United States Presidential Election 2016: Hillary Clinton

Try reading about the actual emails and their classification instead of repeating right-wing lies. Again: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/us...ns-emails.html


There is only one reason why this "scandal" exists, one: to invent a new thing to attack Hillary with. If any other person had done this, literally ANYONE other than Obama himself, this would not be an issue now and none of us would have heard of it. So it started because of hating Hillary, and now is being focused on more by the right since Benghazi has failed as an issue because Hillary proved that she did nothing wrong and the Republicans openly admitted that the whole investigation was a partisan hit-job, they needed something else, so here we are, email-gate! It's just as valid a scandal as all of the other manufactured scandals the Republicans have tried, and failed, to tar the Clintons with over the past 23 years. Only the Monica thing was an actual issue, and even there impeachment for that was obviously going too far, they'd never have done that to a Republican president who did the same thing. Everything else, from Whitewater to Emailgate, is only a scandal to those on the right who hate the Clintons, and not in reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Black Falcon

Try reading about the actual emails instead of repeating right-wing lies. Again: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/us...ns-emails.html

---

You can read the emails for yourself here:

https://foia.state.gov/Search/Result...ary_13_Release

If Hillary and her people at the State Department were not properly classifying information, that's a problem. If the FBI is looking at it and saying "This should have been classified." it's more likely someone at the State Department didn't do their job.

Hillary and the State Department can complain all they want, but if the Intelligence Agencies are coming back and saying "That should have been classified." they have far more weight on the matter. If the consensus between all those agencies is that it was under-classified or mis-classified, then that means Hillary and the State Department were negligent and didn't do their job. Best case scenario is they are fired and lose their jobs, worst case is prison.

You can scream "Republican hit-squad!" all you want. The simple fact is that if anyone who wasn't a big name politician had done this, they'd be in deep shit right now. This isn't about Obama or Republicans vs Democrats. It's about making a point that no one is above the law here and should be able to get away with this kind of crap. Hillary is not above the law. If anyone else in these fields did that, they would be either fired or in prison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

You can read the emails for yourself here:

https://foia.state.gov/Search/Result...ary_13_Release

If Hillary and her people at the State Department were not properly classifying information, that's a problem. If the FBI is looking at it and saying "This should have been classified." it's more likely someone at the State Department didn't do their job.

Hillary and the State Department can complain all they want, but if the Intelligence Agencies are coming back and saying "That should have been classified." they have far more weight on the matter. If the consensus between all those agencies is that it was under-classified or mis-classified, then that means Hillary and the State Department were negligent and didn't do their job. Best case scenario is they are fired and lose their jobs, worst case is prison.

---

Hillary and her team were properly classifying the emails. The FBI is using a crazy standard that makes little sense, as that article I linked does a good job of explaining. "It's classified even if you're discussing the subject only based on non-classified sources"? No, that doesn't make sense.

Quote:

---

You can scream "Republican hit-squad!" all you want. The simple fact is that if anyone who wasn't a big name politician had done this, they'd be in deep shit right now. This isn't about Obama or Republicans vs Democrats. It's about making a point that no one is above the law here and should be able to get away with this kind of crap. Hillary is not above the law. If anyone else in these fields did that, they would be either fired or in prison.

---

If anyone else had done this nobody would have cared or mentioned the existence of the non-scandal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Black Falcon

Try reading about the actual emails and their classification instead of repeating right-wing lies. Again: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/us...ns-emails.html

---

Of course you wouldn't be acting like a typical left wing apologist for such a lying, unethical bitch like Klinton, right? It has to be the right winger creating lies, yes?

Other people have said it here and in other venues but any other Joe Public would have been arrested and charged and looking at time for doing the same thing. In this case, the left will fall on the sword for this disgraceful individual. Believe me, I know how they love her. My home town is where her father was born and where she spent her summers. The morons out here act as if she is as pure as a new born baby. They love when she comes into town and charges a few grand just to catch a glimpse of the witch.

