Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	OK Security Assessment Over
Date:	7/2/2016 4:11:16 PM

FBI has met with the Queen, Attorney General has met with the Presumptive First Lady.  And report is in

"We are sorry to have wasted your money and time with this Security Assessment of one who had a vulnerable private email server in her basement.  We are pretty sure it was hacked, but hey, only four Americans died.  Guy who set up the server and managed the server and data we granted immunity to spill the beans but he was afraid of committing suicide with a bullet in the back of his head.  He might soon become Chief of Staff.  We were overwhelmed with the non damaging evidence in the 50,000 (or was it 30,000 we forget) pages that were turned over after the yoga class schedules and wedding arrangements were erased.  We find it interesting that NO CLASSIFIED EMAILS WERE SENT OR RECEIVED.  If this was the only email she used (since she didn't want to have to deal with more than one device), then she must not have dealt with anythijng important.  (And on that only one device thing, therefore I need a private server, my 11 year old grandson could have taught her how to have more than one email on the same device, to handle State Dept matters in a more secure matter like the document she signed said she should do.

Be that, and gosh who knows what else is behind those Fifth Amendment Pleadings, we find no evidence to De-Annoint the Queen"

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	OK Security Assessment Over
Date:	7/2/2016 11:28:11 PM

It's really interesting is that millions of dollars and much effort has been spent on investigations of Benghazi and now the Email business, and absence of findings don't convince Clinton-haters that their accusations have been completely exaggerated.    Even in the face of the reports, some people will claim the findings weren't accurate because it is counter to what they WANT to believe.   That's not the way rules of evidence, or logic, works.

What's the point in having investigations if you guys make your conclusions from the get-go and never take into account the actual findings of the FBI, the Legislative committees, or even the explanatory statements of previous Secretary of State (Colin Powell)?

If the investigations don't come to the conclusions that you want, then conservatives reject them.  That reveals the whole episode to be a politically motivated witch-hunt, not a legitimate fact-based investigation... doesn't it?

The email investigation isn't over, but hopefully will be soon.   Let's get on with the real business of electing a President... not costly side shows propped up by political opposition.   

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	OK Security Assessment Over
Date:	7/3/2016 2:33:09 AM

Copper, me thinks you doeth protest too much.  Just a little tongue in cheek analysis of the news, but do tell me where I have my facts wrong!  Clintons are above the law, specialty class, better than you and me, and you are so blind to it.

And as for Benghazi

I think it is less important whether terrorist or a video caused the Benghazi attack and loss of four American lives. That seems pretty ovbious. What is more important is who stopped the DOD order to get help there, and who had the military folks change clothes four times, so as not to insult the local government. We cared more about appearance than American lives!

You are right in one regard.  There is no way anyone will convince me why a SheClinton Presidency will be good for this country.  Please take economics, homeland security, foreign policy, trust, immigration, education, child development, religious freedom, murder, police enforcement, racial justice, rape, military, veterans, and any area you can drum up and tell me why a SheClinton Presidency will be good for this country.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	OK Security Assessment Over
Date:	7/3/2016 9:48:17 AM

"Please take economics, homeland security, foreign policy, trust, immigration, education, child development, religious freedom, murder, police enforcement, racial justice, rape, military, veterans, and any area you can drum up and tell me why a SheClinton Presidency will be good for this country."

Homeland Security:  She is opposed to establishing Internment Camps to imprison 11 million people.  Putting together a police action large enough to do this would cause significant social unrest & chaos, while distracting us from more important details of security.  This would also INCREASE the liklihood of home-grown terrorist attacks as it would radicalize many of the policy's otherwise peaceful victims.

Economics:  Trump has already proposed a trade war, the wrecking of complex global trade agreements, and other comments that would disrupt the entire global economy.  He hasn't a clue about the depth & fall out from his positions.   Her experience in government makes her much more aware of the consequences than Donald.

Foreign Policy:  She has experience as the Secretary of State & as a Senator.   Donald has never even held an elected office, nor sat in on any type of foreign policy deliberations, nor met with foreign leaders, nor conducted deliberations where diplomacy was required to get the job done.  Donald has built golf courses in Scotland, and is negotiating to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.

Trust:  She has a long history of public service, leaving plenty of episodes that can be examined & criticized.   Donald has formed a fake University, sold dubious products under his name, falsely claimed to donate proceeds to charity as a selling point for his products, made numerous statements in his campaign and then denied he meant what he said.

