Author Topic: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate  (Read 589225 times)

MrsWhipple

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 413
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #350 on: February 03, 2016, 08:35:24 PM »
(if you still love the neoconservatives and their philosophy - I urge you to learn about Doug Feith - the architect of DeBaathification and prison policy in Iraq - a guy who General Tommy Franks called "the dumbest fucking guy on the planet" - and when you're done reading, check back in).
Oh Lord, no, I was done with the neoconservatives by the time I graduated school. It's not a philosophy that survives a great deal of scrutiny, but I was young and wanted to believe that our system was more meritocratic and less corrupt than it is.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3223
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #351 on: February 03, 2016, 08:47:47 PM »
(if you still love the neoconservatives and their philosophy - I urge you to learn about Doug Feith - the architect of DeBaathification and prison policy in Iraq - a guy who General Tommy Franks called "the dumbest fucking guy on the planet" - and when you're done reading, check back in).
Oh Lord, no, I was done with the neoconservatives by the time I graduated school. It's not a philosophy that survives a great deal of scrutiny, but I was young and wanted to believe that our system was more meritocratic and less corrupt than it is.

I'm sorry, MrsWhipple! I didn't mean to imply that I thought you in particular were taken with neoconservativism. I was simply adding to your well-thought out and well written commentary. 

Thing is, I've learned that I can't just make an offhand comment about the neoconservatives.  I find I need to supply specific examples of how their ideology and advice have gone horribly wrong, so that people who are taken with the superficial neo-con story, can look under the hood for themselves before defending them.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3223
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #352 on: February 03, 2016, 08:49:04 PM »
Bernie Sanders: ... he may recruit economist Paul Krugman ... whom I'm unfamiliar with.

See http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-is-right-2013-4 and http://www.investmentu.com/article/detail/40590/paul-krugman-meet-worlds-worst-economist.

Thanks for the two articles of opposing viewpoints. The positive argument is about how his general viewpoint / side of the debate has been proved correct (spending vs austerity during financial crises).  The other article is much more pointed and directed at him as a person. If indeed he's as the article says: prone to confirmation bias, thinking he knows it all, and quick to use ad hominem attacks - well, those are all large red flags.  I suppose the next step is to read his blog. Whoa - he writes something just about every day.  A quick scan and I can say this: he doesn't hold back with his opinion.  It is of course, his blog.  I'm not sure if I want to go down that rabbit hole right now though. Maybe later. Thanks again MDM.

andy85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Louisville, KY
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #353 on: February 04, 2016, 05:48:19 AM »
Bernie Sanders: ... he may recruit economist Paul Krugman ... whom I'm unfamiliar with.

See http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-is-right-2013-4 and http://www.investmentu.com/article/detail/40590/paul-krugman-meet-worlds-worst-economist.

Thanks for the two articles of opposing viewpoints. The positive argument is about how his general viewpoint / side of the debate has been proved correct (spending vs austerity during financial crises).  The other article is much more pointed and directed at him as a person. If indeed he's as the article says: prone to confirmation bias, thinking he knows it all, and quick to use ad hominem attacks - well, those are all large red flags.  I suppose the next step is to read his blog. Whoa - he writes something just about every day.  A quick scan and I can say this: he doesn't hold back with his opinion.  It is of course, his blog.  I'm not sure if I want to go down that rabbit hole right now though. Maybe later. Thanks again MDM.

Depends on what economic school of thought you subscribe to...Krugman is a Keynesian. If you want to see a bunch of counter arguments to Krugman's economic philosophy then check out Tom Woods and Bob Murphy (who subscribe to Austrian economics). I'm sure there may be some personal rants in there, but those two guys are very intelligent. If i think logically and long-term, Austrian economics makes so much more sense to me.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #354 on: February 05, 2016, 07:20:08 AM »
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/

This is a big deal and confirms what I suspected long ago. The use of private email for Clinton was not that different than the practices of her predecessors and emails that were subsequently classified were sent to private accounts used by them and their inner staff as well. About the only difference one could argue would be that Clinton set up a private server and made it the norm. While that might look bad, I don't see it rising to the level of an actual criminal indictment, unless they want to go after her predecessors as well.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #355 on: February 05, 2016, 07:50:55 AM »
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/

This is a big deal and confirms what I suspected long ago. The use of private email for Clinton was not that different than the practices of her predecessors and emails that were subsequently classified were sent to private accounts used by them and their inner staff as well. About the only difference one could argue would be that Clinton set up a private server and made it the norm. While that might look bad, I don't see it rising to the level of an actual criminal indictment, unless they want to go after her predecessors as well.

In other words, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are goddamn fucking criminal scum too! (Not to mention their unethical and/or incompetent IT department.) Wrong is wrong, and I don't give a shit which political party the perp belongs to.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4593
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #356 on: February 05, 2016, 07:52:32 AM »
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/

This is a big deal and confirms what I suspected long ago. The use of private email for Clinton was not that different than the practices of her predecessors and emails that were subsequently classified were sent to private accounts used by them and their inner staff as well. About the only difference one could argue would be that Clinton set up a private server and made it the norm. While that might look bad, I don't see it rising to the level of an actual criminal indictment, unless they want to go after her predecessors as well.

In other words, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are goddamn fucking criminal scum too! (Not to mention their unethical and/or incompetent IT department.) Wrong is wrong, and I don't give a shit which political party the perp belongs to.
Was there any law or policy in place at the time?  No, then none of them are.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2796
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #357 on: February 05, 2016, 07:55:46 AM »
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/

This is a big deal and confirms what I suspected long ago. The use of private email for Clinton was not that different than the practices of her predecessors and emails that were subsequently classified were sent to private accounts used by them and their inner staff as well. About the only difference one could argue would be that Clinton set up a private server and made it the norm. While that might look bad, I don't see it rising to the level of an actual criminal indictment, unless they want to go after her predecessors as well.

In other words, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are goddamn fucking criminal scum too! (Not to mention their unethical and/or incompetent IT department.) Wrong is wrong, and I don't give a shit which political party the perp belongs to.

You're wrong.  It's not a crime to receive classified info, and neither Colin Powell nor Condoleezza Rice are alleged to have sent any classified e-mails from an unsecured server.  Moreover, the article says it wasn't Rice but her staff.

In short, RTFA before lobbing wildly unjustified accusations.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3008
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #358 on: February 05, 2016, 07:59:51 AM »


I think I'll just post updated version of this map every so often: Look upon Hillary's foreign policy success!

(Is there an argument above that Clinton shouldn't be prosecuted for her emails because Powell and Rice would have to be too? Gee, what a shame. Send them all to Club Fed.)

