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.
This current hot issue, with respect to Hillary's email ordeal, will be older than dirt when the next election season is upon us.
Consequently... HRC will be our next President.
Pretty much agreed. The simple fact is that the average American voter has the attention span of a gnat. Ignoring the ones that will vote for their party no matter what, many of the rest will barely remember anything that happened more than a month before the election. Anything older than that has to be something really big that can be easily waved in front of their faces in all the attack ads. It's like Romney's 47% comment; it's a short sound bite that could be endlessly played over and over, with no lengthy story required to remind people what it means or to provide context. That's why attack ads work, because the "stupidity of the American voter" is such that they will believe it without bothering to research the context/truth because, you know, that's work.
"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
whembly wrote: I mean, the Clinton's are arguably the most corrupt, craven politicians we've ever seen...and traditionally, the media/low-information voters don't give a feth.
O.o
You should add a "wake up, sheeple!" to the end of that.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I swear Ouze and Whembley are like Dakkas US political Yin and Yang. Their arguments/discussions have to be some of my fave reads. I still can't decide which one i agree with more and this fence pailing is making my behind sore .
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/07 04:39:01
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
Foster's suicide was not that odd. Lots of people end up committing themselves to careers and associations, subsequently become disillusioned by them, and then succumb to depression; with suicide being the obvious extreme. Depression is actually very common for people who have never seen the sausage being made, be they low level staffers or Deputy White House Counsel.
The stuff against Clinton (or Obama really) has been overhyped faux scandal. They are looking for something and this is the best they come up with? Nothing is even close to W's lying to start a war plus going AWOL from the National Guard...
skyth wrote: The stuff against Clinton (or Obama really) has been overhyped faux scandal. They are looking for something and this is the best they come up with? Nothing is even close to W's lying to start a war plus going AWOL from the National Guard...
Aside from the Bush was AWOL not being accurate/true, there is also the minor fact that 'lying' to go to war isn't what really happened either.
But pretend you are correct. Bush Lied People Died. Got it. Congress had the same info he did and approved the war.
Now Obama on the other hand has bombed more countries and as good ol' Muammar Gaddafi would attest (if he were alive) has done so at times without congressional approval.
As for the current scandal being overhyped or a faux scandal, well we will see. It sure as hell isn't faux, she did do exactly what she is being accused of doing. What we don't know is the magnitude of any damage. She seems to have had sent out a cable directing DoS personnel to NOT use personal email for gov't business in 2011 (link somewhere above). She was clearly violating DoS policy by doing so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/07 14:36:59
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
whembly wrote: I mean, the Clinton's are arguably the most corrupt, craven politicians we've ever seen...and traditionally, the media/low-information voters don't give a feth.
O.o
You should add a "wake up, sheeple!" to the end of that.
If the sheeps didn't wake up then... they sure as hell ain't going to wake up now.
:shrug:
To be honest though... I really wonder if the Democratic "establishment" truly want Clinton to be their candidate. I figured this would be blown over by now.
Faux as in manufactured rather than actually being important...
And congress did not have the same info prior to Iraq. None of Obama's strikes (and an airstrike is different from an invasion) was under false pretenses. You are commiting a false equivalency...which is another indication of a faux scandal.
TravelGate: Whereas clintons were accused of "siccing" the FBI on folks.
Ken fething Starr exonerated Bill Clinton of anything. This was always a total nonsense.
Whitewater. Which was a real estate scam designed to cause investors to fail to meet difficult standards, thus default on any payments made on land.
The Clintons were in a land deal that went bad, and was headed up by a dodgy SOB. While there's a vague point to be made about the Clintons needing to choose their associates more closely, everything else is nonsense. The Clintons lost money in that land deal. It is only in the weirdest parts of the Republican myth machine that the Clintons as the centre of a Whitewater conspiracy to lose themselves a lot of money.
A man who was a central part of the Clinton machine killed himself. Everything that tried to make this the centrepiece of a Clinton conspiracy was, simply put, the worst, ugliest kind of political muckraking you'll ever see. Foster's own suicide talked about the shameless lies and muckraking of the rightwing press... and here seeing that death decided to make up even more crass lies. It was, and is, the absolute worst kind of gutter journalism, and you're still repeating it decades later.
