Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (5 Viewers)

[jon_mx]

It's all the more difficult to have a legit discussion about her flaws, since that same insane right crowd either invents and/or hyperbolizes half of these flaws anyway. By the time you debunk all of the partisan driven bull####, there's no time nor energy to discuss the actual flaws and their implications. Like, was there some undo access through the Clinton Foundation and lets talk about that like adults, rather than "its a criminal enterprise that is buying the white house with bribes from the middle east in ca-hoots with the new world order and we need to throw Hillary in jail and lock away the key.  'MERICA!"

Moreso, lets talk about her legitimately poor policy and strategic choices re: Iraq, the war, actions as SoS and put down this ridiculous and utterly disingenuous Benghazi crap.  It's awful that we lost four souls there... but a SoS is not at the tactical level responsible directly., Why can't we just be honest about the situation, recognize there are risks for posts such as that and to be blunt, #### happens - doesn't mean you aren't critical and find ways to avoid it, but within the context of how many souls we lost directly as a result of other's decisions (and the list is many, from Beruit on up through the Iraq War itself) we get lost in a conspiracy about a sad but historically minor if not nearly irrelevant event (historically, those touched by the deaths obviously are affected forever) as compared to huge policy decisions. Some that Hillary was in favor of, mind you.  Instead we are talking about security of a post for how many years after we've stopped talking about say the attack on the post of Sandy Hook Elementary, in our country, even more souls, and far more pure ones, lost there.  

And we can then discuss gun rights vs. rights of others to not end up killed by someone using one, and we should - rather than talk about this one historical event that pales in comparison to probably thousands of others in relatively recent history.  

We really DO have serious issues and use all our energy on soundbites and misinformation circulated to avoid the very issues at stake.  And if you think the system is sending these distractions out through breitbart and other channels to help the little guy in somer populist effort well... once again, I just wish we actually examined the issues rather than this methodical disingenuous bull####.  Cause they are using the American public and a large percentage is just scooping it up and, worse yet, propagating the spread of that very intentional misinformation to benefit those sources that are creating and disseminating it out to begin with.

I think there was a lot of discussion in this very thread on her legitimate flaws.  But there has been as much partisan driven bull#### from the left (see Tim and squisy posts) as the right.  You just have to watch the ad campaign from both sides to see how real issues gets drown out by political bull####.  There is nothing though that stops you from just ignoring the bull#### and try to stay focus on legitimate issues.   

 

[Koya]

I think there was a lot of discussion in this very thread on her legitimate flaws.  But there has been as much partisan driven bull#### from the left (see Tim and squisy posts) as the right.  You just have to watch the ad campaign from both sides to see how real issues gets drown out by political bull####.  There is nothing though that stops you from just ignoring the bull#### and try to stay focus on legitimate issues.   

I can try to stop ignoring the bull####.  However, by not addressing it, you all but give into the fact that huge numbers of people are voting without any real idea what's going on. They are emotionally wrapped up in a vision and a feeling, without any plan nor detail and the bull#### provides enough "meat" for them to mentally justify their vote, and perhaps their actions / words.

Most can't be persuaded, but it's difficult to not even try when the stakes are, honestly, as high as I can remember in my lifetime.  And when the misinformation and sensational lies get repeated by people I know, there is a need for someone to call BS when they see it, lest more get wrapped up into this Dystopian Fantasy of the New Trump Right.

 

[timschochet]

I think there was a lot of discussion in this very thread on her legitimate flaws.  But there has been as much partisan driven bull#### from the left (see Tim and squisy posts) as the right.  You just have to watch the ad campaign from both sides to see how real issues gets drown out by political bull####.  There is nothing though that stops you from just ignoring the bull#### and try to stay focus on legitimate issues.   

I have no idea what you're talking about. squistion and I are both pro-Hillary Clinton, at times for different reasons. So what? Neither of us have tried to hide the fact. But that doesn't make anything we have written in this thread "partisan driven bull####". On the other hand, you're one of those who have accused Hillary of all kinds of wrongdoing without any evidence. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's all the more difficult to have a legit discussion about her flaws, since that same insane right crowd either invents and/or hyperbolizes half of these flaws anyway. By the time you debunk all of the partisan driven bull####, there's no time nor energy to discuss the actual flaws and their implications. Like, was there some undo access through the Clinton Foundation and lets talk about that like adults, rather than "its a criminal enterprise that is buying the white house with bribes from the middle east in ca-hoots with the new world order and we need to throw Hillary in jail and lock away the key.  'MERICA!"

