Hillary's Troubles Solidify

[seanD]

So this proves that the FBI is also corrupt. Comey admits she violated protocol, yet won't advise pressing charges anyway. How does one explain that? It also seems to imply that they're all in collusion -- Hillary, Lynch, and the FBI.

[Adam]

We Rightists have been saying that all along. It was only recently (2000) that I stopped voting 4th Party and voted for Gore, Kerry, and Obama. No more of that, back to 5th Party voting. (Here in California there's not anyone on my ballot I'm excited about, and we have six parties. Do I have to write-in someone?)

[Cow Poke]

So this proves that the FBI is also corrupt. Comey admits she violated protocol, yet won't advise pressing charges anyway. How does one explain that? It also seems to imply that they're all in collusion -- Hillary, Lynch, and the FBI.

I don't think it proves that, but it sure feeds the conspiracy mill with rich and flavorful nutrients!

[Cow Poke]

We Rightists have been saying that all along. It was only recently (2000) that I stopped voting 4th Party and voted for Gore, Kerry, and Obama. No more of that, back to 5th Party voting. (Here in California there's not anyone on my ballot I'm excited about, and we have six parties. Do I have to write-in someone?)

Pat Paulson for President!

[seanD]

I don't think it proves that, but it sure feeds the conspiracy mill with rich and flavorful nutrients!

I wouldn't even classify it as a conspiracy. It's pretty much right in our faces, which is the only thing I'm having trouble with; why they're this obvious about it. I might be able to just brush it off as collusion between Lynch and the Clintons, but I can't square it with Comey's decision. Comey has always been considered by both parties as a man who sticks diligently to the letter of the law, so it makes no sense to admit that she violated protocol and claim she even lied yet suggest against indictment (keep in mind that this is after Lynch made public announcement she would stick to the FBI's decision). Then you top off the fact Comey's public announcement comes within just a week of that infamous meeting, and I don't think one can rationally argue against collusion of all three parties.

[Terraceth]

We Rightists have been saying that all along. It was only recently (2000) that I stopped voting 4th Party and voted for Gore, Kerry, and Obama. No more of that, back to 5th Party voting. (Here in California there's not anyone on my ballot I'm excited about, and we have six parties. Do I have to write-in someone?)

Unless there's a concerted campaign for a write-in candidate, don't write in someone. All it does is make extra work on the ballot counters, who have to keep track of all the extra names that people write in. Pick a third/fourth/fifth party candidate instead.

[Cow Poke]

I wouldn't even classify it as a conspiracy.

No, that's not what I meant... The ACTUAL situation is not a conspiracy, but it definitely gives ammo to any conspiracy theorists..... I mean, it's a conspiracy theorist's dream come true!

It's pretty much right in our faces, which is the only thing I'm having trouble with; why they're this obvious about it. I might be able to just brush it off as collusion between Lynch and the Clintons, but I can't square it with Comey's decision. Comey has always been considered by both parties as a man who sticks diligently to the letter of the law, so it makes no sense to admit that she violated protocol and claim she even lied yet suggest against indictment (keep in mind that this is after Lynch made public announcement she would stick to the FBI's decision). Then you top off the fact Comey's public announcement comes within just a week of that infamous meeting, and I don't think one can rationally argue against collusion of all three parties.

Yes, it's certainly a mind boggler.

[seanD]

No, that's not what I meant... The ACTUAL situation is not a conspiracy, but it definitely gives ammo to any conspiracy theorists..... I mean, it's a conspiracy theorist's dream come true!



Yes, it's certainly a mind boggler.

A "conspiracy theorist" in this case = a person with a rational mind and has the gonads to admit it

[seanD]

Issa doesn't just say there's a double standard (duh) but questions Comey's integrity...

[Mountain Man]

Unless there's a concerted campaign for a write-in candidate, don't write in someone. All it does is make extra work on the ballot counters, who have to keep track of all the extra names that people write in. Pick a third/fourth/fifth party candidate instead.

For that matter, when was the last time a write-in candidate was ever anything but statistically irrelevant in a national race? Especially a presidential race?

[Terraceth]

For that matter, when was the last time a write-in candidate was ever anything but statistically irrelevant in a national race? Especially a presidential race?

Lisa Murkowski in 2010 actually straight up won the Alaska Senator race via write-ins.

[Cow Poke]

Lisa Murkowski in 2010 actually straight up won the Alaska Senator race via write-ins.

Well, yeah, with a little help from her Father and friends....

She was appointed to the U.S. Senate by her father, Frank Murkowski.
When she ran for a second term, she lost the Republican Party nomination to Tea Party candidate.

THEN, she then ran as a write-in candidate and won.

Not exactly a repeatable feat.

[rogue06]

Pat Paulson for President!

president%u00252Bcthulhu.jpeg

[Terraceth]

Well, yeah, with a little help from her Father and friends....

She was appointed to the U.S. Senate by her father, Frank Murkowski.
When she ran for a second term, she lost the Republican Party nomination to Tea Party candidate.

THEN, she then ran as a write-in candidate and won.

Not exactly a repeatable feat.

Oh, I know it was a special case. But it was a time when a write-in candidate won.

I have no problem with someone voting for a third party candidate; in fact, I encourage it. I'm also totally fine with someone voting for a write-in candidate if the candidate is actually campaigning as one. I just think it's a waste of time to write in a name if that person isn't currently trying to get elected is all because it makes the ballot counters' job a little harder.

[Cow Poke]

Oh, I know it was a special case. But it was a time when a write-in candidate won.

Well, sure, but under such unique circumstances that it really shouldn't give any hope to a write-in.

I'm totally fine with someone voting for a write-in candidate if the candidate is actually campaigning as one. At least that could conceivably accomplish something. I just think it's a waste of time to write in a name if that person isn't currently trying to get elected is all because it makes the ballot counters' job a little harder. Just vote for a third party candidate at that point.

I think, unless there's a REALLY good reason to vote for a write-in, like the leading candidate just died of a heart-attack or was indicted for violation of national security policy, or.....

So, I'd think - yeah, they need to be actually campaigning as one, or there needs to be a major groundswell of support, or some other really unique situation where the write-in has more than a snowball's chance in 'the other place'.