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.
2015/10/22 21:46:55
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The point people are getting at is moot anyway. Clinton asserts that the ambassador made all security requests through the appropriate security channels, and do not attempt to contact her on security issues.
Unless the GOP can find something that contradicts that underlying assertion, then thats that.
2015/10/22 21:52:06
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Because if enough folks believe that Clinton is guilty of malfeasances during her tenure... then, why would anyone vote for her for President?
Because engaging in blatant witch hunts makes the GOP look bad.
More to the point, Benghazi hasn't been about malfeasance for a very long time. It has been clearly demonstrated time and again that neither the State Department in general, nor Clinton personally, engaged in any malfeasance specifically related to Benghazi. However the investigation continues to march on, because it will do so until it gets and answer that it wants. Indeed, I suspect it doesn't want to find that answer, because that would force the investigation to close; causing it to lose what little relevance it has.
If the GOP were honestly interested in exposing Clinton for engaging in malfeasance, it would be doubling down on the email scandal. Continuing to push Benghazi is simply an empty attempt at character assassination. I mean, I know you and a lot of other people are fine with that because its Hillary Clinton, but would you be fine with it if another politician were subjected to the same level of inane scrutiny?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/22 21:54:33
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2015/10/22 21:52:29
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: So the idea that a personal friend had Clintons private email address, but her employee did not, is somehow supposed to be damning?
If so, I'm in alot of trouble, as I imagine is everyone in this country with employees.
When she was doing *all* her official work on said private email system... then, yeah... that's a problem.
You need to watch the hearing. She said repeatedly that she did not use email at all to conduct most of her business.
Whether you buy that or not. whatever.
That is a demonstratively a lie, as she ALREADY turned over *some* of her emails from this private account.
How is it demonstrably a lie? She said she did not use email to conduct most of her business. She turned over emails from a private account that were work related. These are not mutually exclusive.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/22 21:53:14
2015/10/22 21:52:33
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Because if enough folks believe that Clinton is guilty of malfeasances during her tenure... then, why would anyone vote for her for President?
Because engaging in blatant witch hunts makes the GOP look bad.
More to the point, Benghazi hasn't been about malfeasance for a very long time. It has been clearly demonstrated time and again that neither the State Department in general, nor Clinton personally, engaged in any malfeasance specifically related to Benghazi. However the investigation continues to march on, because it will do so until it gets and answer that it wants. Indeed, I suspect it doesn't want to find that answer, because that would force the investigation to close; causing it to lose what little relevance it has.
Sigh... aaaaaand the Watergate Ctte, Iran-Contra weren't political? This is Congress.
We've had... what eight hearings on this?
For Iraq, we've had 77.
If the GOP were honestly interested in exposing Clinton for engaging in malfeasance, it would be doubling down on the email scandal. Continuing to push Benghazi is simply an empty attempt at character assassination. I mean, I know you and a lot of other people are fine with that because its Hillary Clinton, but would you be fine with it if another politician were subjected to the same level of inane scrutiny?
The FBI is still investigating... and the Wistleblowers from the Intelligence Communities are coming out in droves...
d-usa wrote: *States that she conducted most her business via phone, and only a small part was via email*
"We know that's a lie because we have email."
That reply doesn't even make sense...
Read jasper's statement. I was replying to:
She said repeatedly that she did not use email at all to conduct most of her business.
Maybe color helps.
Okay... my bad. That remains to be seen if that's truly accurate. I suspect most diplomancy does occur in face-to-face or phone calls. But the day-to-day operations of States Department activities... I find it hard to believe that it's mostly done verbally. Email exists because it's literally the easiest communication method.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/22 22:12:10
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/10/22 22:23:29
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I also doubt that anybody at the cabinet level really is involved with the day-to-day running of anything.
E-mail is easy, but it's also the hardest to keep track off and it's easy to include classified information that shouldn't be included (as we are all aware of now). That's why face-to-face, telephonic, and actual physical paper communication is probably still the best option for the majority of stuff.
2015/10/22 22:38:59
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: Is today's Benghazi hearing designed to make Clinton look presidential?
Are you gaking me?
Incidentally, what I meant by this is that while Trump is on his lunatic frenzy, and Carson is handing out advice on active shooter scenarios (while he sold out a minimum wage clerk at a Popeyes in real life), Clinton is getting MAJOR airrtime and press coverage speaking highly intelligently about her actual foreign policy experience.
2015/10/22 23:03:13
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Automatically Appended Next Post: So FoxNews cut their coverage of the committed three hours ago and went to commentary instead of showing the testimony.
They must be soft on truth, can't believe they don't care enough about those dead Americans.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/23 00:02:19
2015/10/23 00:07:31
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
That feeling when the Republicans admit that it's just a partisan witch hunt but Whembly still swears it's just a search for the truth:
Hell, at least Ghagzhull is up-front about admitting he's OK about the GOP wasting millions of taxpayer dollars for partisan political purposes because it's at the expense of someone he doesn't like; at least he's upfront about that. Refreshing, really.
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
2015/10/23 00:19:48
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: That feeling when the Republicans admit that it's just a partisan witch hunt but Whembly still swears it's just a search for the truth:
Hell, at least Ghagzhull is up-front about admitting he's OK about the GOP wasting millions of taxpayer dollars for partisan political purposes because it's at the expense of someone he doesn't like; at least he's upfront about that. Refreshing, really.
no, I admit that a big portion of this is to discredit Hillary Clinton, nowhere did I admit it was wasting millions of dollars. Do not put words in my mouth.
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders
2015/10/23 00:27:57
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: So in your opinion, using a subcommittee as an arm of the RNC seems like a reasonable use, then, of taxpayer dollars?
Since the primarily goal is still to find out information on Benghazi that up until now Clinton has successfully hidden by utilizing a private e-mail server? yes.
Btw if a republican presidential candidate was hiding information on an active investigation into the deaths of a US diplomat I have a feeling it would be receiving a lot more attention then this currently is.
But again as I have said, even if they fail to find her culpable for Benghazi, the mere fact that they uncovered a massive intelligence leak (clinton's e-mails) more then justifies the cost. Btw the maximum penalty for knowingly leaking classified information onto an unsecured computer/network is 10 years in prison.
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders
2015/10/23 00:41:22
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ghazkuul wrote: Btw the maximum penalty for knowingly leaking classified information onto an unsecured computer/network is 10 years in prison.
Just out of curiosity, why is your vitriol over this aimed solely at Hillary? You do realize that, in general, she isn't the one who leaked classified material onto an unapproved server; it was everyone else that sent it to her that did the leaking.
She does bear responsibility for not realizing that the server was not an approved system for storing classified material and taking corrective action.
"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
2015/10/23 01:02:12
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Now we shall wait with baited breath for the various blogs to interpret this so that others can tell us how Hillary lied and betrayed us all.
Don't worry, Whembly will be along shortly to explain it too us in his usual completely unbiased and fair tone. All with a healthy amount of yellow text, no doubt.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/23 01:06:28
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."
2015/10/23 01:13:23
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Oh man that was an absurd ride. I can see why the originally wanted a closed session, I don't think that's going to sell like they were hoping it would.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2015/10/23 01:14:58
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
It has been said that society gets the leaders it deserves, which explains why the UK and the US are in such a mess
As George Carlin put it:
"Everybody complains about politicians.
Everybody says they suck. But where do
the people think these politicians come from?
They don't fall out of the sky.
They don't pass through a membrane from another reality.
They come from american parents and american families, american homes,
american schools, american churches, american businesses and american universities.
and they're elected by american citizens.
This is the best we can do, folks.
This is what we have to offer.
It's what our system produces
Garbage in, garbage out!
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens,
you are gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders."
Have an exalt for that....
For some reason, I should be used to it, but I STILL cannot get over how ignorant Americans are of what proper poli-sci terms are. For instance, I was telling a friend of mine that Reagan was a Classical Liberal. His response was "Lol, now they're trying take all our best politicians!"
Words and terms really do have meaning, and while it's only a very minor enjoyment, I am glad when CNN occasionally gets the terms right, when they refer to Democrats as Progressives, and not "Liberals"
2015/10/23 01:16:41
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
It really was quite pathetic the manner in which the Republicans drew conclusions for her, testified on her behalf, and questioned whether she really cared about her workers. That's pretty low behavior. I was reminded multiple times of criminal interrogators trying to get people to change their answers through sheer repetition of the question.
2015/10/23 01:16:51
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Vaktathi wrote: Oh man that was an absurd ride. I can see why the originally wanted a closed session, I don't think that's going to sell like they were hoping it would.
I liked the chairman's "I'm gonna talk however long I want and if you don't like it I will make you sit here another 2 hours so you best shut up" rant at the end.
2015/10/23 01:17:15
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Now we shall wait with baited breath for the various blogs to interpret this so that others can tell us how Hillary lied and betrayed us all.
Don't worry, Whembly will be along shortly to explain it too us in his usual completely unbiased and fair tone. All with a healthy amount of yellow text, no doubt.
Will there be a "mic drop"? Will there be a "schadenboner"? Will that yellow text be italicized and underlined? Tune in tomorrow, after there was time to harvest the rich crop that Twitter and the derp-o-sphere shart out tonight!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/23 01:17:49
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
2015/10/23 01:30:15
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Vaktathi wrote: Oh man that was an absurd ride. I can see why the originally wanted a closed session, I don't think that's going to sell like they were hoping it would.
I liked the chairman's "I'm gonna talk however long I want and if you don't like it I will make you sit here another 2 hours so you best shut up" rant at the end.
Yeah, that'll show 'er
I mean, I get it, they don't like Hillary, I'm no fan of HIllary myself, but I don't see how they think they're going to come out ahead with stunts like that.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