Moreso, lets talk about her legitimately poor policy and strategic choices re: Iraq, the war, actions as SoS and put down this ridiculous and utterly disingenuous Benghazi crap.  It's awful that we lost four souls there... but a SoS is not at the tactical level responsible directly., Why can't we just be honest about the situation, recognize there are risks for posts such as that and to be blunt, #### happens - doesn't mean you aren't critical and find ways to avoid it, but within the context of how many souls we lost directly as a result of other's decisions (and the list is many, from Beruit on up through the Iraq War itself) we get lost in a conspiracy about a sad but historically minor if not nearly irrelevant event (historically, those touched by the deaths obviously are affected forever) as compared to huge policy decisions. Some that Hillary was in favor of, mind you.  Instead we are talking about security of a post for how many years after we've stopped talking about say the attack on the post of Sandy Hook Elementary, in our country, even more souls, and far more pure ones, lost there.  

And we can then discuss gun rights vs. rights of others to not end up killed by someone using one, and we should - rather than talk about this one historical event that pales in comparison to probably thousands of others in relatively recent history.  

We really DO have serious issues and use all our energy on soundbites and misinformation circulated to avoid the very issues at stake.  And if you think the system is sending these distractions out through breitbart and other channels to help the little guy in somer populist effort well... once again, I just wish we actually examined the issues rather than this methodical disingenuous bull####.  Cause they are using the American public and a large percentage is just scooping it up and, worse yet, propagating the spread of that very intentional misinformation to benefit those sources that are creating and disseminating it out to begin with.

Now try to have this discussion in the context of this election vs Trump. There is no policy debate, Trump doesn't have real positions, but when he does they're ridiculous.

You know where there's a policy discussion? Hillary vs Hillary. Private pro TPP Hillary vs public anti TPP. Public crack down on Wall Steet Hillary vs Private self-regulation Hillary. Etc.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

-We're having an esoteric discussion here. And you may not understand my point. No I don't think the CF/CHAI AIDS' saved millions of lives.

I'm not so sure.   For some reason lots of people seem to understand that -

• just because you initiate something that no one disputes not previously done by anyone
  
• and that activity contributes to results which no one disputes
  
• but somehow acknowledging these undisputed facts is inappropriate 
  

It is true with the AIDS program,  It is true with Hillary baiting Trump into falling apart.  It is true for Hillary running a campaign that keeps guys like you and your constant charges against her so far irrelevant to the ultimate goal of the campaign. It is true for dismissing almost any positive remark in Hillary's favor as delusional.  This need for some to rationalize away seems pretty common.

Maybe the same results could have been achieved without this initiative.  Maybe another charity would have achieved the same using method that seem more "charity like" to you.  Maybe another charity would have done a lot better.  Or maybe with more respectable partners and donors.  Maybe the good work was all a happy coincident as the foundation was doing its real sinister activities.  None of the matters to answering the question of whether or not an honest, informed person can simply acknowledge  the results claimed when there is clear, simple, not disputed evidence.

Crediting W for addressing AIDS in poor countries like no president before him or after saving millions doesn't suddenly make invading Iraq a good move. Or, moving heaven and earth in the Spring for Terry Shiavo while "crediting" "Brownie" for doing a good job in the fall somehow reconcilable.  But if muddying the waters with these and other claims to make the point that W doesn't get credit for his positive contributions simply means one doesn't have a point.   An effective means to "preach to the choir" - sure, but other than that these is no point!

 

[timschochet]

You know where there's a policy discussion? Hillary vs Hillary. Private pro TPP Hillary vs public anti TPP. Public crack down on Wall Steet Hillary vs Private self-regulation Hillary. Etc.

This is not accurate. She's changed her mind on TPP (unfortunately). 

Shes never been opposed to Wall Street regulations- just not to the extent of Bernie and other progressives. She prefers a middle road and her views on this have been consistent both publicly and privately. 

This whole "public vs private" thing has been way overblown by the usual suspects in order to falsely portray her as dishonest. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is not accurate. She's changed her mind on TPP (unfortunately). 