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #359 on: February 05, 2016, 08:03:16 AM »
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/

This is a big deal and confirms what I suspected long ago. The use of private email for Clinton was not that different than the practices of her predecessors and emails that were subsequently classified were sent to private accounts used by them and their inner staff as well. About the only difference one could argue would be that Clinton set up a private server and made it the norm. While that might look bad, I don't see it rising to the level of an actual criminal indictment, unless they want to go after her predecessors as well.
In other words, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are goddamn fucking criminal scum too! (Not to mention their unethical and/or incompetent IT department.) Wrong is wrong, and I don't give a shit which political party the perp belongs to.

You're wrong.  It's not a crime to receive classified info, and neither Colin Powell nor Condoleezza Rice are alleged to have sent any classified e-mails from an unsecured server.  Moreover, the article says it wasn't Rice but her staff.

In short, RTFA before lobbing wildly unjustified accusations.

Plus the whole 'classified' charge is overblown. To quote Powell...

Quote
"The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't," Powell said. "If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share."

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3008
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #360 on: February 05, 2016, 08:07:01 AM »
Is there a single good reason for Clinton to have put this stuff on a private server? I've seen arguments over whether it's a giant crime, or a small one, or something that other people did, but has anybody come up with a defensible reason to have done it?

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #361 on: February 05, 2016, 08:08:23 AM »
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/

This is a big deal and confirms what I suspected long ago. The use of private email for Clinton was not that different than the practices of her predecessors and emails that were subsequently classified were sent to private accounts used by them and their inner staff as well. About the only difference one could argue would be that Clinton set up a private server and made it the norm. While that might look bad, I don't see it rising to the level of an actual criminal indictment, unless they want to go after her predecessors as well.

In other words, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are goddamn fucking criminal scum too! (Not to mention their unethical and/or incompetent IT department.) Wrong is wrong, and I don't give a shit which political party the perp belongs to.
Was there any law or policy in place at the time?  No, then none of them are.

Freedom of Information Act, effective 1967 and amended to include electronic records in 1996. Storing the emails out of State Department control makes it impossible to comply with FOIA requests. I don't give a shit about the "classified" BS; FOIA-noncompliance by itself is bad enough!

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #362 on: February 05, 2016, 08:10:45 AM »
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/

This is a big deal and confirms what I suspected long ago. The use of private email for Clinton was not that different than the practices of her predecessors and emails that were subsequently classified were sent to private accounts used by them and their inner staff as well. About the only difference one could argue would be that Clinton set up a private server and made it the norm. While that might look bad, I don't see it rising to the level of an actual criminal indictment, unless they want to go after her predecessors as well.

In other words, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are goddamn fucking criminal scum too! (Not to mention their unethical and/or incompetent IT department.) Wrong is wrong, and I don't give a shit which political party the perp belongs to.
Was there any law or policy in place at the time?  No, then none of them are.

Freedom of Information Act, effective 1967 and amended to include electronic records in 1996. Storing the emails out of State Department control makes it impossible to comply with FOIA requests. I don't give a shit about the "classified" BS; FOIA-noncompliance by itself is bad enough!

Seems to me they are getting into compliance, so it's kind of a rather moot point. I don't see any federal prosecutor jumping at an indictment based upon FOIA.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3008
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #363 on: February 05, 2016, 08:12:18 AM »
This was in a document Hillary signed:


So "it wasn't classified at the time" isn't a very good excuse.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #364 on: February 05, 2016, 08:15:10 AM »
Is there a single good reason for Clinton to have put this stuff on a private server? I've seen arguments over whether it's a giant crime, or a small one, or something that other people did, but has anybody come up with a defensible reason to have done it?

The official justification that I heard the Clinton camp give was that she wanted to have all her email functionality on one device and that having a private server afforded her that. The media has pointed out that she does in fact carry multiple devices on her although I can see why she might not want to be fumbling around from device to device just to keep in touch with personal and private contact. Any one can reasonably choose to accept or reject that explanation.

The more cynical justification is that Clinton is a control freak and wanted to make sure the emails were under her complete purview.

The conspiratorial justification is the Clinton needed to do this to hide her crimes against humanity.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #365 on: February 05, 2016, 08:17:46 AM »
This was in a document Hillary signed:


So "it wasn't classified at the time" isn't a very good excuse.

It's not whether or not it had a marking. It is whether or not it was actually CLASSIFIED. Basically Powell and Clinton had emails that had no clasification and now years later when they are being reviewed they are NOW being given a determination of classified. It is crazy to hold them responsible for an email that was NOT classified at the time.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3008
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #366 on: February 05, 2016, 08:19:42 AM »
Is there a single good reason for Clinton to have put this stuff on a private server? I've seen arguments over whether it's a giant crime, or a small one, or something that other people did, but has anybody come up with a defensible reason to have done it?

The official justification that I heard the Clinton camp give was that she wanted to have all her email functionality on one device and that having a private server afforded her that. The media has pointed out that she does in fact carry multiple devices on her although I can see why she might not want to be fumbling around from device to device just to keep in touch with personal and private contact. Any one can reasonably choose to accept or reject that explanation.
You really think anybody can choose to accept that explanation when you refuted it in the same paragraph?


Quote
The more cynical justification is that Clinton is a control freak and wanted to make sure the emails were under her complete purview.

So control is more important to her than the law? Sounds like Presidential material!

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #367 on: February 05, 2016, 08:26:45 AM »
Is there a single good reason for Clinton to have put this stuff on a private server? I've seen arguments over whether it's a giant crime, or a small one, or something that other people did, but has anybody come up with a defensible reason to have done it?

The official justification that I heard the Clinton camp give was that she wanted to have all her email functionality on one device and that having a private server afforded her that. The media has pointed out that she does in fact carry multiple devices on her although I can see why she might not want to be fumbling around from device to device just to keep in touch with personal and private contact. Any one can reasonably choose to accept or reject that explanation.
You really think anybody can choose to accept that explanation when you refuted it in the same paragraph?

I can kind of understand. The multiple devices were a blackberry, ipads, etc. I also have multiple devices, but I can see how having to rotate around them just to manage email would be annoying.

Quote
The more cynical justification is that Clinton is a control freak and wanted to make sure the emails were under her complete purview.

So control is more important to her than the law? Sounds like Presidential material!

At this point, nobody can say for certain that the law was actually broken. So your point is kind of moot. If there was some kind of technical violation, personally I don't think any malice was intended.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3008
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #368 on: February 05, 2016, 08:32:12 AM »
Is there a single good reason for Clinton to have put this stuff on a private server? I've seen arguments over whether it's a giant crime, or a small one, or something that other people did, but has anybody come up with a defensible reason to have done it?

The official justification that I heard the Clinton camp give was that she wanted to have all her email functionality on one device and that having a private server afforded her that. The media has pointed out that she does in fact carry multiple devices on her although I can see why she might not want to be fumbling around from device to device just to keep in touch with personal and private contact. Any one can reasonably choose to accept or reject that explanation.
You really think anybody can choose to accept that explanation when you refuted it in the same paragraph?

