Hillary Clinton caught lying in email scandal | Page 7 | INFJ Forum

Hillary Clinton caught lying in email scandal

Why will it be the end of Trump?

I mean the end of Trump politically. And I'm just speculating of course. But I think a lot of the reactionary stuff he is currently doing to get himself attention (like openly associating with Sarah Palin) isn't getting him new votes, it's only endearing him to voters he already has. These antics will just become fodder to be used against him when a candidate with a high degree of likability and at least some political credibility (such as Biden) runs. They are letting Trump dig himself in deep before putting Biden out there. Again, just speculating of course for entertainment purposes, but Clinton has such a high degree of dislikability that many people who are ossified liberals and dead-set on voting as such are planning on holding their noses while doing so. Or voting for Sanders. And I think many are actually seeing the appeal in Trump simply in contrast to Hillary and Sanders. If someone more moderate than both Sanders and Trump and also more likeable than Clinton jumped in, that would be a game changer in this election. Just my speculation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elegant Winter
Trump is scary. I think there aee too many independents that are potentially not looking at him now... we are still a long ways off.... who when they take a closer look at what hes said are going to be naughn uh no way. Right now the people really concerned with the election enough to be looking at it are the people that dislike Obama. Trump is a polarization of that.
Damn Carson and his pyramid grain silo theory.
Rubio, Paul, Ron Paul, Cruz.... or someone comes out of the woodwork.
 
Trump has got a shady past.

Site (intro, documentary): http://trumpthemovie.com/

Documentary:

[video=youtube;5UO3nn7awUk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UO3nn7awUk[/video]
 
I think that before I get up and try to dodge this little bit of snow coming in I would like to say something. Any number of misguided websites that exist to talk about personality are labeling Hillary Clinton as INTJ. I have to admit I find it exceptionally offensive. Firstly Hillary has never taken an mbti and if she had she has not announced the results to thd world. Therefore whoever put these sites together made that prediction. Therefore whoever is making these predictions has shown themselves to be idiots of the highest caliber. Idiots of whom are disrupting the balance of nature. Find which ever mbti group is most prone to lying, cheating and stealing and that is exactly where the witch belongs.
Now... I am off to dodge this dusting of snow.
 
Last edited:
Uhhhh.. Sanders is a socialist as well as Hillary.
Hillary has a brain? When did that happen? She didnt even know how to work a fax machine a year ago.
Trump is a red faced blowhard. I agree with about 25 percent of what he started out saying and now Im like ...really?
I just hope I dont have to vote the lesser of evils again.
In the end I really hope a non career politician is chosen for the Non socialist nominee.
Either way even if you like Hillar... (excuse me I just threw up in my mouth a bit) ummm... right. Even if you like that person people need to send a message and say that national security comes first and give her the boot for that alone.

Yes, Hillary has a brain.

As for them both being democratic socialists? Sanders probably is. Here is some information on what democratic socialism is. I think the term is thrown around and made to sound like it's a bad thing but let everyone decide for themselves:

What is Democratic Socialism? Q & A

Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States. Because of this, many false ideas about socialism have developed in the US. With this pamphlet, we hope to answer some of your questions about socialism.

Doesn't socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?

A:
Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.
Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

Hasn't socialism been discredited by the collapse of Communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe?

A:
Socialists have been among the harshest critics of authoritarian Communist states. Just because their bureaucratic elites called them “socialist” did not make it so; they also called their regimes “democratic.” Democratic socialists always opposed the ruling party-states of those societies, just as we oppose the ruling classes of capitalist societies. We applaud the democratic revolutions that have transformed the former Communist bloc. However, the improvement of people’s lives requires real democracy without ethnic rivalries and/or new forms of authoritarianism. Democratic socialists will continue to play a key role in that struggle throughout the world.

Moreover, the fall of Communism should not blind us to injustices at home. We cannot allow all radicalism to be dismissed as “Communist.” That suppression of dissent and diversity undermines America’s ability to live up to its promise of equality of opportunity, not to mention the freedoms of speech and assembly.

Private corporations seem to be a permanent fixture in the US, so why work towards socialism?

