Politics

Whatever else you wanna rant about.
JoleonLescottsHair
Hall of Fame
Posts: 2504
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:17 pm
Location: Cuticle, Cortex and Medulla

Re: Politics

Post by JoleonLescottsHair » Wed Jul 06, 2016 9:25 am

Quann wrote:
ktabz16 wrote:"I'm going to vote for the literal fascist because the other candidate used a private email server once"

Okay....
Trump's an ignoramus of epic proportions when it comes to politics but calling him a "fascist" is so over the top untrue, it's not funny. Save that term for the actual fascists in the world.
No, it is really not "over the top untrue" at all. It is a very critical and legitimate question. Here is a small sample of the discussion:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 ... 15a87c2a75

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/11/trumps_ ... n_america/

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fascist-354690

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... hs_in.html

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/25/donald_ ... _gop_base/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/15/f ... nald_trump

UMass87
Hall of Fame
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:01 am

Re: Politics

Post by UMass87 » Wed Jul 06, 2016 9:44 am

InnervisionsUMASS wrote:Why would the sender get charged? Did each and every sender know she was running her email off of a server based out of her home? Or would they be charged simply because they were sending classified info via electronic mail?
State Department has two email systems: one for non-sensitive information and a highly secured system for classified information. Hillary Clinton did not use the unsecured system - she used her personal email. Clinton and everyone else at State was/is supposed to use the secure system for classified information. They did this almost always but the FBI investigation identified 100 odd email chains that should have been on the secure system. The people sending Clinton classified information to her private email address were violating protocol.

UMass87
Hall of Fame
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:01 am

Re: Politics

Post by UMass87 » Wed Jul 06, 2016 9:48 am

TheInsider wrote:Wait are you saying the narative of a spontaneous riot opposed to a planned corridinated attack right before an election wasn't for political gain. Your a smart guy... I know your not that dumb.
Using it for political gain would have been to play up the terrorist angle and use it as justification for military action. But you and others love to ignore the fact that Obama called it an "act of terror" the next day:

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

— Obama, Rose Garden, Sept. 12

“We want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.”

— Obama, campaign event in Las Vegas, Sept. 13

You, and other conspiracy nuts love to ignore facts that don't jibe with your loony ideas.

Online
User avatar
InnervisionsUMASS
Hall of Fame
Posts: 17641
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Milford, MA
Contact:

Re: Politics

Post by InnervisionsUMASS » Wed Jul 06, 2016 9:52 am

UMass87 wrote:
InnervisionsUMASS wrote:Why would the sender get charged? Did each and every sender know she was running her email off of a server based out of her home? Or would they be charged simply because they were sending classified info via electronic mail?
State Department has two email systems: one for non-sensitive information and a highly secured system for classified information. Hillary Clinton did not use the unsecured system - she used her personal email. Clinton and everyone else at State was/is supposed to use the secure system for classified information. They did this almost always but the FBI investigation identified 100 odd email chains that should have been on the secure system. The people sending Clinton classified information to her private email address were violating protocol.

Ok, I appreciate your clarity. With that said, and I'm speculating here, if the head of the department tells you to send her emails to a specific account, classified or not, don't you follow the command of your leader?
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades

UMass87
Hall of Fame
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:01 am

Re: Politics

Post by UMass87 » Wed Jul 06, 2016 10:01 am

InnervisionsUMASS wrote:...
Ok, I appreciate your clarity. With that said, and I'm speculating here, if the head of the department tells you to send her emails to a specific account, classified or not, don't you follow the command of your leader?
That you are asking this is an indictment of the woeful job the press has done in explaining this story. Clinton DID NOT tell people to send her classified information to her private email (if she had she would be being prosecuted right now and there would likely have been tens of thousands of emails of classified information) on her server). The secure system is isolated from the outside world - it has no connection to the wider internet. When an employee of State has sensitive information they are supposed to use the secure system (the other system has been repeatedly compromised which shouldn't be that big of a deal if no sensitive information resides on it) and would be unable to send the email to her private email. Only if the person is using the unsecured system could they send an email to her private email and the minute they compose an email with sensitive information on the unsecured system they are violating protocol whether they send it or not. This is what enrages so many DOD employees - if they sent classified info on an unsecured system they certainly would, at a minimum, face a court-martial (they do, however, consistently seem to forget that military and civilian law are very different just as are the institutional cultures and, given past SOS use of private email for government business, State appears to have a particularly lousy culture when it comes to handling sensitive information).

Online
User avatar
InnervisionsUMASS
Hall of Fame
Posts: 17641
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Milford, MA
Contact:

Re: Politics

Post by InnervisionsUMASS » Wed Jul 06, 2016 10:17 am

87, I get that. You're missing my point here, I think. The issue is that somewhere in this process, people thought it was a good idea to share classified information via normal electronic mail. Either someone just felt they could do it because the Secretary of State was using her own email (so it must be secured, right? It's the SoS!... aka, they were just stupid), or they were told to do it (either as an order, or they were assured it was secured so it was ok to do so). I tend to go with the "they were just stupid", in case you were wondering, but I would not be shocked to some day find out that it was in fact the latter.
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades

UMass87
Hall of Fame
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:01 am

Re: Politics

Post by UMass87 » Wed Jul 06, 2016 10:20 am

IV - the point is that they should never have been even composing an email on the unsecured system. Clinton and everyone else were stupid and sloppy and should lose their clearance as they have demonstrated an inability to handle secure information. If Clinton gets elected President then she will have very limited access to the outside world - the protocols of the White House limit her ability to be as sloppy as she was at State - but it's still not very comforting to know she behaved so cavalierly and will once again be privy to the most sensitive of information.