I can kind of understand. The multiple devices were a blackberry, ipads, etc. I also have multiple devices, but I can see how having to rotate around them just to manage email would be annoying.

Quote
The more cynical justification is that Clinton is a control freak and wanted to make sure the emails were under her complete purview.

So control is more important to her than the law? Sounds like Presidential material!

At this point, nobody can say for certain that the law was actually broken. So your point is kind of moot. If there was some kind of technical violation, personally I don't think any malice was intended.

Okay. If you can look at all of it and say "Seems legit! I want to give this person more power" I think that's foolish but there's no convincing you to change your mind.

infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 839
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #369 on: February 05, 2016, 08:37:26 AM »
The official justification that I heard the Clinton camp give was that she wanted to have all her email functionality on one device and that having a private server afforded her that. The media has pointed out that she does in fact carry multiple devices on her although I can see why she might not want to be fumbling around from device to device just to keep in touch with personal and private contact. Any one can reasonably choose to accept or reject that explanation.

The more cynical justification is that Clinton is a control freak and wanted to make sure the emails were under her complete purview.

The conspiratorial justification is the Clinton needed to do this to hide her crimes against humanity.

Another possibility is that after twenty years of having Republicans ceaselessly trying to dig up dirt on her and her family, she wanted to shield her email from their attempts.

Or it could be something as simple as "State only supplies Blackberries and I have to go through their server, but I want an iPhone."

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3008
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #370 on: February 05, 2016, 08:40:14 AM »
The official justification that I heard the Clinton camp give was that she wanted to have all her email functionality on one device and that having a private server afforded her that. The media has pointed out that she does in fact carry multiple devices on her although I can see why she might not want to be fumbling around from device to device just to keep in touch with personal and private contact. Any one can reasonably choose to accept or reject that explanation.

The more cynical justification is that Clinton is a control freak and wanted to make sure the emails were under her complete purview.

The conspiratorial justification is the Clinton needed to do this to hide her crimes against humanity.

Another possibility is that after twenty years of having Republicans ceaselessly trying to dig up dirt on her and her family, she wanted to shield her email from their attempts.

Does that strike you as a legitimate reason? She broke the rules so nobody could criticize her, and you say, "Good idea!"

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #371 on: February 05, 2016, 08:45:13 AM »
Is there a single good reason for Clinton to have put this stuff on a private server? I've seen arguments over whether it's a giant crime, or a small one, or something that other people did, but has anybody come up with a defensible reason to have done it?

The official justification that I heard the Clinton camp give was that she wanted to have all her email functionality on one device and that having a private server afforded her that. The media has pointed out that she does in fact carry multiple devices on her although I can see why she might not want to be fumbling around from device to device just to keep in touch with personal and private contact. Any one can reasonably choose to accept or reject that explanation.
You really think anybody can choose to accept that explanation when you refuted it in the same paragraph?

I can kind of understand. The multiple devices were a blackberry, ipads, etc. I also have multiple devices, but I can see how having to rotate around them just to manage email would be annoying.

Quote
The more cynical justification is that Clinton is a control freak and wanted to make sure the emails were under her complete purview.

So control is more important to her than the law? Sounds like Presidential material!

At this point, nobody can say for certain that the law was actually broken. So your point is kind of moot. If there was some kind of technical violation, personally I don't think any malice was intended.

Okay. If you can look at all of it and say "Seems legit! I want to give this person more power" I think that's foolish but there's no convincing you to change your mind.

I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #372 on: February 05, 2016, 08:48:08 AM »
The official justification that I heard the Clinton camp give was that she wanted to have all her email functionality on one device and that having a private server afforded her that. The media has pointed out that she does in fact carry multiple devices on her although I can see why she might not want to be fumbling around from device to device just to keep in touch with personal and private contact. Any one can reasonably choose to accept or reject that explanation.

The more cynical justification is that Clinton is a control freak and wanted to make sure the emails were under her complete purview.

The conspiratorial justification is the Clinton needed to do this to hide her crimes against humanity.

Another possibility is that after twenty years of having Republicans ceaselessly trying to dig up dirt on her and her family, she wanted to shield her email from their attempts.

Does that strike you as a legitimate reason? She broke the rules so nobody could criticize her, and you say, "Good idea!"

The point is that almost EVERYONE was breaking the rules at that time. And not from some nefarious motives, but rather most likely out of convenience. It just took Clinton doing it and the Republicans jumping all over it to turn it into a 'scandal'.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3008
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #373 on: February 05, 2016, 08:55:21 AM »
...

I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.

I can buy that. Who has she fired for failing to advise her that this was a bad idea? Certainly Huma Abedin should have know that this violated FOIA regulations in a very serious way.

Beyond that, if she isn't smart or knowledgeable enough to understand why this was a bad idea, how qualified is she to lead the country? Cybersecurity is a substantial foreign policy threat.

The point is that almost EVERYONE was breaking the rules at that time.

Was the Secretary of Defense? Do you want a President that has bad enough judgement to break the rules everybody else is breaking, or do you want a leader?

Quote
And not from some nefarious motives, but rather most likely out of convenience. It just took Clinton doing it and the Republicans jumping all over it to turn it into a 'scandal'.

How in the world is setting up a server in your bathroom and paying under-qualified private contractors to do it convenient? It looks to me like she went to an awful lot of trouble to set this up.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #374 on: February 05, 2016, 09:09:16 AM »
...

I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.

I can buy that. Who has she fired for failing to advise her that this was a bad idea? Certainly Huma Abedin should have know that this violated FOIA regulations in a very serious way.

I agree that is a legitimate point. From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus. Nevertheless, they did fail her and someone ought to fall on their sword for that.

Beyond that, if she isn't smart or knowledgeable enough to understand why this was a bad idea, how qualified is she to lead the country? Cybersecurity is a substantial foreign policy threat.

That is NOT a legitimate point. Expecting a president to have a thorough knowledge of EVERYTHING is unreasonable.

The point is that almost EVERYONE was breaking the rules at that time.

Was the Secretary of Defense? Do you want a President that has bad enough judgement to break the rules everybody else is breaking, or do you want a leader?

Quote
And not from some nefarious motives, but rather most likely out of convenience. It just took Clinton doing it and the Republicans jumping all over it to turn it into a 'scandal'.

How in the world is setting up a server in your bathroom and paying under-qualified private contractors to do it convenient? It looks to me like she went to an awful lot of trouble to set this up.

Yes, it took some setup, but it likely all happened behind the scenes and I doubt very likely that she was burdened by any involvement in the setup. From her point of view it just happened. That shouldn't sound crazy. Most people are insulated from the pesky details of IT infrastructure. Most non-IT executives even more so I would imagine.

