Hillary or Bernie?

A forum to seperate the more serious discussions from the lighter topics in Off-topic.

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby musashisamurai » 13 Apr 2016, 23:52

Keirador wrote:Yet Greg uses the New York Post and we're cool with that?


I didn't know he used the Post.

But the sad thing is that both sides spend more time lying than actually reporting facts. But Bezos is leaning on his newspaper to support the Clintons.

Keirador wrote:I'm not familiar with this, though I'd point out 1) the header may have been the classified item 2) sounds like a Jack Sullivan problem.


It is. But as her foreign policy adviser, that he is now getting questioned by the FBI (with his boss and another staffer, all represented by the same lawyer), it becomes a big issue for the Clintons.

Or do you think one of her major staffers getting charged, or making a deal for immunity and then reporting other stuff won't be that good for the Clintons?

Probably should have made that point more clear

Oh yeah, the idea she didn't know it was unusual is pure propaganda. The Department went through months of trying to align Clinton's personal preferences with normal security routines and ultimately just gave up. To me the single most disturbing part of this story is that allegedly she was offered a desktop computer that was compatible with security routines and her own email preferences, but (allegedly) she nixed that idea because SHE WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE USE OF A DESKTOP COMPUTER. WHAT. WHAT. NO. THAT CAN'T BE.


Yeah, others used private emails but no one had servers. Never heard the story about eth desktop-she did ask for a blackberry like Obama's, but the CIA said no because apparently that program was discontinued or something-but thats actually hilarious. Especially since desktops were a thing first.

And Clinton should remember when the x86 was just becoming a thing too.


Agree completely. It was a "mistake" the same way a husband tells his wife he has a business trip and then takes his mistress to Cancun. Yeah, I guess that was a "mistake" . . . but some real planning and intent went into making that mistake.

Now I'm kinda sympathetic to Hillary's tendency towards secrecy. It's not like the media has treated her real well over the last quarter century so I get wanting to be private and control the information that comes out about you. But regardless, this was a pretty clear run around the spirit of the law.


I with you on the sympathy, just that in this case its unneeded. In the example with the husband, its like if the wife wanted a threesome in Cancun or something. Of the people at the table deciding which emails were personal or public, she'd have chosen half, either as her staffers or hires she made as secretary and neither her boss Obama or successor Kerry or the DOJ Attorney General would want anything bad to happen.

This is straightforward speculation, right? Is there any evidence that relevant records that should have been turned over were instead deleted? Or is this just more "you can tell she's dirty just by looking at her bitch face?"


You said that not me. Although the chances of me looking at any politician and not thinking they're either conning me, hiding something, lying, or BSing is probably lower than the chances of me quantum tunneling through the chair I'm sitting in now, or spontaneously combusting.

There were 60,000 emails on her server, roughly. Something like half were submitted and thats what State, the Feds and everyone else have been going through this year. Heres on article, another, and here from her website

How many emails were in her account? And how many of those were provided to the State Department? wrote:Her email account contained a total of 62,320 sent and received emails from March 2009 to February 2013. Based on the review process described below, 30,490 of these emails were provided to the Department, and the remaining 31,830 were private, personal records.


Anyways, the FOIA applies to pretty much every government record that isn't classified, except for a handful-for example, the private medical file of Hillary Clinton, if thats in a gov file somewhere isn't applicable. Nor would an officials tax returns. But while its pretty easy to determine this, its not up to a single person to determine it for themselves.

The way that most departments work-especially now that they've automated stuff and by law, most agencies have to have a FOIA office now, although they're all underfunded. Republican doing-is that emails in their system automatically go through this selection process. Then they get archived, and if requested, released. If not, deleted (and actually Clinton's emails would have been deleted by now).