Even if I dislike (or in her case, hate) someone, I will always be fair. She should be awaiting a trial let alone running for the office of President.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Black Falcon

Hillary and her team were properly classifying the emails. The FBI is using a crazy standard that makes little sense, as that article I linked does a good job of explaining. "It's classified even if you're discussing the subject only based on non-classified sources"? No, that doesn't make sense.

---

You know nothing about Classifications. Pieces of Unclassified information can be combined and turn into something that is suddenly highly classified. Classified info can be derived from unclassified sources. It's not just the raw data, it's how that data is analyzed and used that can make it classified. Talking around classified info is a security violation. You don't know what other people know and by trying to talk around it you may give them the few remaining pieces they need to complete the puzzle.

This isn't crazy or nonsense, it's security policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Black Falcon

If anyone else had done this nobody would have cared or mentioned the existence of the non-scandal.

---

While yes she has gotten more attention for it due to being a public figure, anyone else doing it would have at the very least lost their clearance and job, if not facing legal charges and jail time.

Working in IT as a Systems Administrator I'd just like to point out that no email server is secure whether it be the government email or someones private email. There may be a few more hurdles with the government email server but in all likelihood if someone wanted to break into it or siphon off 'unsecured' emails it would be a relatively easy task. Hackers are very sophisticated especially if you are talking about ones employed by nations such as Russia, Iran, China, etc. These groups have and will break into anything government or private. From my perspective it wouldn't be a huge issue either way as email is generally an insecure form of communication anyway. You're much better of communication via dialup connection than modern high speed networks where security is anything but tight.

In short, Clinton should have used the government email server for an added bit of security but in the grand scheme it makes little or no difference as most modern communication is monitored by hackers anyway. The best thing to do is communicate crucial information via face to face conversation, land line telephone, or paper. I don't really see this as a big deal at all and I think most security experts would say something similar - she should have used the goverment email but its not really that secure anyway.

Can't we just elect to have no president? That is, no puppet pretending to act in our best interests? I think the American people deserve better options, this is atrocious. Can we get a do-over on this whole campaign thing and make sure most of the population are actually awake this time? I feel like no one is even paying attention to anymore. It's truly the race between douche and turd.

Let's just divide the country into three groups, conservatives can rule the south, socialists can have the west, and libertarians will run things in the north. See who resorts to cannibalism first?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akO1mCpg4w8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcrA8ehw2e4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L5hn5B8TYI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raja

Working in IT as a Systems Administrator I'd just like to point out that no email server is secure whether it be the government email or someones private email. There may be a few more hurdles with the government email server but in all likelihood if someone wanted to break into it or siphon off 'unsecured' emails it would be a relatively easy task. Hackers are very sophisticated especially if you are talking about ones employed by nations such as Russia, Iran, China, etc. These groups have and will break into anything government or private. From my perspective it wouldn't be a huge issue either way as email is generally an insecure form of communication anyway. You're much better of communication via dialup connection than modern high speed networks where security is anything but tight.

In short, Clinton should have used the government email server for an added bit of security but in the grand scheme it makes little or no difference as most modern communication is monitored by hackers anyway. The best thing to do is communicate crucial information via face to face conversation, land line telephone, or paper. I don't really see this as a big deal at all and I think most security experts would say something similar - she should have used the goverment email but its not really that secure anyway.

---

Government Systems at least have rather heavy levels of encryption and what not that I doubt her private email server had. Not to mention they're pretty serious with how much they secure their facilities and lock down their networks from outside access.

Is it 100% secure? Of course not. But it's a hell of a lot safer for classified information than some home email server in Hillary's Bathroom.

What level of clearance do you have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118

Government Systems at least have rather heavy levels of encryption and what not that I doubt her private email server had. Not to mention they're pretty serious with how much they secure their facilities and lock down their networks from outside access.

Is it 100% secure? Of course not. But it's a hell of a lot safer for classified information than some home email server in Hillary's Bathroom.