A:
In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Public pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to unions to make private business more accountable.

Won't socialism be impractical because people will lose their incentive to work?

A:
We don’t agree with the capitalist assumption that starvation or greed are the only reasons people work. People enjoy their work if it is meaningful and enhances their lives. They work out of a sense of responsibility to their community and society. Although a long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor, we recognize that unappealing jobs will long remain. These tasks would be spread among as many people as possible rather than distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender, as they are under capitalism. And this undesirable work should be among the best, not the least, rewarded work within the economy. For now, the burden should be placed on the employer to make work desirable by raising wages, offering benefits and improving the work environment. In short, we believe that a combination of social, economic, and moral incentives will motivate people to work.

Why are there no models of democratic socialism?


A:
Although no country has fully instituted democratic socialism, the socialist parties and labor movements of other countries have won many victories for their people. We can learn from the comprehensive welfare state maintained by the Swedes, from Canada’s national health care system, France’s nationwide childcare program, and Nicaragua’s literacy programs. Lastly, we can learn from efforts initiated right here in the US, such as the community health centers created by the government in the 1960s. They provided high quality family care, with community involvement in decision-making.

But hasn't the European Social Democratic experiment failed?

A:
Many northern European countries enjoy tremendous prosperity and relative economic equality thanks to the policies pursued by social democratic parties. These nations used their relative wealth to insure a high standard of living for their citizens—high wages, health care and subsidized education. Most importantly, social democratic parties supported strong labor movements that became central players in economic decision-making. But with the globalization of capitalism, the old social democratic model becomes ever harder to maintain. Stiff competition from low-wage labor markets in developing countries and the constant fear that industry will move to avoid taxes and strong labor regulations has diminished (but not eliminated) the ability of nations to launch ambitious economic reform on their own. Social democratic reform must now happen at the international level. Multinational corporations must be brought under democratic controls, and workers’ organizing efforts must reach across borders.

Now, more than ever, socialism is an international movement. As socialists have always known, the welfare of working people in Finland or California depends largely on standards in Italy or Indonesia. As a result, we must work towards reforms that can withstand the power of multinationals and global banks, and we must fight for a world order that is not controlled by bankers and bosses.

Aren't you a party that's in competition with the Democratic Party for votes and support?

A:
No, we are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The process and structure of American elections seriously hurts third party efforts. Winner-take-all elections instead of proportional representation, rigorous party qualification requirements that vary from state to state, a presidential instead of a parliamentary system, and the two-party monopoly on political power have doomed third party efforts. We hope that at some point in the future, in coalition with our allies, an alternative national party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, which usually means left-wing Democrats.

If I am going to devote time to politics, why shouldn't I focus on something more immediate?

A:
Although capitalism will be with us for a long time, reforms we win now—raising the minimum wage, securing a national health plan, and demanding passage of right-to-strike legislation—can bring us closer to socialism. Many democratic socialists actively work in the single-issue organizations that advocate for those reforms. We are visible in the reproductive freedom movement, the fight for student aid, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered organizations, anti-racist groups, and the labor movement.

It is precisely our socialist vision that informs and inspires our day-to-day activism for social justice. As socialists we bring a sense of the interdependence of all struggles for justice. No single-issue organization can truly challenge the capitalist system or adequately secure its particular demands. In fact, unless we are all collectively working to win a world without oppression, each fight for reforms will be disconnected, maybe even self-defeating.

What can young people do to move the US towards socialism?

A:
Since the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s, young people have played a critical role in American politics. They have been a tremendous force for both political and cultural change in this country: in limiting the US’s options in the war in Vietnam, in forcing corporations to divest from the racist South African regime, in reforming universities, and in bringing issues of sexual orientation and gender discrimination to public attention. Though none of these struggles were fought by young people alone, they all featured youth as leaders in multi-generational progressive coalitions. Young people are needed in today’s struggles as well: for universal health care and stronger unions, against welfare cuts and predatory multinational corporations.