Shes never been opposed to Wall Street regulations- just not to the extent of Bernie and other progressives. She prefers a middle road and her views on this have been consistent both publicly and privately. 

This whole "public vs private" thing has been way overblown by the usual suspects in order to falsely portray her as dishonest. 

It is accurate, you don't wa t to admit it. Maybe if you relied on mainstream media instead of Daily Beast & HuffPo you would know this.

 

[timschochet]

It is accurate, you don't wa t to admit it. Maybe if you relied on mainstream media instead of Daily Beast & HuffPo you would know this.

For all of the facts you have presented about Hillary over the course of this thread, 90% of your opinion of her is based on your personal interpretation and subjectivity- the facts themselves haven't borne out your conclusions. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This is not accurate. She's changed her mind on TPP (unfortunately). 

Has Hillary ever elaborated on this?   Something more than "when the final deal was done it didn't meet my standards"?

This whole "public vs private" thing has been way overblown by the usual suspects

 Something more than the whole lot of nothing that our poltiphobes usually articulate?

 

[Politician Spock]

For all of the facts you have presented about Hillary over the course of this thread, 90% of your opinion of her is based on your personal interpretation and subjectivity- the facts themselves haven't borne out your conclusions. 

You could say the same about OJ Simpson.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

For all of the facts you have presented about Hillary over the course of this thread, 90% of your opinion of her is based on your personal interpretation and subjectivity- the facts themselves haven't borne out your conclusions. 

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders … I think we have to have a concerted plan to increase trade already under the current circumstances.”

- Hillary Clinton to actual Wall Street financiers. My version of the facts comes from Hillary herself.

 

[timschochet]

Has Hillary ever elaborated on this?   Something more than "when the final deal was done it didn't meet my standards"?

 Something more than the whole lot of nothing that our poltiphobes usually articulate?

She has. I'll try to look it up but it had to do with labor protections she wanted and didn't get in the final bill. She discusses this at length in Hard Choices and in that book warned that she might not be for the final version of TPP, long before Bernie Sanders ever announced his candidacy. This is yet another prime example of how people just assume she's dishonest without really examining the facts 

 

[cstu]

I never know which Adams someone is talking about.

And don't get me started on the Roosevelts.

 

[cstu]

It is actually anti climatic for me.

It's pretty simple. Hillary has the Blue Wall that no doubt will vote democrat. Since 1992 18 states and the District of Columbia have voted democrat. That is 242 electoral votes. I just don't see that changing this time around either. More because of the complete and utter ***kery of Donald Trump than Hillary's popularity. 

She wins Florida.....it's over. And I got news for all of you. IMO I think she will win Florida (in a tight race here). She wins any swing state for that matter and it's over.

We shall see.

Going into every Presidential election Democrats have such an advantage that it takes an epic #### up to lose ( Al Gore).

 

[timschochet]

- Hillary Clinton to actual Wall Street financiers. My version of the facts comes from Hillary herself.

No it doesn't. As people have pointed out to me countless times, being for free trade doesn't mean you're for any specific trade agreement. Those opposed to TPP have argued that it has nothing to do with free trade.

If you had a quote from that speech that said "I'm for TPP; don't worry what I say on the campaign trail" then you'd have something. But instead you're interpreting as I wrote above. I should hope she's for free trade in general; most reasonable people are. 

 

[timschochet]

You could say the same about OJ Simpson.

I don't know why people keep bringing up this terrible analogy. If Hillary ever is indicted for committing a crime and evidence is presented in a court of law, then we can compare her to OJ or others in that situation. But since she has never been charged with anything, not even a misdemeanor, despite being the target of dozens of formal investigations throughout her career, the only logical assumption is that she is  innocent of any wrongdoing. 

 

[cstu]

I don't know why people keep bringing up this terrible analogy. If Hillary ever is indicted for committing a crime and evidence is presented in a court of law, then we can compare her to OJ or others in that situation. But since she has never been charged with anything, not even a misdemeanor, despite being the target of dozens of formal investigations throughout her career, the only logical assumption is that she is  innocent of any wrongdoing. 

Tim, she's the greatest criminal mastermind in history.

 

[cstu]

No it doesn't. As people have pointed out to me countless times, being for free trade doesn't mean you're for any specific trade agreement. Those opposed to TPP have argued that it has nothing to do with free trade.

