|
override367 posted:Yes she definitely should have done it earlier! Maybe also not lying about classified material and number of devices she used and all that I'm not arguing that Clinton didn't make mistakes handling the issue, I'm just raging against the stupidity of the American public on this particular issue. Like, had she carried two blackberries around, she might be president right now. We live on a dumb planet. override367 posted:Well complaining that it's unfair is so much shouting at clouds, the issue did have legs, and it did stick
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I'm not arguing that Clinton didn't make mistakes handling the issue, I'm just raging against the stupidity of the American public on this particular issue. But she *did* carry multiple devices around, that was another lie she told to justify her fuckup lol You can rail against the American people all you want but I think at some point we need to be critical of the candidate!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
override367 posted:But she *did* carry multiple devices around, that was another lie she told to justify her fuckup lol Source whatever you're talking about
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Source whatever you're talking about The testimony by Comey, he might have been lying I'll concede
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
override367 posted:The testimony by Comey, he might have been lying I'll concede I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. Give me exactly what he said and how it refutes the "she didn't want to carry two blackberries" thing, because I've heard that from multiple journalistic sources.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:she specifically did that during one of the debates yeah it took her forever to just swallow her pride and say "yep what I did was wrong" without having to add "but seriously this isn't that big of a deal" to the end of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
override367 posted:But she *did* carry multiple devices around, that was another lie she told to justify her fuckup lol At any given moment she had a blackberry and an ipad. She went through multiple blackberries because they keep coming out with new models. An ipad is not something you keep in your pocket. Claiming that having a smartphone and a tablet as "having multiple mobile devices" and therefore contradictory to wanting to keep one device on your person at all times doesn't reflect the reality of technology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
zegermans posted:At any given moment she had a blackberry and an ipad. She went through multiple blackberries because they keep coming out with new models. Fair point, I guess but idk Hillary Clinton posted:There are reasons when you start out in Washington on a Blackberry you stay on it in many instances. But it's also — I don't know, I don't throw anything away. I'm like two steps short of a hoarder. So I have an iPad, a mini iPad, an iPhone and a Blackberry override367 fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
zegermans posted:yeah it took her forever to just swallow her pride and say "yep what I did was wrong" without having to add "but seriously this isn't that big of a deal" to the end of it. "Swallowing pride" is rarely rewarded in a politician. Remember how bullish Trump is whenever he is caught doing something wrong? Admitting fault makes you look weak in the eyes of most of the electorate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:"Swallowing pride" is rarely rewarded in a politician. Remember how bullish Trump is whenever he is caught doing something wrong? Admitting fault makes you look weak in the eyes of most of the electorate. I feel like you kind of have to go full out "What I did was for the good of the nation" ala Oliver North, admit fault totally and apologize without reservation (and be transparent), or "We were always at war with Eastasia" the thing and deny it ever happened
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:The E-mails were supposed to be deleted BEFORE she was being investigated, but the people who managed her server had forgotten to do it. When the investigation started, they said "oh crap" and went and did the deletion that they were supposed to have done months earlier. It does not matter what they're procedures were, what they were supposed to have done in the past, etc. They deleted evidence that was under a protection order. The protection order trumps all of their internal procedures. It's illegal. Intent has nothing to do with it, only that the evidence was deleted. It's illegal what she and her staff did plain and simple. She is a career lawyer of course she knows that deleting evidence is illegal, even "if we forgot lol."
