Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/02/28 18:10:40
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Jerram wrote: Whembly may not have it perfectly right on classification discussions but he is a heck of a lot closer than anyone arguing against him and is the only one posting from people who do know what they're talking about. Does the IC sometimes make some interesting classification decisions, yep which is why there's a difference between an oops and willful criminal negligence. Anyone who knows what they're talking about and reads whats been publicly released and more importantly the rationale behind what hasn't been released know exactly how far over the line HRC and her team went. Go back and read Whembly's link (and understand it) or continue to spout falsehoods your choice.
The issue that many people are bringing up with this issue, is WHO is on the block. It's Hillary by herself. If there were to be found wrong-doing, then ALL parties involved should face trail/punishment as the law allows per their activity. I was in the army for a decade. I was MI. I worked intimately with multiple levels of classified materials. And here's the thing, If I breached classified, there's a potential for others to go down with me depending on a number of things. With that in mind, why is it in her situation, she is the only one that anyone is going after? Surely with as many classified emails as were sent/received and stored on HRC's systems, you'd think hundreds of people should be at least fired, if not convicted and imprisoned.
Yes, HRC should go down for wrong-doing where it has happened, but then so should everyone else involved. That this entire situation has turned into a Republican witch-hunt and anti-hillary move should speak volumes. (How many Republicans sent her classified stuff, and would probably be seeing the inside of a Federal prison??)
2016/02/28 18:16:47
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Breotan wrote: The Democrats have Hillary locking the nomination even before the election season started with no other contenders having any real chance. On the other hand, the Republicans have had their nomination process turned into a three ring circus by a millionaire with hair so bad everyone thinks its a hairpiece.
It makes for an interesting case study. Which is better, to have a group of insider "Super" delegates control which candidates get nominated? Or allow pure democracy decide who your party's candidate is?
Either way, it seems we're in the middle of a perfect storm of terribad choices, either Hillary or Trump, for President. What a great time to be alive, eh?
The Republican method isn't totally pure democracy, as only registered RP members are allowed to vote, or so I understand.
If you are going to have a party, it makes sense to me for the party to choose the candidate, present him or her to the general electorate and let democracy take its toll at that time. (Though of course the Electoral College system isn't pure democracy either.)
Let other people run as independents if they want to.
I think Hillary would be a perfectly good and competent president, with significant experience as First Lady, in the senate, and as secretary of state (?) on top of her previous education and achievements. Being the first lady president would also give her a lot of cachet internationally, and her husband being an ex-president, you can save a lot of money on Secret Service assignments in the future.
The only thing wrong with her is she's a Democrat. But look at the Republican candidates, ignoring that they are Republicans, they apparently are regarded as pretty crappy by their own party. Trump in particular looks capable of being a national embarrassment and a disgrace to his party if elected president.
That is incorrect, the marking themselves DO.NOT.MAKE.IT.CLASSIFIED. It's the content. It's the source. It's the method.
If I get an email from Dan, that is not specifically classified, then the source is Dan, the content is whatever Dan communicated via email, and the method is email.
Still incorrect. As an example:
Those satellite photos HRC had came from NGA. They were and still are TOP SECRET.
As has been pointed out, multiple times, how can most people be expected to recognize that fact upon viewing such a thing? What would visually set these satellite photos apart from any other satellite photos (like Google Maps, for example), to tell someone they're supposed to be classified? That is why the classification markings are so fething vitally important, so that every person who handles it knows what the feth their handling, because not every fething person knows every fething source or every fething thing to be classified.
But you know what? I give up. You're too biased on this topic. You just want Hillary to burn, and you don't give a damn if nothing happens to anyone else over this issue. Hell, am I still the only one who remembers that the personally identifiable information of every federal employee was stolen, or does anybody else even give a flying feth over that?
Tanner... they're trained to handle classified information and trained on how to recognize what is/isn't classified. It's. Their. Jobby. Job.
You. Still. Don't. Get. It.
One Last Time:
It's their job to recognize the classified info that falls within their job's area of expertise. Outside of that area of expertise, one cannot be held accountable for not being able to recognize something. You don't expect a doctor to fix a car engine, so don't expect a diplomat to know whether or not random military printout X is supposed to be classified. Now, a diplomat should know that a diplomatic communication should or should not be classified. That's the whole point of the argument, and why the markings are so vitally important. But, again, you only care about burning Hillary, and don't give two feths about anyone else.
Please take the time to read how classifications are done here.
Jerram wrote: Whembly may not have it perfectly right on classification discussions but he is a heck of a lot closer than anyone arguing against him and is the only one posting from people who do know what they're talking about. Does the IC sometimes make some interesting classification decisions, yep which is why there's a difference between an oops and willful criminal negligence. Anyone who knows what they're talking about and reads whats been publicly released and more importantly the rationale behind what hasn't been released know exactly how far over the line HRC and her team went. Go back and read Whembly's link (and understand it) or continue to spout falsehoods your choice.
The issue that many people are bringing up with this issue, is WHO is on the block. It's Hillary by herself. If there were to be found wrong-doing, then ALL parties involved should face trail/punishment as the law allows per their activity. I was in the army for a decade. I was MI. I worked intimately with multiple levels of classified materials. And here's the thing, If I breached classified, there's a potential for others to go down with me depending on a number of things. With that in mind, why is it in her situation, she is the only one that anyone is going after? Surely with as many classified emails as were sent/received and stored on HRC's systems, you'd think hundreds of people should be at least fired, if not convicted and imprisoned.
Yes, HRC should go down for wrong-doing where it has happened, but then so should everyone else involved. That this entire situation has turned into a Republican witch-hunt and anti-hillary move should speak volumes. (How many Republicans sent her classified stuff, and would probably be seeing the inside of a Federal prison??
)
Exalted for truth. I don't know how many times I've said it, but Hillary's role in this is really the least part of it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/28 18:22:45
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2016/02/28 18:25:59
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Jerram wrote: Whembly may not have it perfectly right on classification discussions but he is a heck of a lot closer than anyone arguing against him and is the only one posting from people who do know what they're talking about. Does the IC sometimes make some interesting classification decisions, yep which is why there's a difference between an oops and willful criminal negligence. Anyone who knows what they're talking about and reads whats been publicly released and more importantly the rationale behind what hasn't been released know exactly how far over the line HRC and her team went. Go back and read Whembly's link (and understand it) or continue to spout falsehoods your choice.
The issue that many people are bringing up with this issue, is WHO is on the block. It's Hillary by herself. If there were to be found wrong-doing, then ALL parties involved should face trail/punishment as the law allows per their activity. I was in the army for a decade. I was MI. I worked intimately with multiple levels of classified materials. And here's the thing, If I breached classified, there's a potential for others to go down with me depending on a number of things. With that in mind, why is it in her situation, she is the only one that anyone is going after? Surely with as many classified emails as were sent/received and stored on HRC's systems, you'd think hundreds of people should be at least fired, if not convicted and imprisoned.
Yes, HRC should go down for wrong-doing where it has happened, but then so should everyone else involved. That this entire situation has turned into a Republican witch-hunt and anti-hillary move should speak volumes. (How many Republicans sent her classified stuff, and would probably be seeing the inside of a Federal prison??)
Ensis... it should start with her, but yes, everyone else should be held to account.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/28 18:47:51
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Why is there a need to "start with HIllary"? Hardly any sort of investigation starts at the top, and hardly any prosecution. You don't find a lot of investigations with the goal of "bring down the Kingpin, and the rest will follow".
You start with the low hanging fruit and work your way up. Start investigating staffers, members of the intelligence community, secret service members who knew about this, IT workers, etc. There are at least hundreds, if not thousands, of people that violated the rules. And we have the emails to show who send them, so it's super easy to track them down. You pick up the email send by John Smith, you investigate John Smith, you charge John Smith, and then you put the pressure on him to make him squeal and tell you why he broke the rules and get your "My boss said if I don't send them Hillary will eat my baby" confession. You rinse and repeat with the other hundreds of people whose name you have on hand. Then you have a case and go after the kingpin.
If you don't, you end up with the worst episode of Batman ever:
[scene: a dead body in the living room, a smoking gun on the floor]
Batman: This has "Penguin" written all over it.
Robin: Look, there is a gun.
Batman: Yes, the penguin is responsible for this gun and must go down, I know it.
Robin: It's still smoking, so we know it was used.
Batman: Damn you penguin.
Robin: Oh look, it's a custom gun with the name of the owner engraved "John Smith"
Batman: Stop messing with the gun Robin, we have to get the penguin.
Robin: Why don't we start with John Smith?
Batman: Boy Wonder, it's a wonder I put up with you. We have to get the Penguin!!!
