I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

But I have been consistent in my advocacy for reasonable protections for accused men, because as horrible as rape is, it is also a horrible thing for an innocent person to be branded a rapist.

As horrible as a horrible thing that happens all the time is, a thing that happens rarely if at all is also horrible and must be protected against at the cost of taking measures meant to reduce the frequency of the first horrible thing. Okay.

ETA: But that second thing isn't so horrible as to prevent you from rehashing unproven allegations against a politician you dislike.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

My take on the email thing is very different than just about everyone else. I think the idea that the sec'y of state, our chief diplomat, should be subject to a bunch of requirements on government document retention is bizarre. Diplomacy is about secrecy. You have to be able to talk to our enemies in confidence to be an effective diplomat. Yes, take stuff off line, get it out of official lines of communication, do what you will to do that.

I'd say the same for the President. I don't want IT guys n gals pawing over every communication by anyone with a key, high level diplomatic or military function. Kerry seems to deal with this by camping out in Vienna and having face-to-face conversations all over the place. I'm betting few scraps of paper leave those rooms, and no emails at all.

So I am aghast this is an issue. I hope she was having classified conversations outside of channels. If she wasn't, I'd be disappointed. Screw the critics.

Yup

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

If my husband were accused of rape, and he was innocent, I would let it work through the court system.

Bullshit. Or, bullshit, if you are trying to put yourself in the position of a public figure like Hillary.

Reporter: "Ms. First Lady, your husband has been accused of rape. How do you respond?"

Hillary: "It will work its way through the court system. No further comment."

FOX News: "Hillary Clinton Refuses to Defend her own husband!!!! She KNOWS he's a rapist!"

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

2 things- when you say your take is different than everyone else, you realize that might include Federal law and the FBI? And as to her wanting to keep it all on the DL, didn't some foreign hacker hack it?

I'd actually extend the executive privilege concept, one of the most admittedly squarely concepts I can think of in the law, right up there with sovereign rights, to cover communications relating to diplomacy by high executive officers.

Of course, some of her emails may not relate to diplomacy, they may relate to whether the meeting tomorrow will have bagels or doughnuts. I actually think thats where the legal problem ought to lay, which makes it all a pretty silly law when applied to the top executive. Or the top military.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Oh, I don't doubt it. And I remember reading that he was teaching a course somewhere outside of the Athens of America, and people were shocked that he kept office hours and chatted with undergraduates. And that he actually taught the course and graded the student papers.

Still.

He's taught a few places. University of Hawaii sounded like the cushiest. Then he came back to Boston.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Bullshit. Or, bullshit, if you are trying to put yourself in the position of a public figure like Hillary.

Reporter: "Ms. First Lady, your husband has been accused of rape. How do you respond?"

Hillary: "It will work its way through the court system. No further comment."

FOX News: "Hillary Clinton Refuses to Defend her own husband!!!! She KNOWS he's a rapist!"

You can express a belief in your husband's innocence without denigrating the woman. Hillary seems to have missed this point.

[SEC_Chick]

So here's my main issue with Hillary. I hate liars. I really, really hate liars. And I get pretty upset when rules are not enforced consistently across the board.

Hillary is a liar. I know that GGG and Adder are so in love with Hils they'll never admit it, but there is a reason why when Gallup and Rasmussen ask open ended questions about Hillary and make it into a word cloud, the largest words are always liar, dishonest and untrustworthy. It is not just a vast right-wing conspiracy.

As to the email, I know that you don't care that despite what she says, the State Department report reveals it was not "allowed". She has lied about that more times than I can possibly count. If she is serious about protecting the country, perhaps she could learn how to check email on a computer (which she did not know how to do, it seems). Or learn how to use a secure fax. Buy why bother learning to do that when you can just have Huma or Cheryl send you something unsecured?

I grew up in a very small town where the protection of classified materials is pretty significant to the single main employer. No one really know what their parents did, you just referenced which building they worked in. In the past, my travel has been limited because of a family member's security clearance (pretty significantly during the Cold War and while I haven't looked into it recently, I kind of assume I wouldn't be permitted to go someplace like Iran even now, if I so desired). I went to high school (and was in German Club!) with the daughter of a well-publicized alleged spy, who was treated exceedingly craptastically by the feds. I think I know as well as most of you what a sucky job the government bureaucracy does in following its own rules. In my hometown, when someone couldn’t account for the hard copies of their classified docs that were supposed to be in the safe, the agency just unclassified them (depending on who lost them). The classified computers were secured by putting glue in the USB port so that someone couldn’t use a flash drive to transfer files. That doesn’t make it adequate or right.

Based on the fact that Hillary set up her own server, which was only allowed in the sense that she never asked and some people who brought it up were directed to never speak of it again (and had she asked, the answer would have been no), one could deduce that she set it up to circumvent the Federal Records Act, and deny access by the public to unclassified information to which the people have a right. And I am fine with taking sensitive discussions offline, but that doesn’t include communicating circuitously about drone strikes on unsecured email because accessing secure means of communication would have been a total drag on the holiday dinner. Putting keeping your yoga routines and Chelsea’s wedding out of the public eye, due solely to her own laziness, over keeping sensitive information (like say, the identity of CIA operatives in the field) secure seems to be pretty messed up to me.

I find it amazing that anyone is willing to buy the excuses. “I did it for convenience.” Isn’t it most convenient to take the Blackberry the IT guy is giving you rather than set up a personal server? “I didn’t want to have to carry two devices.” Because she was setting this all up herself and the IT guy who is pleading the 5th never mentioned you could have two accounts on one device? She broke the rules. Period. At a minimum she should have turned over all of her State Dept. emails before she left. And curiously enough, even after she turned over every single work email, those Sidney Blumenthal emails didn’t make the cut, and we only found out about that after he was hacked by Guccifer. More lies.

It’s the standard Clinton playbook. First, claim everything was completely above board and within the rules. Then, when that turns out to be a lie, regret your bad judgment but continue to insist that what was done was perfectly fine, while attacking the entire matter as partisan. After the State Department audit said Clinton broke the rules, the defense is now only, "Ok, she may have technically violated the rules but she didn't do anything illegal!"

I don’t think she will be prosecuted. And maybe she shouldn’t be. But she should most definitely be disqualified from being President. The greatest tragedy of the entire election is that Hillary is the weakest and least liked Democratic nominee in history. And, in true Republican failure theater form, the GOP nominated the one person out of 17 who sucks more.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

So here's my main issue with Hillary. I hate liars. I really, really hate liars.

I don't usually cite to daily kos, but this is actually an excellent take on that old wives tale you're spreading.

By any objective measure, she's one of the more honest politicians.

I do more often cite to Forbes, who actually read the state department report. Huh. Fancy that.

I won't get into some of the factual lapses of the rest (read Breitbart recently?), but would highly recommend the above.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Hillary is a liar. I know that GGG and Adder are so in love with Hils they'll never admit it

Hillary is a liar. All politicians are liars. Heck, all people are liars.

And I get pretty upset when rules are not enforced consistently across the board.

This is a trait that defines political disagreements.

But it's really hard for me to understand how this feeling persists for someone who spends any time at all following the legal world, where rules are never enforced consistently across the board, and part of our job is making sure our clients get as favorable treatment as possible.

the largest words are always liar, dishonest and untrustworthy.

Right, because people have been saying that about her for 26ish years.

It is not just a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Nope. She's also a politician.

[sgtclub]

Wow, this board still exists? Who knew . . .

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

You can express a belief in your husband's innocence without denigrating the woman. Hillary seems to have missed this point.

Right. In politics, to survive one must always assume his opponent takes the high road, and respond similarly.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

So here's my main issue with Hillary. I hate liars. I really, really hate liars. And I get pretty upset when rules are not enforced consistently across the board.

Hillary is a liar. I know that GGG and Adder are so in love with Hils they'll never admit it, but there is a reason why when Gallup and Rasmussen ask open ended questions about Hillary and make it into a word cloud, the largest words are always liar, dishonest and untrustworthy. It is not just a vast right-wing conspiracy.

As to the email, I know that you don't care that despite what she says, the State Department report reveals it was not "allowed". She has lied about that more times than I can possibly count. If she is serious about protecting the country, perhaps she could learn how to check email on a computer (which she did not know how to do, it seems). Or learn how to use a secure fax. Buy why bother learning to do that when you can just have Huma or Cheryl send you something unsecured?

I grew up in a very small town where the protection of classified materials is pretty significant to the single main employer. No one really know what their parents did, you just referenced which building they worked in. In the past, my travel has been limited because of a family member's security clearance (pretty significantly during the Cold War and while I haven't looked into it recently, I kind of assume I wouldn't be permitted to go someplace like Iran even now, if I so desired). I went to high school (and was in German Club!) with the daughter of a well-publicized alleged spy, who was treated exceedingly craptastically by the feds. I think I know as well as most of you what a sucky job the government bureaucracy does in following its own rules. In my hometown, when someone couldn’t account for the hard copies of their classified docs that were supposed to be in the safe, the agency just unclassified them (depending on who lost them). The classified computers were secured by putting glue in the USB port so that someone couldn’t use a flash drive to transfer files. That doesn’t make it adequate or right.

Based on the fact that Hillary set up her own server, which was only allowed in the sense that she never asked and some people who brought it up were directed to never speak of it again (and had she asked, the answer would have been no), one could deduce that she set it up to circumvent the Federal Records Act, and deny access by the public to unclassified information to which the people have a right. And I am fine with taking sensitive discussions offline, but that doesn’t include communicating circuitously about drone strikes on unsecured email because accessing secure means of communication would have been a total drag on the holiday dinner. Putting keeping your yoga routines and Chelsea’s wedding out of the public eye, due solely to her own laziness, over keeping sensitive information (like say, the identity of CIA operatives in the field) secure seems to be pretty messed up to me.

I find it amazing that anyone is willing to buy the excuses. “I did it for convenience.” Isn’t it most convenient to take the Blackberry the IT guy is giving you rather than set up a personal server? “I didn’t want to have to carry two devices.” Because she was setting this all up herself and the IT guy who is pleading the 5th never mentioned you could have two accounts on one device? She broke the rules. Period. At a minimum she should have turned over all of her State Dept. emails before she left. And curiously enough, even after she turned over every single work email, those Sidney Blumenthal emails didn’t make the cut, and we only found out about that after he was hacked by Guccifer. More lies.

It’s the standard Clinton playbook. First, claim everything was completely above board and within the rules. Then, when that turns out to be a lie, regret your bad judgment but continue to insist that what was done was perfectly fine, while attacking the entire matter as partisan. After the State Department audit said Clinton broke the rules, the defense is now only, "Ok, she may have technically violated the rules but she didn't do anything illegal!"

I don’t think she will be prosecuted. And maybe she shouldn’t be. But she should most definitely be disqualified from being President. The greatest tragedy of the entire election is that Hillary is the weakest and least liked Democratic nominee in history. And, in true Republican failure theater form, the GOP nominated the one person out of 17 who sucks more.

Given the competition, perhaps a lying, soulless, but smart and competent candidate isn't such a bad thing?

What's the worst she does for four years -- run the country from the center and protect the status quo?

I'm not fighting wars, and neither are you, or our kids. A few thousand poor people, and some true believers, will die in for her foreign interventions (the same interventions Trump would've probably undertaken). The stock market likes her, she decreases economic volatility, and she's socially liberal. Sure, Bernie's dragging her left for now, and she'll try to do some radical stuff here and there, but your taxes won't go too much higher, and things will stay much the same as they've been under a Clinton Presidency. Perhaps even improve.

Do I like electing her? No. But the GOP gave this race away. It ran a shitty field, allowed the rabble to control the primaries, and was scammed by a sociopathic billionaire. Shame on it. Hilary's just a placeholder - the best option of a terrible field. Instead of focusing on why she's a corrupt cipher -- a "no shit" proposition if ever there was one -- maybe you should concentrate on how your party allowed someone as unliked as her to grab the prize in the popularity contest that is our Presidential election?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Women are like, totally boring, man. She's like a grandma or something.

Stop being dull.

Hm. Kinda doubt it.

He'd crush Trump and Hillary. If he took Warren as VP, he'd get a Bernie endorsement and walk away with it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He'd crush Trump and Hillary. If he took Warren as VP, he'd get a Bernie endorsement and walk away with it.

The Sanders people were demonstrating against Warren after she endorsed Hill.

Thing to remember about Sanders is he has no friends, only admirers.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Wow, this board still exists? Who knew . . .

We were holding it open just for you.