Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (12 Viewers)

[SaintsInDome2006]

This likely symbolizes nothing more than a sellout to the big labor unions which generally oppose the TPP. Hillary needs the big labor vote.

And if she was in favor of TPP, the talking point would be "This likely symbolizes nothing more than a sellout to corporate interests." Hillary can't win with her detractors no matter what position she takes.

Yeah as president she will probably enact/enforce/expand it with Congressional Republicans anyway.

 

[jon_mx]

BFS, Squizz - I asked Tim this so I will ask you: will it be Hillary's policy as president that those working under her will be able to take unmarked documents home which would potentially be marked classified based on subject matter if they were forwarded to the intelligence community for marking?

I'm sure Hillary will allow government employees to have access to their e-mail remotely.

I'm sure Hillary will not allow any of your non sequitur hypotheticals.

You mean on government issued devices right?

I doubt it! E-mail is not used for classified or even sensitive documents so why would such a need exist? Sure, as Hillary's e-mails show some cross contamination and interagencies disagreements is to be expected but based on this story I don't believe that Hillary will see the threat of such breaches outweigh the benefit of government employees remaining in contact on the run or even from the home. I also doubt that the government IT budgets could support devices for all relevant government employees (both the cost of the devices and supporting them). If I am wrong about the willingness to provide/support the devices then I would ;ikely change this opinion, but otherwise as a practical matter no way.

She will however ban using non government e-mail accounts as well as auto forwarding of e-mails to private accounts. Again as a practical matter from going through this ordeal. Also, because there is no telling where Google, Microsoft, etc. servers actually reside. If she has that IT budget that I doubt she'ld ever have, I could see prohibiting e-mailing out to any address that wasn't in a global .gov (or agency) address book but this would require an unimaginably responsive team to be feasible.

I believe that no matter who is elected this will be true. I'd also expect that implementing some form of archiving solution such that if it hits a .gov address it will be easily retrievable for such request from congress, the judiciary, or freedom of information requests without all of this effort.

Satellite photos of NK nuke sites is not about interagency disagreements, it is clear cut Secret level information. And there are E-mail systems set up to transfer classified data, it is just not done over mobile devices.

BTW. most of what you said has already been implimented for many years except the last couple of things. It would not be hard to prohibit e-mailing to outside addresses, but there is no real reason too since much neccessary business requires it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-tpp_56157832e4b0fad1591a9289?6csug14i

Hillary Clinton Comes Out Against TPP

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership Wednesday, breaking with President Barack Obama on the 12-nation trade deal that is set to become a key part of his legacy.

"As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it," Clinton told Judy Woodruff of "PBS Newshour."

...

She is a beaut.

Didn't she write about her involvement in the TPP in Hard Choices? She used to tout it as part of her resume. Incredible.

Doesn't sound like she was touting it, from the above: "her most recent book, Hard Choices, she spoke out against a key provision of the deal known as "Investor-State Dispute Settlement."

Currently the United States is negotiating comprehensive agreements with eleven countries in Asia and in North and South America, and with the European Union. We should be focused on ending currency manipulation, environmental destruction, and miserable working conditions in developing countries, as well as harmonizing regulations with the EU. And we should avoid some of the provisions sought by business interests, including our own, like giving them or their investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their environmental and public health rules, as Philip Morris is already trying to do in Australia. The United States should be advocating a level and fair playing field, not special favors.

Ok that's a good point, and I actually tend to agree with it, but if that existed at the time of her administration as SOS what's changed?

That was true in April during the above article, it was true when she wrote her book in November 2014, that was true in 2012, it was true when she announced, it was true last month, it was true when she was taking personal and campaign money from corporations who seek to profit from that provision and the TPP, it was true when her office was negotiating the TPP.

Hillary also said this in Hard Choices.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Politico accuses Biden of leaking the story about his son urging him to run (to Maureen Dowd). Biden denies it.

Tim I posted this further up.

Easy to miss with the numerous articles you bombard us with about emails and the Clinton Foundation.

To be fair to Saints, Tim did comment on the VOX article yesterday which was written around this item.

ETA: Sorry Tim.

 

[elbowrm]

I know people are evenly divided on Citizens United.

Source?

My imagination?

My point was that as important as tracking donors is considering what politicians discuss with donors and contractors or people with business before them as public or transparent or available to FOIA requests, instead of as "private" correspondence, would go a lot further to promoting good government. Many individuals and corporations use shell companies and proxy donors to get around the regulations anyway.

I completely agree with you, I just have a hard time contemplating many non-billionaires or lobbyists actually supporting citizens United.

 

[squistion]

This likely symbolizes nothing more than a sellout to the big labor unions which generally oppose the TPP. Hillary needs the big labor vote.

And if she was in favor of TPP, the talking point would be "This likely symbolizes nothing more than a sellout to corporate interests." Hillary can't win with her detractors no matter what position she takes.

Yeah as president she will probably enact/enforce/expand it with Congressional Republicans anyway.

