sure
Date:	3/13/2015 9:21:16 AM

Deal.  We were actually talking about this in my art class yesterday.  A good friend of mine agrees with you that a lot of women will vote for Hiliary because she is a woman and will base her campaign on the belief that it is "time" for a woman to become president.  It will be interesting to see what the polls have to say. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	I'm not so sure
Date:	3/13/2015 4:51:54 PM

Of course given our collective ages it will be a miracle if either of us remembers this bet in November 2016.  I will put it on my calendar for December 2016 for dinner with Hound and if I am paying you can bring your significant other along as well.  I can be quite charming so he might want to be there to protect you.  :-)    The only open item is who is paying and where.......and I can assure you if you are paying it will not be Bob's Fine Foods......although I do love their breakfast.  I am going to get some of my tax money back.  Have a good weekend.