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.

Since I'm on my phone, I'll simply comment that Whembly's description of the Swift Boat affair is either grossly ignorant or a blatant lie. Free speech is one thing, lying to attack political opponents is another. The second is what happened in the Swift Boat affair.

 whembly wrote:
The FBI did know that in 2007, Cooper setup that Apple server for Hillary's 2008 presidential run, and in 2009 as SoS, they realized they needed an upgrade.

Enter Pagliano, who upgraded the infrastructure (2 Dell boxes), still in the Clinton's basement.

Which is the point where we must ask why the Apple server would matter even if it did exist, since it was replaced by the time Clinton would have had access to any emails of security concern. But hey. That's just a silly affair of basic reasoning.

(thus, unspoken words, they couldn't confirm nor deny what happened to it).

Thus, you assume wrong doing when no such evidence exists to support it, because you will never accept that anything other than absolute wrongness occurred.

There's laws/regulations mandating that if a device is receiving classified information, then the device itself is classified.

It's almost like it was determined people were reckless with their handling information or something.

Data management is a big fething deal.

When did I say it wasn't?

Handling classified information is a big fething deal.

When did I say it wasn't?

...and they mailed a fething laptop... and it got lost in the mail!

I worked at FedEx for five years. We lost packages by the dozen. Daily. One does not simply move millions of pieces of mail.

That's some AWESOME fething GOVERNMENTAL skillz we're witnessing... no?

I don't think anyone is claiming these people were doing their jobs of handling important information responsibly very well.

We're in so good hands when the Clintons moves back into the Whitehouse...no?

Well that's a whole other discussion. I mean, I can sit here and dislike how badly this was all handled, especially since the US government is already so bad at data security in general. Then again, when I've really got the choice of Clinton, who at worse is really bad at keeping her supposed to be secure files secure, and Donald Trump, who I have a laundry lists worth of very serious concerns with, well I guess my concern about Hillary's cyber security "skillz" wiil just have to go on the back burned, cause there's worse things in the world than handling your emails badly.

The FBI clearly had enough to recommend an indictment.

That's not what they say.

Director Comey refused to do so, and the intelligence communities are pissed.

The first statement is a blatant cherry pick of his full statement, and the second is just hyperbole. The intelligence community is pissed at Hillary, the White House, and Congress in general, because there's been a huge battle for the past five years in the Capitol about how information is handled and secured, who has access and why. Of course they're pissed, but it's not just about Hillary and honestly they'll just have to live with it like we have to live with no one going to jail for PRISM by why talk about real problems when we can talk forever about this god damn email server.

She and her staff broke numerous laws imo.

Your opinion is not legally relevant, and honestly I'll take the FBI's determination that there wasn't a crime, just "carelessness" over DakkaDakka Attorney's at Law.

EDIT2: I give up... dakka is being weird...

It's angry at our quote chains Clearly, the forums have achieved sentience.

As an outsider looking in, as i do on many US elections I must say I don't envy the American people in having to choose between these two. You would struggle to find two worse candidates if you tried. It's kind of sad to be honest. I just couldn't vote for Clinton I wouldn't and couldn't trust anything she said, she is morally everything the world can't stand about corporate America, and Trump is, well just pretty vile and a bit too f a computer character to boot.

 whembly wrote:

It's how ALL political BS works.

You must know the difference between trashy campaign hyperbole and running actual smear campaigns. So 2 of your references aren't relevant.

Harry Reid I will grant you - that was a smear. That you could come up with one actual smear which was more minor and got a fraction of the news coverage of the stories than any of the dozen of faux scandals I mentiond shows this is not a case of 'both sides'.

Nevermind that Powell was always favorable towards Obama and was simply trying to cover him.

And there it is - whenever someone steps outside the bs machine, even just in a private email, they are RINO. It protects the group from any doubt.

Seb... Congress met with feth tonnages of obstruction and roadblocks, every.step.of.the.way. If there's no 'there' there...

So at the end of four year and about a dozen investiagtions is that there must have been something there because people were defensive when being investigated. Holy fething gak man.

Started by the 2008 Clinton campaign

A handful of Clinton supporters made comments. But it was Republicans and their bs machine that ran with the issue.

Jeremiah Wright is a radical.

Obama knows a guy who is a radical therefore it... 'raises questions' is bs smear by association.

You mean founding member Bill Ayers? Whose living room was used to launch Obama's political career? That's... what? Made up?

Meaningless bs. 'Obama knows a guy' so let's speculate for months that he might have a hidden agenda and it 'raises questions'.

Actual veterans who served with Kerry exercising their right to advocate a "not Kerry" was an orchastrated Republican lie??

Actual veterans who weren't alongside Kerry in combat. They just got pissed when the dude came back and started his anti-war stuff. The guys who were in Kerry's unit confirmed he acted per the medal awards.

Republicans went and got the guys who were angry but weren't present and put them on TV.

It says something about how insular that GOP bubble is that you still don't know what happened.

Republican bad. Democrats good.

Got it.

No, you don't get it. Stop thinking this is about cheering for one team or another.

This is about one of the two major political parties in the US going through a slow motion collapse. As long as you and so many other loyalty party faithful keep pretending this isn't happening, the harder is going to be to fix it when you can't pretend anymore.