---

Is it safer? Probably depends on how elaborate the setup was I guess. Is it likely that most government email is already monitored or hacked? Yes. But for your main point I agree but it seems more and more people find using email accounts they don't have personal 'control' over a hindrance for some reason. There is probably a perception that if its not located at the standard location (government administration building) that it's 'safer' which isn't true either. Just a bizzare state of affairs with many government officials but no legal action imo should come from it. It's just one of those idiotic things that needs to be dropped in favor of putting scrutiny where it belongs - on the policies of these 'politicians'. I think pointing out that they are in bed with such and such a company is a bigger deal personally.

It's why I favor term limits and the end of lobbying.

What was the classified information was transmitted on H. Clinton's private email server? Why do I ask? Depending on the type of information that was transmitted, government departments have the discretion to reprimand the individual in several ways: from a verbal warning on up to termination and or laying charges.

Good stuff as usual retrospiel! I'll leave it at that since I find political debates on here to be pretty fruitless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SEGA.GENESIS1989

What was the classified information was transmitted on H. Clinton's private email server? Why do I ask? Depending on the type of information that was transmitted, government departments have the discretion to reprimand the individual in several ways: from a verbal warning on up to termination and or laying charges.

---

From what's been released by the State Department, everything from where important people were to Nuclear stuff.

Politics in a nutshell; divide the masses & conquer them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thief

Politics in a nutshell; divide the masses & conquer them.

---

Yep. It'd be nice to see an end to both parties and have candidates unable to hide behind party talking points or secure 'bases' or whatever the hell they want to call them. It's stupid. The Washington Post had an article about this not long ago....

Washington Post: Is It Possible To Fix Our Polarized Political System?

There are articles linked at the bottom that have good points about American politics and voters and it rings fairly true I'd say.

Most voters favor policies from 'both sides' and many want lobbying gone, they want publicly funded campaigns like those in S.America (everyone has the same amount of money to spend), they want a shorter election cycle, national ID cards to stop voter fraud, etc. But politicians pander to corporate interests instead of OUR interests. Very good set of articles to read even if you're one of the few who disagree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwDJmCD6iDA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBXRH_wwZkw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWPEC6tQ_7o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR2jKkRcGdQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vSXw-lUQwo

And Hillary Wins New York.

On the bright side, Trump won New York in a landslide!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUrUfJW1JGk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QnmilCVzdw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4

I hope Trump wins and builds a wall to keep Canadians like Cruz out.

^Lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwWbmonhPvw

I'm surprised retrospiel isn't one of the hundreds of people Bernie Sanders fired after his crushing defeats in New England and the Mid-Atlantic. Maybe Europeans are cheaper hires.

I am now supporting anybody who isn't named Hillary, or isn't that slimy, snake in the grass Rafael Cruz. Ambivalence 2016!

I'm one of the Trump supporters that pays Mexicans to hold up LATINOS FOR TRUMP signs when the news cameras come around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL7QxF12S8g

A presidency of Clinton could be even more dangerous than a presidency of Trump. She's got an excellent network and she won't have any real opposition.

Seeing how things have gone so far with the US elections has made me appreciate being Canadian even more, and also really happy for having Trudeau even though I didn't vote for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by retrospiel

A presidency of Clinton could be even more dangerous than a presidency of Trump.

---

...how, exactly? she's voted in line with bernie on something like 90% of issues, has a track record on women's rights, healthcare, and many like social issues...there's very clearly differences, but i literally can't see how someone would be such a fan of sanders and arrive at this conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishNinja

...how, exactly?

---

This has less to do with being a fan of Sanders than being cautious of neocons like Clinton.

She got her party's full support and a large bi-partisan network acquired over many decades. In case that she is just pandering to the progressive voter base during her campaign while actually being a moderate republican at heart she will be more dangerous than any republican possibly could be - simply because those who under normal circumstances would oppose right-wing policies won't see it coming, and when they do it's already too late.