Also from the Foreign Affairs Manual
5 FAH-1 H-915 DRAFTING WORKING EMAILS
(CT:CH-33; 01-16-2014)
a. All working emails must be marked with the appropriate classification and sensitivity.
b. The overall classification reflects the highest classification level of the message (subject, paragraph, table, or graph).
c. Mark each element (e.g., subject line, paragraph) of a classified working email to show its appropriate classification level using (S) for Secret, (C) for Confidential, (SBU) for Sensitive but Unclassified, or (U) for Unclassified.
d. Top Secret working emails may only be sent via a Department network authorized for that level.
e. All working emails in the OpenNet environment will be marked automatically as unclassified. If classified security information, properly marked or not, is processed on OpenNet or unclassified (U) systems, it must be reported immediately as a security violation. See 12 FAM 550.
f. All messages in the ClassNet environment must be marked with the appropriate classification every time a working email is sent or a recipient replies. For more information about classification, see 12 FAM 510.
g. All sensitive, working emails on both OpenNet and ClassNet must be marked with a sensitivity choice so the message will be labeled appropriately.
h. SMART-to-SMART messages only: Working email replies and forwards inherit the classification and sensitivity of the original message. Classified, working emails without sensitive content should be marked Non-Sensitive. For more information about sensitivity, see 5 FAH-1 H-913 or 12 FAM 540.
¸,,¸_____}\,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,,,,,,
`’’´¯¯¯¯¯}/’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’¨¨¨¯
The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth-it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.
musashisamurai
 
Posts: 16502
Joined: 16 Dec 2010, 21:54
Location: Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby Keirador » 14 Apr 2016, 07:28

musashisamurai wrote:
Keirador wrote:I'm not familiar with this, though I'd point out 1) the header may have been the classified item 2) sounds like a Jack Sullivan problem.


It is. But as her foreign policy adviser, that he is now getting questioned by the FBI (with his boss and another staffer, all represented by the same lawyer), it becomes a big issue for the Clintons.

Or do you think one of her major staffers getting charged, or making a deal for immunity and then reporting other stuff won't be that good for the Clintons?

Probably should have made that point more clear

OK but the underlined has not actually happened. SO MUCH of the this email "controversy" has revolved around the supposition that criminal charges are going to be filed ANY SECOND NOW. But here we are, over a year later, with no charges.

The point of view that the Clintons are as corrupt as they are guilty is totally impervious to any contradiction, because a lack of evidence of guilt is simply interpreted as proof that the Clintons are so corrupt they've buried the evidence. Now this COULD be true, but for what it's worth it COULD be true about pretty much any wealthy or politically-connected figure. I would simply point out that many, many wealthy and connected figures have been exposed by journalists and political opponents. If effing Karl Rove and Dick Cheney couldn't keep their operative Scooter Libby from a conviction over the Valerie Plame affair, I'm just not buying that the power of Hillary Clinton will keep Jake Sullivan safe from an indictment (never mind a charge) over misconduct. As long as he's not charged with anything I'm going to continue to assume there isn't anything of substance here. If charges are filed, we can have a whole different discussion, but I really don't see the point of having a conversation about Hillary Clinton that starts with the premise that she or at least her top aides are already known criminals when they actually are not.

Oh yeah, the idea she didn't know it was unusual is pure propaganda. The Department went through months of trying to align Clinton's personal preferences with normal security routines and ultimately just gave up. To me the single most disturbing part of this story is that allegedly she was offered a desktop computer that was compatible with security routines and her own email preferences, but (allegedly) she nixed that idea because SHE WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE USE OF A DESKTOP COMPUTER. WHAT. WHAT. NO. THAT CAN'T BE.


Yeah, others used private emails but no one had servers. Never heard the story about eth desktop-she did ask for a blackberry like Obama's, but the CIA said no because apparently that program was discontinued or something-but thats actually hilarious. Especially since desktops were a thing first.

And Clinton should remember when the x86 was just becoming a thing too.

As to the underlined, this seems like shifting the target. Having a private server made her private email use more secure than using a private email account hosted by a server you don't control. To the best of my knowledge there is no legal or regulatory distinction between having your own server or not. It is unusual, and in my opinion it is evidence of the secrecy and control issues the Clintons seem to have, but it's not functionally different than using a more common private email or even using an unsecured government email account.