It was a convenience in that everything was set up for Clinton.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3008
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #375 on: February 05, 2016, 09:18:54 AM »
...

I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.

I can buy that. Who has she fired for failing to advise her that this was a bad idea? Certainly Huma Abedin should have know that this violated FOIA regulations in a very serious way.

I agree that is a legitimate point. From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus. Nevertheless, they did fail her and someone ought to fall on their sword for that.

Beyond that, if she isn't smart or knowledgeable enough to understand why this was a bad idea, how qualified is she to lead the country? Cybersecurity is a substantial foreign policy threat.

That is NOT a legitimate point. Expecting a president to have a thorough knowledge of EVERYTHING is unreasonable.

I don't expect her to have a thorough knowledge of everything. But I expect her to do at least one of these:
1. Place some value on transparency in a democratic society, so insist on following the rules.
2. Have staff that understand the rules.
3. Replace staff that do not follow the rules.

If she can't do any of those, that's a serious concern about her qualifications as president. As in this case, she will expose more dangerous information to enemies of the country. If she places loyalty to Huma Abedin over loyalty to the United States, I don't want her to be President. If, when it becomes a major issue, she still can't educate herself enough about it to recognize that it's a problem, that's an issue.

Quote
Was the Secretary of Defense? Do you want a President that has bad enough judgement to break the rules everybody else is breaking, or do you want a leader?

Quote
And not from some nefarious motives, but rather most likely out of convenience. It just took Clinton doing it and the Republicans jumping all over it to turn it into a 'scandal'.

How in the world is setting up a server in your bathroom and paying under-qualified private contractors to do it convenient? It looks to me like she went to an awful lot of trouble to set this up.

Yes, it took some setup, but it likely all happened behind the scenes and I doubt very likely that she was burdened by any involvement in the setup. From her point of view it just happened. That shouldn't sound crazy. Most people are insulated from the pesky details of IT infrastructure. Most non-IT executives even more so I would imagine.

It was a convenience in that everything was set up for Clinton.

The State Department IT staff would have been happy to set up her devices, too, without her having to touch a single Ethernet cable. If she just has rogue staff violating FOIA regulations, some people need to be fired. If she can't fire the people responsible, and she won't take responsibility herself, she shouldn't be President.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #376 on: February 05, 2016, 09:24:52 AM »
From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus.

That by itself is an evil quality in a politician.

Voters should support a candidate who values integrity and good ideas, not "loyalty."

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #377 on: February 05, 2016, 09:50:58 AM »
...

I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.

I can buy that. Who has she fired for failing to advise her that this was a bad idea? Certainly Huma Abedin should have know that this violated FOIA regulations in a very serious way.

I agree that is a legitimate point. From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus. Nevertheless, they did fail her and someone ought to fall on their sword for that.

Beyond that, if she isn't smart or knowledgeable enough to understand why this was a bad idea, how qualified is she to lead the country? Cybersecurity is a substantial foreign policy threat.

That is NOT a legitimate point. Expecting a president to have a thorough knowledge of EVERYTHING is unreasonable.

I don't expect her to have a thorough knowledge of everything.

So we are in agreement that her lack of knowledge about the minutiae of cybersecurity does not disqualify her.

But I expect her to do at least one of these:
1. Place some value on transparency in a democratic society, so insist on following the rules.
2. Have staff that understand the rules.
3. Replace staff that do not follow the rules.

If she can't do any of those, that's a serious concern about her qualifications as president.

If #1 is your expectations, I think you are going to be disappointed no matter who is elected president. Regarding #2 and #3, the minute these are done, the politician then gets accused of throwing staffers under the bus rather than taking responsibility for it themselves. Clinton chose to take responsibility for it and she gets accused of not making anyone pay. Its kind of a no win situation.

As in this case, she will expose more dangerous information to enemies of the country. If she places loyalty to Huma Abedin over loyalty to the United States, I don't want her to be President. If, when it becomes a major issue, she still can't educate herself enough about it to recognize that it's a problem, that's an issue.

Loyalty to Huma Abedin over loyalty to the United States? Wow!

Your traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mindlessness; a journey into a terrifying land whose boundaries are that of the wildest conspiracies. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop, the WINGNUT ZONE! BA BA BA BA BUMMMM!

Was the Secretary of Defense? Do you want a President that has bad enough judgement to break the rules everybody else is breaking, or do you want a leader?

Quote
And not from some nefarious motives, but rather most likely out of convenience. It just took Clinton doing it and the Republicans jumping all over it to turn it into a 'scandal'.

How in the world is setting up a server in your bathroom and paying under-qualified private contractors to do it convenient? It looks to me like she went to an awful lot of trouble to set this up.
Yes, it took some setup, but it likely all happened behind the scenes and I doubt very likely that she was burdened by any involvement in the setup. From her point of view it just happened. That shouldn't sound crazy. Most people are insulated from the pesky details of IT infrastructure. Most non-IT executives even more so I would imagine.

It was a convenience in that everything was set up for Clinton.
The State Department IT staff would have been happy to set up her devices, too, without her having to touch a single Ethernet cable. If she just has rogue staff violating FOIA regulations, some people need to be fired. If she can't fire the people responsible, and she won't take responsibility herself, she shouldn't be President.

My understanding was that the setup was done prior to her joining the State Department. Like I said, there was some internal emails of her staff trying to determine an alternative solution. It just never happened.

From my point of view it all comes down to whether the mistake of the private email was one of malice or poor oversight of the IT infrastructure? The fact that this was done with prior secretaries and that it lasted for YEARS with nobody bothering to escalate this as a risk shows that it was an institutional problem that was simply ignored until it was turned into a political scandal.

If you want to talk about responsibility, then EVERYONE in the government who ever sent or received an email to or from Hillary Clinton. Everyone who saw her email address should have escalated it as an issue.

But let's be honest. This isn't about risk or responsibility. This is about crucifying Clinton with whatever tool available.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #378 on: February 05, 2016, 09:54:12 AM »
From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus.

That by itself is an evil quality in a politician.

Voters should support a candidate who values integrity and good ideas, not "loyalty."

Loyalty is evil? I guess that must mean that treachery is virtuous.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3008
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #379 on: February 05, 2016, 10:17:51 AM »
...

I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.

I can buy that. Who has she fired for failing to advise her that this was a bad idea? Certainly Huma Abedin should have know that this violated FOIA regulations in a very serious way.

I agree that is a legitimate point. From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus. Nevertheless, they did fail her and someone ought to fall on their sword for that.

Beyond that, if she isn't smart or knowledgeable enough to understand why this was a bad idea, how qualified is she to lead the country? Cybersecurity is a substantial foreign policy threat.