If you had a quote from that speech that said "I'm for TPP; don't worry what I say on the campaign trail" then you'd have something. But instead you're interpreting as I wrote above. I should hope she's for free trade in general; most reasonable people are. 

She has to keep it behind doors because the general public thinks angels are real.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, she's the greatest criminal mastermind in history.

They so badly want to catch her. They're obsessed with it. Go back and look through this thread. How many times have we read "THIS is the turning point, the smoking gun!" And then it turns out to be a whole lot of nothing.

And this thread is barely 2 years old. This crap has been going on her whole career. A lot of guys don't like women in positions of power, and they've resented and despised Hillary for decades. And now she's beaten them all, she's about to be elected President of the US. And they can't stand it.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

No it doesn't. As people have pointed out to me countless times, being for free trade doesn't mean you're for any specific trade agreement. Those opposed to TPP have argued that it has nothing to do with free trade.

If you had a quote from that speech that said "I'm for TPP; don't worry what I say on the campaign trail" then you'd have something. But instead you're interpreting as I wrote above. I should hope she's for free trade in general; most reasonable people are. 

Yes, who would ever make the leap that Hillary at one point called the deal the gold standard, is quoted in a Wall Street speech talking about her vision for open borders as well as the need to have a private and public position and conclude she is really for TPP.  Huge leap, centimeters really.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

On to more important things, Trump's porno accuser is pretty hot.  I'm not familiar with her work but plan to investigate.

 

[cstu]

Yes, who would ever make the leap that Hillary at one point called the deal the gold standard, is quoted in a Wall Street speech talking about her vision for open borders as well as the need to have a private and public position and conclude she is really for TPP.  Huge leap, centimeters really.

She's for it and saying what she need to say in order to be elected.  She's 100% lying and we all know it. 

The dumb thing about people complaining about her real opinion on TPP is that our very popular current President is the one who pushed for it.  SMH.

 

[timschochet]

She's for it and saying what she need to say in order to be elected.  She's 100% lying and we all know it. 

The dumb thing about people complaining about her real opinion on TPP is that our very popular current President is the one who pushed for it.  SMH.

I'm not convinced of this, because in her book she says "we need to reserve judgment." And that was written long before it became a campaign issue. There's no doubt that back in 2012 she was all for it, called it the gold standard, etc. But by 2014, well before Bernie's campaign, she had changed her mind a little.

I know that people want to believe that Hillary will do or say anything to get elected, that she doesn't have a shred of credibility, but the facts don't prove this out.

 

[cstu]

I'm not convinced of this, because in her book she says "we need to reserve judgment." And that was written long before it became a campaign issue. There's no doubt that back in 2012 she was all for it, called it the gold standard, etc. But by 2014, well before Bernie's campaign, she had changed her mind a little.

I know that people want to believe that Hillary will do or say anything to get elected, that she doesn't have a shred of credibility, but the facts don't prove this out.

Everyone has to 'reserve judgement' until they see the final document.  However, there's no denying she supports the general idea of the TPP.

 

[jon_mx]

I'm not convinced of this, because in her book she says "we need to reserve judgment." And that was written long before it became a campaign issue. There's no doubt that back in 2012 she was all for it, called it the gold standard, etc. But by 2014, well before Bernie's campaign, she had changed her mind a little.

I know that people want to believe that Hillary will do or say anything to get elected, that she doesn't have a shred of credibility, but the facts don't prove this out.

Hillary Clinton has been running for president her entire life.  She had her campaign in mind when she wrote the book and intentionally gave herself some wiggle room so she could spin.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

there's no denying she supports the general idea of the TPP

Of course-

"... I believe very much in trade. Trade on balance has been very good for America. But I don't see how anyone can look at what's happened in the global economy and not ask yourself, what are we missing here? Why is it that we have such a huge trade deficit with the world, particularly with China? Is it all because we can't compete? I don't think so. Is it because the rules are not being enforced? Is it because most other governments in the world take actions that maximize the positive impact of their trading relationships for their workers? I think so. And it's not just China, which is just the most egregious example.

I issued a report earlier this year about some of the problems we have with Canada, our very good neighbor and ally along our border. We have trouble getting New York agricultural products into Canada. And I believe that it's because the federal and provincial governments of Canada, they protect themselves. They protect their farmers. They are not going to just open their borders regardless of what NAFTA says.