Immigration:  Considering the strain of federal budget limitations, offering people who are currently in the US a path to citizenship and bringing them into the (taxpaying) mainstream would be better than spending a huge sum to capture, imprison, & deport them.   At the same time, a revised immigration policy would limit the influx of new immigrants.

Education:  Helping students with the cost of higher ed, & offering expanded job skill training would be good for the economy.

Child Development:  ditto for pre-school education funding.   It's proven that good Pre-K and early childhood education works to improve academic skills later on in all students.   Clinton has a long history of advocacy of child-related issues nationally & internationally.

Murder:   she is opposed to it.

Racial Justice:   She has not called Mexicans 'rapists & murderers', nor questioned Judges ability to be fair because their parents came from Mexico.  She has not stated an intention to discriminate against people because of their race or religion.   She has not accepted the endorsement of the KKK and a variety of white extremists.  

Rape:  I'm pretty sure she is opposed to it.

Military & veterans:  She has not stated she would order the military to violate the law by torturing their prisoners.   She has displayed prudent judgement and caution, respect for the rule of law and concern for only sending troops into situations that they can win (and return from).  Donald would treat the military like a new toy.

You left out Healthcare:   Trump would dismantle the healthcare system, leaving millions of people without health insurance, and has made vague proposals about a new policy ("take down the barriers between states") that insurance companies themselves say would not work.

The short answer to why Hillary Clinton should be POTUS is Donald Trump.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	OK Security Assessment Over
Date:	7/3/2016 9:53:46 AM (updated 7/3/2016 10:00:27 AM)

I just thought you were smart enough not to walk right into that trap door.  It is her EXPERIENCE that disqualifies her!!  You must be kidding yourself.  I know you dislike Trump, probably more than I dislike Clinton, but you are blind to how bad she will be for security, economics (jobs jobs jobs).  Her foreign travels (I mean Sec of State) experience are a joke  ( we took fire as we landed, oh and they had champagne for us too).

Wake up man!  Wake up.  You are not that gullible.

And by the way.  I did not ask about Trump anything, proving the only way you are able to give her a nod on anything is to go anti-Trump.

Are you happy about Benghazi?  Would you have ordered some help for our folks who were asking for it or would you have been more concerned about offending locals by what the marines had behind their machine guns?  Get real man.  We are sunk. 

But didn't you like my assessment of the "Security Assessment"?

Name:	lucky67 -	Reply
Subject:	OK Security Assessment Over
Date:	7/3/2016 11:32:16 AM

it is befuddling to me that no CNN/FOX etc investigative reporter hasnt visited every golf course in Arizona to verify BILLY was there instead of at  a Dude Ranch

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	LAKnGULF
Date:	7/3/2016 12:49:04 PM

Would you vote for ANY dimokrap for President???

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	LAKnGULF
Date:	7/3/2016 1:52:17 PM

What is a dimokrap?

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	A few points about Hilary
Date:	7/3/2016 2:55:54 PM

1.  unless the democrats find a way to sweep the Congressional contests, we will be dealing with a Republican Congress.  I do not see how electing Hilary will avoid 4 more years of the same kind of gridlock between the WH and Congress, i.e., getting nothing done. 

2. Perhaps it would be a good thing if some of the global agreements were undone.  Having dipped my toes in that world a few times, most of these global agreements aren't worth the paper they are written on.  They have no teeth in the even our partner doesn't meet the terms of the agreement.  How will that be different with Hilary, when as SecState she was involved in developing some of these agreements.

3.  The state of our diplomacy and influence in the world is not what it once was.  GWB certainly had a hand in that, but I don't see that much has changed during our 8 years with Obama.  For years now, we keep handing over money, trying to buy influence, but that doesn't work.  We need to be able to negotiate from a position of strength.  And I don't see that happening under Hilary. 

4.  And then there is Bill.  He is a liability, he is tainted and he has just shown he is lacking in judgement.  I'm not sure what he has accomplished as a former President, and more importantly what would he do with Hilary in the WH.  He desperately loves the center stageand I don't see him being willing to sit on the sidelines. 

5.  It is pretty clear that the Clinton Foundation, took foreign funds from other govenments. No matter what you say, it is not clear yet what strings are attached to that money; and what accomodations Hilary will be obligated to make, having taken the money.  You realize, I am sure that bacsheesh is a way of life in much of the world - one hand washes the other.  They didn't give the money out of their goodness of their hearts.  They are buying influence.  Do you want a President who has started out obligated to foreign governments?

6.  Most of our trade agreements benefit no one but the foreign governments, and any attempts that have been made to make them more equal have failed.  Not all agreements are good things.  Again, no teeth.  Think about our trade with China. 

