State Department Blocks Release Of Clinton TPP Emails Until After Election

[MJHolland 12,725]

12 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Aw you're hiding behind claims of neutrality again

How come you've never posted anything in criticism of Sanders and Trump in your fights against corruption? There are plenty of stories I assure you  

One of you hates Hillary because you're an independent who believes GOP lies and the other one hates Hillary because she kicked Sanders' ass fair and square. You'd rather have Trump than Clinton 

Please...educate me on how nuanced your intentions are as if I can't read you like an open book  

Hillary is accountable for her actions.

Except...

Keep employing your millennial logic that someone who has had many scandals is necessarily corrupt and untrustworthy.  

Are you absolutely high? I give Sanders and Trump as much or even more criticism than Hillary on this site and in real life. At the end of the day I'll probably vote for her. I am not biased whatsoever. It's maddening how you still think I'm out to get her and have believed GOP lies this entire time. I look at the facts objectively for each candidate. You certainly do not. Hillary Clinton deleted half of her illegal private email server that she created day one of being SoS. We've already retrieved four emails that were deleted that shouldn't have been marked as "personal". I find is suspect that she deleted half the server. Why would someone do that. And yes, I don't have proof that there's something on that half, but innocent people don't run when they're pulled over by the cops. That's all I'm saying.

Also, "hasn't been charged"... yet. The fact that the FBI is handing out legal immunity to people that worked for Clinton  in order to testify against her means they also think something is extremely fishy. You're the only one not suspicious about her sever. Lastly, that Benghazi investigation didn't find nothing. It found that through her emails she was aware of an pending attack, she knew the ambassador requested heighten security that she personally DENIED, and we lastly found out that she LIED to the American people and told us that it wasn't a planned attack, meanwhile she emails her daughter Chelsea and tells her another thing. Continue to follow her like a sheep. I don't care. But don't pretend like you're the only looking at the situation objectively.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

3 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

*snip*

Well tbh I was referring to Redstreak more than you  He keeps trying to claim neutrality when he has barely posted complimentary articles or posts with Clinton and negative articles or posts with Trump or Sanders. I mean sure I focus on Hillary but I post anti-Trump articles and posts far more than negative ones about Sanders. Before his antics, I posted many pro-Sanders threads too.

Why do you think I like you. You're a bit hyperbolic but you provide a good perspective as an independent 

Honestly the biased bit I'm referring to is the fact that you keep singling her out as someone who is a liar, corrupt, etc... when she hasn't done anything differently than any other politician. 

And yes I'm aware that the FBI investigation may lead to something. I hope not but if she is guilty then she is guilty.

[Redstreak 6,653]

14 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Well tbh I was referring to Redstreak more than you  He keeps trying to claim neutrality when he has barely posted complimentary articles or posts with Clinton and negative articles or posts with Trump or Sanders. I mean sure I focus on Hillary but I post anti-Trump articles and posts far more than negative ones about Sanders. Before his antics, I posted many pro-Sanders threads too.

Why do you think I like you. You're a bit hyperbolic but you provide a good perspective as an independent 

Honestly the biased bit I'm referring to is the fact that you keep singling her out as someone who is a liar, corrupt, etc... when she hasn't done anything differently than any other politician. 

And yes I'm aware that the FBI investigation may lead to something. I hope not but if she is guilty then she is guilty.

What? Of course I'm going to post more negative Hillary threads. She's about to be the candidate running my party, why wouldn't I be far more critical of her? I mean, you can't claim I'm not doing my fair share of "neutrality" when you haven't exactly posted any negative Hillary threads.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

15 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

What? Of course I'm going to post more negative Hillary threads. She's about to be the candidate running my party, why wouldn't I be far more critical of her? I mean, you can't claim I'm not doing my fair share of "neutrality" when you haven't exactly posted any negative Hillary threads.

Honey that's all you post.

You made a claim that I attack everyone who criticizes Hillary. That's true if they employ hyperbolic or outright wrong arguments in their justifications. I do that with EVERYONE in ALL threads not just politics because I dislike misinformation.

 There are many people who are fair in their judgments like PartySick or Luiz who understand that Hillary isn't perfect at all, even going so far as to insult her, but also know that she has her good sides too.

Why do you never see me "attacking" them  despite their criticisms? I know they mean well because they have a history of being fair. I also know they aren't pulling pity parties and temper tantrums and understand their responsibility in preventing a Trump presidency.

Do what you want. You never stated your reasons.

Unlike them however you never highlight those. All you do is negatively criticize Hillary or post threads from conservative viewpoints or sources as if those don't have their own agendas. You never have any constructive criticism. Don't try to claim otherwise. If you have proof of that, present it. You employ hyperbole in your justifications. Your criticisms are NEVER fair. You are inconsistent in your principles. You want transparency when Bernie withholds tax returns. You want lack of corruption when Sanders has 700 pages of campaign violations. You dedicate all your threads and posts to negatively bashing Hillary, even when the context of the threads is against the GOP and Trump. 

I'm not even trying to insult you here. This is an honest assessment of your actions. Feel free to take them as you wish.

[Redstreak 6,653]

3 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Honey that's all you post.

You made a claim that I attack everyone who criticizes Hillary. That's true if they employ hyperbolic or outright wrong arguments in their justifications. There are many people who are fair in their judgments like PartySick or Luiz who understand that Hillary isn't perfect at all, even going so far as to insult her, but also know that she has her good sides too. Why do you never see me "attacking"  despite their criticisms? I know they mean well. I also know they aren't pulling pity parties and temper tantrums and understand their responsibility in preventing a Trump presidency.