Let me try to illustrate my point: Back in 1998 I voted for Gerhard Schroeder, a Social-Democrat. He campaigned with slogans like "You should not be able to tell people's financial status by their teeth!". Once he got into power he pushed for reform of our social programs and health care system. Among the many many things removed were tooth replacements. Now you can tell people's financial status by their teeth. A conservative administration never ever could have done cuts like these and get away with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishNinja

...how, exactly? she's voted in line with bernie on something like 90% of issues, has a track record on women's rights, healthcare, and many like social issues...there's very clearly differences, but i literally can't see how someone would be such a fan of sanders and arrive at this conclusion.

---

Trump and Sanders actually have quite a bit in common in that they both address a lot of the same issues, it's simply that their solutions to those issues are based in very different ideologies. Some examples:

Student Loan Debt
Sanders Solution: Student loan debt is so high you can't possibly pay it off so don't even try. Instead the government should pay for it with your tax dollars.
Trump's Solution: Student loan debt is high, but if you were given the right situation you can pay it off. I'm going to try and create more jobs so you can get a decent paying job in your field after graduation. That way you can pay off your loans on your own and take care of yourself.

One is a message of defeatism and charity. The other is one of self-empowerment.

Minimum Wage:
Sanders: Minimum wage is too low that no one can live off of it. So I'm just going to raise it really high so you can just live on that one job and never have to work your way up.
Trump: Miminum age may be low, but I'd rather State's address that themselves. I'd rather create more higher paying jobs and careers while also lowering taxes so you can keep more of your money and don't need to depend on minimum wage jobs.

Again Sanders message is one of defeatism and handouts, Trump's is one of giving you the tools to make your life better as you see fit.

You can see this in a lot of other issues. Basically both Bernie and Trump address a lot of the same problems that usually go ignored, they're solutions are just based on different sides of the spectrum. Which is probably why as Bernie's been falling a lot of his supporters have been jumping on the Trump train.

I don't think I've ever heard or read the word "neo-con" used as an adjective for Hillary before. An awful human being? Certainly, but a neo-con?

really not in a place to honestly engage trump supporters, but no, bernie's stances on a wide multitude of issues are quite vastly different. if one identifies as a liberal & thereby supports sanders, only to pick trump later, it's hard for me to believe they either understand said label or the stances they are now riding for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by retrospiel

This has less to do with being a fan of Sanders than being cautious of neocons like Clinton.

She got her party's full support and a large bi-partisan network acquired over many decades. In case that she is just pandering to the progressive voter base during her campaign while actually being a moderate republican at heart she will be more dangerous than any republican possibly could be - simply because those who under normal circumstances would oppose right-wing policies won't see it coming, and when they do it's already too late.

---

it's a fine platitude to have, but again, looking at her record: what about clinton tells you she's actually a republican? again, she tends to vote quite left of center, and her somewhat hawkish (relatively speaking) foreign policy is quite literally the only thing that can be remotely associated with neocon policy.

for example: possibly several supreme court justice nominations will be up for grabs in the next term. do you honestly believe hiliary would pick a social conservative, or someone more in line with a GOP choice? because i've not seen anything to indicate that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishNinja

really not in a place to honestly engage trump supporters, but no, bernie's stances on a wide multitude of issues are quite vastly different. if one identifies as a liberal & thereby supports sanders, only to pick trump later, it's hard for me to believe they either understand said label or the stances they are now riding for.

---

I didn't say their solutions were the same, I said they are both talking about the same issues that the establishment picks of both parties like to ignore. Their solutions for those issues however are radically different. Bernies are typical liberal handouts, while Trumps are moderate-conservative "you can take care of yourselves if we give you the opportunity" kind of solutions.

It's not that hard to understand why Bernie supporters may tend to go to Trump when Bernie is obviously not going to make it. The issues they want addressed will at least still be addressed, just differently. For example they won't get their liberal free college tuition with Trump, but they may get a conservative solution(ex: jobs, tax cuts, etc.) to that same problem that will still be better than the very likely nothing they will get from Hillary. They may not get their $15 minimum wage, but they may get more higher paying jobs with Trump as well as tax cuts to keep more money in their pockets which they wont get with Hillary.

When it comes to most social issues, Trump is actually quite moderate. He's pretty much in the "I don't care what you identify as, as long as you obey the law and do your job" camp. He doesn't really discriminate either. You treat him with respect, you get respect back. You disrespect him, you get shit flung back at you. It's not sexist to treat a woman the same way you'd treat a man in the same situation. It's not racist to treat a black person the same way you'd treat a white person in that same situation. It's not racist to want to strengthen our borders and enforce existing laws by deporting illegal aliens who are a burden on taxpayers and our public services and are breaking the law to be here in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishNinja

it's a fine platitude to have, but again, looking at her record: what about clinton tells you she's actually a republican? again, she tends to vote quite left of center, and her somewhat hawkish (relatively speaking) foreign policy is quite literally the only thing that can be remotely associated with neocon policy.

for example: possibly several supreme court justice nominations will be up for grabs in the next term. do you honestly believe hiliary would pick a social conservative, or someone more in line with a GOP choice? because i've not seen anything to indicate that.

---

Well she did support Barry Goldwater in the 1960s. But honestly Hillary is the kind of politician who will take whatever stance she thinks will get her the most votes at that given moment. While all Politicians are guilty of this to some degree, Hillary is the most extreme example of it since she constantly does it with absolutely no shame.

I'm pretty conservative minded.

Sanders is the best choice, despite all the "Liberal" fear mongering, his tax on wallstreet transactions makes more sense to boost revenues, than blatant attempts to put negative connotations to the idea of tax increases, when they are obviously intended to be used to boost the social infrastructure and increase the value of American citizenship as a whole. Trump is a clown would has a long list of failures to look at, but at the same time, he's not a fucking war hawk and vicious political nightmare like Clinton.


You honestly couldn't pay me to be an American right now. The country is so fucked and disabled. Full of dimwitted savages that would rather cut their own throats than create a responsible social infrastructure base to build economic stability on. The brightest part about all of it, is that no matter who wins, the bought Congress will cock-block any meaningful change for better or worse, and in 2-3 years time the whole completely retarded media cycle will begin again, bitching and whining pundits talking about politicians 24/7 for a full year, while actual news gets ignored.


Say what you want about Sander's free college idea, sooner rather than later Americans will be faced with the realities of the global economy, and the notion of a guaranteed minimum income will be on the table. Extreme welfare for everybody. Such an alien concept today, when you have American citizens with no pot to piss in, because they lost everything trying to pay medical bills in a severely overpriced market. The land of the free... "feel free to fuck off and die in a gutter, fellow citizen."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knuckle Duster

I'm pretty conservative minded.

Sanders is the best choice, despite all the "Liberal" fear mongering, his tax on wallstreet transactions makes more sense to boost revenues, than blatant attempts to put negative connotations to the idea of tax increases, when they are obviously intended to be used to boost the social infrastructure and increase the value of American citizenship as a whole. Trump is a clown would has a long list of failures to look at, but at the same time, he's not a fucking war hawk and vicious political nightmare like Clinton.


You honestly couldn't pay me to be an American right now. The country is so fucked and disabled. Full of dimwitted savages that would rather cut their own throats than create a responsible social infrastructure base to build economic stability on. The brightest part about all of it, is that no matter who wins, the bought Congress will cock-block any meaningful change for better or worse, and in 2-3 years time the whole completely retarded media cycle will begin again, bitching and whining pundits talking about politicians 24/7 for a full year, while actual news gets ignored.


Say what you want about Sander's free college idea, sooner rather than later Americans will be faced with the realities of the global economy, and the notion of a guaranteed minimum income will be on the table. Extreme welfare for everybody. Such an alien concept today, when you have American citizens with no pot to piss in, because they lost everything trying to pay medical bills in a severely overpriced market. The land of the free... "feel free to fuck off and die in a gutter, fellow citizen."