That is NOT a legitimate point. Expecting a president to have a thorough knowledge of EVERYTHING is unreasonable.

I don't expect her to have a thorough knowledge of everything.

So we are in agreement that her lack of knowledge about the minutiae of cybersecurity does not disqualify her.

But I expect her to do at least one of these:
1. Place some value on transparency in a democratic society, so insist on following the rules.
2. Have staff that understand the rules.
3. Replace staff that do not follow the rules.

If she can't do any of those, that's a serious concern about her qualifications as president.

If #1 is your expectations, I think you are going to be disappointed no matter who is elected president. Regarding #2 and #3, the minute these are done, the politician then gets accused of throwing staffers under the bus rather than taking responsibility for it themselves. Clinton chose to take responsibility for it and she gets accused of not making anyone pay. Its kind of a no win situation.

As in this case, she will expose more dangerous information to enemies of the country. If she places loyalty to Huma Abedin over loyalty to the United States, I don't want her to be President. If, when it becomes a major issue, she still can't educate herself enough about it to recognize that it's a problem, that's an issue.

Loyalty to Huma Abedin over loyalty to the United States? Wow!

Your traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mindlessness; a journey into a terrifying land whose boundaries are that of the wildest conspiracies. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop, the WINGNUT ZONE! BA BA BA BA BUMMMM!

Was the Secretary of Defense? Do you want a President that has bad enough judgement to break the rules everybody else is breaking, or do you want a leader?

Quote
And not from some nefarious motives, but rather most likely out of convenience. It just took Clinton doing it and the Republicans jumping all over it to turn it into a 'scandal'.

How in the world is setting up a server in your bathroom and paying under-qualified private contractors to do it convenient? It looks to me like she went to an awful lot of trouble to set this up.
Yes, it took some setup, but it likely all happened behind the scenes and I doubt very likely that she was burdened by any involvement in the setup. From her point of view it just happened. That shouldn't sound crazy. Most people are insulated from the pesky details of IT infrastructure. Most non-IT executives even more so I would imagine.

It was a convenience in that everything was set up for Clinton.
The State Department IT staff would have been happy to set up her devices, too, without her having to touch a single Ethernet cable. If she just has rogue staff violating FOIA regulations, some people need to be fired. If she can't fire the people responsible, and she won't take responsibility herself, she shouldn't be President.

My understanding was that the setup was done prior to her joining the State Department. Like I said, there was some internal emails of her staff trying to determine an alternative solution. It just never happened.

From my point of view it all comes down to whether the mistake of the private email was one of malice or poor oversight of the IT infrastructure? The fact that this was done with prior secretaries and that it lasted for YEARS with nobody bothering to escalate this as a risk shows that it was an institutional problem that was simply ignored until it was turned into a political scandal.

If you want to talk about responsibility, then EVERYONE in the government who ever sent or received an email to or from Hillary Clinton. Everyone who saw her email address should have escalated it as an issue.

But let's be honest. This isn't about risk or responsibility. This is about crucifying Clinton with whatever tool available.

I've been nothing but civil here and you're calling me a wingnut and accusing me of arguing in bad faith.

Loyalty to Abedin over loyalty to the United States isn't overstating it at all - you either follow the rules of the United States as a civil servant or you protect your staff who violate them while endangering national security.

Can you find me a politician who got heavily criticized for firing a lawbreaking staffer? Is "but she'll get criticized" an acceptable reason to not stand up for what's right?

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #380 on: February 05, 2016, 10:28:51 AM »
From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus.

That by itself is an evil quality in a politician.

Voters should support a candidate who values integrity and good ideas, not "loyalty."

Loyalty is evil? I guess that must mean that treachery is virtuous.

No, the truth of a statement does not imply the truth of its inverse.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #381 on: February 05, 2016, 01:31:05 PM »
...

I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.

I can buy that. Who has she fired for failing to advise her that this was a bad idea? Certainly Huma Abedin should have know that this violated FOIA regulations in a very serious way.

I agree that is a legitimate point. From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus. Nevertheless, they did fail her and someone ought to fall on their sword for that.

Beyond that, if she isn't smart or knowledgeable enough to understand why this was a bad idea, how qualified is she to lead the country? Cybersecurity is a substantial foreign policy threat.

That is NOT a legitimate point. Expecting a president to have a thorough knowledge of EVERYTHING is unreasonable.

I don't expect her to have a thorough knowledge of everything.

So we are in agreement that her lack of knowledge about the minutiae of cybersecurity does not disqualify her.

But I expect her to do at least one of these:
1. Place some value on transparency in a democratic society, so insist on following the rules.
2. Have staff that understand the rules.
3. Replace staff that do not follow the rules.

If she can't do any of those, that's a serious concern about her qualifications as president.

If #1 is your expectations, I think you are going to be disappointed no matter who is elected president. Regarding #2 and #3, the minute these are done, the politician then gets accused of throwing staffers under the bus rather than taking responsibility for it themselves. Clinton chose to take responsibility for it and she gets accused of not making anyone pay. Its kind of a no win situation.

As in this case, she will expose more dangerous information to enemies of the country. If she places loyalty to Huma Abedin over loyalty to the United States, I don't want her to be President. If, when it becomes a major issue, she still can't educate herself enough about it to recognize that it's a problem, that's an issue.

Loyalty to Huma Abedin over loyalty to the United States? Wow!

Your traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mindlessness; a journey into a terrifying land whose boundaries are that of the wildest conspiracies. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop, the WINGNUT ZONE! BA BA BA BA BUMMMM!

Was the Secretary of Defense? Do you want a President that has bad enough judgement to break the rules everybody else is breaking, or do you want a leader?

Quote
And not from some nefarious motives, but rather most likely out of convenience. It just took Clinton doing it and the Republicans jumping all over it to turn it into a 'scandal'.

How in the world is setting up a server in your bathroom and paying under-qualified private contractors to do it convenient? It looks to me like she went to an awful lot of trouble to set this up.
Yes, it took some setup, but it likely all happened behind the scenes and I doubt very likely that she was burdened by any involvement in the setup. From her point of view it just happened. That shouldn't sound crazy. Most people are insulated from the pesky details of IT infrastructure. Most non-IT executives even more so I would imagine.

It was a convenience in that everything was set up for Clinton.
The State Department IT staff would have been happy to set up her devices, too, without her having to touch a single Ethernet cable. If she just has rogue staff violating FOIA regulations, some people need to be fired. If she can't fire the people responsible, and she won't take responsibility herself, she shouldn't be President.

My understanding was that the setup was done prior to her joining the State Department. Like I said, there was some internal emails of her staff trying to determine an alternative solution. It just never happened.

From my point of view it all comes down to whether the mistake of the private email was one of malice or poor oversight of the IT infrastructure? The fact that this was done with prior secretaries and that it lasted for YEARS with nobody bothering to escalate this as a risk shows that it was an institutional problem that was simply ignored until it was turned into a political scandal.