Unlike them however you never highlight those. All you do is negatively criticize Hillary or post threads from conservative viewpoints. You never have any constructive criticism. Don't try to claim otherwise. If you have proof of that, present it. You employ hyperbole in your justifications. Your criticisms are NEVER fair. You are inconsistent in your principles. You want transparency when Bernie withholds tax returns. You want lack of corruption when Sanders has 700 pages of campaign violations. You dedicate all your threads and posts to negatively bashing Hillary, even when the context of the threads is against the GOP and Trump. 

You are not neutral. Stop claiming to be.

I'm not even trying to insult you here. This is an observation of your actions. Feel free to take them as you wish.

I never claimed you attack everyone who criticizes Hillary? Not sure where that came from. I've also never described myself as neutral. I don't know where that came from. I can admit she has good sides, but as a politician I feel they're outweighed by her negatives. Bernie should release his tax returns, he said he'd have them out before the convention which is a month and a half away. That's far less egregious than waiting till, conveniently, after the entire election to release something already promised. Sanders campaign violations should be noted, but as evident by their lack of coverage, they pale in comparison to the corruption allegations bludgeoning Clinton. Trump is not my party leader, since Clinton is so assured that she'll win by a landslide against him, why would I put focus on him when it's supposedly already a done deal? She will be the world leader of the party I align with for the next 4-8 years, and I'm not going to lie and say I'm already prepared for it to be a **** show. As such she will receive the brunt of my criticisms.

[SissyFromSpace 20,884]

she wont go to jail. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 hour ago, Redstreak said:

I never claimed you attack everyone who criticizes Hillary? Not sure where that came from. I've also never described myself as neutral. I don't know where that came from. I can admit she has good sides, but as a politician I feel they're outweighed by her negatives. Bernie should release his tax returns, he said he'd have them out before the convention which is a month and a half away. That's far less egregious than waiting till, conveniently, after the entire election to release something already promised. Sanders campaign violations should be noted, but as evident by their lack of coverage, they pale in comparison to the corruption allegations bludgeoning Clinton. Trump is not my party leader, since Clinton is so assured that she'll win by a landslide against him, why would I put focus on him when it's supposedly already a done deal? She will be the world leader of the party I align with for the next 4-8 years, and I'm not going to lie and say I'm already prepared for it to be a **** show. As such she will receive the brunt of my criticisms.

Well thank you for your elaborate response.

You have attacked "Hillary supporters" though lol ... in this very thread

You have also stated that you dislike corruption and such so that's a candidate-neutral descriptor. That's what I find odd because you state you dislike something about a candidate while ignoring that it applies to all of them.

That you find her cons outweighed by the pros is a subjective opinion that you have the right to have. That is not something I seek to change, although I do challenge it where appropriate.

What you can't do is, as I said earlier, give candidates different metrics to suit your agenda. You can justify (or rationalize) but to outright ignore them in a display of inconsistency is just weird.

Look at your rationalization of Sanders' tax . How is it remotely acceptable to you that Sanders would release his tax returns after all the voting has happened, while blasting Hillary for not providing context that would affect "democracy" which is what voting is all about?

You imply that Sanders is going to the election. He isn't. As much as you want to deny it the writing is on the wall. It's clear he knows this too, but is choosing to defer revealing information in order to continue appealing to voters.

Where are the corruption allegations you talk about Clinton? There's only one right now and that's maintaining a private server. The argument of corruption is withholding information according to the Freedom of Information Act. What's funny is that she hasn't actually withheld it from those that matter, the State Department. It is they who have not released them. That's not her prerogative.

What else? Her speeches? You're going to tell me that's a display of corruption? Lack of transparency perhaps..

There isn't much out there that isn't circumstantial evidence or not entirely based from tin foil.

In any case, how can you sit there and discuss all these allegations about Hillary while failing to actually talk about your candidate in that regard? That's what disconcerts me the most. Many are so livid in attacking other candidates while simultaneously being clueless about their own. This isn't a competition. Both Hillary and Sanders were valid choices. They are not enemies, although often times vicious competitors. They're supposed to align together. Sanders has shown little willingness to do that. You accept it so readily.  

You say the allegations against Sanders pale in comparison. Really?

Isn't him not releasing his tax returns an example of failure of transparency?

What about him spending donation money to travel to visit the Pope with his family to a vacation in Italy?

And I'm just quoting two examples of recent actions. What about those before then?

I can keep going on. What makes HER actions any more reprehensible than his? Is it perhaps because you simply support him? You can't apply that logic to me. I have never held Sanders accountable for something Hillary has not done. You on the other hand are very eager to do so.

----

The concerning thing to me is that you're very strongly criticizing Clinton, not constructively, but in a manner that befits the GOP. You have repeatedly issued that she should be indicted despite all current evidence saying otherwise, you have called her a liar despite every fact checker saying otherwise, among other things. 

I don't know why. Maybe you're frustrated because Sanders is losing. I don't know. That's what it looks like. The level of vitriol is absurd, and is not something a supposed party member would have. You don't sound like someone who particularly cares for the future of the party. Hillary will be the nominee. Hillary will likely win the presidency. Hillary is going to represent you.

Rather than work your hardest to discredit her, perhaps you can funnel your energy into trying to incite change in her. 

I thought that was what Sanders stood for. He quickly changed his tune though and many of his supporters followed suit.

In any case I'll stop criticizing your motives from now on, but I'll continue to counter any arguments you present that are hyperbolic or misinformed. That's just how I work, especially since you are an active member on this subforum.