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Wow this is the most blatant white washing I have ever seen on this topic. A large minority if not outright majority of politicians skirt rules like this all the time because there's no part of government that really stops them. Comey wasn't wrong, it takes a pretty strong case to actually prosecute (one I remember reading about was a soldier who took classified material off base, and then hid it in his friend's house so he didn't get in trouble, and the act of deliberately hiding it is what got him a few months in the pen) The federal government really should have a department to handle IT and information security for the entire federal government, and they should have some teeth to enforce their standards, but that kind of thinking is fantasy Edit: it's worth keeping in mind that HRC herself did not do the deleting and while Comey was off editorializing about how irresponsible she was he might have taken a moment to LOUDLY point out that she isn't the one who deleted those items. Hillary was very bad at actually adapting to the narrative and keeping her own narrative consistent throughout the matter though override367 fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
override367 posted:A large minority if not outright majority of politicians skirt rules like this all the time because there's no part of government that really stops them. Comey wasn't wrong, it takes a pretty strong case to actually prosecute (one I remember reading about was a soldier who took classified material off base, and then hid it in his friend's house so he didn't get in trouble, and the act of deliberately hiding it is what got him a few months in the pen) e: also it's why nobody respects the dems. NathanScottPhillips fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
 this been posted here yet?  https://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=D12DD589-5800-4BEF-9F93-A0A122F38D29&download=1
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Wow this is the most blatant white washing I have ever seen on this topic. Her staff didn't do it, dude. The company she had contracted out did it. The FBI investigation found no evidence that they were deleted in an attempt to hide anything. Clinton and her staff were under the impression that the data was already deleted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Her staff didn't do it, dude. The company she had contracted out did it. The FBI investigation found no evidence that they were deleted in an attempt to hide anything. Clinton and her staff were under the impression that the data was already deleted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:A) Intent doesn't matter. B) Once the protection order was issued Clinton herself should have instructed any and all parties with access to the data to freeze it and protect it. C) Ultimately it is her data and she take final responsibility for it. OK, you're not getting it, so: December 2014 - Clinton sorted her E-mail into a "work" and "not work" pile (actually, her staff did). All the "work" e-mails were sent to the state department to be archived. Immediately after that within a few days: Clinton's people informed the company who managed her E-mail account to delete any and all E-mails they had. April(I think) 2015 - Clinton is officially being investigated Also April - the person at the E-mail management company deletes them like they said they did in December. Now, if you want to argue that they only did so because Clinton told them or some other conspiracy theory - fine, whatever, but we have no actual evidence of that. But Clinton had no reason to tell them to delete them, because her understanding was that they were already gone forever. edit: If I had a document to shred to an intern and they don't shred it, I wouldn't be expected to remind them to not shred the document later. That's aggressively stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:OK, you're not getting it, so: It also makes your employees hate you because it looks like you don't trust them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:A) Intent doesn't matter. Lack of intent is why she wasn't indicted, so um. Try again?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
The only time "Intent Doesn't Matter" is with GROSS negligence. Like the dude who threw classified documents in a dumpster to avoid doing paperwork. That's the kind of level you have to reach.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:I think Hillary's emails really hurt her image after all the information that came out, like how she said there was no classified info on the server, and then oops, there was classified info on the server after all. Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think the emails hurt her as much as her ties to Wall Street. After all, the main reason she lost the election was that many Rust Belt Dems flipped and voted for Trump. And they did so not because of the email scandal, but because they got the sense that she was in bed with the financial class and had promised them many things and didn't actually give a poo poo about the working class. What's sad is that she could have nipped all those criticisms in the bud at the beginning by just releasing the transcripts. The fact that she held her ground was breathtakingly idiotic, and her biggest misstep throughout her entire campaign.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think the emails hurt her as much as her ties to Wall Street. After all, the main reason she lost the election was that many Rust Belt Dems flipped and voted for Trump. And they did so not because of the email scandal, but because they got the sense that she was in bed with the financial class and had promised them many things and didn't actually give a poo poo about the working class. Honestly the media did well burying the fact that the goldman sachs transcripts got leaked but it didn't help. The leaks never showed anything illegal, but they did show a lot of impropriety.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Honestly the media did well burying the fact that the goldman sachs transcripts got leaked but it didn't help. The leaks never showed anything illegal, but they did show a lot of impropriety. SA should really decide whether the "mainstream media" stabbed Clinton in the back by overemphasizing the emails, or tried to bury them due to their fanatical support of Clinton. I have heard it both ways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Honestly the media did well burying the fact that the goldman sachs transcripts got leaked but it didn't help. The leaks never showed anything illegal, but they did show a lot of impropriety. A leak is not the same thing as her publishing them herself on her official website and "coming clean" though. It would have re-earned her a lot of the trust she had lost up to that point by being generally secretive. And of course the reason she didn't do it is clear: she was overconfident, and calculated (incorrectly) that she was going to win the election easily, and didn't want a bunch of leaked transcripts to be held against her during presidency. It's yet another example of how she, unlike her husband, doesn't "get it." Slow News Day fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:SA should really decide whether the "mainstream media" stabbed Clinton in the back by overemphasizing the emails, or tried to bury them due to their fanatical support of Clinton. I have heard it both ways. Sort of depends on whether you're talking about broadcast news, cable news, reporters versus pundits, various reporters vs. various pundits, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:SA should really decide whether the "mainstream media" stabbed Clinton in the back by overemphasizing the emails, or tried to bury them due to their fanatical support of Clinton. I have heard it both ways. The mainstream media (remember that Donald Trump got no major newspaper endorsements) was clearly and overwhelmingly in Clinton's court overall, despite what some people might say. But when it came down to it the emails were a juicy political scandal that you couldn't not report on, especially considering how the Republicans kicked up such a fuss over it and that Clinton was literally under federal investigation for the issue while campaigning, and that the director of the FBI brought the issue back up in the last few days of the campaign.