Commissioner Gordon: Hey Batman, we know where John Smith works and we can pick him up and ask him why his gun was here.
Batman: I'm surrounded by idiots! We have to get the Penguin!!!
2016/02/28 18:57:19
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
At this point I really don't think it is anymore hyperbole to call Trump a 'fascist'.
Jesus wept.
He's a fething disaster.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Why is there a need to "start with HIllary"? Hardly any sort of investigation starts at the top, and hardly any prosecution. You don't find a lot of investigations with the goal of "bring down the Kingpin, and the rest will follow".
Because Clinton has an extremely good chance at being the next President.
Feth that. *Start* with her.
Again, her email *is* the smoking gun.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/28 18:59:26
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/28 19:25:58
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Yes, HRC should go down for wrong-doing where it has happened, but then so should everyone else involved.
Let's start from a point of 100% agreement (the above) and work from there. So far what's been released is a small number of recurring individuals on the emails, any of them regardless of party who was involved in the most egregious violations should be hammered as well. Hillary gets talked about in this regard for a few reasons none of them as nefarious as you claim. Everyone knows who she is, how many of you can name her top deputies during her SoS tenure without looking it up. In addition the buck stops at the top. Any organization takes its cue from its leadership, how many of those other's in the to block worked for her, of the released emails I've seen most of them. Don't confuse what gets talked about here with the actual investigation going on, there's been multiple reports that the investigation has a broader scope than just Clinton.
D-USA to use your analogy, Robin is ignoring the evidence that shows Penguin paid for the hit. as well as multiple other's
2016/02/28 19:42:49
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
To paraphrase the avowed democratic socialist who would be president if you got you wish and HRC were indicted, I am sick and tired of hearing about her damned emails!
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2016/02/28 20:01:49
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Gordon Shumway wrote: To paraphrase the avowed democratic socialist who would be president if you got you wish and HRC were indicted, I am sick and tired of hearing about her damned emails!
Ha!
For those who's feeling "THE BERN"... wouldn't you be cheering for the FBI/DoJ to hammer HRC and her staff?
Yes, HRC should go down for wrong-doing where it has happened, but then so should everyone else involved.
Let's start from a point of 100% agreement (the above) and work from there. So far what's been released is a small number of recurring individuals on the emails, any of them regardless of party who was involved in the most egregious violations should be hammered as well. Hillary gets talked about in this regard for a few reasons none of them as nefarious as you claim. Everyone knows who she is, how many of you can name her top deputies during her SoS tenure without looking it up. In addition the buck stops at the top. Any organization takes its cue from its leadership, how many of those other's in the to block worked for her, of the released emails I've seen most of them. Don't confuse what gets talked about here with the actual investigation going on, there's been multiple reports that the investigation has a broader scope than just Clinton.
D-USA to use your analogy, Robin is ignoring the evidence that shows Penguin paid for the hit. as well as multiple other's
Yup... the FBI did indeed state that they've expanded their investigation of Clinton's Foundation shenanigans.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/28 20:04:54
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/28 20:26:04
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I'm no expert, but what if people working for Hillary who are republicans send her those emails on purpose without the markings so that they can use them against her during this election? I'm just asking questions.
2016/02/28 20:38:52
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: I'm no expert, but what if people working for Hillary who are republicans send her those emails on purpose without the markings so that they can use them against her during this election? I'm just asking questions.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think Hillary would be a perfectly good and competent president, with significant experience as First Lady, in the senate, and as secretary of state (?) on top of her previous education and achievements. Being the first lady president would also give her a lot of cachet internationally, and her husband being an ex-president, you can save a lot of money on Secret Service assignments in the future.
What previous achievements does she have that you believe set her ahead of the pack?
2016/02/28 21:01:39
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
For those who's feeling "THE BERN"... wouldn't you be cheering for the FBI/DoJ to hammer HRC and her staff?"
Maybe they realize this isn't anything more than a political witch hunt and actually believe they can win on policy positions instead? Crazy, I know.
It is quite possible to be for candidate A while at the same time recognizing a political witch hunt against candidate B who is running against candidate A.
2016/02/28 21:10:53
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
For those who's feeling "THE BERN"... wouldn't you be cheering for the FBI/DoJ to hammer HRC and her staff?"
Maybe they realize this isn't anything more than a political witch hunt and actually believe they can win on policy positions instead? Crazy, I know.
It is quite possible to be for candidate A while at the same time recognizing a political witch hunt against candidate B who is running against candidate A.
That was sort of my point. My quoting of Whembly got goofed up and my "crazy, I know" comment was meant to be ironic because it probably does seem crazy to a republican supporter to want to focus on issues right now.
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2016/02/28 22:03:51
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
That was sort of my point. My quoting of Whembly got goofed up and my "crazy, I know" comment was meant to be ironic because it probably does seem crazy to a republican supporter to want to focus on issues right now.
Gotcha.
2016/02/28 22:32:04
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Could this be an election with both parties fighting their own civil wars? I'll be honest, if this lead to the break up of both larger parties into smaller, more representative ones I would be quite happy with that.
2016/02/28 22:47:46
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Not really. If I remember correctly, Gabbard was mentioned much earlier in this thread (like maybe two months ago?) in the debate among the DNC over how many debates they should have. It got the sense reading news articles at that time Gabbard was already something of an outsider among the vice-chairs. Her stepping down probably has as much to do with her not getting along with them as anything to do with Sanders.
I don't think that amounts to a civil war in itself. Not in the same way we could term the GOP primary as such anyway. Such squabbles would seem pretty regular in internal party politics to me. If anything the current DNC would seem fairly well organized behind a single goal; get Clinton the nomination. Sure there are people who don't like her within the party, and would prefer Sanders. I think that would be a given in any primary election. But this is nothing like what we see right now in the GOP primary, or the 60's following the CRA shake up, or the New Deal shake up under FDR.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/28 22:50:11
Plus, if Sanders were to somehow win the majority of delegates, I really don't the party would mind that much, especially considering their likely opposition. It certainly wouldn't be like McConnel telling his Senators they will "drop him like a hot rock" like he just did of Trump.
LordofHats wrote: Not really. If I remember correctly, Gabbard was mentioned much earlier in this thread (like maybe two months ago?) in the debate among the DNC over how many debates they should have. It got the sense reading news articles at that time Gabbard was already something of an outsider among the vice-chairs. Her stepping down probably has as much to do with her not getting along with them as anything to do with Sanders.
I don't think that amounts to a civil war in itself. Not in the same way we could term the GOP primary as such anyway. Such squabbles would seem pretty regular in internal party politics to me. If anything the current DNC would seem fairly well organized behind a single goal; get Clinton the nomination. Sure there are people who don't like her within the party, and would prefer Sanders. I think that would be a given in any primary election. But this is nothing like what we see right now in the GOP primary, or the 60's following the CRA shake up, or the New Deal shake up under FDR.
Good points, I cannot say that I was familiar with Gabbard before so perhaps it was more wishful thinking on my part that politics would not be dominated so much by two parties.
2016/02/28 23:08:12
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Vice DNC chair resigns in order to support Sanders.
(a couple posts late...but hey...nobody is perfect )
Speaks volumes to me that someone feels that they have to give up their position in order to support a candidate *within* the very party they work for.
d-usa wrote: I'm no expert, but what if people working for Hillary who are republicans send her those emails on purpose without the markings so that they can use them against her during this election? I'm just asking questions.
What if they didn't because they realized that they would wind up being prosecuted themselves for doing that?
Wow, that's a lot of pronouns.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/28 23:22:35
2016/02/28 23:21:05
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
TheMeanDM wrote: Vice DNC chair resigns in order to support Sanders.
(a couple posts late...but hey...nobody is perfect )
Speaks volumes to me that someone feels that they have to give up their position in order to support a candidate *within* the very party they work for.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think Hillary would be a perfectly good and competent president, with significant experience as First Lady, in the senate, and as secretary of state (?) on top of her previous education and achievements. Being the first lady president would also give her a lot of cachet internationally, and her husband being an ex-president, you can save a lot of money on Secret Service assignments in the future.
What previous achievements does she have that you believe set her ahead of the pack?
Unfortunately, jasper, I think that this is indeed how it is supposed to be: neutrality.
Unfortunately, she is the only one (so far) that has the...testicular fortitude...to actually admit support for their candidate and do the right thing.
Devbie Wasserman in 2008 had supported Clinton and not Obama.
99.9% certain that support hasn't changed in the least...she just isn't about to publicize it lest she be forced to do the right thing and resign her powerful and influential position (which just so happens to be able to aid Clinton).
)
