It's definitely true that there are some pretty far out CT'ers in the Republican base. That is kind of a recent development though. 30-50 years ago most government conspiracy ideas were pushed by the left. Let's see, Kennedy assasination, Watergate coverup, Iran Contra, Mena drug smuggling, Noriega selling drugs, MLK and RFK assassinations, Bush going to war for Haliburton. Those were all narratives pushed pretty hard by the left at times in our history. The conspiracy is usually exposed by those not in power. There is actually no conspiracy in the e mail case though. We know exactly what she did, regardless of her fluid narrative after different facts emerged. Comey decided not to prosecute, even though this is definitely not the responsibility of any Law Enforcement Official in any jurisdiction in America. He gave Lynch a HUGE pass, she comes out smelling like a rose, while Comey takes the heat from both Democrats and Republicans due to his statement. The simple fact of the matter is that HRC is the by far the most conservative candidate in the race on issues of real importance to the Economic and Security Elite. Her positions on trade, interventionism, corporate cooperation with government, et cetera is perfectly in line with most moderate Republicans. She is getting a pass because she is the safest candidate from an establishment point of view. If she were running against Bush, Kasich, Rubiio, Romney, or McCain, Comey's press conference, even without criminal charges, would have finished her off. Remember, she is leading a racist, totally unhinged, game show host (literally) by all of 4 points in the RCP average of polls. That is almost within the margin of error, same as "Stay" was in the Brexit referendum. Pretty amzing. All that said, because of the Republican Party's decision to nominate a game show host, I will be voting for a woman who has proven she can't be trusted to handle our nation's secrets with care if left to her own devices. Sad state of affairs.
Apparently Ricter found an opinion on the internet saying "extremely careless" is not the same as "gross negligence" that other experts, such as former prosecutor Rudolph Juliani, have opined it means the same thing. Nothing wrong with finding it on the internet but conduit would discount it as meaningless.
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/nancy-pelosi-driver-cuts-across-traffic/ Democrat tw$ts are above the law, get over it... I like their motto though: "Let's all share the wealth and gimme some while we borrow money that Republicans will never be able to repay" This world is in a real mess folks. I've been studying MBTI personality typing and psychopathy, wrote a book on the latter actually, and it's a terrifying truth that the least mature among us rise to power.
I have trouble with this line of reasoning. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you but I hear this from well-meaning people and it puzzles me. First, Trump is not a "game show host." He's the head of a multibillion dollar empire that he built largely himself. He's clearly an egoist and he's had his share of failures, but he has also built a brand and considerable assets. I understand that Trump and his style turn a lot of people off. I play golf and I couldn't imagine joining one of his clubs. They are for the Mcmansion crowd of people who equate garishness with taste. But look at the Clintons. They have left a trail of raw sewage in their wake since the early days in Arkansas. The only thing that has changed is the amount of money they grub for. They have no shame, no ethics and no boundaries. Hillary has government experience, but she has a depressing record of failure and poor judgment in that service. What did she do as Secretary of State that would possibly justify elevating her to Commander in Chief? She was dead wrong on every major decision, whether it was undermining Mubarek in Egypt, overthrowing the Libyan government, undermining Israel, ignoring ISIS, mishandling our exit from Iraq, etc etc. She lied about Benghazi both to the American people and to the face of the mother of a brave man who died there after she and Obama vetoed a rescue mission. What kind of monster could do that? There are a small number of overriding issues in this election. One is immigration, both from the south and from muslim refugees. If you want more, a lot more, vote Hillary. The other is trade deals. If you want more of the same, again Hillary is your candidate. Finally is the Supreme Court. If you want more Sonya Sotomayors and the like, vote Hillary. Trump has promised to have his nominees approved by the Federalist Society. Again, clear choice.
Extremely careless and gross negligence are different terms with no real distinction, EXCEPT, if you live in the world where it all depends what the definition of is, is...well then, it makes all the difference in the world. Honest people know that there is no difference at all between the two terms, but then we are talking about the government and partisan politics. Only a fool would expect this game to played on the up and up.
You are glossing over a lot of facts about Trump. Facts that can't lead to a responsible conservative to support him. If questioning a Federal Judge's ability based on his race and how it may affect his political views, advocating illegal torture and the murder of non combatants, imposing religious tests for immigrants and visitors to this country, and a lot more questionable stances, you are already converted. That along with the fact that his opposition to free trade and support of an isolationist foreign policy, which is actually closer to proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders than it is to mainstream conservative ideology, makes him impossible to support, given the other choice. This is a bad candidate, without fully formed positions, and a willingness to make it up as he goes along and play to the basest fears of a large segment of the population. Take immigration for instance, we all know that Trumpites hate Political Correctness, so I will just speak my mind knowing it is safe in their world to do so. If you are a 4th generation, white American, and your economic status is threatened by an illegal or legal immigrant, you are a loser. We can't tailor policy to protect the losers at the expense of the winners in the global economic machine. I have been hearing that same argument from a lot of conservatives about Obama and his food stamps, health care, and Obama phone for the last 8 years. What's the difference with the victims now, their color? If remaining open to the world means sacrificing the jobs of low skilled workers, I don't really care. Is that politically incorrect enough? Just as the Democratic Party has been taken over by inefficient, special interest groups, the Republican Party is being taken over by inefficient interest groups, who just happen to be white, so I guess I am supposed to feel okay about it. At least the Democratic Party, which I have never supported in a national election, are nice enough to throw some bones to the people who without question are being left behind. The current Republican nominee wants to change the whole dynamic, and he has no idea about the consequences.
Also no need to worry, all you conservatives out there, if Hillary were not the more acceptable candidate to the permanent national security state, she would have been indicted. You guys believe in authority, well the highest authority has spoken. Might have been a different voice if Bush or Romney were the nominee, but hey they are not. She has out raised him over 50-1, out staffed and organized him like 500-1 in both numbers and talent, and has the entire National Security state in her back pocket. He is probably not going to win one swing state, and she might turn a couple reds blue. It's over. This is all pretty sad, it would be awesome right now to have a real candidate. We could slam her all day with professionals, instead of Spokeswomen who look like recently retired strippers. Mitt or Jeb would be up at least 10 points now. But alas, the very people who are predominantly responsible for choosing or candidate, the fundamentalists, racists, anti gay, anti trade, anti education wouldn't give us a real chance in the general. In politics you are supposed to co opt your uneducated, disaffected masses, not actually do what hey think is smart. We are going to lose to the worst Democratic candidate in 40 years because he is just that bad.