Fundraising Shenanigans via the Lincoln Room in the White House.
Many hundreds of people stayed in the Whitehouse. Most of them were friends or political allies of the Clintons. It'd be weird if they weren't. Some of those friends gave to the Clintons, or raised funds for them. This cetainly pushes the boundaries of ethical use of government resources, but 'pushing the boundary of ethical use of government resources' is pretty much how I'd define US politics.
To single the Clintons out for a completely non-criminal, run of the mill action like that is pure muckraking.
Pay for Play Pardons. Four of the WhiteWater "crooks" got pardoned and convicted terrorist as well.
This one I'll grant you. I've got little doubt that Marc Rich was collecting for fundraising filtered through to the Clintons, and the story about the Hillary's brother taking money to lobby for a pardon had legs. and was being legitimately investigated years later.
Anyway, once again, dodgy pardons aren't actually anything unique in US politics. Pick me a president out of the last half dozen, I'll find you a dodgy pardon. The whole idea of presidential pardons seems destined to corruption, and that's exactly happens.
The Gorlick "wall": It was discovered that President Clinton accepted money from Chinese officials to influence American policy towards China. Determined to avoid accountability for what they'd done, the Clinton administration tried to hamper any investigations. It was decided that to ensure these agencies couldn't share info between each other that might connect the dots and lead to the Clintons. Thus, this policy was known as the "Gorlick Wall" between the agencies. However, this decision made it harder for these agencies to share information with their investigations had other consequences. Namely, the lead up to 9/11./quote]
First up, Republicans on the 9/11 commission said nothing in Gorelick's memo impacted investigations into the terrorists before 9/11 occurred. So that's nonsense straight off the bat.
The second part, trying to make that memo somehow linked to investigations in to the investigation in to the Clinton's taking Chinese money is straight up gibberish. There is no connection.
It's really weird to claim that people are unaware that Clinton is a sexpot. There have been major Hollywood movies made on the subject.
We've already discussed the paedo thing in this very forum. The actual list of facts are - Clinton rode with a man on his private plane, and on that plane was a woman who was almost certainly being paid to have sex with that man. That's it. It tells us Clinton is a bit of a sex sleaze. The whole world knows that.
Lewinski tried to blackmail Clinton. Vernon Jorden, a "fixer", tried to get her a cushy job at Revlon, which didn't happen because Tripp released the tapes later.
Your claim of blackmail it total fiction. Jordan was tasked with helping Lewinksy get a job after leaving the Whitehouse... which is exactly how anyone would expect things to work. What did you think would happen to a girl after she feths the president? A slap on the ass and a demand to never mention this to anyone or else? No, it was standard smooth politics, you give more help to the lady, so she never has reason to think about doing anything stupid.
The claims that there was direct blackmail were simply made up, with nothing to even hint it might be true, let alone anything approaching evidence. Like most of this list, the only reason it exists as an accusation is some of the standard old liars wanted to think it was true, so they simply claimed it.
And many, many more...
And it's all just mud being thrown at a wall, in the hope that some of it sticks. And outside of a couple of cases, it's all just made up bs. I mean, for all the damning evidence above, what have you actually got - Clinton used the pardon for political gain (and probably a family relation used it for financial gain), and a Whitehouse aide used his position to help out a girl Clinton slept with. That list ends up sounding about 1/100 as dodgy as the average town mayor, let along a POTUS.
Now, we all know Clinton was a smooth operator, and I mean 'smooth' in the sense that it's a pejorative - slick, a manipulator, a guy who trades in favours and skirts proper ethics, but when you look at all the bluster and nonsense you posted above, and how little substance there was, I almost forget how smooth Clinton really was. That's the problem with vastly overstating your position. It was, of course, the problem with both Benghazi and the IRS scandal - they were so overblown the actual substance of wrong doing was lost completely.
The thing with Hillary and the email actually has legs, by the way.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
To be honest though... I really wonder if the Democratic "establishment" truly want Clinton to be their candidate. I figured this would be blown over by now.
