The Bush administration did far worse as far as emails....

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=ch...+disappear

(July 6, 2016 at 9:41 am)Chad32 Wrote: Ruin their economy through sanctions, divestment, and boycotts. The rich and powerful will start listening if you make them less rich. Certainly better than assassinating a dictator.

Perhaps, but I fail to see how causing economic strife in an already poor, unstable country would lead to a peaceful solution, as if Gaddafi was going to just change his ways because the U.S. stopped buying oil from them.

(July 5, 2016 at 8:48 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(July 5, 2016 at 7:11 pm)Faith No More Wrote: At least this lessens the likelihood of a Trump presidency.

No I don't think so. I think this makes it more likely, because it now cements her position as the Democratic nominee. The FBI did not say that Clinton was innocent, they essentially said this: the skanky dishonest brothel-running bitch has been lying about her actions to the public for a year, she's as crooked as scoliosis and as guilty as Pistorius, but it is our view that the chances of a prosecution following an indictment are slim and therefore will not be recommending charges. If you don't think Trump can attack that you're dreaming.

Granted there is not enough there to Indict her on the the fact for the Emails there is more than enough to indict her for for the election rigging
she didn't win California in fact with the recount she lost to Bernie she won't get the nominee she is crooked as shit. And anyways there is more hard
evidence and a stronger case for public corruption than with the espionage. She had emails and data that were classified on her server she didn't
have any intent to leak the data and what other evidence she did have on her she burned.

(July 6, 2016 at 9:52 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(July 6, 2016 at 9:41 am)Chad32 Wrote: Ruin their economy through sanctions, divestment, and boycotts. The rich and powerful will start listening if you make them less rich. Certainly better than assassinating a dictator.

Perhaps, but I fail to see how causing economic strife in an already poor, unstable country would lead to a peaceful solution, as if Gaddafi was going to just change his ways because the U.S. stopped buying oil from them.

Because he literally can't afford not to. Money brings power. You lose your money, and you're just a guy that can't afford to pay your military or police force. No military or police means you have a harder time oppressing people.

(July 6, 2016 at 6:52 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(July 6, 2016 at 4:16 am)A Theist Wrote: Her level of negligence and incompetence wouldn't be tolerated in the private sector. She'd be fired from her job. Even more reason not to put her in the White House.

Well, what would you have us do? Let a moronic conspiracy-theorist with extremely thin skin have his finger on the button? I mean, the guy keeps retweeting stuff from Neo-Nazis, so he's either a dangerous racist or the stupidest fucking idiot on this planet. Either way, I don't want him anywhere near the White House.

At this point, we have to just accept that, like Hammy alluded to, Democracy has failed us, and we have to go with the lesser of two evils and hope that we can survive the next four years. My only hope is that the American people will wise up. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Yeah, it only seems like Democracy fails when the guy you disagree with gets elected to public office or wins a nomination as a candidate for office. But that's just a pompous assed and arrogant point of view. In the scheme of things your opinion don't mean jack shit.

(July 6, 2016 at 11:49 am)A Theist Wrote:

(July 6, 2016 at 6:52 am)Faith No More Wrote: Well, what would you have us do?  Let a moronic conspiracy-theorist with extremely thin skin have his finger on the button?  I mean, the guy keeps retweeting stuff from Neo-Nazis, so he's either a dangerous racist or the stupidest fucking idiot on this planet.  Either way, I don't want him anywhere near the White House.

At this point, we have to just accept that, like Hammy alluded to, Democracy has failed us, and we have to go with the lesser of two evils and hope that we can survive the next four years.  My only hope is that the American people will wise up.  I'm not holding my breath, though.

Yeah, it only seems like Democracy fails when the guy you disagree with gets elected to public office or wins a nomination as a candidate for office. But that's just a pompous assed and arrogant point of view. In the scheme of things your opinion don't mean jack shit.

That would be a good point, if we didn't know the system was corrupt. As it stands, we have an oligarchy. We want to go back to a democracy, where the government does what the people at large want. Not what the few rich donors want.

(July 6, 2016 at 11:49 am)A Theist Wrote: Yeah, it only seems like Democracy fails when the guy you disagree with gets elected to public office or wins a nomination as a candidate for office. But that's just a pompous assed and arrogant point of view. In the scheme of things your opinion don't mean jack shit.

Nice try, troll. That's a complete non-answer intended only to get a rise out of me. Good job. I hope you're proud of yourself.

I honestly can't imagine my life being so pathetic that I feel the need to hop on the Internet solely to try to antagonize other people.

(July 6, 2016 at 11:13 am)Chad32 Wrote: Because he literally can't afford not to. Money brings power. You lose your money, and you're just a guy that can't afford to pay your military or police force. No military or police means you have a harder time oppressing people.

Libya is sitting on oil, which I'm sure any number of countries would be willing to get their hands on. I don't think the U.S. Not playing ball with him would do much of a dent to his wealth.

Regardless, I don't see how sending the country into economic turmoil would be more peaceful than what happened. It would end up being the little guy that suffered, and it would still send the country into chaos.

(July 6, 2016 at 1:47 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(July 6, 2016 at 11:13 am)Chad32 Wrote: Because he literally can't afford not to. Money brings power. You lose your money, and you're just a guy that can't afford to pay your military or police force. No military or police means you have a harder time oppressing people.

Libya is sitting on oil, which I'm sure any number of countries would be willing to get their hands on.  I don't think the U.S. Not playing ball with him would do much of a dent to his wealth.

Regardless, I don't see how sending the country into economic turmoil would be more peaceful than what happened.  It would end up being the little guy that suffered, and it would still send the country into chaos.

It does rely on other countries doing the same. Not just USA. still, it's a peaceful solution to the problem, because you're hitting them economically, instead of bombing people and overthrowing leaders. The little guy suffers either way, but this way the big guy suffers too. And when the big guy relents, then the little guy should stop suffering.

Lets face it. With the state of politics in the US (maybe other parts of the world) our best and brightest will never get involved. Don't think so, look at the choices over the last 40 years. Choices on both sides. C+ brain trusts at most. The entire system needs to be over hauled. Don't ask me how. Politics and the machine are not my forte. I just know what I like and, in this election year, what I don't like.