Online
User avatar
InnervisionsUMASS
Hall of Fame
Posts: 17641
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Milford, MA
Contact:

Re: Politics

Post by InnervisionsUMASS » Wed Jul 06, 2016 10:23 am

^

Right, they were stupid. I believe that to be the case as well.

It was a shitshow from the top down.
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades

eldonabe
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5575
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 4:34 pm
Location: Western MA

Re: Politics

Post by eldonabe » Wed Jul 06, 2016 12:00 pm

Actually, this debate is a shitshow from the top down....

One of these two untrustworthy people will become the leader of the free world.

The only question you need to ask yourself is who do you want controlling the Supreme Court - that is and will be the most important thing that comes out of the next 4 years from the Oval Office - not getting hummers in the oval office, some emails, or some guy who can offend every race on the planet in the same sentence.

User avatar
DEM
Senior
Posts: 1397
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 8:42 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: Politics

Post by DEM » Wed Jul 06, 2016 1:58 pm

UMass87 wrote:DEM - the author conveniently ignores that the vast majority of the emails were SENT TO Clinton (who, like everyone else at State, was supposed to receive classified email on the highly secured system at State). It's not just Clinton who isn't being prosecuted but everyone who sent the emails. The author, while pointing out that Obama appointed Comey ignores the fact that he is a Republican. It's a sloppy editorial and plays very loose with the facts. Comparing Clinton to Snowden or Patraeus is laughable. The guy is patently shilling for his book.
UMass87 wrote:From right-leaning Politico BEFORE Comey's announcement: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/h ... ses-221744 which completely destroys the ridiculous argument of the editorial writer that DEM quoted.
First of all, minor argument with your descriptor of Politico - I'd argue that they are best described as corporatist and establishment. Guess which of the remaining candidate best fits that mold? (at least until Trump "falls in line" with the corporate donors, which he might, and stops acting like a nutjob, which he won't).

Second of all, you seem to be stuck on the legal details of why she wasn't indicted, and that, at least in my view, entirely misses the author's point. He actually says right in the piece that he is okay with the decision the FBI director made, looking at it in isolation; the issue he (the author) has is with the double standards in our legal system on these matters, not just with regard to Clinton, but with all people who possess power (as compared to those that don't). As a matter of fact, reread the article from Politico link that you posted, the implication is right there:
Not every instance of mishandling of classified information by a top-ranking government official that is investigated leads to prosecution. Far from it.
There are, however, also a slew of cases that led to prosecutions of mid-level and low-ranking government personnel, as well as government contractors.
As is often the case (not just with Hillary Clinton), laws are often interpreted and executed according to who is the person in question. Rich are treated differently than poor, strong differently than weak, white differently than black. Not always, but often.

As for your point (IF it is your point, my apologies if I'm misinterpreting) that her subordinates were sending a lot of the emails and therefore should take equal or greater responsibility and blame, despite the fact that she, as their leader, set up the against-the-rules server - I couldn't disagree more, and I'll leave it at that.

UMass87
Hall of Fame
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:01 am

Re: Politics

Post by UMass87 » Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:37 pm

DEM wrote:...
As for your point (IF it is your point, my apologies if I'm misinterpreting) that her subordinates were sending a lot of the emails and therefore should take equal or greater responsibility and blame, despite the fact that she, as their leader, set up the against-the-rules server - I couldn't disagree more, and I'll leave it at that.
It's only my point insofar as the ridiculous argument that she wasn't prosecuted because she's Clinton. But, again, you still clearly don't understand how the two State Department systems work because if you did then you would understand that someone sending Clinton classified information to her private email has NOTHING to do with Clinton - the person violated protocol the minute they composed the email on an unsecured system and if they sent it to Clinton's private email that is precisely what they did. They would have been violating protocol regardless of whether they sent it to her private email or her unsecured State email (a system repeatedly severely compromised).

MassModestMouse
Senior
Posts: 805
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:33 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Politics

Post by MassModestMouse » Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:46 pm

meanwhile our police keep on murdering black folks
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.

UMass87
Hall of Fame
Posts: 8249
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:01 am

Re: Politics

Post by UMass87 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:23 am

As I have said many times in this thread, I didn't vote for Clinton and I think her use of private email while Secretary of State should be disqualifying (regardless of the classified information). Unfortunately, she is one of two candidates with any hope of being the next President and the other is Donald Trump. If that's still the case in November then she'll get my vote.

On the email scandal:

- most people don't understand that State had two systems for sending email: a secured system for sensitive information and an unsecured system for non-sensitive work email.

- Clinton's private email was a replacement for the unsecured State system

- The FBI identified over 60,000 email sent or received by Clinton on her personal server

- of the over 60,000 emails identified 113 contained information that was classified at the time the email was sent. Over 2100 have been retroactively classified.

- we know that Clinton authored 104 of the emails that were either classified at the time or part of the 2100 retroactively classified.

Much political hay has been made of Clinton "lying" about her use of the server. I find it perfectly credible that Clinton believed she did not use her email for classified information. Why? Because only a tiny fraction of her emails contained classified information. Nobody has published the extent of her use of the secured system (and nobody ever will) but it's a safe bet that her messages on that system numbered in the tens of thousands as well just by the nature of what her job was. She has certainly made statements about her use of the server that are completely contradicted by the facts.

eldonabe
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5575
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 4:34 pm
Location: Western MA

Re: Politics

Post by eldonabe » Thu Jul 07, 2016 7:03 am

Jezus H.... I thought the DK sucks / DK doesn't suck debate was monotonous..... :roll:

Online
User avatar
InnervisionsUMASS
Hall of Fame
Posts: 17641
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Milford, MA
Contact:

Re: Politics

Post by InnervisionsUMASS » Thu Jul 07, 2016 7:36 am

^

I thought you enjoyed that debate :lol: :wink:
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades

Post Reply