New Clinton email controversy

[vorlon13]

Damn, maybe I'm a seeker and not an atheist ?

[Aractus]

But not anymore. For quite a long time actually, since he threw Bradley Mannings to the wolves and a lot of informants who's names he didn't black out when posting secret materials.

What the fuck are you talking about? I'm with you on the redactions, but Manning is a completely different matter. Assange probably didn't even know Manning was his informant at that time. Yes he revealed his donor list when he certainly shouldn't have and that led to someone else preying on Manning, but honestly Manning was a very lonely person and she would have been outed by someone she confided in eventually. The donor list itself would not have incriminated Manning had she kept her mouth shut. Like I said, Assange knew her as a donor, not as a whistle blower, and may not have known she was the source of the cables.

[A Theist]

And to add to what you just said A Theist, Donna has since left CNN because CNN is trying to cover their behinds. They know they are guilty of being a government/establishment mouthpiece (i.e. state run media outlet). They are clearly guilty of collusion with a Hilary's campaign and giving an unfair advantage to Hilary. Why would Donna leave CNN if she's not guilty? Reminds me of when Debbie left the DNC (because she was guilty). They are only sorry they got caught. They don't care that they are undermining democracy.

The political system is definitely corrupt in that regard. The DNC, the news media and journalists, in collusion with the Clinton campaign, will stop at no hook & crook to get Hillary elected. The Clintons and their cohorts corrupted the Democratic Party far worse than William Tweed could have ever imagined.

[Sal]

I'm curious, what exactly was in those emails? All I'm hearing is about how this server was hacked or something. Enlighten me.

[GUBU]

I'm pro-choice.

So I agree.

I'm also pro choice, but - depending on what late time means - I don't agree. There's a point when an organism seizes to be just a collection of cells and develops senses. That's where I draw the line outside of life threatening conditions.

The point at which you start saying no to abortions (with the important caveat that the life of the mother is still more important than the potential life of the foetus) is at the point where there's a reasonable chance of viability outside the womb. And that is still 24 weeks or so, the cut off point under UK legislation. Anything after that should need both the wishes of the mother and a genuine medical reason (and I consider suicidal ideation as genuine).

[LadyForCamus]

I'm also pro choice, but - depending on what late time means - I don't agree. There's a point when an organism seizes to be just a collection of cells and develops senses. That's where I draw the line outside of life threatening conditions.

The point at which you start saying no to abortions (with the important caveat that the life of the mother is still more important than the potential life of the foetus) is at the point where there's a reasonable chance of viability outside the womb. And that is still 24 weeks or so, the cut off point under UK legislation. Anything after that should need both the wishes of the mother and a genuine medical reason (and I consider suicidal ideation as genuine).

But depression/suicidal ideation can be treated.  Would it really be wise to let a woman make a decision like that while she is not mentally/emotionally sound?  What are the risks of the psychological trauma this would cause if she regrets her decision after getting well?   Much like women who harm their babies while suffering PPD; we wouldn't consider those decisions that of a rational, psychologically healthy person.

[abaris]

And that is still 24 weeks or so, the cut off point under UK legislation. Anything after that should need both the wishes of the mother and a genuine medical reason (and I consider suicidal ideation as genuine).

Exactly the same in my country. There are medical reasons why this is the set period of time where it's allowed. After that there hahave to be medical reasons such as a threat to the mother's life. I agree with that solution.

[A Theist]

I'm curious, what exactly was in those emails?

Disney porn

[vorlon13]

Except for him being too classy for it, I could see Bernie Sanders wanting to poop in Brazile's mouth for her playing kingmaker for Hillary when that is absolutely NOT her job.

I wasn't a Bernie supporter, but dammit, I wanted a FAIR primary, and that didn't happen.


And while I wouldn't expect Hillary to decline the question during the debate on grounds she was spoon fed the question beforehand, I only wouldn't expect that because if I did, I would be clinically insane.


Also, heard a good discussion on Sirius, (might have been POTUS channel) about how Hillary can clean up all this mess without the stigma (and possible constitutional crisis) of pardoning herself after the inauguration by simply having Obama do it just prior to his leaving office.


Of course, the one little fly in the ointment of a pardon is the explicit admission therewith the accusations were true.

[Brian37]

Trump wants to talk about e-mails?

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/donal...15120.html