I voted against CAFTA [the Central American Free Trade Agreement], because I looked at the facts and I thought we have no environmental or labor standards—something that I believe is within the rubric of free trade. Free trade doesn't mean trade without rules. It doesn't mean a race to the bottom. It's supposed to be based on comparative advantage, so the trading partners all improve their standard of living. If you don't have some rules that will create conditions for employees to be treated fairly, the money is all going to go to the pockets of the elite. I heard the other day that in Mexico, they are importing cheap labor from Central and South America. Meanwhile, you have all of these ambitious, motivated Mexicans leaving their country to get a better life in ours. There's something wrong with this picture.

:

For me, trade is who we are. We're traders. We want to be involved in the global economy, but not be played for suckers." (Feb. 1, 2007: Time interview.)

 

[The Commish]

And Hillary really has flaws.  Of course it's easy to look past those flaws when the insane right crowd hypes conspiracy theories nonstop.  

Really it's not.....but it is a convenient excuse to make one feel better about voting for turd sandwich option B

 

[The Commish]

What is Hillary's stance on trade agreement?

depends on the day and audience

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I know that people want to believe that Hillary will do or say anything to get elected, that she doesn't have a shred of credibility, but the facts don't prove this out.

In reading through this and some of the links it provides it seems Hillary has been rather consistent in her more elaborated answers, but her "top line" answers tend to be less consistent.    Still doesn't really say much.   Protecting labor is still pretty vague.  And, "paining with a broad brush"  I think the jobs and wages lost in trade deals are generally the same jobs and wages being lost to automation anyway so I'd like to hear more specifics.

That being said the next time a campaign answers the questions I have will be the first time... 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Really it's not.....but it is a convenient excuse to make one feel better about voting for turd sandwich option B

Are you saying that Gary Johnson has the munchies?

 

[Politician Spock]

I don't know why people keep bringing up this terrible analogy. If Hillary ever is indicted for committing a crime and evidence is presented in a court of law, then we can compare her to OJ or others in that situation. But since she has never been charged with anything, not even a misdemeanor, despite being the target of dozens of formal investigations throughout her career, the only logical assumption is that she is  innocent of any wrongdoing. 

Lack of indictment does not logically produce an assumption of innocence. For someone who only wants educated people to vote, your assumption is evidence you don't qualify. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Lack of indictment does not logically produce an assumption of innocence. For someone who only wants educated people to vote, your assumption is evidence you don't qualify. 

Of course it doesn't produce an assumption of innocence since a presumption of innocence is already the default position for any decent, rational being. 

 

[Politician Spock]

Of course it doesn't produce an assumption of innocence since a presumption of innocence is already the default position for any decent, rational being. 

Innocent until proven guilty is the constitutional requirement of government for reasons that should be obvious. The people on the other are not held to such limitation. And while in theory it sounds good to say they should be held to the same standard, in practice that is not pragmatic. It's in a persons best interests be wary of those who appear guilty even if it can't be proven. 

 

[timschochet]

Innocent until proven guilty is the constitutional requirement of government for reasons that should be obvious. The people on the other are not held to such limitation. And while in theory it sounds good to say they should be held to the same standard, in practice that is not pragmatic. It's in a persons best interests be wary of those who appear guilty even if it can't be proven. 

When you say "person" what you really mean is "conspiracy minded paranoid person". For the rest of us, if somebody has been thoroughly investigated, and cleared of all criminal wrongdoing, we can assume they're innocent. 

 

[Politician Spock]

When you say "person" what you really mean is "conspiracy minded paranoid person". For the rest of us, if somebody has been thoroughly investigated, and cleared of all criminal wrongdoing, we can assume they're innocent. 

There you go again blaming Hillary's issues on the VRWC. 

ETA: and OJ was cleared too. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

When you say "person" what you really mean is "conspiracy minded paranoid person". For the rest of us, if somebody has been thoroughly investigated, and cleared of all criminal wrongdoing, we can assume they're innocent. 

Your trolling knows no bounds.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Innocent until proven guilty is the constitutional requirement of government for reasons that should be obvious. The people on the other are not held to such limitation. And while in theory it sounds good to say they should be held to the same standard, in practice that is not pragmatic. It's in a persons best interests be wary of those who appear guilty even if it can't be proven. 