You had predicted she would come out in favor of TPP, so obviously you don't have a clue as to what she might do as president.

 

[The Commish]

This likely symbolizes nothing more than a sellout to the big labor unions which generally oppose the TPP. Hillary needs the big labor vote.

And if she was in favor of TPP, the talking point would be "This likely symbolizes nothing more than a sellout to corporate interests." Hillary can't win with her detractors no matter what position she takes.

Why are you even talking about this in terms of her detractors? That's not the group she needs to worry about for obvious reasons. However, it's beyond me why she thinks it's a good idea to invite her detractors to the bonfire and providing full tanks of gas to those that show up.

I have to say though, I am impressed with the approach. She is being so absurdly wishy washy on everything she's making people think it's a punch line and not a significant leadership flaw.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You had predicted she would come out in favor of TPP, so obviously you don't have a clue as to what she might do as president.

Color me surprised she came out against the president, her benefactors, and her own resume.

 

[Sinn Fein]

This likely symbolizes nothing more than a sellout to the big labor unions which generally oppose the TPP. Hillary needs the big labor vote.

And if she was in favor of TPP, the talking point would be "This likely symbolizes nothing more than a sellout to corporate interests." Hillary can't win with her detractors no matter what position she takes.

It would probably help her cause if she did not take conflicting positions on the same issue...

She had supported it previously as a candidate?

When do you think the last time Hillary was not a candidate?

She has been running for president since the 2008 cycle.

 

[The Commish]

She had supported it previously as a candidate?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

[No message]

 

[Sinn Fein]

Why didn't she come out against it when she could have used her influence among all her Congressional sponsors?

She could have derailed this, if she were truly against it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why didn't she come out against it when she could have used her influence among all her Congressional sponsors?

She could have derailed this, if she were truly against it.

When was the vote?

And she just figured out what's in it now?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Mobile devices do not access classified information. Hillary is at a minimum guilty of mishandling classified information.

Neither did Hillary's!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Mobile devices do not access classified information. Hillary is at a minimum guilty of mishandling classified information.

Neither did Hillary's!

The argument being the communications weren't classified at the time?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Golden oldie... you know, April.

Other speaking fees flowed to Bill Clinton just before or just after firms lobbied his wife's State Department.

The trade association representing drug companies, PhRMA, paid Bill Clinton $200,000 to speak at its annual members meeting in April 2011 -- only weeks after federal records show it lobbied Hillary Clinton's State Department on the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, which could boost drug company profits by tightening patent protections for pharmaceutical products. After Bill Clinton received the cash from PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America), Hillary Clinton gave a speech in November 2011 promoting the TPP.

http://www.ibtimes.com/firms-paid-bill-clinton-millions-they-lobbied-hillary-clinton-1899107

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There is new momentum in our trade agenda with the recent passage of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement and our ongoing work on a binding, high-quality Trans-Pacific Partnership, the so-called TPP. The TPP will bring together economies from across the Pacific, developed and developing alike, into a single 21st century trading community. A rules-based order will also be critical to meeting APEC’s goal of eventually creating a free trade area of the Asia Pacific.

- Hillary Clinton, Honolulu, 2011

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

That would be government data and information gathered for the public and released to the public and all groups, not internal, confidential, and yes classified per IC guidelines diplomatic information gathered for internal use ...

You mean the guidelines where any discussion about a foreign government should automatically be deemed classified? Sorry still ridiculous!

...disseminated solely to one non-profit that is used to generate private gain and advancement for the SOS and her husband.

I've got news for you: the State Department isn't to be used as some private subsidiary of the Clintons' non-profits and consulting businesses and neither is the White House.

We can cross these bridges when there is actual evidence support such accusations. There has already been enough ignorant nonsense such as not understanding how to read charity financials.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That would be government data and information gathered for the public and released to the public and all groups, not internal, confidential, and yes classified per IC guidelines diplomatic information gathered for internal use ...

You mean the guidelines where any discussion about a foreign government should automatically be deemed classified? Sorry still ridiculous!

...disseminated solely to one non-profit that is used to generate private gain and advancement for the SOS and her husband.

I've got news for you: the State Department isn't to be used as some private subsidiary of the Clintons' non-profits and consulting businesses and neither is the White House.

We can cross these bridges when there is actual evidence support such accusations. There has already been enough ignorant nonsense such as not understanding how to read charity financials.

Yes, that's right. - Why would someone in a foreign government tell us anything in confidence if we consider it essentially not worthy of protection? Do you have any thoughts on what that would do to our intelligence gathering capabilities? - If our agents and diplomats tell someone in a foreign ministry that something will be kept under lock and key and their lives or careers won't be threatened, or that their government's strategies will be protected, don't you think we should keep that promise?

On the 2nd point, you have had it presented it before you. Hillary's right hand gal personally transferred confidential State Department information to Hillary's and Bill's non-profit, not anyone else. That promotes their organization and that promotes them. Did they give that information to anyone else? Did the intelligence community want it released?

