On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:39:32 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/19/15 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:15:10 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



Well, if you are looking for a total lack of credibility, there's always
Trey Gowdy and his fellow GOP bull****ters on the Benghazi Committee.

One thing seems to be true. The Clintons are so good at covering their
tracks that the only thing they might ever be convicted of is perjury
and obstruction of justice. Hillary worked on the Watergate committee
and she knows that without the tapes, Nixon would have retired as a
respected former president who survived an onslaught from the vast
left wing conspiracy. You can bet your ass there are no "Clinton
tapes" or anything else that might come back to haunt them.
I am always amazed at the people who do not understand the difference
between having your own mail server and having a personal account
with Gmail, Hotmail or a web host. (like everyone else mentioned who
had "private" email accounts)
If you delete an Email on your own server, you virtually smell the
smoke of it burning. Not so on any of the other services. Hillary knew
that and I assume any sensitive communications were burned right after
reading.
I still think they should follow the money if they really want to find
the dirt. Was there any quid pro quo on the massive contributions
state actors made to the CGI? There is certainly the potential of a
conflict of interest there. It doesn't take much of a minor policy
shift at State to put a lot of extra cash in the pocket of a foreign
government official.


Perhaps Trey will call you as a witness next week.

They are still looking for their "Butterfield". Before he showed up,
Nixon was looking like he would get off the hook.
I just believe that the Clintons are better at covering up. When they
write their books, facts are not so important to them that they need
first source records that may be incriminating.
The idea that there was any residual data on that server after all
these years only pointed out how little people know about computers.

On 10/19/15 3:06 PM, Tim wrote:
- show quoted text -
Gus Hall is dead, Tim. But if Trump is the nominee, I'm certain you'll
vote for him.

.........

I know, and Trump wasn't president nor a nominee in 2001. But if Hall was alive you'd probably vote for him. (Using your logic, of course!)


Sorry, Tim, but I'm not a fan of the Communist Party, nor do I vote for
non-mainstream political party candidates. I do feel confident, though,
that if Trump is the GOP nominee, you will vote for him.

On 10/19/15 3:27 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:39:32 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 10/19/15 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:15:10 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



Well, if you are looking for a total lack of credibility, there's always
Trey Gowdy and his fellow GOP bull****ters on the Benghazi Committee.

One thing seems to be true. The Clintons are so good at covering their
tracks that the only thing they might ever be convicted of is perjury
and obstruction of justice. Hillary worked on the Watergate committee
and she knows that without the tapes, Nixon would have retired as a
respected former president who survived an onslaught from the vast
left wing conspiracy. You can bet your ass there are no "Clinton
tapes" or anything else that might come back to haunt them.
I am always amazed at the people who do not understand the difference
between having your own mail server and having a personal account
with Gmail, Hotmail or a web host. (like everyone else mentioned who
had "private" email accounts)
If you delete an Email on your own server, you virtually smell the
smoke of it burning. Not so on any of the other services. Hillary knew
that and I assume any sensitive communications were burned right after
reading.
I still think they should follow the money if they really want to find
the dirt. Was there any quid pro quo on the massive contributions
state actors made to the CGI? There is certainly the potential of a
conflict of interest there. It doesn't take much of a minor policy
shift at State to put a lot of extra cash in the pocket of a foreign
government official.


Perhaps Trey will call you as a witness next week.

They are still looking for their "Butterfield". Before he showed up,
Nixon was looking like he would get off the hook.
I just believe that the Clintons are better at covering up. When they
write their books, facts are not so important to them that they need
first source records that may be incriminating.
The idea that there was any residual data on that server after all
these years only pointed out how little people know about computers.

Well, you can speculate all you like, but what is true is that Trey
Gowdy altered documents he received from the CIA in an attempt to frame
Hillary Clinton.

On 10/19/2015 3:06 PM, Tim wrote:
- show quoted text -
Gus Hall is dead, Tim. But if Trump is the nominee, I'm certain you'll
vote for him.

.........

I know, and Trump wasn't president nor a nominee in 2001. But if Hall was alive you'd probably vote for him. (Using your logic, of course!)



Hall's successors end up endorsing the Democrat party candidate claiming
the Democrat party is closer to the Communist Party USA ideological
principles compared to the GOP.

On 10/19/15 4:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 3:06 PM, Tim wrote:
- show quoted text -
Gus Hall is dead, Tim. But if Trump is the nominee, I'm certain you'll
vote for him.

.........

I know, and Trump wasn't president nor a nominee in 2001. But if Hall
was alive you'd probably vote for him. (Using your logic, of course!)



Hall's successors end up endorsing the Democrat party candidate claiming
the Democrat party is closer to the Communist Party USA ideological
principles compared to the GOP.


As far as I can tell from today's leading GOP candidates, the Republican
Party has no principles whatsoever.

On 10/19/2015 4:52 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/19/15 4:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 3:06 PM, Tim wrote:
- show quoted text -
Gus Hall is dead, Tim. But if Trump is the nominee, I'm certain you'll
vote for him.

.........

I know, and Trump wasn't president nor a nominee in 2001. But if Hall
was alive you'd probably vote for him. (Using your logic, of course!)



Hall's successors end up endorsing the Democrat party candidate claiming
the Democrat party is closer to the Communist Party USA ideological
principles compared to the GOP.


As far as I can tell from today's leading GOP candidates, the Republican
Party has no principles whatsoever.


They have principles but few that I can comfortably subscribe to.
Trump has some fundamental beliefs outside of the Tea Party's take over
and influence but it's hard to imagine him as POTUS. He expresses some
of the popular frustrations but doesn't have any realistic fixes.

I suppose I *could* make life simple and just pick a party and be happy
to vote for it's nominee, regardless of who he or she is. Like you do.

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 4:52 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/19/15 4:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 3:06 PM, Tim wrote:
- show quoted text -
Gus Hall is dead, Tim. But if Trump is the nominee, I'm certain you'll
vote for him.

.........

I know, and Trump wasn't president nor a nominee in 2001. But if Hall
was alive you'd probably vote for him. (Using your logic, of course!)



Hall's successors end up endorsing the Democrat party candidate claiming
the Democrat party is closer to the Communist Party USA ideological
principles compared to the GOP.


As far as I can tell from today's leading GOP candidates, the Republican
Party has no principles whatsoever.


They have principles but few that I can comfortably subscribe to.
Trump has some fundamental beliefs outside of the Tea Party's take over
and influence but it's hard to imagine him as POTUS. He expresses some
of the popular frustrations but doesn't have any realistic fixes.

I suppose I *could* make life simple and just pick a party and be happy
to vote for it's nominee, regardless of who he or she is. Like you do.




Wow. No,I don't do that. I pick candidates whose positions on issues that
concern me align reasonably well with my positions. These days, that rarely
is a Republican and almost always is a Democrat. I don't waste votes on
third party candidates.

--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

On 10/19/2015 5:30 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 4:52 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/19/15 4:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 3:06 PM, Tim wrote:
- show quoted text -
Gus Hall is dead, Tim. But if Trump is the nominee, I'm certain you'll
vote for him.

.........

I know, and Trump wasn't president nor a nominee in 2001. But if Hall
was alive you'd probably vote for him. (Using your logic, of course!)



Hall's successors end up endorsing the Democrat party candidate claiming
the Democrat party is closer to the Communist Party USA ideological
principles compared to the GOP.


As far as I can tell from today's leading GOP candidates, the Republican
Party has no principles whatsoever.


They have principles but few that I can comfortably subscribe to.
Trump has some fundamental beliefs outside of the Tea Party's take over
and influence but it's hard to imagine him as POTUS. He expresses some
of the popular frustrations but doesn't have any realistic fixes.

I suppose I *could* make life simple and just pick a party and be happy
to vote for it's nominee, regardless of who he or she is. Like you do.




Wow. No,I don't do that. I pick candidates whose positions on issues that
concern me align reasonably well with my positions. These days, that rarely
is a Republican and almost always is a Democrat. I don't waste votes on
third party candidates.


That's at odds with statements you've made in the past.
You have stated several times that you would support and vote
for the Democrat nominee period. You are a party guy.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:30:06 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 4:52 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/19/15 4:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/19/2015 3:06 PM, Tim wrote:
- show quoted text -
Gus Hall is dead, Tim. But if Trump is the nominee, I'm certain you'll
vote for him.

.........

I know, and Trump wasn't president nor a nominee in 2001. But if Hall
was alive you'd probably vote for him. (Using your logic, of course!)



Hall's successors end up endorsing the Democrat party candidate claiming
the Democrat party is closer to the Communist Party USA ideological
principles compared to the GOP.


As far as I can tell from today's leading GOP candidates, the Republican
Party has no principles whatsoever.


They have principles but few that I can comfortably subscribe to.
Trump has some fundamental beliefs outside of the Tea Party's take over
and influence but it's hard to imagine him as POTUS. He expresses some
of the popular frustrations but doesn't have any realistic fixes.

I suppose I *could* make life simple and just pick a party and be happy
to vote for it's nominee, regardless of who he or she is. Like you do.




Wow. No,I don't do that. I pick candidates whose positions on issues that
concern me align reasonably well with my positions. These days, that rarely
is a Republican and almost always is a Democrat. I don't waste votes on
third party candidates.

There is no bigger waste of your vote than to fail to vote for the
candidate you agree with the most.
It is that thinking that assures you will never change the status quo.

For the last 25 years, we have just got the big business candidate, no
matter which party won. Hillary will be the 5th Bush administration.

- show quoted text -
Sorry, Tim, but I'm not a fan of the Communist Party, nor do I vote for
non-mainstream political party candidates. I do feel confident, though,
that if Trump is the GOP nominee, you will vote for him.
..........

Harry Potter f you really want to be fair then. If you want to label Richard, Greg and me as "righties" then it's only fair to label you as a "commie"

I think that's agreeable, "eh?"