It takes lots of rationalization to support the claim the being wary of what someone does in the future is an appropriate justification to toss out a presumption of innocence when evaluation specific accusations of past behavior.

Now, maybe you really want to say that when evaluating who to vote for with less than perfect information it is sometimes appropriate to err on the side of caution at the expense of giving a candidate the benefit of doubt.  If so I agree, but it takes giving you a ton of benefit of doubt and ignoring what you wrote to get here.  Oh, and exactly why Hillary is the only choice this time around.  

 

[Politician Spock]

It takes lots of rationalization to support the claim the being wary of what someone does in the future is an appropriate justification to toss out a presumption of innocence when evaluation specific accusations of past behavior.

Now, maybe you really want to say that when evaluating who to vote for with less than perfect information it is sometimes appropriate to err on the side of caution at the expense of giving a candidate the benefit of doubt.  If so I agree, but it takes giving you a ton of benefit of doubt and ignoring what you wrote to get here.  Oh, and exactly why Hillary is the only choice this time around.  

I really don't care if she's guilty of any crimes. The conclusion of James Comey, FBI Director, is enough for me to be wary of her. He concluded she is extremely careless, and if she were still in the position of Secretary of State would be facing punitive action, which includes possible termination. Not only am I wary of her, it's ridiculous to promote her. 

 

[timschochet]

I really don't care if she's guilty of any crimes. The conclusion of James Comey, FBI Director, is enough for me to be wary of her. He concluded she is extremely careless, and if she were still in the position of Secretary of State would be facing punitive action, which includes possible termination. Not only am I wary of her, it's ridiculous to promote her. 

Again this is wrong. What Comey said is that what Hillary did with regard to her email service was extremely careless. He never said that SHE was an extremely careless person in general, and in fact everything that we know about Hillary Clinton would lead one to the opposite conclusion. But with the emails she got some bad advice on a relatively minor issue, and you and others are blowing this up as an evaluation of the woman as a whole. It's absurd, and thankfully the public isn't buying it.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Again this is wrong. What Comey said is that what Hillary did with regard to her email service was extremely careless. He never said that SHE was an extremely careless person in general, and in fact everything that we know about Hillary Clinton would lead one to the opposite conclusion. But with the emails she got some bad advice on a relatively minor issue, and you and others are blowing this up as an evaluation of the woman as a whole. It's absurd, and thankfully the public isn't buying it.

OJ got some bad advice at the knife store too.

 

[jon_mx]

Again this is wrong. What Comey said is that what Hillary did with regard to her email service was extremely careless. He never said that SHE was an extremely careless person in general, and in fact everything that we know about Hillary Clinton would lead one to the opposite conclusion. But with the emails she got some bad advice on a relatively minor issue, and you and others are blowing this up as an evaluation of the woman as a whole. It's absurd, and thankfully the public isn't buying it.

  That is some serious spin.  It wasn't bad advice, it was intentional on Hillary's part to skirt disclosure laws.  Cyber security and protecting classified information is about as far from a minor issue as you can get.  It is a high priority which the government takes very seriously.  

 

[Politician Spock]

Again this is wrong. What Comey said is that what Hillary did with regard to her email service was extremely careless. He never said that SHE was an extremely careless person in general, and in fact everything that we know about Hillary Clinton would lead one to the opposite conclusion. But with the emails she got some bad advice on a relatively minor issue, and you and others are blowing this up as an evaluation of the woman as a whole. It's absurd, and thankfully the public isn't buying it.

Tim, this isn't a "relatively minor issue" at all. She compromised national security. As a Secretary of State what she did is like a QB carelessly throwing up passes without regard to whether or not they're going to be intercepted. 

And Comey did give some clarification as to what he meant by "extremely careless", but it's not the clarification you just gave. He said "Certainly, she should have known not to send classified information. As I said, that’s the definition of ‘negligent.’ I think she was extremely careless, I think she was negligent. That I could establish."

He then went even deeper saying she's not sophisticated enough to understand what a classified marking means. He said: “It’s an interesting question as to whether she was actually sophisticated enough to understand what a ‘c’ in parens means. it is possible that she didn’t understand what a 'c' classified marking meant when she saw it in the body of an email."