 

[timschochet]

I'm not happy about this. (TPP). Very disappointing.

What candidates now running on either side are in favor of TPP? (obviously Biden but he hasn't declared.) who else?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm not happy about this. (TPP). Very disappointing.

What candidates now running on either side are in favor of TPP? (obviously Biden but he hasn't declared.) who else?

I'm guessing Biden and Bush. TBH not sure.

I'm sure Trump is against it and I'm sure that appeals to a lot of non-Republicans as well.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not happy about this. (TPP). Very disappointing.

What candidates now running on either side are in favor of TPP? (obviously Biden but he hasn't declared.) who else?

I'm guessing Biden and Bush. TBH not sure.

I'm sure Trump is against it and I'm sure that appeals to a lot of non-Republicans as well.

It appeals to all of the populist anti trade people on both sides. Free trade is never going to be popular. But we're better off for it. Well Saints, I think you asked earlier what could threaten my support for Hillary? This could. Depending on what her opponents say. I'm extremely disappointed by this.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here's Hillary speaking in favor of TPP, 2011, again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=7&v=3qaVa98bkSg

 

[timschochet]

Here's Hillary speaking in favor of TPP, 2011, again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=7&v=3qaVa98bkSg

Who cares about the flip flopping? The point is, she was right and now she's wrong.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I feel like BFS is full on fishing at this point. The only explanation I can come up with for his comments in this thread.

Nope. Sorry that I don't subscribe to pre approved talking points to make things easier on you guys. However, since I'm way off the deep end it shouldn't be too difficult to make me look foolish with a decent rebuttal. I guess it could be considered fishing if I expected such a rebuttal, but I don't.

 

[jon_mx]

Mobile devices do not access classified information. Hillary is at a minimum guilty of mishandling classified information.

Neither did Hillary's!

But she did. She received large amounts of data which is considered classified. It was her legal requirement to report it and have it wiped from her system.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Mobile devices do not access classified information. Hillary is at a minimum guilty of mishandling classified information.

Neither did Hillary's!

But she did. She received large amounts of data which is considered classified. It was her legal requirement to report it and have it wiped from her system.

What, like with a cloth?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Saints - let me save you the bandwidth:

45 times Hillary has spoken in favor of TPP

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

That would be government data and information gathered for the public and released to the public and all groups, not internal, confidential, and yes classified per IC guidelines diplomatic information gathered for internal use ...

You mean the guidelines where any discussion about a foreign government should automatically be deemed classified? Sorry still ridiculous!

...disseminated solely to one non-profit that is used to generate private gain and advancement for the SOS and her husband.

I've got news for you: the State Department isn't to be used as some private subsidiary of the Clintons' non-profits and consulting businesses and neither is the White House.

We can cross these bridges when there is actual evidence support such accusations. There has already been enough ignorant nonsense such as not understanding how to read charity financials.

Yes, that's right. - Why would someone in a foreign government tell us anything in confidence if we consider it essentially not worthy of protection? Do you have any thoughts on what that would do to our intelligence gathering capabilities? - If our agents and diplomats tell someone in a foreign ministry that something will be kept under lock and key and their lives or careers won't be threatened, or that their government's strategies will be protected, don't you think we should keep that promise?

On the 2nd point, you have had it presented it before you. Hillary's right hand gal personally transferred confidential State Department information to Hillary's and Bill's non-profit, not anyone else. That promotes their organization and that promotes them. Did they give that information to anyone else? Did the intelligence community want it released?

Ok, show me the actual classified information that was shuttled to the Clinton Foundation so I can evaluate the careers and/or life threatening nature of these leaks.

 

[squistion]

Here's Hillary speaking in favor of TPP, 2011, again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=7&v=3qaVa98bkSg

Gee. wasn't she SOS then? You expect that she would oppose the Obama Administration who was in favor of this while as SOS?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Mobile devices do not access classified information. Hillary is at a minimum guilty of mishandling classified information.

Neither did Hillary's!

But she did. She received large amounts of data which is considered classified. It was her legal requirement to report it and have it wiped from her system.

How did Hillary's mobile device access classified information in any way different from accessing a .gov e-mail address?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm not happy about this. (TPP). Very disappointing.

What candidates now running on either side are in favor of TPP? (obviously Biden but he hasn't declared.) who else?

I'm guessing Biden and Bush. TBH not sure.

I'm sure Trump is against it and I'm sure that appeals to a lot of non-Republicans as well.

It appeals to all of the populist anti trade people on both sides. Free trade is never going to be popular. But we're better off for it.Well Saints, I think you asked earlier what could threaten my support for Hillary? This could. Depending on what her opponents say. I'm extremely disappointed by this.

I have a lot of criticisms of protectionism and I think you and I hail from the same place on that. But I think we need to look at what Nafta has done to (and for) our country, how TPP will compare to that dealing with a much greater area, and what TPP does in terms of endangering free exercise of patentable ideas and free speech and the future oncoming power of China once it enters it (and it will). It also seems crazy to me that we are in advance talking about paying benefits to workers who will lose their jobs as part of this deal, like we're planning on that. This isn't Nafta.