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Apparently even the people who were at the heart of the election can't agree on what happened.quote:A Harvard panel that traditionally writes the first draft of presidential campaign history devolved into a shouting match between Trump and Clinton aides on Thursday in a raw, emotional display echoing the divisive campaign.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Because poor and middle class whites have so much in common with Donald "1 million dollars is a small loan" Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:Because poor and middle class whites have so much in common with Donald "1 million dollars is a small loan" Trump. You're forgetting that he spent a decade being a reality TV star.It's not about actually having something common, it's feeling that you do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Lmao at the Clinton campaign staff trying to minimise their complete failure by arguing that at least they didn't play the white supremacist card. "I'd rather lose than play up to white supremacist." Yes, those were the only two options
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:A leak is not the same thing as her publishing them herself on her official website and "coming clean" though. It would have re-earned her a lot of the trust she had lost up to that point by being generally secretive. MiddleOne posted:You're forgetting that he spent a decade being a reality TV star.It's not about actually having something common, it's feeling that you do.  This is not the kind of thing a real member of the elite would take part in. He might not have that much in common with the common man, but his persona is clearly one that doesn't have much in common with the kind of elites people were rebelling against either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Lmao at the Clinton campaign staff trying to minimise their complete failure by arguing that at least they didn't play the white supremacist card. Strangely the prospect of them being dumb and evil as opposed to just evil, doesn't affect my dread of what's coming either way  A Buttery Pastry posted:This is not the kind of thing a real member of the elite would take part in. He might not have that much in common with the common man, but his persona is clearly one that doesn't have much in common with the kind of elites people were rebelling against either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Lmao at the Clinton campaign staff trying to minimise their complete failure by arguing that at least they didn't play the white supremacist card. Remember there are people here who have honestly argued that to actively campaign on economic issues is to throw minorities under the bus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
drat, I forgot Trump was on WWE, we really have hit a whole new low when it comes to the kind of cartoonish buffoons that we're willing to elect as our president. I predict PewDiePie becomes president and runs the entire country from his Youtube channel sometime in the 2030's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Remember there are people here who have honestly argued that to actively campaign on economic issues is to throw minorities under the bus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Like I think Bannon and gang are evil but as a Democrat, I find the total inability of the HRC campaign to accept any responsibility for their comprehensive abortion of a strategy even more frustrating. quote:Neither side was quick to acknowledge errors — a silence that rung especially loud on the Clinton side of the room.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Remember there are people here who have honestly argued that to actively campaign on economic issues is to throw minorities under the bus. I think part of that is conflated with the specific way that Sanders originally campaigned*, in that he kept circling back to economic issues even when talking to minority groups. *I acknowledge that he got significantly better at this That is, if Trump was able to win over the Rust Belt by talking about bringing back jobs, and how Clinton lost those people by harping constantly on "TRUMP BAD" and identity politics, and how the next Democratic candidate needs to be able to talk to white, white-collar voters with a vision that the voters can see as something that directly benefits them, then talking about issues that matter to minorities is another facet of that. If the former steel worker or miner ended up voting for Trump because Trump talked about America as a manufacturing powerhouse that will start digging for coal again, then it also stands to reason that the Missouri resident is also probably going to want their candidate to talk about preventing racial discrimination by the police.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Like I think Bannon and gang are evil but as a Democrat, I find the total inability of the HRC campaign to accept any responsibility for their comprehensive abortion of a strategy even more frustrating. Lets not forget that many of them are normal people who care about others, and accepting responsibility for a failed campaign is to admit that they are at fault for the very real suffering that tens of millions of women, POC, LGBT, immigrants, etc are going to experience over the next four years. The lives of the people they felt they were protecting and championing are absolutely going to get worse, and that is a hard pill to swallow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
cheese posted:Lets not forget that many of them are normal people who care about others, and accepting responsibility for a failed campaign is to admit that they are at fault for the very real suffering that tens of millions of women, POC, LGBT, immigrants, etc are going to experience over the next four years. The lives of the people they felt they were protecting and championing are absolutely going to get worse, and that is a hard pill to swallow. Maybe the fact that so many people are going to suffer should be a strong reason why anyone who still gives a poo poo needs to keep on hammering on them. Letting a gently caress-up of this degree pass by is only going to ensure it happens continually in the future (if there is a second chance). To be honest, I don't think there should be any mercy (rhetorically speaking) for third-way politicians at this point, they are literally driving the much of the world into fascism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
Too late, Fillon for France is the next stop on the neoliberal train to hell. Heck, Blair has been making noises in the UK so we can get some real old school Blairism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 07:57
|
|