If you want to talk about responsibility, then EVERYONE in the government who ever sent or received an email to or from Hillary Clinton. Everyone who saw her email address should have escalated it as an issue.

But let's be honest. This isn't about risk or responsibility. This is about crucifying Clinton with whatever tool available.

I've been nothing but civil here and you're calling me a wingnut and accusing me of arguing in bad faith.

Loyalty to Abedin over loyalty to the United States isn't overstating it at all - you either follow the rules of the United States as a civil servant or you protect your staff who violate them while endangering national security.

Can you find me a politician who got heavily criticized for firing a lawbreaking staffer? Is "but she'll get criticized" an acceptable reason to not stand up for what's right?

Of all the staff you chose to highlight Huma Abedin, who is a favorite of anti-muslim conspiracy wingnuts and when you phrase the issue as to question Clinton's loyalty to the U.S., you have most definitely have entered into the wingnut zone.

A good example of the politician throwing his staff under the bus is Chris Christie's bridgegate. The criticism isn't in firing the staffer. The criticism is in firing the staffer as a means to avoid any personal accountability. If Clinton had done that with her staff, she would have merely gotten flack for cowardly throwing them to the wolves the same way Christie did with his staff.

And standing up for what's right. I would argue that crucifying Clinton and her staff over what amounts to a mistake in which there is no evidence that any harm came from it isn't right either. But then, this isn't about what's right. This is about getting as many pounds of flesh as possible to weaken a political opponent.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #382 on: February 05, 2016, 01:34:17 PM »
From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus.

That by itself is an evil quality in a politician.

Voters should support a candidate who values integrity and good ideas, not "loyalty."

Loyalty is evil? I guess that must mean that treachery is virtuous.

No, the truth of a statement does not imply the truth of its inverse.

The inverse certainly highlights the ridiculousness of the original statement. Loyalty is Evil? Yeah, right. Whatever you want to believe in that looking glass world.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #383 on: February 05, 2016, 01:41:30 PM »
From what I understand, Clinton prizes loyalty and it appears that she doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus.

That by itself is an evil quality in a politician.

Voters should support a candidate who values integrity and good ideas, not "loyalty."

Loyalty is evil? I guess that must mean that treachery is virtuous.

No, the truth of a statement does not imply the truth of its inverse.

The inverse certainly highlights the ridiculousness of the original statement. Loyalty is Evil? Yeah, right. Whatever you want to believe in that looking glass world.

No, pretending the inverse of a statement implies (or "highlights") anything about a statement is a total non-sequitur because they're not logically connected.

More to the point, what does get implied by a statement like "Clinton prizes loyalty" is that she prizes it more than something else -- like integrity, for example. And that's the problem.

The opposite of valuing loyalty is not valuing treachery. The opposite of valuing loyalty is simply not valuing it, i.e., finding it irrelevant.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3340
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #384 on: February 07, 2016, 07:43:49 AM »
Normally, I take any articles written by Slate with more than a few grains of salt, but this is a pretty fair description of Rubio's performance at last night's debate. He screwed up. And I think it will matter.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/marco_rubio_was_a_disaster_in_the_gop_debate_on_abc.html

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1841
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #385 on: February 07, 2016, 09:43:35 AM »
Normally, I take any articles written by Slate with more than a few grains of salt, but this is a pretty fair description of Rubio's performance at last night's debate. He screwed up. And I think it will matter.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/marco_rubio_was_a_disaster_in_the_gop_debate_on_abc.html

I just watched the clip and WOW!  Rubio was a strange automaton and Christie totally slammed him!  That was incredible.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #386 on: February 07, 2016, 10:09:08 AM »
Normally, I take any articles written by Slate with more than a few grains of salt, but this is a pretty fair description of Rubio's performance at last night's debate. He screwed up. And I think it will matter.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/marco_rubio_was_a_disaster_in_the_gop_debate_on_abc.html

An interesting article -- but oh, the irony!

Quote from: Slate article
And against Rubio’s disdain for experience, he scoffed. “You have not been involved in a consequential decision where you had to be held accountable,” Christie said.

Since when has that corrupt fucker been held accountable for anything?!

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4343
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #387 on: February 07, 2016, 10:47:37 AM »
Anybody else curious about the GOP candidates' proposals in the realm of HSAs? They were briefly discussed in last night's debate , but I cannot find concrete, workable proposals in any of their campaigns.

Apparently Carson put something together last fall that included throwing a cash allowance into Medicaid recipients' HSAs, but it hasn't gotten much attention.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #388 on: February 07, 2016, 01:47:55 PM »
I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.

Lol. This was not a technical violation, it was deliberate law breaking. She deliberately chose to bypass the secured email system she was required to use by law. Then, she deliberately deleted those emails, again breaking the law.

She also blatantly lied when she said that these emails did not contain top secret government information.

Why are you defending her?

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #389 on: February 07, 2016, 04:48:59 PM »
I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.

Lol. This was not a technical violation, it was deliberate law breaking. She deliberately chose to bypass the secured email system she was required to use by law. Then, she deliberately deleted those emails, again breaking the law.

She also blatantly lied when she said that these emails did not contain top secret government information.

Why are you defending her?
Yep, when you sign a non disclosure agreement and are read in to the various SCI accesses the rules regarding handling that information are straight forward and easy to understand. There is no way a person with SCI access would think having a personal server would be legal or secure. SCI material belongs in a SCIF not your house. If I did what Clinton did I would be spending 20+ years at Ft. Leavenworth. 

MayDay

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3689
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #390 on: February 08, 2016, 07:19:08 AM »
I found the Rubio debate gaffe interesting.  I don't love him by any means, but I was ok with him compared to that creeper Cruz and all Mexicans are criminal Trump.  So now it is looking like more chaos.  The R primaries are seriously amazing this year (and also scary). 

I read a theory that Jeb!, Kasich, and Christie are hanging in for the long haul because many of the delegates are obligated to vote for their candidate for the first round of voting, but then if there is no majority (which at this point, seems like a strong possibility) they become free agents.  So the more traditional GOP candidates have a distinct chance of becoming the nominee even if they finish in the 3-4-5th place range behind the crazy ones.

Where Rubio fits in there is interesting to me.  Why do establishment GOP'ers not like him?  Because he is brown-ish?  I expected the establishment to throw itself behind anyone who wasn't Trump or Cruz, but I never have gotten the sense they liked Rubio.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #391 on: February 08, 2016, 07:30:08 AM »
I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.

Lol. This was not a technical violation, it was deliberate law breaking. She deliberately chose to bypass the secured email system she was required to use by law. Then, she deliberately deleted those emails, again breaking the law.