My main complaint with Hillary is her unwillingness of taking a stand on it before or following through on her promises later.

I will now say something nice about Hillary here (trigger warning): I do think she has a respect and belief in the institutions that have traditionally kept peace and balance of trade in our post-WW2 order. Leaving the details out, TPP is arguably maybe a continuation of that. But where is her consistency? We bombed Bosnia and Libya without Congressional or UN approval. We invaded Iraq because she believed and argued for inspection regimes. Ok, I think she thinks those things were right, ok, but not anymore. She believes in free trade, yeah but not really. People would respect and like her more if she even stood for the wrong things because she intrinsically believed them and argued passionately for them. And you know what, when she's president she will just do what she wants, regardless of what she tells us. She does have core beliefs, she just doesn't think anyone, including her employers the People, have any right to know what they are.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That would be government data and information gathered for the public and released to the public and all groups, not internal, confidential, and yes classified per IC guidelines diplomatic information gathered for internal use ...

You mean the guidelines where any discussion about a foreign government should automatically be deemed classified? Sorry still ridiculous!

...disseminated solely to one non-profit that is used to generate private gain and advancement for the SOS and her husband.

I've got news for you: the State Department isn't to be used as some private subsidiary of the Clintons' non-profits and consulting businesses and neither is the White House.

We can cross these bridges when there is actual evidence support such accusations. There has already been enough ignorant nonsense such as not understanding how to read charity financials.

Yes, that's right. - Why would someone in a foreign government tell us anything in confidence if we consider it essentially not worthy of protection? Do you have any thoughts on what that would do to our intelligence gathering capabilities? - If our agents and diplomats tell someone in a foreign ministry that something will be kept under lock and key and their lives or careers won't be threatened, or that their government's strategies will be protected, don't you think we should keep that promise?

On the 2nd point, you have had it presented it before you. Hillary's right hand gal personally transferred confidential State Department information to Hillary's and Bill's non-profit, not anyone else. That promotes their organization and that promotes them. Did they give that information to anyone else? Did the intelligence community want it released?

Ok, show me the actual classified information that was shuttled to the Clinton Foundation so I can evaluate the careers and/or life threatening nature of these leaks.

Doesn't matter what you or I think. it didn't matter what Hillary thought either.

Do you think it's not even truly worth being classified now? Or are you keeping with the canard that it wasn't classified then but somehow became imbued with classified substance later?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints - let me save you the bandwidth:

45 times Hillary has spoken in favor of TPP

Yeah, thanks. She's still for it, folks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here's Hillary speaking in favor of TPP, 2011, again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=7&v=3qaVa98bkSg

Gee. wasn't she SOS then? You expect that she would oppose the Obama Administration who was in favor of this while as SOS?

Uh yeah I do. Listen to her, she believes what she's saying there. She was negotiating that thing. If she was a puppet just going around delivering missives from the president then you can just take her SOS tenure off her argument as to why she's qualified to be president. I've been oh let's say a tad bit critical but I've never called her Obama's mouthpiece.

Btw if you want another good example of Hillary speaking passionately about something and putting her weight behind it see her Iraq war speech. It's a good one, chuck with policy and she believed in what she said there too.

 

[squistion]

Saints - let me save you the bandwidth:

45 times Hillary has spoken in favor of TPP

Yeah, thanks. She's still for it, folks.

All of those was while she was SOS. Her speaking out against it would be like John Kerry speaking out against it now. The SOS always has to support the position of the administration they are serving under.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints - let me save you the bandwidth:

45 times Hillary has spoken in favor of TPP

Yeah, thanks. She's still for it, folks.

All of those was while she was SOS. Her speaking out against it would be like John Kerry speaking out against it now. The SOS always has to support the position of the administration they are serving under.

Squis, she believed in it. She was part of its formation.

"She was instrumental in formulating and implementing the re-balance to Asia, of which the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a part," as the U.S.'s top diplomat Rice said.

 

[Slapdash]

BFS, Squizz - I asked Tim this so I will ask you: will it be Hillary's policy as president that those working under her will be able to take unmarked documents home which would potentially be marked classified based on subject matter if they were forwarded to the intelligence community for marking?

I'm sure Hillary will allow government employees to have access to their e-mail remotely.

I'm sure Hillary will not allow any of your non sequitur hypotheticals.

You mean on government issued devices right?

I doubt it! E-mail is not used for classified or even sensitive documents so why would such a need exist? Sure, as Hillary's e-mails show some cross contamination and interagencies disagreements is to be expected but based on this story I don't believe that Hillary will see the threat of such breaches outweigh the benefit of government employees remaining in contact on the run or even from the home. I also doubt that the government IT budgets could support devices for all relevant government employees (both the cost of the devices and supporting them). If I am wrong about the willingness to provide/support the devices then I would ;ikely change this opinion, but otherwise as a practical matter no way.

She will however ban using non government e-mail accounts as well as auto forwarding of e-mails to private accounts. Again as a practical matter from going through this ordeal. Also, because there is no telling where Google, Microsoft, etc. servers actually reside. If she has that IT budget that I doubt she'ld ever have, I could see prohibiting e-mailing out to any address that wasn't in a global .gov (or agency) address book but this would require an unimaginably responsive team to be feasible.

I believe that no matter who is elected this will be true. I'd also expect that implementing some form of archiving solution such that if it hits a .gov address it will be easily retrievable for such request from congress, the judiciary, or freedom of information requests without all of this effort.

It either has to be on a government issued device or accessed via some type of secured and encrypted service. Government agencies and private companies do it all the time.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I feel like BFS is full on fishing at this point. The only explanation I can come up with for his comments in this thread.

He usually at least makes sense even if you disagree with him. Now it is almost foolish talk.

BFS makes sense in the ACA thread and he isn't really (I believe) a fan of Hillary, and I admit I'm overly serious on this stuff. - I can't help but notice he hasn't had much to say on the topic of Hillary saying she will be revising the ACA/Obamacare and her sort of back door criticisms of it. Hillary is supported by Akin Gump lobbying group and others who want their favors out of the health care regulation changes. That's BFS's subject.

Other than the Cadillac Tax where just about every candidate is on the same wrong side which I did respond to, what has Hillary stated about the ACA?

Going forward, Hillary will build on these efforts and fight to ensure that the savings from these reforms benefits families—not just insurance companies, drug companies, and large corporations.

• Defend the Affordable Care Act. Hillary will continue to defend the Affordable Care Act (ACA) against Republican efforts to repeal it. She'll build on it to expand affordable coverage, slow the growth of overall health care costs (including prescription drugs), and make it possible for providers to deliver the very best care to patients.
  
• Lower out-of-pocket costs like copays and deductibles. The average deductible for employer-sponsored health plans rose from $1,240 in 2002 to about $2,500 in 2013. American families are being squeezed by rising out-of-pocket health care costs. Hillary believes that workers should share in slower growth of national health care spending through lower costs.
  
• Reduce the cost of prescription drugs. Prescription drug spending accelerated from 2.5 percent in 2013 to 12.6 percent in 2014. It’s no wonder that almost three-quarters of Americans believe prescription drug costs are unreasonable. Hillary believes we need to demand lower drug costs for hardworking families and seniors.
  
• Transform our health care system to reward value and quality. Hillary is committed to building on delivery system reforms in the Affordable Care Act that improve value and quality care for Americans.
  

Hillary will also work to expand access to rural Americans, who often have difficulty finding quality, affordable health care. She will explore cost-effective ways to broaden the scope of health care providers eligible for telehealth reimbursement under Medicare and other programs, including federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics. She will also call for states to support efforts to streamline licensing for telemedicine and examine ways to expand the types of services that qualify for reimbursement.

Hillary is continuing a lifelong fight to ensure women have access to reproductive health care. As senator, she championed access to emergency contraception and voted in favor of strengthening a woman’s right to make her own health decisions. As president, she will continue defending Planned Parenthood, which provides critical health services including breast exams and cancer screenings to 2.7 million women a year.

Not really much there to comment on is there? The only other specific I've seen is her drug plan which seems unrealistic at the moment.

Clinton’s proposal, which she said would be implemented if she were elected, builds on President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act and includes such provisions like limiting a patient’s out-of-pocket spending on drugs to $250 a month, or $3,000 a year. The ACA currently caps yearly out-of-pocket total medical spending at $6,600 for an individual and $13,200 for a family. The proposal would also limit sales exclusivity for biotech drugs to seven years from the current 12 years.

Clinton’s platform would also mandate that drug makers devote a minimum amount of revenue to research and development, and it would bar those companies from deducting drug advertising spending as a business expense, a move that Clinton says would save the government “billions of dollars over the next decade.”

In addition, Clinton is pushing for Medicare to have the ability to negotiate drug prices directly with manufacturers, a move that’s long been advocated by Democrats. However, such a proposal has struggled to gain traction in Congress. Many Republicans have pushed back on the idea, advocating instead for private plans, which administer Medicare drug benefits, to negotiate for themselves.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

BFS, Squizz - I asked Tim this so I will ask you: will it be Hillary's policy as president that those working under her will be able to take unmarked documents home which would potentially be marked classified based on subject matter if they were forwarded to the intelligence community for marking?

I'm sure Hillary will allow government employees to have access to their e-mail remotely.

I'm sure Hillary will not allow any of your non sequitur hypotheticals.

You mean on government issued devices right?

I doubt it! E-mail is not used for classified or even sensitive documents so why would such a need exist? Sure, as Hillary's e-mails show some cross contamination and interagencies disagreements is to be expected but based on this story I don't believe that Hillary will see the threat of such breaches outweigh the benefit of government employees remaining in contact on the run or even from the home. I also doubt that the government IT budgets could support devices for all relevant government employees (both the cost of the devices and supporting them). If I am wrong about the willingness to provide/support the devices then I would ;ikely change this opinion, but otherwise as a practical matter no way.

She will however ban using non government e-mail accounts as well as auto forwarding of e-mails to private accounts. Again as a practical matter from going through this ordeal. Also, because there is no telling where Google, Microsoft, etc. servers actually reside. If she has that IT budget that I doubt she'ld ever have, I could see prohibiting e-mailing out to any address that wasn't in a global .gov (or agency) address book but this would require an unimaginably responsive team to be feasible.

I believe that no matter who is elected this will be true. I'd also expect that implementing some form of archiving solution such that if it hits a .gov address it will be easily retrievable for such request from congress, the judiciary, or freedom of information requests without all of this effort.

It either has to be on a government issued device or accessed via some type of secured and encrypted service. Government agencies and private companies do it all the time.

So how are you disagreeing?

 

[Slapdash]

Hillary deserves a pass for what she said about the TPP while she was part of the administration. However, she doesn't get a pass for waiting until now to speak out against it. Particularly since it already pretty wrapped up.

 

[squistion]

Saints - let me save you the bandwidth:

45 times Hillary has spoken in favor of TPP

Yeah, thanks. She's still for it, folks.

All of those was while she was SOS. Her speaking out against it would be like John Kerry speaking out against it now. The SOS always has to support the position of the administration they are serving under.

Squis, she believed in it. She was part of its formation.

"She was instrumental in formulating and implementing the re-balance to Asia, of which the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a part," as the U.S.'s top diplomat Rice said.

Please. She had no choice to do her job as SOS. If she didn't she would gotten her pink slip post haste. As a member of the cabinet of any administration, one must support and work for the president's policies and objectives or resign. John Kerry may not be in agreement with Obama on everything, but he must support him publically as Hillary did if he wants to remain SOS.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

That would be government data and information gathered for the public and released to the public and all groups, not internal, confidential, and yes classified per IC guidelines diplomatic information gathered for internal use ...

You mean the guidelines where any discussion about a foreign government should automatically be deemed classified? Sorry still ridiculous!

...disseminated solely to one non-profit that is used to generate private gain and advancement for the SOS and her husband.

I've got news for you: the State Department isn't to be used as some private subsidiary of the Clintons' non-profits and consulting businesses and neither is the White House.

We can cross these bridges when there is actual evidence support such accusations. There has already been enough ignorant nonsense such as not understanding how to read charity financials.

Yes, that's right. - Why would someone in a foreign government tell us anything in confidence if we consider it essentially not worthy of protection? Do you have any thoughts on what that would do to our intelligence gathering capabilities? - If our agents and diplomats tell someone in a foreign ministry that something will be kept under lock and key and their lives or careers won't be threatened, or that their government's strategies will be protected, don't you think we should keep that promise?

On the 2nd point, you have had it presented it before you. Hillary's right hand gal personally transferred confidential State Department information to Hillary's and Bill's non-profit, not anyone else. That promotes their organization and that promotes them. Did they give that information to anyone else? Did the intelligence community want it released?

Ok, show me the actual classified information that was shuttled to the Clinton Foundation so I can evaluate the careers and/or life threatening nature of these leaks.

Doesn't matter what you or I think. it didn't matter what Hillary thought either.

Do you think it's not even truly worth being classified now? Or are you keeping with the canard that it wasn't classified then but somehow became imbued with classified substance later?

You made the specific claim that lives and careers were placed in jeopardy due to sharing of classified information with the Clinton Foundation. Nothing in your reply provides evidence for such a claim.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I feel like BFS is full on fishing at this point. The only explanation I can come up with for his comments in this thread.

He usually at least makes sense even if you disagree with him. Now it is almost foolish talk.

BFS makes sense in the ACA thread and he isn't really (I believe) a fan of Hillary, and I admit I'm overly serious on this stuff. - I can't help but notice he hasn't had much to say on the topic of Hillary saying she will be revising the ACA/Obamacare and her sort of back door criticisms of it. Hillary is supported by Akin Gump lobbying group and others who want their favors out of the health care regulation changes. That's BFS's subject.

Other than the Cadillac Tax where just about every candidate is on the same wrong side which I did respond to, what has Hillary stated about the ACA?

Going forward, Hillary will build on these efforts and fight to ensure that the savings from these reforms benefits families—not just insurance companies, drug companies, and large corporations.

• Defend the Affordable Care Act. Hillary will continue to defend the Affordable Care Act (ACA) against Republican efforts to repeal it. She'll build on it to expand affordable coverage, slow the growth of overall health care costs (including prescription drugs), and make it possible for providers to deliver the very best care to patients.
  
• Lower out-of-pocket costs like copays and deductibles. The average deductible for employer-sponsored health plans rose from $1,240 in 2002 to about $2,500 in 2013. American families are being squeezed by rising out-of-pocket health care costs. Hillary believes that workers should share in slower growth of national health care spending through lower costs.
  
• Reduce the cost of prescription drugs. Prescription drug spending accelerated from 2.5 percent in 2013 to 12.6 percent in 2014. It’s no wonder that almost three-quarters of Americans believe prescription drug costs are unreasonable. Hillary believes we need to demand lower drug costs for hardworking families and seniors.
  
• Transform our health care system to reward value and quality. Hillary is committed to building on delivery system reforms in the Affordable Care Act that improve value and quality care for Americans.
  

Hillary will also work to expand access to rural Americans, who often have difficulty finding quality, affordable health care. She will explore cost-effective ways to broaden the scope of health care providers eligible for telehealth reimbursement under Medicare and other programs, including federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics. She will also call for states to support efforts to streamline licensing for telemedicine and examine ways to expand the types of services that qualify for reimbursement.

Hillary is continuing a lifelong fight to ensure women have access to reproductive health care. As senator, she championed access to emergency contraception and voted in favor of strengthening a woman’s right to make her own health decisions. As president, she will continue defending Planned Parenthood, which provides critical health services including breast exams and cancer screenings to 2.7 million women a year.



Not really much there to comment on is there? The only other specific I've seen is her drug plan which seems unrealistic at the moment.

Clinton’s proposal, which she said would be implemented if she were elected, builds on President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act and includes such provisions like limiting a patient’s out-of-pocket spending on drugs to $250 a month, or $3,000 a year. The ACA currently caps yearly out-of-pocket total medical spending at $6,600 for an individual and $13,200 for a family. The proposal would also limit sales exclusivity for biotech drugs to seven years from the current 12 years.

Clinton’s platform would also mandate that drug makers devote a minimum amount of revenue to research and development, and it would bar those companies from deducting drug advertising spending as a business expense, a move that Clinton says would save the government “billions of dollars over the next decade.”

In addition, Clinton is pushing for Medicare to have the ability to negotiate drug prices directly with manufacturers, a move that’s long been advocated by Democrats. However, such a proposal has struggled to gain traction in Congress. Many Republicans have pushed back on the idea, advocating instead for private plans, which administer Medicare drug benefits, to negotiate for themselves.

Thanks, but...

What about her call for ending the Cadillac Tax? What does that do to the (alleged) deficit reducing aspect of the ACA?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That would be government data and information gathered for the public and released to the public and all groups, not internal, confidential, and yes classified per IC guidelines diplomatic information gathered for internal use ...

You mean the guidelines where any discussion about a foreign government should automatically be deemed classified? Sorry still ridiculous!

...disseminated solely to one non-profit that is used to generate private gain and advancement for the SOS and her husband.

I've got news for you: the State Department isn't to be used as some private subsidiary of the Clintons' non-profits and consulting businesses and neither is the White House.

We can cross these bridges when there is actual evidence support such accusations. There has already been enough ignorant nonsense such as not understanding how to read charity financials.

Yes, that's right. - Why would someone in a foreign government tell us anything in confidence if we consider it essentially not worthy of protection? Do you have any thoughts on what that would do to our intelligence gathering capabilities? - If our agents and diplomats tell someone in a foreign ministry that something will be kept under lock and key and their lives or careers won't be threatened, or that their government's strategies will be protected, don't you think we should keep that promise?

On the 2nd point, you have had it presented it before you. Hillary's right hand gal personally transferred confidential State Department information to Hillary's and Bill's non-profit, not anyone else. That promotes their organization and that promotes them. Did they give that information to anyone else? Did the intelligence community want it released?

Ok, show me the actual classified information that was shuttled to the Clinton Foundation so I can evaluate the careers and/or life threatening nature of these leaks.

Doesn't matter what you or I think. it didn't matter what Hillary thought either.

Do you think it's not even truly worth being classified now? Or are you keeping with the canard that it wasn't classified then but somehow became imbued with classified substance later?

You made the specific claim that lives and careers were placed in jeopardy due to sharing of classified information with the Clinton Foundation. Nothing in your reply provides evidence for such a claim.

The rule that internal foreign government communications is automatically classified is there for that reason. There is no reason for someone to tell us something if they do not think their confidential discussions can be kept confidential. It has to be enforced all the time, not gauged by each and every State or USG employee who comes in contact with it who has no clue what the derivation of it is to make up their own mind how to treat it. Hillary and other State employees shouldn't be punished just when a foreign contact gets hurt or fired or for harming US intelligence gathering, they should be punished for breaking the rule because if it is not enforced that can and likely will happen at some point.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Please. She had no choice to do her job as SOS. If she didn't she would gotten her pink slip post haste. As a member of the cabinet of any administration, one must support and work for the president's policies and objectives or resign. John Kerry may not be in agreement with Obama on everything, but he must support him publically as Hillary did if he wants to remain SOS.

So it's your argument and belief that she opposed the TPP but instead spoke for it 45 times, including those hearty speeches in 2011, is that right?

Keep in mind that Hillary is claiming that she has learned "new information" and that it's that new information, which as SOS she had no clue about, which has led to her opposition now. Hillary doesn't even claim that the things she was saying before were wrong, she's claiming that the TPP has changed in some new super-secret way that causes her to now be opposed.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Washington Free Bracon is reporting that the FBI have seized 4 State Dept servers as part of it's investigation into Hillary's mishandling of classified information. If true that's quite the extension of the investigation. That's in addition to the expansion already underway to the second tech company.

The FBI is taking this investigation seriously and I don't believe is taking too kindly into Hillary brushing it off as some partisan attack over a trivial matter. That spin may work on her hardcore supporters, but it ain't flying elsewhere.

I wish they would just talk to BFS. THERE IS NOTHING HERE!

Does that article even make one specific accusation of wrong doing?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Washington Free Bracon is reporting that the FBI have seized 4 State Dept servers as part of it's investigation into Hillary's mishandling of classified information. If true that's quite the extension of the investigation. That's in addition to the expansion already underway to the second tech company.

The FBI is taking this investigation seriously and I don't believe is taking too kindly into Hillary brushing it off as some partisan attack over a trivial matter. That spin may work on her hardcore supporters, but it ain't flying elsewhere.

I wish they would just talk to BFS. THERE IS NOTHING HERE!

Does that article even make one specific accusation of wrong doing?

They are being checked by technical forensic analysts charged with determining how Top Secret material was sent to Clinton’s private email by State Department aides during her tenure as secretary from 2009 to 2013, said two people familiar with the probe.

That would be wrongdoing.

The FBI isn't updating the servers to Windows 10.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

That would be government data and information gathered for the public and released to the public and all groups, not internal, confidential, and yes classified per IC guidelines diplomatic information gathered for internal use ...

You mean the guidelines where any discussion about a foreign government should automatically be deemed classified? Sorry still ridiculous!

...disseminated solely to one non-profit that is used to generate private gain and advancement for the SOS and her husband.

I've got news for you: the State Department isn't to be used as some private subsidiary of the Clintons' non-profits and consulting businesses and neither is the White House.

We can cross these bridges when there is actual evidence support such accusations. There has already been enough ignorant nonsense such as not understanding how to read charity financials.

Yes, that's right. - Why would someone in a foreign government tell us anything in confidence if we consider it essentially not worthy of protection? Do you have any thoughts on what that would do to our intelligence gathering capabilities? - If our agents and diplomats tell someone in a foreign ministry that something will be kept under lock and key and their lives or careers won't be threatened, or that their government's strategies will be protected, don't you think we should keep that promise?

On the 2nd point, you have had it presented it before you. Hillary's right hand gal personally transferred confidential State Department information to Hillary's and Bill's non-profit, not anyone else. That promotes their organization and that promotes them. Did they give that information to anyone else? Did the intelligence community want it released?

Ok, show me the actual classified information that was shuttled to the Clinton Foundation so I can evaluate the careers and/or life threatening nature of these leaks.

Doesn't matter what you or I think. it didn't matter what Hillary thought either.

Do you think it's not even truly worth being classified now? Or are you keeping with the canard that it wasn't classified then but somehow became imbued with classified substance later?

You made the specific claim that lives and careers were placed in jeopardy due to sharing of classified information with the Clinton Foundation. Nothing in your reply provides evidence for such a claim.

The rule that internal foreign government communications is automatically classified is there for that reason. There is no reason for someone to tell us something if they do not think their confidential discussions can be kept confidential. It has to be enforced all the time, not gauged by each and every State or USG employee who comes in contact with it who has no clue what the derivation of it is to make up their own mind how to treat it. Hillary and other State employees shouldn't be punished just when a foreign contact gets hurt or fired or for harming US intelligence gathering, they should be punished for breaking the rule because if it is not enforced that can and likely will happen at some point.

Maybe you should start with providing evidence that such information was shared.

 

[squistion]

Please. She had no choice to do her job as SOS. If she didn't she would gotten her pink slip post haste. As a member of the cabinet of any administration, one must support and work for the president's policies and objectives or resign. John Kerry may not be in agreement with Obama on everything, but he must support him publically as Hillary did if he wants to remain SOS.

So it's your argument and belief that she opposed the TPP but instead spoke for it 45 times, including those hearty speeches in 2011, is that right?

Keep in mind that Hillary is claiming that she has learned "new information" and that it's that new information, which as SOS she had no clue about, which has led to her opposition now. Hillary doesn't even claim that the things she was saying before were wrong, she's claiming that the TPP has changed in some new super-secret way that causes her to now be opposed.

She couldn't speak against it one time as SOS if she wanted to remain SOS. I don't know if she personally opposed it then as I don't claim to be psychic like you do. And for some reason you don't think a politician is ever allowed to change their position on a subject (Obama and Hillary both changed their positions on gay marriage, as have most Americans).