It has blown over, and the associated scandals have been overblown to boot. It's only the die-hard conservative noise machine, something you seem deeply plugged into, which keeps the dream alive.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
To be honest though... I really wonder if the Democratic "establishment" truly want Clinton to be their candidate. I figured this would be blown over by now.
It has blown over, and the associated scandals have been overblown to boot. It's only the die-hard conservative noise machine, something you seem deeply plugged into, which keeps the dream alive.
And you seem to be plugged into the DNC and the media (but, I repeat myself) spin machine
This is catnip for political junkies... and you can't resist.
And you seem to be plugged into the DNC and the media (but, I repeat myself) spin machine
In the age of the internet you cannot conflate any political party with "the media". That's a lazy conservative hook used to grab people that want to feel their ignorance is justified.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/07 19:24:03
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
In the age of the internet you cannot conflate any political party with "the media". That's a lazy conservative hook used to grab people that want to feel their ignorance is justified.
What if you're like me, and aren't really conservative or liberal?? Typically, when I use "The Media" I am actually lumping MSNBC, Fox and CNN and their ilk together, because I am tending to talk about how each one is spinning/warping the "news" to fit their viewer ideology/office ideology.
What if you're like me, and aren't really conservative or liberal?? Typically, when I use "The Media" I am actually lumping MSNBC, Fox and CNN and their ilk together, because I am tending to talk about how each one is spinning/warping the "news" to fit their viewer ideology/office ideology.
That's the problem with amorphous terminology, it always depends on the context provided by the person using the term. Whembly was obviously conflating "DNC" with "the media", which has been a hilariously bad part of the conservative (especially the extreme conservative) playbook for years now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/07 20:07:39
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Bullockist wrote: I swear Ouze and Whembley are like Dakkas US political Yin and Yang. Their arguments/discussions have to be some of my fave reads. I still can't decide which one i agree with more and this fence pailing is making my behind sore .
We just like debating each other. I assure you that if we live in the same town, we'd be good acquaintances, or even buds.*
* I have a standing offer to any dakkanaughts for beer if you're anywhere near St. Louis.
And you seem to be plugged into the DNC and the media (but, I repeat myself) spin machine
In the age of the internet you cannot conflate any political party with "the media". That's a lazy conservative hook used to grab people that want to feel their ignorance is justified.
Riiiiiight.
*looks at how ABC, NBC, CNN, (not Fox) treats Obama vs any Republican.
Speaking of which... don't you know there's a *new* Democrat Speaker of the House? His name is John Boehner.
sebster wrote: Okay, we have to deal with this once and for all.
Hah! Hah!
sebster wrote: The thing with Hillary and the email actually has legs, by the way.
To reiterate my earlier point, nearly everyone plays hide the emails. I mention this not for #whataboutism but because I think it's going to make any potential opponents leery of picking up that particular cudgel. Ultimately it's a really screwed up system: these departments are obligated to preserve records, but they pick the system and they are the arbiter of what a record is. I don't know how to make it better though; you can't pragmatically declare that people can't have private email accounts.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
whembly wrote: Make it the penalty severe... felony level, if found using non-government resources for official business.
Who makes the determination that the business is "official business" or not? Currently that determination is made by the agency themselves.
No... I'm not explaining myself.
Require HIGH LEVEL posts to ONLY use government sanctioned accounts... even for personal things.
SoS send updates to POTUS? Use .gov account.
VP send schedule to Press Sec. Use .gov account.
HHS sends hubby message about picking up kidz. Use .gov account.
Head of VA sends sets up a date with girlfriend... Use .gov account.
Document retention policy is still defined by department policy... but, at least there's accountabiliy and possibility of valid oversight (or FOIA requests) for government officials.
If these department heads are found to use gmail for anything else? Make it a felony level charge.
Require HIGH LEVEL posts to ONLY use government sanctioned accounts... even for personal things.
SoS send updates to POTUS? Use .gov account.
VP send schedule to Press Sec. Use .gov account.
HHS sends hubby message about picking up kidz. Use .gov account.
Head of VA sends sets up a date with girlfriend... Use .gov account.
Document retention policy is still defined by department policy... but, at least there's accountabiliy and possibility of valid oversight (or FOIA requests) for government officials.
If these department heads are found to use gmail for anything else? Make it a felony level charge.
This is idiotic though, because someone's personal life has nothing to do with their job, and thus has no place in an official system of records, which is subject to FOIA. Person wants to sign up to pay their credit card bill? That email is now public record, along with the credit card number. Their doctor emails them some test results, well, so much for HIPPA.
Seriously. Someone's personal crap shouldn't be subject to FOIA, and doesn't belong clogging up government email systems which already struggle for the most part.
*looks at how ABC, NBC, CNN, (not Fox) treats Obama vs any Republican.
ABC and NBC are generally non-critical. CNN used to be noncritical, but isn't anymore. FOX and MSNBC are mirror images. But none of those networks constitute "the media" in the internet age.
Honestly, it just seems like you'll treat anyone who isn't on your side as being against you. Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich tried that, and it ended poorly.
Speaking of which... don't you know there's a *new* Democrat Speaker of the House? His name is John Boehner.
He is a Republican, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
Are you opposed to bipartisanship?
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Require HIGH LEVEL posts to ONLY use government sanctioned accounts... even for personal things.
SoS send updates to POTUS? Use .gov account.
VP send schedule to Press Sec. Use .gov account.
HHS sends hubby message about picking up kidz. Use .gov account.
Head of VA sends sets up a date with girlfriend... Use .gov account.
Document retention policy is still defined by department policy... but, at least there's accountabiliy and possibility of valid oversight (or FOIA requests) for government officials.
If these department heads are found to use gmail for anything else? Make it a felony level charge.
This is idiotic though, because someone's personal life has nothing to do with their job, and thus has no place in an official system of records, which is subject to FOIA. Person wants to sign up to pay their credit card bill? That email is now public record, along with the credit card number. Their doctor emails them some test results, well, so much for HIPPA.
Seriously. Someone's personal crap shouldn't be subject to FOIA, and doesn't belong clogging up government email systems which already struggle for the most part.
"Idiotic" is a bit much man...
And no, you wouldn't FOIA to pull the credit card number,
As, request like these get scrubbed prior to public records...
whembly wrote: Seb... I'm sorry, but I'm laughing hysterically here...
Regardless what *I* think of the Clintons and what *you* think of them... they've got enormous baggage.
Except they don't have enormous baggage. You listed a collection of hackjobs, interspersed with a couple of bits of poor behaviour that are entirely run of the mill for US politics. Effectively, all you did was establish that the Republican noise machine has been throwing mud for more than two decades, without ever actually getting anything to stick. The only people that care about any of the stories you posted are people who decided long ago that they really hate the Clintons, and that is not a group that any Democrat is going to rely on wooing to secure the presidency.
But, this... THIS has legs?
o.O
Why? Is it hitting the Aussie news?
No, this kind of stuff doesn't hit the Aussie news. Even if it did, that wouldn't be what gave the story legs. I mean, if US policy was determined by what US issues get covered in the Australian news, you'd have gun control reform and reduced steel tariffs, if you get what I'm saying.
No, I think this has legs for nothing to do with my country of origin, but because it can't be factually dismissed, and can be tied to how Clinton actually performed in her work in the Federal Government. The rest of your list is either total fiction, or a minor issue that went stale more than a decade ago.
Now, don't take this as me thinking this is terminal for Clinton or anything like that. I simply mean that the story has meaning, and can possibly be used once during the campaign to change any favourable momentum Clinton has. It's a weapon that the Republican candidate will have in their armoury. They'll want to have a lot more, of course, but it is still a weapon, whereas all the old stories you listed can aren't useful or valuable in any way.
To reiterate my earlier point, nearly everyone plays hide the emails. I mention this not for #whataboutism but because I think it's going to make any potential opponents leery of picking up that particular cudgel.