Schools, colleges and universities are important to American political culture. They are the places where ideas are formulated and policy discussed and developed. Being an active part of that discussion is a critical job for young socialists. We have to work hard to change people’s misconceptions about socialism, to broaden political debate, and to overcome many students’ lack of interest in engaging in political action. Off-campus, too, in our daily cultural lives, young people can be turning the tide against racism, sexism and homophobia, as well as the conservative myth of the virtue of “free” markets.

If so many people misunderstand socialism, why continue to use the word?

A:
First, we call ourselves socialists because we are proud of what we are. Second, no matter what we call ourselves, conservatives will use it against us. Anti-socialism has been repeatedly used to attack reforms that shift power to working class people and away from corporate capital. In 1993, national health insurance was attacked as “socialized medicine” and defeated. Liberals are routinely denounced as socialists in order to discredit reform. Until we face, and beat, the stigma attached to the “S word,” politics in America will continue to be stifled and our options limited. We also call ourselves socialists because we are proud of the traditions upon which we are based, of the heritage of the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, and of other struggles for change that have made America more democratic and just. Finally, we call ourselves socialists to remind everyone that we have a vision of a better world.

http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism
 
I think that before I get up and try to dodge this little bit of snow coming in I would like to say something. Any number of misguided websites that exist to talk about personality are labeling Hillary Clinton as INTJ. I have to admit I find it exceptionally offensive. Firstly Hillary has never taken an mbti and if she had she has not announced the results to thd world. Therefore whoever put these sites together made that prediction. Therefore whoever is making these predictions has shown themselves to be idiots of the highest caliber. Idiots of whom are disrupting the balance of nature. Find which ever mbti group is most prone to lying, cheating and stealing and that is exactly where the witch belongs.
Now... I am of to dodge this dusting of snow.

You not liking her doesn't make her any less INTJ. This reminds me of the INFJ's that can't accept that Hitler shared their type.
 
You not liking her doesn't make her any less INTJ. This reminds me of the INFJ's that can't accept that Hitler shared their type.

I can agree with this. But speculation that she is, is just that, speculation. My statement that I find it offensive is based far more in fact than the authors suggestion.
 
The truth is Hillary is a good thing. Like good cant be defined without evil. Hillary allows definition where otherwise none may exist.
 
I can agree with this. But speculation that she is, is just that, speculation. My statement that I find it offensive is based far more in fact than the authors suggestion.

What do you think her type is?
 
serious question, try to answer as unbiased as you are unable - why do you think Hillary will end up in jail? I know you're referring to the email scandal, but why would she be jailed for this?
 
The information that has been released in my opinion and in the opinion of people who are and have been involved with the FBI is that her actions are easily classified as espionage. Given how the law has been written in relation to espionage, jail time is mandatory. Not only that but her ability to ever hold public office again would be terminated permanently.

Its not only her of course that would be held accountable because of this.

What i'm trying to understand, while cutting through personal opinion and dogma, is this: the State Department was aware that she had a personal account, yes? If they were aware (and thus 'approved?') of such, how could there be grounds for her to be arrested? It'd be one thing if the State Department didn't know, but it seems they did. It seems i'm missing some crucial information here. Anyone care to fill me in?
 
My thoughts are that the nations laws are supposed to be all encompassing and beyond any department or any one person. Its not for the State Department to decide laws but they are supposed to follow them. Its entirely possible for people to not know or deliberately choose not to follow them or, think that no one will notice. Also lets say I am a government employee and my boss tells me to do something that I know or suspect is not legal or that I honestly do not know is illegal. It doesn't matter. I cant expect to have defend-able defense in saying, "I was told to do it by a superior." You are expected to know whats allowed and whats not especially in terms of classified information.

I agree, and I think it was a stupid decision. However, what i'm saying is:

Hillary: "I'd like to combine my personal and State emails into one account
Staff: We wouldn't recommend that, it's not policy
Hillary: Make it work
State dept: OK, fine you can do it.

is probably how that conversation went. Regardless of poor decision, if the organization gave approval, i don't think there's grounds for imprisonment. Your wanting her to go to prison is one thing, having adequate grounds for such is another. Unless she took deliberate action to hide what she was doing when she setup the joint account, i fail to see the proverbial smoking gun.

The supposed wiping of the server however is an entirely different matter. I don't know if we ever found out what came of that.
 
I agree, and I think it was a stupid decision. However, what i'm saying is:

Hillary: "I'd like to combine my personal and State emails into one account
Staff: We wouldn't recommend that, it's not policy
Hillary: Make it work
State dept: OK, fine you can do it.

is probably how that conversation went. Regardless of poor decision, if the organization gave approval, i don't think there's grounds for imprisonment. Your wanting her to go to prison is one thing, having adequate grounds for such is another. Unless she took deliberate action to hide what she was doing when she setup the joint account, i fail to see the proverbial smoking gun.

The supposed wiping of the server however is an entirely different matter. I don't know if we ever found out what came of that.

Yes. the difference being in how she decided to make that happen. Using a personal server and then how she handled the information to include allowing people with access below what they needed to be allowed access to it. None of the information going to her server was monitored or controlled through government means. The government has specific guidelines in regard to how email is to be handled. Security measures that need to be in place etc. You cant just decide which measures you want to use on your own. Which is what she did or at least let someone else do. But again, she is directly responsible for how all of that information is handled and making sure its handled in exact accordance to the policy put in place by the US government.
 
Yes. the difference being in how she decided to make that happen. Using a personal server and then how she handled the information to include allowing people with access below what they needed to be allowed access to it. None of the information going to her server was monitored or controlled through government means. The government has specific guidelines in regard to how email is to be handled. Security measures that need to be in place etc. You cant just decide which measures you want to use on your own. Which is what she did or at least let someone else do. But again, she is directly responsible for how all of that information is handled and making sure its handled in exact accordance to the policy put in place by the US government.

out of curiosity, have a source? That makes more sense.
 

that makes more sense. If the provision was she was allowed to have a single personal account, so long as TS/SCI and SAP information does not cross it, I can see the violation there. However, I can't seem to find something that says one way or the other. This may be pointing to that, but id like more facts:

" Among the data that the FBI either found on the Clinton server or acquired from the State Department via its responses to Freedom of Information Act requests is a top-secret email that has been denominated Special Access Program. Top secret is the highest category of state secrets (the other categories are confidential and secret), and of the sub-parts of top secret, SAP is the most sensitive."


"This is so for two reasons. First, failure to safeguard state secrets is a crime for which the government need not prove intent. The failure can be done negligently. Thus, plausible deniability is actually an admission of negligence and, hence in this case, an admission of guilt, not a denial.

Second, Clinton signed an oath under penalty of perjury on Jan. 22, 2009, her first full day as secretary of state. In that oath, she acknowledged that she had received a full FBI briefing on the lawfully required care and keeping of state secrets. Her briefing and her oath specified that the obligation to safeguard state secrets is absolute – it cannot be avoided or evaded by forgetfulness or any other form of negligence, and that negligence can bring prosecution."
 
that makes more sense. If the provision was she was allowed to have a single personal account, so long as TS/SCI and SAP information does not cross it, I can see the violation there. However, I can't seem to find something that says one way or the other. This may be pointing to that, but id like more facts:

" Among the data that the FBI either found on the Clinton server or acquired from the State Department via its responses to Freedom of Information Act requests is a top-secret email that has been denominated Special Access Program. Top secret is the highest category of state secrets (the other categories are confidential and secret), and of the sub-parts of top secret, SAP is the most sensitive."


"This is so for two reasons. First, failure to safeguard state secrets is a crime for which the government need not prove intent. The failure can be done negligently. Thus, plausible deniability is actually an admission of negligence and, hence in this case, an admission of guilt, not a denial.

Second, Clinton signed an oath under penalty of perjury on Jan. 22, 2009, her first full day as secretary of state. In that oath, she acknowledged that she had received a full FBI briefing on the lawfully required care and keeping of state secrets. Her briefing and her oath specified that the obligation to safeguard state secrets is absolute — it cannot be avoided or evaded by forgetfulness or any other form of negligence, and that negligence can bring prosecution."

Concerning the SAP emails, its been stated theres no way for them to electronically "jump" systems. The emails would have had to be taken off the one secured system and then moved to her non-secured system. Im not sure if thats in that article or not.