"Extremely careless", "negligent", "not sophisticated enough". He's not just describing what she did (or didn't do) in regards to emails. He's describing her. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I really don't care if she's guilty of any crimes. The conclusion of James Comey, FBI Director, is enough for me to be wary of her. He concluded she is extremely careless, and if she were still in the position of Secretary of State would be facing punitive action, which includes possible termination. Not only am I wary of her, it's ridiculous to promote her. 

We did this dance.   I still haven't heard that the hundreds, possibly over a thousand of government employees that participated in these emails across various departments have faced any discipline at all.   While such HR things should be private, at this scale in a place like DC that seems unrealistic.  So even if you did hear Comey say this during his testimony, the evidence still seems to the contrary.  That isn't changing your beliefs so no reason to go round and round again.

 

[Politician Spock]

We did this dance.   I still haven't heard that the hundreds, possibly over a thousand of government employees that participated in these emails across various departments have faced any discipline at all.   While such HR things should be private, at this scale in a place like DC that seems unrealistic.  So even if you did hear Comey say this during his testimony, the evidence still seems to the contrary.  That isn't changing your beliefs so no reason to go round and round again.

Do you really want to go into discussing Obama's failure as an executive?

 

[jon_mx]

Tim, this isn't a "relatively minor issue" at all. She compromised national security. As a Secretary of State what she did is like a QB carelessly throwing up passes without regard to whether or not they're going to be intercepted. 

And Comey did give some clarification as to what he meant by "extremely careless", but it's not the clarification you just gave. He said "Certainly, she should have known not to send classified information. As I said, that’s the definition of ‘negligent.’ I think she was extremely careless, I think she was negligent. That I could establish."

He then went even deeper saying she's not sophisticated enough to understand what a classified marking means. He said: “It’s an interesting question as to whether she was actually sophisticated enough to understand what a ‘c’ in parens means. it is possible that she didn’t understand what a 'c' classified marking meant when she saw it in the body of an email."

"Extremely careless", "negligent", "not sophisticated enough". He's not just describing what she did (or didn't do) in regards to emails. He's describing her. 

I would have a very hard time to believe anyone in Hillary's position would not be 'sophisticated enough' to understand basic classification markings.  That would take a really stupid person not to get it.  (C), (S), (TS), and (U).  The first two minutes of exposure to any classified information is enough for someone to get it.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Do you really want to go into discussing Obama's failure as an executive?

If being disciplined for such actions as a regular government employee is dependent on who is in the oval office then we can forever dismiss your claim about the discipline facing the Secretary of State without ever giving it another minute of thought.  

 

[tommyGunZ]

Tim, this isn't a "relatively minor issue" at all. She compromised national security. As a Secretary of State what she did is like a QB carelessly throwing up passes without regard to whether or not they're going to be intercepted. 

And Comey did give some clarification as to what he meant by "extremely careless", but it's not the clarification you just gave. He said "Certainly, she should have known not to send classified information. As I said, that’s the definition of ‘negligent.’ I think she was extremely careless, I think she was negligent. That I could establish."

He then went even deeper saying she's not sophisticated enough to understand what a classified marking means. He said: “It’s an interesting question as to whether she was actually sophisticated enough to understand what a ‘c’ in parens means. it is possible that she didn’t understand what a 'c' classified marking meant when she saw it in the body of an email."

"Extremely careless", "negligent", "not sophisticated enough". He's not just describing what she did (or didn't do) in regards to emails. He's describing her. 

This is just silly.  Disappointed to read this from you Spock; I've disagreed with you politically over the years but I didn't figure you for this type of nonsense.

 

[Politician Spock]

If being disciplined for such actions as a regular government employee is dependent on who is in the oval office then we can forever dismiss your claim about the discipline facing the Secretary of State without ever giving it another minute of thought.  

It was already dismissed given she's no longer in that position. 

 

[Politician Spock]

This is just silly.  Disappointed to read this from you Spock; I've disagreed with you politically over the years but I didn't figure you for this type of nonsense.

To be honest tgunz, I've rarely read anything from you I didn't think was nonsense. I'm being 100% serious. I see you post in a thread and I think "oh god  ". Sometimes you post something good, but it's rare. 

 

[timschochet]

This is just silly.  Disappointed to read this from you Spock; I've disagreed with you politically over the years but I didn't figure you for this type of nonsense.

Really? What he wrote seems fairly consistent with his world view. IMO. (I agree that it's nonsense.)