This is straightforward speculation, right? Is there any evidence that relevant records that should have been turned over were instead deleted? Or is this just more "you can tell she's dirty just by looking at her bitch face?"


You said that not me. Although the chances of me looking at any politician and not thinking they're either conning me, hiding something, lying, or BSing is probably lower than the chances of me quantum tunneling through the chair I'm sitting in now, or spontaneously combusting.

There were 60,000 emails on her server, roughly. Something like half were submitted and thats what State, the Feds and everyone else have been going through this year. Heres on article, another, and here from her website

How many emails were in her account? And how many of those were provided to the State Department? wrote:Her email account contained a total of 62,320 sent and received emails from March 2009 to February 2013. Based on the review process described below, 30,490 of these emails were provided to the Department, and the remaining 31,830 were private, personal records.


Anyways, the FOIA applies to pretty much every government record that isn't classified, except for a handful-for example, the private medical file of Hillary Clinton, if thats in a gov file somewhere isn't applicable. Nor would an officials tax returns. But while its pretty easy to determine this, its not up to a single person to determine it for themselves.

The way that most departments work-especially now that they've automated stuff and by law, most agencies have to have a FOIA office now, although they're all underfunded. Republican doing-is that emails in their system automatically go through this selection process. Then they get archived, and if requested, released. If not, deleted (and actually Clinton's emails would have been deleted by now).

Also from the Foreign Affairs Manual
5 FAH-1 H-915 DRAFTING WORKING EMAILS
(CT:CH-33; 01-16-2014)
a. All working emails must be marked with the appropriate classification and sensitivity.
b. The overall classification reflects the highest classification level of the message (subject, paragraph, table, or graph).
c. Mark each element (e.g., subject line, paragraph) of a classified working email to show its appropriate classification level using (S) for Secret, (C) for Confidential, (SBU) for Sensitive but Unclassified, or (U) for Unclassified.
d. Top Secret working emails may only be sent via a Department network authorized for that level.
e. All working emails in the OpenNet environment will be marked automatically as unclassified. If classified security information, properly marked or not, is processed on OpenNet or unclassified (U) systems, it must be reported immediately as a security violation. See 12 FAM 550.
f. All messages in the ClassNet environment must be marked with the appropriate classification every time a working email is sent or a recipient replies. For more information about classification, see 12 FAM 510.
g. All sensitive, working emails on both OpenNet and ClassNet must be marked with a sensitivity choice so the message will be labeled appropriately.
h. SMART-to-SMART messages only: Working email replies and forwards inherit the classification and sensitivity of the original message. Classified, working emails without sensitive content should be marked Non-Sensitive. For more information about sensitivity, see 5 FAH-1 H-913 or 12 FAM 540.

Fairly sure that protocol was developed in 2014, after Hillary's tenure. I'm not disputing Hillary deleted emails, I am disputing that there's any evidence Hillary deleted relevant government records or that she didn't have the right to delete spam or personal emails at the time. Last September the Justice Department asserted she did have that right.

Now at the same time, I totally recognize that her conduct has probably made it impossible to independently verify that she followed not only the letter but the spirit of the law. She should not have done this, and that she did does speak to her character, for me it says a lot about her secrecy and, yes, entitlement.