7.  Just the fact that Hilary is a Washington Insider is reason enough not to elect her.  We badly need change, we badly need a new direction and and someone that understands the use of leverage.  If you say that Trump has never served in government, well Hilary has never served in business, and many of our problems are economic.  I know far too many policy people in Washington that are so insulated from the real world.  They think in terms of theoreticals, with no hard experience. 

8.  While I am in favor of head start programs, the real question at this point is what shoud we give up to have them?  Helping students with college debt is a nice thought, but how practical is that?  Do you think Hilary will lean on colleges and universities? No, she will turn to the U.S. taxpayers through increases in taxes.  It would be nice to think that all the extra tax money will come from teh 1 percenters, but the truth is that Hilary is a 1% herself and I can pretty much guarentee that she isn't going to be willing to accomplish this on the backs of her peers. 

9.  Hilary has revised a lot of things she said, i.e. the talking points for Susan Rice about the Benghazi affair.  What she said publicly vs. what she said privately about Benghazi.  And then we find out that there was a lot of dithering about uniforms - do you know who dithers about uniforms and how it will appear to the host country? The State Department.  And who was SecState? Hilary. 

10.  Rather than saying that her experience qualifies her, I tend to think her very insiderness in the political culture of Washington is the very thing that makes her unqualified.  We really don't need a policy wonk as President.  In my mind that has been part of the problem with Obama - at heart he is a policy wonk too, preferring to think in terms of theoreticals than the actual facts.

11.  With regard to the health care initiative, I was very much in favor of it, until I learned the details.  I know some people that are covered under it.  Yes, they have affordable premiums, but they don't have any much in terms of useable coverage.  Very high deductibles are not what the working class needs.  I doubt it will be dismantled, because too much money was spent putting it in place; however, it is hardly a panacea for health care.  It needs changes and I don't see Hilary making them.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	I'll say this about Trump
Date:	7/3/2016 6:05:05 PM

As I understand it, Trump supporters think that his lack of experience is what most qualifies him to be POTUS, and that just defies logic to me.    Supporters are arguing that since he knows nothing about government operations, policy, international relations, etc….. that this endows him with exactly the credentials we need in a President & world leader.

It is testimony to Trump’s mastery of marketing himself using techniques of misdirection & obfuscation to build this image.  He’s really good at building marketing images, no doubt about it.  In this case, he has supporters claiming that his weaknesses are his strengths, his lack of knowledge is better than experience, and blunt boastfulness is the same as vision & wisdom.  In the world of image-crafting, it is a master stroke.    If the candidate possesses none of the qualifications needed for elected office, then redefine those qualifications as negatives and you can flip the table.   Capitalize on people’s frustration by urging them to throw out all previous standards of behavior, reframe ‘political correctness’ as weak & inept, and most importantly…. Count on people in this society to envy a rich guy who flaunts his wealth.

In order to back Trump for POTUS, you have to believe that his radical economic & social proposals will (somehow) yield benefits with no negative consequences…. considering the nature of those statements, that’s really magical thinking.  

Take a cue from the Brits, there is no do-over when you focus on an emotional argument but ignore history & reason.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	A quick and serious question Hound
Date:	7/3/2016 7:52:28 PM

Who would you prefer to appoint the next 2 to 4 Supreme Court justices...Hillary or the Donald?

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Great post
Date:	7/3/2016 7:54:26 PM

I wish a few would take it to heart.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	A quick and serious question Archie
Date:	7/3/2016 8:12:44 PM

Of the two candidates which has submitted for public consumption a list of possible SCOTUS appointees? Granted, it is not binding but it is available for public vetting today. Will Hillary release a list of hers? Not holding my breath here. I will declare proudly that I would rather Donald have the opportunity than that liar. I will say again I am hoping to watch their income plument if she looses and they have no influence to peddle.

Name:	JohnGalt -	Reply
Subject:	I'll say this about Trump
Date:	7/3/2016 8:36:05 PM

Share with us the economics of Solyndra. Please be brief.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	TRY THIS ONE LAKnGULF
Date:	7/3/2016 9:31:54 PM

Would you vote for ANY Democrat for President???