She also blatantly lied when she said that these emails did not contain top secret government information.

Why are you defending her?
Yep, when you sign a non disclosure agreement and are read in to the various SCI accesses the rules regarding handling that information are straight forward and easy to understand. There is no way a person with SCI access would think having a personal server would be legal or secure. SCI material belongs in a SCIF not your house. If I did what Clinton did I would be spending 20+ years at Ft. Leavenworth. 

No you wouldn't. These materials only became SCI in the last 12 months, AFTER they were discovered on Clinton's server and in Powell's online account. Prior to that they were NON CLASSIFIED. As I quoted Powell...

Quote
"The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't," Powell said. "If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share."

It's bogus to hold them responsible for a classification that didn't exist at the time.

It's also bogus to single out Clinton criminal punishment (if a crime was actually committed) for doing something that MANY, MANY other high ranking government officials have done - using a private email account to conduct official business. Palin did it as governor in Alaska. Jeb Bush did it as governor in Florida. Powell did it. Rice's aides did it. The way I see it is this was an error in judgment that Clinton already took a big hit politically for. She became the poster child for why government officials should NOT use private email and hopefully we'll be seeing less of it. I just don't see this rising to the level of a criminal conviction, particularly when we can't even hold our officials accountable for REAL criminal acts like kidnapping and torture and spying on congress.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #392 on: February 08, 2016, 07:32:58 AM »
I found the Rubio debate gaffe interesting.  I don't love him by any means, but I was ok with him compared to that creeper Cruz and all Mexicans are criminal Trump.  So now it is looking like more chaos.  The R primaries are seriously amazing this year (and also scary). 

I read a theory that Jeb!, Kasich, and Christie are hanging in for the long haul because many of the delegates are obligated to vote for their candidate for the first round of voting, but then if there is no majority (which at this point, seems like a strong possibility) they become free agents.  So the more traditional GOP candidates have a distinct chance of becoming the nominee even if they finish in the 3-4-5th place range behind the crazy ones.

Where Rubio fits in there is interesting to me.  Why do establishment GOP'ers not like him?  Because he is brown-ish?  I expected the establishment to throw itself behind anyone who wasn't Trump or Cruz, but I never have gotten the sense they liked Rubio.

I think they have come around to Rubio. He just wasn't their first choice. They initially wanted Jeb and going for Rubio would have been a slap in the face to Jeb. Even so, I think the establishment would much prefer Rubio to Trump and Cruz.

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1841
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #393 on: February 08, 2016, 08:14:06 AM »
Where Rubio fits in there is interesting to me.  Why do establishment GOP'ers not like him?  Because he is brown-ish?  I expected the establishment to throw itself behind anyone who wasn't Trump or Cruz, but I never have gotten the sense they liked Rubio.

They do like Rubio.  He's kind of their boy-wonder, who, like Obama, was lunched onto the national radar during his very first term as a US Senator.  Remember he was selected to give the GOP's response to Obama's State of the Union address in 2013 (became talked about because he took a "water break" during the speech)?  I think the establishment is having a very difficult time deciding where to throw their weight during this election season since it has been such an unusual cast of candidates.  I think the phenomenon of Bush, Christie, Kasich hanging on has to due with (1) we're not yet at Super Tuesday, and (2) perhaps vying for the VP spot.

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #394 on: February 08, 2016, 10:26:28 AM »
I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.

Lol. This was not a technical violation, it was deliberate law breaking. She deliberately chose to bypass the secured email system she was required to use by law. Then, she deliberately deleted those emails, again breaking the law.

She also blatantly lied when she said that these emails did not contain top secret government information.

Why are you defending her?
Yep, when you sign a non disclosure agreement and are read in to the various SCI accesses the rules regarding handling that information are straight forward and easy to understand. There is no way a person with SCI access would think having a personal server would be legal or secure. SCI material belongs in a SCIF not your house. If I did what Clinton did I would be spending 20+ years at Ft. Leavenworth. 

No you wouldn't. These materials only became SCI in the last 12 months, AFTER they were discovered on Clinton's server and in Powell's online account. Prior to that they were NON CLASSIFIED. As I quoted Powell...

Quote
"The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't," Powell said. "If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share."

It's bogus to hold them responsible for a classification that didn't exist at the time.

It's also bogus to single out Clinton criminal punishment (if a crime was actually committed) for doing something that MANY, MANY other high ranking government officials have done - using a private email account to conduct official business. Palin did it as governor in Alaska. Jeb Bush did it as governor in Florida. Powell did it. Rice's aides did it. The way I see it is this was an error in judgment that Clinton already took a big hit politically for. She became the poster child for why government officials should NOT use private email and hopefully we'll be seeing less of it. I just don't see this rising to the level of a criminal conviction, particularly when we can't even hold our officials accountable for REAL criminal acts like kidnapping and torture and spying on congress.
Powell and Clinton are two different situations. Clinton's emails were classified from the start Powell's were not. Powell's email's did not contain any SCI material while Clinton's did. Material can go from being unclassified to being classified Confidential, Secret, or even Top Secret. It will never go from unclassified to TS/SCI though. So material that is TS/SCI today was also TS/SCI 12 months ago. SCI protects sources and methods. Sources and methods are classified from their inception.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2016, 10:30:10 AM by jamesvt »

MayDay

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3689
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #395 on: February 08, 2016, 10:42:25 AM »
Where Rubio fits in there is interesting to me.  Why do establishment GOP'ers not like him?  Because he is brown-ish?  I expected the establishment to throw itself behind anyone who wasn't Trump or Cruz, but I never have gotten the sense they liked Rubio.

They do like Rubio.  He's kind of their boy-wonder, who, like Obama, was lunched onto the national radar during his very first term as a US Senator.  Remember he was selected to give the GOP's response to Obama's State of the Union address in 2013 (became talked about because he took a "water break" during the speech)?  I think the establishment is having a very difficult time deciding where to throw their weight during this election season since it has been such an unusual cast of candidates.  I think the phenomenon of Bush, Christie, Kasich hanging on has to due with (1) we're not yet at Super Tuesday, and (2) perhaps vying for the VP spot.

Good point on the SOTU address.  Now that you mention that, it has jogged my memory.  I believe he is still being made fun of today for his dry mouth. 

I looked up the fundraising, and it looks like Rubio has a legitimate amount of $$$.  Not sure where I got the idea that the establishment doesn't like him.  From the money POV, Jeb! is still the big winner, with about 2x or more the money of most of the other GOP candidates.  I wonder if there is data of fundraising over time instead of totals.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #396 on: February 09, 2016, 05:59:29 AM »
I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.

Lol. This was not a technical violation, it was deliberate law breaking. She deliberately chose to bypass the secured email system she was required to use by law. Then, she deliberately deleted those emails, again breaking the law.