But my primary contention is that nobody cares. Not really, not about the actual facts of the case. There's no evidence that anything Hillary or her staff did actually leaked truly damaging information to anybody who would use it to hurt America. Agreed? What we're then left with are quibbles about the extent to which Hillary's conduct was technically inside the bounds of protocol or not, and the extent to which half the diplomatic corps isn't guilty of the same crime. We are only talking about this because it's Hillary Clinton and people hate her. Powell did it. Rice's staff did it. Hundreds or thousands of diplomats do it. It might well be a violation of protocol, but it's a routine one that typically nobody cares about. This is about politics, not something anybody really truly cares about. For people who hate her it's a reason to hate her more, for people who don't, nobody cares.
Did you know there’s a faceless old woman who secretly lives in your home? It’s true. She’s there now. She’s always there, just out of your sight. Always just out of your sight.
User avatar
Keirador
 
Posts: 9202
Joined: 01 Dec 2008, 21:36
Location: Living secretly in the home of every single resident of Night Vale
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1132)
All-game rating: (1133)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby schocker » 16 Apr 2016, 14:32

Member of The Classicists
schocker
Premium Member
 
Posts: 527
Joined: 12 Jun 2010, 19:05
Location: Texas
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1421
All-game rating: 1417
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby mat.gopack » 16 Apr 2016, 16:40

schocker2 wrote:http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2001999

What's the news here? We knew that for a long time... :|
.·ï¨Ï¨Ï¨ï·.mat.gopack.·ï¨Ï¨Ï¨ï·.
Mattopia of the Mattibean Union in CYOC. You should join ;)

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"

Spreadsheets are fun!
User avatar
mat.gopack
 
Posts: 20718
Joined: 22 Nov 2009, 23:40
Location: The Carolinas
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (929)
All-game rating: (929)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby schocker » 16 Apr 2016, 18:28

It is not new but it is now public as he has released his returns.....I think he is crazy but he is the most likable out of the 5 still in the race. I hopes he wins the dem nomination.
Member of The Classicists
schocker
Premium Member
 
Posts: 527
Joined: 12 Jun 2010, 19:05
Location: Texas
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1421
All-game rating: 1417
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby GregorV » 16 Apr 2016, 18:40

schocker2 wrote:It is not new but it is now public as he has released his returns.....I think he is crazy but he is the most likable out of the 5 still in the race. I hopes he wins the dem nomination.


Wasn't the last likable president Jimmy Carter? Sure you want a likable guy again? I prefer competent, myself.
I got left with nothin' but a Penny, so I had to do it the Hardaway.

What is Mafia? It is a never ending time sink where seemingly trivial inconsequential passing comments are often portrayed as cast iron proof of guilt. Run away backs rather whilst you still can. For me, there is no hope.
User avatar
GregorV
 
Posts: 1386
Joined: 02 Jun 2015, 17:12
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1080
All-game rating: 1101
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby musashisamurai » 16 Apr 2016, 18:54

GregorV wrote:
schocker2 wrote:It is not new but it is now public as he has released his returns.....I think he is crazy but he is the most likable out of the 5 still in the race. I hopes he wins the dem nomination.


Wasn't the last likable president Jimmy Carter? Sure you want a likable guy again? I prefer competent, myself.


Hey, Jimmy Carter was competent. Don't forget that Iran was being bribed to keep the hostages by the Republicans, and that there was no unified command for special forces-that was created by Carter. I believe, though I might be mistaken, that Jimmy Carter was actually paying off the debt too.

Might be a bit biased though. He doubled the wages of all enlisted men-so as the son of sailor, my dad loves him.
¸,,¸_____}\,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,,,,,,
`’’´¯¯¯¯¯}/’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’¨¨¨¯
The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth-it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.
musashisamurai
 
Posts: 16502
Joined: 16 Dec 2010, 21:54
Location: Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby Keirador » 17 Apr 2016, 01:21

GregorV wrote:
schocker2 wrote:It is not new but it is now public as he has released his returns.....I think he is crazy but he is the most likable out of the 5 still in the race. I hopes he wins the dem nomination.


Wasn't the last likable president Jimmy Carter? Sure you want a likable guy again? I prefer competent, myself.