---

That all sounds like a bunch of liberal bullshit. These goddamned lazy, whiny welfare kings and queens need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and get several jobs. That's how Trump did it. He raised himself up out of the dregs of the lower upper class, to become one of the richest hairpieces in American history. Guaranteed minimum income my sweet brown American ass. Let these liberal Starbucks slinging commies drown in their student loan debt; I say.

yeah, i guess i can see a link if you're single-issue voting on college tuition - hilary does have some plan on costs/grants and student loan stuff, but it's not a front & center piece for her. minimum wage she does, though i don't recall it being a flat $15 everywhere like bernie's. that said, i tend to assume people who go from one to the other do so mostly on an "anti-establishment" platitude, which is as ever an individual's choice, but again it does very little examining of actual issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knuckle Duster

Sanders is the best choice, despite all the "Liberal" fear mongering, his tax on wallstreet transactions makes more sense to boost revenues, than blatant attempts to put negative connotations to the idea of tax increases, when they are obviously intended to be used to boost the social infrastructure and increase the value of American citizenship as a whole. Trump is a clown would has a long list of failures to look at, but at the same time, he's not a fucking war hawk and vicious political nightmare like Clinton.

---

i don't know that i'd describe him as a dove, really - though i don't recall him outright calling for dangerous shit like a ground invasion of iran, as many GOP candidates have in the past. i do recall him also being for the invasion of iraq years ago, but yeah, what ive heard of his rhetoric (that wasn't bombastic about trade stuff) sounded less interventionist than some in his party.

also, i very much like the idea of taxing wallstreet, but every economic writeup ive seen says it wouldn't nearly cover the bill for US colleges in a sustainable way - so many variables, the largest of which i recall was something like the assumption of an annual 4% increase in GDP, which was crazy. mind you, im drinking here but this is exactly the kinda thing that ended up turning me off to bernie: he's an idea guy, but doesn't have what i'd consider realistic ways of accomplishing those ideas...certainly not in our political climate of the right on the house/senate and him not really supporting downticket dems to aid his cause.

Quote:

---

Say what you want about Sander's free college idea, sooner rather than later Americans will be faced with the realities of the global economy, and the notion of a guaranteed minimum income will be on the table. Extreme welfare for everybody. Such an alien concept today, when you have American citizens with no pot to piss in, because they lost everything trying to pay medical bills in a severely overpriced market. The land of the free... "feel free to fuck off and die in a gutter, fellow citizen."

---

god yes, agreed so hard. we've legit got studies pointing to nearly half our jobs (not just entry level) being gone to automation in the coming years, and we are, as you said, literally nowhere near able to have that conversation currently. fuck, we're gonna struggle to kick ACA along down into a proper first-world single payer option for years, i imagine.

i love my country, and wouldn't currently describe it as fucked, but as we move into the next decade or so & keep blaming outsourcing/etc for the diminishing jobs, rather than talk about the reality of basic income being something to plan for/come to terms with? holy shit yes, we're gonna be proper fucked then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crystalpepsifan

That all sounds like a bunch of liberal bullshit. These goddamned lazy, whiny welfare kings and queens need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and get several jobs. That's how Trump did it. He raised himself up out of the dregs of the lower upper class, to become one of the richest hairpieces in American history. Guaranteed minimum income my sweet brown American ass. Let these liberal Starbucks slinging commies drown in their student loan debt; I say.

---

I agree with that approach. At the same time, I see nothing good coming from rampant neglect or intolerance for the piss poor in society, desperate for basic shit like healthcare. All it leads to is chaos and a less stable economy. You'll have more desperate thieves and shit running around stealing to make ends meet, rather than nail down some socialist planks for everybody. It's already bad enough the whole millennial generation is stunted and leeching from their parents to get by. America needs to step up and benefit from having the greatest economy in the world, it won't collapse if they brush off their "freedom" to fall into a 3rd world country quality of life situation.

with respect to poe's law: there's no way Crystalpepsifan wasn't taking the piss with that post, haha

Dude, 3rd world China is the new economic ideal for true freedom. Think about it; an entire chunk of continent where you're free to spit indoors, shit openly on the streets or on public transport, for even the most common of public servant to be corrupt enough to afford luxory European cars. And all at the low, low price of not publicly criticizing whomever exists as the current regime. The 3rd world is the wave of the future.