Hillary Clinton Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cider
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rmartensjr said:
See post #1459, a column written by your relative, Fr. Frank Pavone.
Click to expand...
I’m already intimately familiar with his position. I was wondering if anyone here could offer more than “all women who have abortions are coerced, even if ‘softly.’” I guess not. It doesn’t really matter. 🤷
 
Clinton Email Scandal: Is The State Department Part Of A Hillary Cover-Up?

Corruption: The State Department filed a secret court brief in an effort to hide tens of thousands of Hillary Clinton’s emails. What is in those emails that the State Department wants to cover up?

If it’s classified material, there are ways to deal with that. Many of her already released emails had classified information redacted. What’s so special about these emails and the court filing that the State Department wants to keep them hidden? Is this really just an effort by State to maintain the integrity of its own email investigation, as it says it is?

That seems to be an eminently debatable point, since the public release of thousands of other Clinton emails apparently hasn’t crimped the FBI’s investigation.

At issue are the 30,000 emails that Clinton generated while secretary of state — and then deleted because she deemed them to be too personal for public consumption — that have never been released. They are supposedly personal in nature. But Vice news reporter Jason Leopold seems to believe differently and is suing for their release through the Freedom of Information Act. The State Department’s response was to submit a classified filing to the court, asking that the emails continue to be withheld.

U.S. District Court Judge Randy Moss, however, has ordered State Department lawyers to make at least part of the secret filing public. If the State Department believes there is sensitive material in the emails or the filing that, if released, will harm its own investigation and cannot be properly redacted, it has until April 26 to show cause. This was the right ruling.

Clinton’s claim that the emails are personal and therefore aren’t subject to a FOIA request is dubious. When she employed her personal email account handled by her private server for government business and used a State Department employee to maintain them, did not both her emails and server become de-facto government property?

If that’s the case, and it surely appears to be, then the public is entitled to see what’s in those 30,000 emails, the exception being, of course, anything that is classified. If Clinton believes too much of her personal life will be revealed by the emails, then she will just have to suffer the consequences. She consciously chose to use the private email and server to hide what she was doing at State, and she has to live with the fallout of that decision, just as any average American citizen would have to if he or she egregiously erred.

Our concern is that those emails might never be released, especially with the State Department using its clout to keep them under cover. But it’s critical they be disclosed, even the personal ones. Clinton was a public employee and wants desperately to be again. The public deserves to know what she wanted to hide; voters need insight into how she conducts herself outside the public eye. Is she a phony, as many suspect? Or a genuinely decent, caring and honest person, as some imagine?

Then there is her State Department connection with the Clinton Foundation. Did she peddle influence from her perch at State? Secure funding from shady — and foreign — sources to use for her presidential campaign through the foundation? Is it possible that communications to this effect would be what she would deem “personal”? Yes, it is.

FBI Director James Comey said Thursday that the Democratic National Convention in July is not a deadline for completing the Clinton email investigation, and that’s a reasonable posture. But it should be completed before the fall election. If not, Americans could wake up one morning next year to find that their president is indeed a crook.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Maybe, but I don’t think so. And no one answered Little Sheep, so I assumed no one had an answer.

I don’t get email alerts cluttering my Inbox, turned those off, so I may have missed an answer, but I don’t think so.

Please refrain from telling me what to do. As long as it is not against forum rules, I will ask what I want to ask.

I do not believe it has been answered except for the straw man “coercion” argument, which is really no argument at all.

Okay, you don’t have an answer. I accept that. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If you believe that women should be punished for having an abortion, then I doubt any of us will be able to dissuade you. But in that case, then like I said before you should vote for Donald Trump, because neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party support that position.
 
mary_bobo said:
In what way does Kasich not have what it takes? He certainly has experience with good results. Perhaps you think he is not bombastic enough, or insulting enough. Just guesses, you know, but I would be interested to hear your analysis of why he does not have what it takes.
Click to expand...
Votes.
 
gracepoole said:
Funny, to me it consistently seems that Lily is responding to others who are bringing up abortion ad nauseam.
Click to expand...
One needn’t respond to anybody’s statement, of course.

But it has to be admitted that it’s almost impossible to discuss Hillary Clinton without discussing abortion if one has any convictions about it at all. It’s true that most Americans don’t share Clinton’s support of total abortion on demand, including partial birth abortions. Most people favor at least some limitations, and most oppose partial birth abortion.

And since Hillary Clinton really doesn’t stand for anything else,(corruption and warmongering aside for the moment) and has taken contradictory positions on a lot of things over the years, what’s to talk about of any significance other than her being in support of killing upward of a million babies per year? That’s pretty major, particularly for Catholics.
 
Peter_J said:
If you believe that women should be punished for having an abortion, then I doubt any of us will be able to dissuade you. But in that case, then like I said before you should vote for Donald Trump, because neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party support that position.
Click to expand...
I think you’re right. I don’t think either party does.

Nor do I think most people who advocate punishing women do, either. That whole argument is just designed to make people fear limitations on abortion on demand. It’s as bogus as the “you can’t deport 11 million people, there aren’t enough buses” kind of argument. It’s just to associate a position with some invented methodology intended to scare the ignorant.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I think you’re right. I don’t think either party does.

Nor do I think most people who advocate punishing women do, either. That whole argument is just designed to make people fear limitations on abortion on demand. It’s as bogus as the “you can’t deport 11 million people, there aren’t enough buses” kind of argument. It’s just to associate a position with some invented methodology intended to scare the ignorant.
Click to expand...
Right, it’s like saying that if you want secure borders then you must want to deport all illegal immigrants.
 
meltzerboy said:
That only means it is the electorate who do not have what it takes.
Click to expand...
Hey don’t make me come over there!

🙂

The argument *could *be made that moderates – that is, Kasich and Rubio – have received, combined, 29% of the vote cast thus far. Compared with Cruz’s 28% and Trump’s 38% (or Trump-and-Carson’s 41%) … well, I think it’s still a bit of a stretch to say that the delegates could nominate Kasich. :o
 
Ridgerunner said:
I think you’re right. I don’t think either party does.

Nor do I think most people who advocate punishing women do, either. That whole argument is just designed to make people fear limitations on abortion on demand. It’s as bogus as the “you can’t deport 11 million people, there aren’t enough buses” kind of argument. It’s just to associate a position with some invented methodology intended to scare the ignorant.
Click to expand...
I do think it is necessary to punish women who attempt or procure abortions when it is illegal. There must be some sort of punishment to match the serious nature of this crime.
 
Crossbones said:
I do think it is necessary to punish women who attempt or procure abortions when it is illegal. There must be some sort of punishment to match the serious nature of this crime.
Click to expand...
This is exactly a position the pro-choice crowd would like to see adopted by pro-lifers. A few years ago it was posited that if abortion was banned, women who had miscarriages could be expected to be investigated by law enforcement agencies and possibly referred to prosecutors for prosecution. The pro-choice position has consistently been that women who procure abortions are victims, not criminals.
 
OriginalJS said:
This is exactly a position the pro-choice crowd would like to see adopted by pro-lifers. A few years ago it was posited that if abortion was banned, women who had miscarriages could be expected to be investigated by law enforcement agencies and possibly referred to prosecutors for prosecution. The pro-choice position has consistently been that women who procure abortions are victims, not criminals.
Click to expand...
Even if the pro-choice crowd wants this position adapted, it is still the correct position. I didn’t realize the pro-choice position was that women were victims of anything.
 
gracepoole said:
Funny, to me it consistently seems that Lily is responding to others who are bringing up abortion ad nauseam.
Click to expand...
True. I should use more self-discipline in my responses. 😉 Some of the things said are just so “out there,” though one feels a need to correct them.
 
Crossbones said:
Even if the pro-choice crowd wants this position adapted, it is still the correct position. I didn’t realize the pro-choice position was that women were victims of anything.
Click to expand...
Certainly 99.999% of women who have abortions are not victims. I do agree that some are, e.g., the fourteen-year-old girl who is pressured into one by her parents or the wife with the physically abusive husband. Most women who go for abortions aren’t coerced, however. Most aren’t even coerced “softly” as one poster suggested. Most are just acting out of selfish reasons, i.e. they just don’t want a child or a child would be a burden to them.

Prosecutors have long recognized that most women who have abortions are not victims, but they’ve not prosecuted them because they wanted them to give up the name of the illegal abortionist. It’s analogous to the prosecution cutting a deal with a lesser criminal to put a bigger criminal in prison. The abortionist would be performing many more illegal abortions than one woman has, so the penalty went to the illegal abortionist even though, clearly, the women are culpable.

I think some kind of community service, possible working with children under supervision, would be a proper penalty for the women, though.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Certainly 99.999% of women who have abortions are not victims. I do agree that some are, e.g., the fourteen-year-old girl who is pressured into one by her parents or the wife with the physically abusive husband. Most women who go for abortions aren’t coerced, however. Most aren’t even coerced “softly” as one poster suggested. Most are just acting out of selfish reasons, i.e. they just don’t want a child or a child would be a burden to them.

Prosecutors have long recognized that most women who have abortions are not victims, but they’ve not prosecuted them because they wanted them to give up the name of the illegal abortionist. It’s analogous to the prosecution cutting a deal with a lesser criminal to put a bigger criminal in prison. The abortionist would be performing many more illegal abortions than one woman has, so the penalty went to the illegal abortionist even though, clearly, the women are culpable.

I think some kind of community service, possible working with children under supervision, would be a proper penalty for the women, though.
Click to expand...
Which prosecutors are you referring to that are refraining from prosecuting women? Abortion is legal in the US in all 50 states, and there have been very few criminal prosecutions of abortionists in recent history, Kermit Gosnell being an exception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top