The difference is that Clinton's behaviour was part of her role in a Federal position. That gives Republicans a lot of scope to drag this up again during election season. The trick to remember is that it won't be their opposing candidate who raises this issue. It will be raised through a 'new discovery' from some an investigator tasked at looking in to the matter, or through some random footsoldier talking about setting up an an investigative committee into the issue. Democrats might point out the Republican presidential candidate did similar in their state, but that's just part of the he said, she said stuff which doesn't really register outside of us political junkies - the story is on the investigation in to Hillary and that's a negative for her alone.
Democrats can't run similar efforts against former governors, in part because they often have little political clout in those states, but mostly because state level investigations just don't register at a Federal level, unless there's actually something meaningful in there.
I mean, I'm not saying I know exactly how this will play it, just that I think the above is a fairly likely outcome. And when the IRS scandal first broke I thought it was a real thing, so I have far from a perfect track record
Ultimately it's a really screwed up system: these departments are obligated to preserve records, but they pick the system and they are the arbiter of what a record is.
I don't know how to make it better though; you can't pragmatically declare that people can't have private email accounts.
It is difficult. I think ultimately the key is to make it clear that any communication sent in an official capacity is sent through official email addresses, anything sent through non-official email has no standing. So Clinton can't send an email through hrclinton.obamasucks@hotmail to inform the ambassador for Mauritania that they face sanctions unless they properly explain exactly what continent they're on because it is getting everyone confused, but she can use it to ask that same ambassador if they want to get a team in for the dodgeball tournament at the local Y.
The trick, of course, is that many non-official communications carry the weight of the office behind them, and so there's lots of subjectivity, and officers will exploit that. But then, there's no effective control about who officers talk to at state dinners, or what they talk about, and so controlling the email doesn't really improve that.
So the only control you can have, I think, is to make sure anything with any official weight behind it is recorded.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/03/09 01:33:21
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
And no, you wouldn't FOIA to pull the credit card number,
As, request like these get scrubbed prior to public records...
Sorry, I thought about using "silly" and probably should have gone with that, but the idea of personal information being subject to FOIA, and forcing someone to give up privacy just because they are a federal employee, strikes a little close.
FOIA scrubs are a thing, but they basically only scrub certain kinds of information (generally, Personally Identifiable Information [PII] or secured information). You would still be easily able to go through someone's personal email and pull personal details, were they required to run their personal email through a government system. Not to mention the grotesque risk that puts the system under, because let's face it, we all have that relative who forwards every email with a phishing link in it.
Government email should be used for government functions; that's it.
And no, you wouldn't FOIA to pull the credit card number,
As, request like these get scrubbed prior to public records...
Sorry, I thought about using "silly" and probably should have gone with that, but the idea of personal information being subject to FOIA, and forcing someone to give up privacy just because they are a federal employee, strikes a little close.
FOIA scrubs are a thing, but they basically only scrub certain kinds of information (generally, Personally Identifiable Information [PII] or secured information). You would still be easily able to go through someone's personal email and pull personal details, were they required to run their personal email through a government system. Not to mention the grotesque risk that puts the system under, because let's face it, we all have that relative who forwards every email with a phishing link in it.
Government email should be used for government functions; that's it.
No worries... I knew what you were saying.
I'm not exactly advocating this full bore just yet. I was trying to come up with a "better" solution.... it's still stewing in my head.
Notice I said that this would only be for department heads and elected positions. People in this position are granted position of power, and thus we must take steps that these power are adjudicated appropriately. And the only way to ensure that, imo, is that these paper trails *are* subject to public scrutiny in some fashion.
Such policy would have no impact on anyone else under the department heads... as, yes, it would be impractical.
We do this *today* for the President.... just expand it for the department heads. (with additional privacy protections as well).
skyth wrote: The stuff against Clinton (or Obama really) has been overhyped faux scandal. They are looking for something and this is the best they come up with? Nothing is even close to W's lying to start a war plus going AWOL from the National Guard...
That argument probably was more compelling three election cycles ago.
The real issue with Clinton is that, for those who lived in those times, this is normal procedure. Always something shady. What I'm more concerned about is that she supported the Libya campaign (Libya sure turned out well), arming Syrian rebels (hello ISIL), and oh yes, Iraq too...
Come on Democrats you can do better than this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/09 17:21:06
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I still can't decide which one i agree with more and this fence pailing is making my behind sore .
