2016 Postmortem

chwaliszewski

(1,528 posts)

52. I'm gonna disagree with you on that. I would give a damn.

Mon May 30, 2016, 10:10 PM

May 2016

I don't like the shadiness of any politician's acts that say to me, I want to do something that I don't think the people would like so I'll try to hide it.

I see her using a personal e-mail account as SoS because there were dealings that she wanted to keep from the public eye via FOIA. If Bernie were to do that, I'd be pissed at him and would not trust him.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do you really, putting your hand on the Bible, swearing on your most loved one's life, believe [View all] Seeinghope May 2016 OP

I believe it just doesn't matter. She was not trying to compromise USA, and didn't, and Berners are Hoyt May 2016 #1

State has a different view from you nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #3

To some, unless we were invaded or something then there's no harm-no foul. Alex4Martinez May 2016 #9

An intoxicated driver is breaking the law by driving intoxicated. Clinton did not break any law of Hoyt May 2016 #11

hum hum, so exposiing SAP level intel is just dandy nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #17

GUCCIFER? LMAO. Do you have the text of any supposedly compromised emails? Hoyt May 2016 #19

You think he was given a plea deal for just shit and giggles? nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #21

Like you do. She may not even be the target of any investigation. Hoyt May 2016 #22

Actually I cover courts nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #23

Doesn't matter if you are a judge -- you hate Clinton, so you need to recuse yourself. Hoyt May 2016 #25

argle bargle, that is your response nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #27

I covered courts for 13 years - this is EXACTLY what it looks like. Fawke Em May 2016 #59

This message was self-deleted by its author randome May 2016 #63

Mishandling classified material is quite equivalent. SusanCalvin May 2016 #31

Exactly nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #13

Really. You think, for instance, the FBI is listening to us? No, we're just pointing out a highprincipleswork May 2016 #6

That was not the question. Your not inside of her head. I am asking you if YOU believe that she Seeinghope May 2016 #7

I believe she'd sell the US out in a heartbeat inchhigh May 2016 #29

No. pangaia May 2016 #2

She is over-investigated... Mike Nelson May 2016 #4

"progressive" as in "Wal-Mart progressive" or? reddread May 2016 #8

Again that was not the question Seeinghope May 2016 #10

Wow, I don't what to say to that nonsense. "progressive"??? BillZBubb May 2016 #28

????? Old Codger May 2016 #33

No. And as for being over investigated. Sure but both she jwirr May 2016 #40

No. onecaliberal May 2016 #5

I absolutely believe she did wrong... lmbradford May 2016 #12

Clinton's set up the party so she can tell you, to your face, what she wants and people deny it MisterP May 2016 #26

I would never bet my life on Hillary's honesty Lurks Often May 2016 #14

Swearing on the bible and love ones? Really? KingFlorez May 2016 #15

I bet I know who you support! LOL Seeinghope May 2016 #32

I would just love to see Hillary Clinton supporters just answer this question. Plain and simple. Seeinghope May 2016 #16

I would never swear to a politician's honesty. hrmjustin May 2016 #18

Seriously? Like back in grade school. seabeyond May 2016 #20

If that is what it takes to get the Hillary Clinton supporters to answer a straight forward question Seeinghope May 2016 #36

Obviously, it was not, but a childish demand. Cross your heart, swear to god, stick a needle in seabeyond May 2016 #39

What would you suggest because I haven't seen a serious straight forward answer to all of Seeinghope May 2016 #42

People get the choice of putting in the time and effort in answering or not. On a loved one's life? seabeyond May 2016 #56

Your question is not a relevant one. See my #50. nt stevenleser May 2016 #51

I'm not Christian, and wouldn't touch a bible if you paid me Tarc May 2016 #24

Then your answer isn't qualified. Seeinghope May 2016 #37

lol, this is the DU bro, not biblestudy.com Tarc May 2016 #57

One can "affirm" in court testimony without using a fairy tale book. JackRiddler May 2016 #60

Good One! Seeinghope May 2016 #61

I think she probably made a mistake. Apparently she acknowledges that. Tal Vez May 2016 #30

That is not the question. Seeinghope May 2016 #38

I'm a grownup. I've been on this earth for more than six decades Tal Vez May 2016 #41

No (nt) bigwillq May 2016 #34

I don't really care how the woman transmitted her emails four years ago. Trust Buster May 2016 #35

Apathy may be part of the problem. chwaliszewski May 2016 #43

Naw, you don't really care how she transmitted her emails 4 years ago either. You have a Trust Buster May 2016 #45

Oh, cool. You're a mind-reader. chwaliszewski May 2016 #46

It's obvious that you're politically motivated. You're only fooling yourself and not us. Trust Buster May 2016 #47

I'm fooling myself? chwaliszewski May 2016 #48

Just realize that, if you weren't a Sanders acolyte, you wouldn't give a damn about her emails. Trust Buster May 2016 #49

I'm gonna disagree with you on that. I would give a damn. chwaliszewski May 2016 #52

She says she did something wrong oberliner May 2016 #44

That's not the question. The question is, does one believe what she has done wrong is disqualifying stevenleser May 2016 #50

My thread not yours! LOL!!! Obviously the Hillary Clinton supporters on DU don't. So what is the Seeinghope May 2016 #58

I will happily put my hand on the bible..... Skid Rogue May 2016 #53

So you avoid the question too. None of the Hillary Clinton supporters want to seriously Seeinghope May 2016 #62

I believe her! She admitted to mistakes, but I absolute do not think she would ever knowingly anotherproletariat May 2016 #54

I think she snubbed the records act. joshcryer May 2016 #55