She also blatantly lied when she said that these emails did not contain top secret government information.

Why are you defending her?
Yep, when you sign a non disclosure agreement and are read in to the various SCI accesses the rules regarding handling that information are straight forward and easy to understand. There is no way a person with SCI access would think having a personal server would be legal or secure. SCI material belongs in a SCIF not your house. If I did what Clinton did I would be spending 20+ years at Ft. Leavenworth. 

No you wouldn't. These materials only became SCI in the last 12 months, AFTER they were discovered on Clinton's server and in Powell's online account. Prior to that they were NON CLASSIFIED. As I quoted Powell...

Quote
"The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't," Powell said. "If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share."

It's bogus to hold them responsible for a classification that didn't exist at the time.

It's also bogus to single out Clinton criminal punishment (if a crime was actually committed) for doing something that MANY, MANY other high ranking government officials have done - using a private email account to conduct official business. Palin did it as governor in Alaska. Jeb Bush did it as governor in Florida. Powell did it. Rice's aides did it. The way I see it is this was an error in judgment that Clinton already took a big hit politically for. She became the poster child for why government officials should NOT use private email and hopefully we'll be seeing less of it. I just don't see this rising to the level of a criminal conviction, particularly when we can't even hold our officials accountable for REAL criminal acts like kidnapping and torture and spying on congress.
Powell and Clinton are two different situations. Clinton's emails were classified from the start Powell's were not. Powell's email's did not contain any SCI material while Clinton's did. Material can go from being unclassified to being classified Confidential, Secret, or even Top Secret. It will never go from unclassified to TS/SCI though. So material that is TS/SCI today was also TS/SCI 12 months ago. SCI protects sources and methods. Sources and methods are classified from their inception.

Where do you get that Clinton's emails were classified from the start? I have not seen any indication of that. Juan Williams (Fox News Commentator) did a good writeup on the Clinton email matter just other day. Yes, it is an opinion piece, but I don't see Williams having an axe to grind one way or the other in this.

Quote from: Juan Williams
It has never been shown that Clinton shared information marked as classified at the time it was sent or received.

http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/268514-juan-williams-innuendo-fuels-clinton-email-saga

Killerbrandt

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #397 on: February 09, 2016, 06:15:47 AM »
I just can't get worked up over what seems more like a technical violation at worst from somebody who probably didn't have the IT savvy to understand the risks involved. I see the failure more on the side of her staff who we see in emails realized this wasn't a good arrangement but never pushed hard enough to actually change it.

Lol. This was not a technical violation, it was deliberate law breaking. She deliberately chose to bypass the secured email system she was required to use by law. Then, she deliberately deleted those emails, again breaking the law.

She also blatantly lied when she said that these emails did not contain top secret government information.

Why are you defending her?
Yep, when you sign a non disclosure agreement and are read in to the various SCI accesses the rules regarding handling that information are straight forward and easy to understand. There is no way a person with SCI access would think having a personal server would be legal or secure. SCI material belongs in a SCIF not your house. If I did what Clinton did I would be spending 20+ years at Ft. Leavenworth. 

No you wouldn't. These materials only became SCI in the last 12 months, AFTER they were discovered on Clinton's server and in Powell's online account. Prior to that they were NON CLASSIFIED. As I quoted Powell...

Quote
"The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't," Powell said. "If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share."

It's bogus to hold them responsible for a classification that didn't exist at the time.

It's also bogus to single out Clinton criminal punishment (if a crime was actually committed) for doing something that MANY, MANY other high ranking government officials have done - using a private email account to conduct official business. Palin did it as governor in Alaska. Jeb Bush did it as governor in Florida. Powell did it. Rice's aides did it. The way I see it is this was an error in judgment that Clinton already took a big hit politically for. She became the poster child for why government officials should NOT use private email and hopefully we'll be seeing less of it. I just don't see this rising to the level of a criminal conviction, particularly when we can't even hold our officials accountable for REAL criminal acts like kidnapping and torture and spying on congress.
Powell and Clinton are two different situations. Clinton's emails were classified from the start Powell's were not. Powell's email's did not contain any SCI material while Clinton's did. Material can go from being unclassified to being classified Confidential, Secret, or even Top Secret. It will never go from unclassified to TS/SCI though. So material that is TS/SCI today was also TS/SCI 12 months ago. SCI protects sources and methods. Sources and methods are classified from their inception.

Where do you get that Clinton's emails were classified from the start? I have not seen any indication of that. Juan Williams (Fox News Commentator) did a good writeup on the Clinton email matter just other day. Yes, it is an opinion piece, but I don't see Williams having an axe to grind one way or the other in this.

Quote from: Juan Williams
It has never been shown that Clinton shared information marked as classified at the time it was sent or received.

http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/268514-juan-williams-innuendo-fuels-clinton-email-saga

As someone that has a security clearance with the DoD and tons of family with top security clearance in the USA. Trust me, YOU KNOW! when information has classified information in it or key words that make it classified. A document does not HAVE to have markings to make it classified. I receive information all the time without labels and I have to put the labels on them after reading it. In addition, it is completely against policy to have a private server in your house without the agency knowing it or being the one that put it there. Why are so many ok with what she did? Everyone keeps making excuses for her obvious lack of responsibility. Normal workers would have been punished severely if they were to do the exact same things!

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12058
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #398 on: February 09, 2016, 06:24:35 AM »
I had security clearance with the DoD when I was designing flight sims for F-18s.  Took about two weeks to get, and I think they did a police background check.  Not really a big deal at all, and simply having clearance certainly doesn't make me an expert on security matters as you seem to imply.

We regularly dealt with an awful lot of military documents.  I usually had no idea if the technical weapons specs I was looking at were classified or not.  Has the US policy changed that much in the last six years, or are you just making things up for the sake of your argument?

Killerbrandt

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #399 on: February 09, 2016, 06:37:20 AM »
I had security clearance with the DoD when I was designing flight sims for F-18s.  Took about two weeks to get, and I think they did a police background check.  Not really a big deal at all, and simply having clearance certainly doesn't make me an expert on security matters as you seem to imply.

We regularly dealt with an awful lot of military documents.  I usually had no idea if the technical weapons specs I was looking at were classified or not.  Has the US policy changed that much in the last six years, or are you just making things up for the sake of your argument?

It has changed a ton since 6 years ago, at least in my agency. There has been record hacking targeting us, so yes, it has changed. Also there are many levels of clearance, which you should know. I would expect the Secretary of State to have the highest level, which according to my Uncle which is a diplomat for the USA, there is a ton of training into knowing what to secure and many things one must do at those levels to not risk data leaking. I would not expect all lower levels to know what to do with information that comes in, but my job (which actually requires training and I am not even that high) and many higher level positions like Secretary of State, yeah! they know better.