Obama is disliked by many, but he was awfully likable to most. Thrills down your leg, all that. Heck, Dubya was likable, at least at first. He was the candidate you wanted to have a beer with me. Clinton was certainly likable. It was Reagan's whole thing, really, likability. It's kind of an uphill climb to be President without being likable. This cycle seems set to be very much the outlier in that it looks we're going to elect either an unlikable candidate (Clinton) or an incredibly unlikable candidate (Trump, Cruz). Kasich and Bernie are both fairly likable but they're the long-shots.
Did you know there’s a faceless old woman who secretly lives in your home? It’s true. She’s there now. She’s always there, just out of your sight. Always just out of your sight.
User avatar
Keirador
 
Posts: 9202
Joined: 01 Dec 2008, 21:36
Location: Living secretly in the home of every single resident of Night Vale
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1132)
All-game rating: (1133)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby musashisamurai » 17 Apr 2016, 01:42

The other thing with the likeability is that they have their own group that loves them to death, and then are disliked to hated by everyone else.

Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have their followers but are universally despised by others.

Kasich isn't quite hated, but people laugh that he's the moderate Republican.

Bernie Sanders brought people into the Democratic Party and wins large among independents, working class blue-collar workers, and millennials (or anyone under ~30), but large numbers of some of those demographics are pretty so-so for everyone else. I don't think Hillary's problem with unification will be that they don't like her, or some will feel insulted by her campaign (Because Bill sure as hell ain't helping with that), but that they only liked Sanders. Its like sports-yeah, as a Pats fan, I cheer for anyone against the Jets, but if the Pats are out of the season, not like I'm gonna watch the Superbowl.

Then there's Hillary, whose well-known and been in the spotlight for two-three decades. She's liked by a number of older and middle-aged voters who lived through her husband's presidency, but she and her husband also has a large number of scandals. And they certainly haven't learned good damage control yet, or at least they aren't good at pretending to be innocent. (Ie take the speech transcripts thing. Hillary's claim that she'll do it after others do is bad-Bernie didnt do speeches, nor did Trump and Cruz. Leaving Kasich, who's the weakest candidate running. By continuously hiding, she makes it look like she's hiding something. If she had realized how stupid it was to do while she was setting up her pacs, she would have dodged the bullet). Anyways, the scandals have turned off some Independents, while a number of Republicans view her as their lifelong enemy (even though the Clintons did move the Party a little more to the right).


Its actually pretty funny-loads of people in the general election will vote Hillary so Trump doesn't get elected, Ted Cruz is getting support because people hate Trump (and a handful of Republicans realize he has no chance of winning), while Kasich is getting votes because Ted Cruz is even more disliked than Trump!

Reminds me of this quote by Robert Heinlein
At one time kings were anointed by Deity, so the problem was to see to it that Deity chose the right candidate. In this age the myth is "the will of the people" ... but the problem changes only superficially.


or my favorite line
Once there was a man who held a political make-work job like so many here...shining brass cannon around a courthouse. He did this for years...but he was not getting ahead in the world. So one day he quit his job, drew out his savings, bought a brass cannon – and went into business for himself


EDIT-didn't end up in my last comment, so had to redo
¸,,¸_____}\,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,,,,,,
`’’´¯¯¯¯¯}/’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’¨¨¨¯
The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth-it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.
musashisamurai
 
Posts: 16502
Joined: 16 Dec 2010, 21:54
Location: Galactic Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Hillary or Bernie?

Postby schocker » 17 Apr 2016, 13:47

I had not thought about the speech release in any detail. You are right. Nobody else running gave speeches for money or anything else. It is just more Hillary stuff as we always get from her. Maybe she is innocent of all the many accusations made against her but it gets harder and harder to believe that. Her biggest problem I believe is that the more people see her and hear her the less they like her. So how does she run a campaign? Attack the others. Have anybody noticed that the coverage is so poor. When have you seen a program which spells out what each candidate stands for on major issues? Cruz, Trump, Kasich, Sanders and Clinton positions on issues...all in one program with graphs? Is this possible?
Member of The Classicists
schocker
Premium Member
 
Posts: 527
Joined: 12 Jun 2010, 19:05
Location: Texas
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1421
All-game rating: 1417
Timezone: GMT-6

PreviousNext

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest