Is it sad that Hillary can run a "silent campaign" in the age of information?

Is it sad that Hillary can run a "silent campaign" in the age of information?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 11 78.6%
  • No.

    Votes: 3 21.4%

  • Total voters
    14
She can hide for a while, but sooner or later she is going to have to answer some real questions.

yesterday she said she wants her e-mails to be released-----------then why did you destroy them, you lying bitch?

She never destroyed any government emails.


Horseshit, she was using a personal server for government email. she destroyed the server. there were no copies on any government server-------------but Russia and China probably have them. Wonder what she will promise them?

Thanks for admitting to being completely CLUELESS when it comes to email.

No point in trying to educate you either. You obviously lack the wits to comprehend how it works.


Yes, if she sent an email to someone, that email would reside with that person whether she deleted it from her server or not.

Now, idiot. If some person, country, corporation, or organization was doing corrupt business with the US SecState, do you think they would leave such evidence on their servers?

Just how clueless do you have to be to believe that if they are doing this alleged "corrupt business" they would be doing it via traceable emails?

:cuckoo:
 
She was conducting official businees through personal emails on her personal server while officially in a work capacity. How naive are you? Lol.

Your ignorance of how email actually works is your problem.

If you send an email to the state dept from your personal server they have a copy of it on the government servers even if you delete it from your personal server.

So it is utterly irrelevant what she used to send emails because there is a copy of every single email "conducting official business" that she ever sent and/or received to/from the state dept on the government servers.


and if she sent one to a corporate CEO, where would it be? Would that CEO delete anything incriminating?

you are very naive.

A copy of that email would be on that corporation's servers.

You really are clueless, aren't you?


unless they deleted it. would they keep an email that incriminated them and hillary in some kind of corrupt scheme?

clueless = you

Thanks again for admitting to being utterly clueless.

You are now talking about a conspiracy involving who knows how many thousands of people to delete all copies of all allegedly "incriminating" emails on every server and every backup for a period of 4 years.

You really don't have a clue just how big a task it would be to do something like that, do you?


so you now admit that there are probably thousands of incriminating e-mails? ok.

I suspect that the real damaging ones would be 100 or less, maybe only 20 or 30. Culling them would be quite easy.
 
She can hide for a while, but sooner or later she is going to have to answer some real questions.

yesterday she said she wants her e-mails to be released-----------then why did you destroy them, you lying bitch?

She never destroyed any government emails.


Horseshit, she was using a personal server for government email. she destroyed the server. there were no copies on any government server-------------but Russia and China probably have them. Wonder what she will promise them?

Thanks for admitting to being completely CLUELESS when it comes to email.

No point in trying to educate you either. You obviously lack the wits to comprehend how it works.


Yes, if she sent an email to someone, that email would reside with that person whether she deleted it from her server or not.

Now, idiot. If some person, country, corporation, or organization was doing corrupt business with the US SecState, do you think they would leave such evidence on their servers?

Just how clueless do you have to be to believe that if they are doing this alleged "corrupt business" they would be doing it via traceable emails?

:cuckoo:


why else did she delete them if there is nothing to hide?
 
How do we know that official business wasn't conducted off that server?

Because all official emails that went to the state dept would have copies on state dept servers.

If she sent "official business emails" to any other entity they will have copies on their servers.

This isn't rocket science.

If you are in IT then you must know that everything is backed up. So even if the state dept servers crash they will be able to recover her emails from the backups.

Dude, that's the problem... they are saying all the e-mails from the private server are gone. And yes, they should have been backed up. And another question, why the need for an entire server? What's they do? Install and setup an entire Exchange server for her private e-mails? And why can't the ISP provide them? They should have them conceivably. Most ISP do "store-and-forward" in case of well, when the server goes down. They store them until you are back up and then forward copies.

I'm just saying, there is more than just a hint of impropriety.

Yes, there is a hint of impropriety but it wasn't illegal when she did it.

Her stated reason for deleting the server after handing over the emails has to protect her private emails.

I never use my work computer to send private emails.

She has a right to protect her private emails. So do you and I.

All of her "official emails" will have copies on the state dept servers. If there are any missing a quick comparison will identify them because the copies can't be deleted.

This is a really simple and straightforward exercise. There is nothing hidden here.
 
She never destroyed any government emails.


Horseshit, she was using a personal server for government email. she destroyed the server. there were no copies on any government server-------------but Russia and China probably have them. Wonder what she will promise them?

Thanks for admitting to being completely CLUELESS when it comes to email.

No point in trying to educate you either. You obviously lack the wits to comprehend how it works.


Yes, if she sent an email to someone, that email would reside with that person whether she deleted it from her server or not.

Now, idiot. If some person, country, corporation, or organization was doing corrupt business with the US SecState, do you think they would leave such evidence on their servers?

Just how clueless do you have to be to believe that if they are doing this alleged "corrupt business" they would be doing it via traceable emails?

:cuckoo:


why else did she delete them if there is nothing to hide?

She didn't delete her official state dept emails. She handed them over.

Try and keep up with the rest of the class.
 
Gee, did FauxNoise send out a talking points memo telling all of the extremist rightwingers to call it a "silent campaign"?

:rofl:

And you swallowed the bait?

:rofl:

Ask yourself this question. In this day and age how can it be a "silent campaign" if her every move is not only announced beforehand and the media is following her around constantly?

Just because she isn't an "attention whore" on every single topic du jour that the GOP clown college is obsessed with getting their soundbytes out to the media doesn't mean that she is obliged to do the same.

Some things are better left unsaid. Hillary is smart enough to know when not to speak.

Too bad you can't say the same for the rest of your clowns.

You people will never hold her to the same standard as the GOP candidates because you and your ilk are dishonest and dishonorable people. Anyone who promises you parasites other people's money will always get a pass.
 
"Is it sad that Hillary can run a "silent campaign" in the age of information?"

No, what's sad is that you and most others on the right have only lies and straw man fallacies; conservatives have nothing significant to contribute.
 
The far left is proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that they do not believe in choice or any type of freedom of speech, they want to dictate and have everyone follow without question or hesitation.

Just look at the far left drones on this board for the perfect example of it..
well at least Hillary can hire that dufass who was Obama's "Deaf Interpertator" to assist her on her campaign trail.
 
Hilary can afford to run a "silent" campaign at the moment, she doesn't have any actual challengers yet.

It doesn't generate any emotion for me - not "sadness", nor anything else. It's political strategy.

Why is it making you so emotional, The2ndAmendment ?
 
Hilary can afford to run a "silent" campaign at the moment, she doesn't have any actual challengers yet.

It doesn't generate any emotion for me - not "sadness", nor anything else. It's political strategy.

Why is it making you so emotional, The2ndAmendment ?

When your emotions are constantly inflamed by Hate AM there is no time for rational thought.
 
The amount of RWNJ stupidity on this thread is only to be outdone by the amount of RWNJ stupidity on the voter fraud thread.

I love all the free advertising Righties are giving for Hillary. And they don't even realize they are doing it.

Sweet....

Nosiree, this isn't our fathers' Conservativism....
 
She can hide for a while, but sooner or later she is going to have to answer some real questions.

yesterday she said she wants her e-mails to be released-----------then why did you destroy them, you lying bitch?

She never destroyed any government emails.

Then where are they?

On the state dept servers because they have copies of every single email she sent.


she was not using a state dept server------------------WTF is wrong with you?

bro just put whoever that is on ignore, like I have.
 
What's really sad are the stooges who fall for her Silent Campaign and defend her lies and obfuscations.
 
"Is it sad that Hillary can run a "silent campaign" in the age of information?"

No, what's sad is that you and most others on the right have only lies and straw man fallacies; conservatives have nothing significant to contribute.

So far it seems that Hillary has nothing to contribute --- the point of this thread. I love how satanically aligned liberoids always turn their own faults onto you.
 
Hilary can afford to run a "silent" campaign at the moment, she doesn't have any actual challengers yet.

lol she has plenty of challengers, Bernie Sanders and Warren are the first two that come to mind, but the MSM is belittling Sanders and only mentioning Warren enough to keep her on "reserve" in case something disastrous happens for Hillary.

Not to mention, she has many challengers, but it's establishment sycophants like yourself that think repeating "no challengers" and "inevitable" enough times will make it true. Ironically, for left--wing suckers, repeating something enough does make it true.
 
Hilary can afford to run a "silent" campaign at the moment, she doesn't have any actual challengers yet.

lol she has plenty of challengers, Bernie Sanders and Warren are the first two that come to mind, but the MSM is belittling Sanders and only mentioning Warren enough to keep her on "reserve" in case something disastrous happens for Hillary.

Not to mention, she has many challengers, but it's establishment sycophants like yourself that think repeating "no challengers" and "inevitable" enough times will make it true. Ironically, for left--wing suckers, repeating something enough does make it true.

I love Bernie, but even he knows he's not a "challenger" to Hilary.

And no other Democratic candidate has actually started running yet.
 

Forum List

Back
Top