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	TRY THIS ONE LAKnGULF
Date:	7/3/2016 9:36:08 PM (updated 7/3/2016 9:36:47 PM)

Not this year!  But please answer my other question.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	A quick and serious question Hound
Date:	7/3/2016 9:39:11 PM

I'd like to think that we could maintain a balance on the Supreme Court.  I don't think it will happen with either candidate.  I hate that the Supreme Court Appointments are now political fodder. too.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	TRY THIS ONE LAKnGULF
Date:	7/3/2016 10:06:02 PM

So, it is not about Clinton.....you would not vote for ANY Democrat. So, the GOP could nominate a moron and you would support them. So, all you ranting about Clinton is moot. You would not support any Democart.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Don't know why you asked about Solyndra, but....
Date:	7/3/2016 10:59:27 PM

Solyndra was a startup solar-power equipment manufacturer based in Fremont, California that went bankrupt at the end of August 2012. The company’s solar collectors used a special tubular internal design that let it collect light from all directions, and were made with a copper-indium-gallium-diselenide (CIGS) thin film that avoided using then-expensive silicon. It was one of several companies that received assistance during the Obama Administration, in an attempt to push back on China’s strategic targeting of green-energy manufacturing. 

The company, partly backed by the conservative Walton family had received a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. The loan, which was originally pushed by the Bush administration, was 1.3% of the DOE portfolio. 

The economy tanked and cut demand, and at the same time Solyndra could not compete with subsidized companies located in China as they rapidly scaled up. So Solyndra ran out of money. Conservatives and oil interests used the bankruptcy as a platform to attack green energy and the idea of green jobs in general.

Solyndra received a $535 million loan guarantee  from the Dept of Energy. The government loan program had other high-profile plants, including Fisker Automotive, a startup electric car-maker that went bust, causing the government to write off $139 million of the $192 million loan it made.

I cannot find any connection between H Clinton and the failure of Solyndra.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Is She one?
Date:	7/4/2016 7:55:54 AM

I'm pretty much down on Clintons.  Enjoyed every minute of bashing she got from Sanders.  Democrats had a good one going there until they realized super delegates already had annointed the Queen.  What is a dimokrap?

Name:	JohnGalt -	Reply
Subject:	Don't know why you asked about Solyndra, but....
Date:	7/4/2016 8:03:09 AM

My point is that you claim Trump has radical economic and social programs. What is more radical on both the economic and social front than spending a half billion dollars of taxpayer money on green energy with nothing in return. The whole green energy movement is ridiculous. No there is not a link with HRC just wanted to get a baseline of what you consider radical.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Don't know why you asked about Solyndra, but....
Date:	7/4/2016 8:30:36 AM

What you fail to mention in your partisan cut and paste is the part about the pollitcally connected who were paid multimillion dollars salaries/bonuses and continued to collect 7-8 figure bonuses while screwing the taxpayers on their way out the back door. Also you failed to mention that the tubes were actually manufactured, knowing the whole time that China was going to beat them to market with cheaper product. Then rather than sell the manufactured product to any number of folks who wanted to buy it, they put the tubes in dumpsters and smashed them. So please lecture us some more about the glorious benefits received for our half billion dollars. The real crime is that we had to borrow the money to give away. Every day we spend more than we take in and are still borrowing money to give away to crony capitalists.

Copper I have changed my opinion of you. You are an idiot. Total and complete idiot. No redeeming qualities what so ever.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	TRY THIS ONE GOOFY
Date:	7/4/2016 8:32:43 AM

And just what republican do/have you supported?

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Don't know why you asked about Solyndra, but....
Date:	7/4/2016 8:35:51 AM

Ok, I understand what you meant now.  Is supporting renewable energy development radical?   IMO, no...using tax dollars to invest in new technology isn't the same as changing fundamental market forces as evidenced by the fact that when the market couldn't support Solyndra, it went bankrupt and wasn't given further govt assistance.

It is a very reasonable idea for us to explore and support technology such as this.  And in the same way that NASA investments spun off all sorts of new & commercially viable technology, I think looking at renewable energy would be about the same.   

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	Lifer
Date:	7/4/2016 3:50:09 PM

Words cannot express my feelings when I heard that I have lost your support.

Good Luck with that GED.    They say 3rd time's the charm.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	HEY Lifer
Date:	7/4/2016 3:57:52 PM (updated 7/4/2016 3:59:34 PM)

Crony capitalists????? You sound like a closet Sander supporter. Are you suggesting there are no crony capitalists on the Right?

As to me voting for a Republican, I was a very active Republican and won a primary election for State House of Representatives up North some years ago and won. I had to drop out of the general election for business reasons.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	HEY Lifer
Date:	7/9/2016 6:26:17 PM

I had to ponder on this a while. Didn't make sense at first but then it dawned on me why you would have to drop out. You discovered the statehouse cafeteria wouldn't take food stamps, right?