The Swiftboat lie was to the point where "swift-boating" is a term now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating

It was a blatant lie, a smear campaign aimed at Kerry. They knew it was a lie but it worked, even after being proved wrong without a shadow of a doubt, because "KERRY LIED ABOUT MEDALS!!!1!" is far more interesting and memorable an article, than "John Kerry's medal story is accurate." And we're seeing that proved here, apparently.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Nevermind Benghazi, thats old news. Was she ever punished in any way for sending classified emails through insecure private servers and devices, and for deleting thousands of emails? She did break the law, did she not?

The powerful do not get punished. Laws are for the great unwashed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
The thing with the whole email thing and possibly why us Brits are coming in to it confused...

I'm not sure, but I think there's a different mindset in the UK about such events as opposed to the US.

EG, The politicians are directly the boss of the civil service - the Ministry of Defence isn't just a name, they're employees of the Defence Minister (who, broadly speaking, is an employee of Her Majesty).

So, generally speaking, we're like, "wha?" - It's like an employee trying to fire their boss.

Like they say, 'gak' flows downhill. I imagine if it were the UK, it would be along the lines of. "The Civil Service didn't provide sufficient means to match The Secretary and their staffs requirements."

As opposed to it being The Secretary's fault.

Speaking generally and in generic terms.

The legal issue is that the law applies to everyone, even those who have the ability to declare something is secret. It was violated but she was not charged. The issues about why have a private server in the first place, to avoid Freedom of Information Act and legal searches is the more problematic one.

She's corrupt to the core. Trump is just the flip side and creates the corruption. They are the two sides of crony capitalism.
They both suck, or as a certain Texan once said: A pox on both their houses.

Yes...Someone is corrupt because it has kept on being repeated for the last 25 years...Who cares about the actual facts or that Clinton does the same things that all the other politicians do...

 skyth wrote:
Yes...Someone is corrupt because it has kept on being repeated for the last 25 years...Who cares about the actual facts or that Clinton does the same things that all the other politicians do...

I'm confused. Who said government corruption is a new thing? Let me introduce you to scandals around the Grant and Jackson administrations or Tammany Hall as more familiar historical examples. Government corruption is a time honored tradition in most nations. I don't know about now but when Frazzled was going through pointy sticks and rocks school, your could write off bribes as an expense on your taxes in Germany at the time. A more relevant bit of corruption is the dike system in Louisiana, which had monies taken from it for decades for other useful projects as riverboat casinos. Katrina didn't take out Nagen's "chocolate city." Corruption did.

Also you shouldn't really try to defend the Clinton on this. Tyson Foods is just one company giving them bribes as far back as Arkansas when he was a first term governor.

And you are acting as if Clinton and Trump are on the same level of bad...Clinton is as 'bad' as other politicians. Trump is an order of magnitude worse.

 skyth wrote:
And you are acting as if Clinton and Trump are on the same level of bad...Clinton is as 'bad' as other politicians. Trump is an order of magnitude worse.

I'd disagree heartily. Clinton have turned bribery into a Latin America banana republic level enterprise. I would expect private citizens to use the available laws to influence legislation (or more likely-special permits). Compare her to runing mate or even those great hallmarks of political wheeling/dealing: Johnson and Tip ONeill.

Inversely Trump is the queen of government backed eminent domain for private purposes, which is offensive to every American. It is the absolute worst extreme of crony capitalism and right up there with the Chinese government evicting thousands for their latest private enterprise.

They both suck. Only the party fanatics think they don't suck. This explains why she's barely scratching the surface of Obama's millennial vote.

 skyth wrote:
And you are acting as if Clinton and Trump are on the same level of bad...Clinton is as 'bad' as other politicians. Trump is an order of magnitude worse.

How so? Because he's "Rayciss"?

 ShieldBrother wrote:

 skyth wrote:
And you are acting as if Clinton and Trump are on the same level of bad...Clinton is as 'bad' as other politicians. Trump is an order of magnitude worse.

How so? Because he's "Rayciss"?

Thats a separate issue. This little bit of discussion is corruption and why both candidates suck.

 Frazzled wrote:
Clinton have turned bribery into a Latin America banana republic level enterprise

Citation needed. Is there any actual evidence of Clinton's policies being affected by monetary donations?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Clinton have turned bribery into a Latin America banana republic level enterprise

Citation needed. Is there any actual evidence of Clinton's policies being affected by monetary donations?

Absolutely none. In contrast its been proven she's a saint, and I mean a literal saint. Thats why she passed out. She didn't have pneumonia. She was on a hunger strike in support of the suffering in the world but wanted t remain humble about it.

EDIT: Translation I am not trying to convince anyone of anything on this board because I don't believe thats possible.

So in other words, you keep on spreading the same load of bull that's been spread for the last 25 years without a shred of proof...Yeah.

 skyth wrote:
So in other words, you keep on spreading the same load of bull that's been spread for the last 25 years without a shred of proof...Yeah.

What is this 25 years you are referring to?


I am specifically referencing the favorable trade economics she received from Tyson and a variety of other companies who had operations in Arkansas. But you're a self avowed anti-Republican hater (your words) so I can't be arsed to bother. I guess one could also easily note the 5 figure speaking fees Bll received while she was SecDef-particulary from Wall Street and Russian meetings, a substantial increase than right after he was President. But that was purely coincidence right?

Parents lived in the paradise that was Arkansas for a few years (sarcasm-although the geography is awesome). Their corruption was well known there, but completely in line with the corruption both before and after them.

I'd have thought she'd be earning points for having honed the art of corruption to a fine art, seeing as though things don't stick, but "everyone knows".

Whereas Trump seems to be playing college corruptionball what with things being proveable with evidence and such.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
I'd have thought she'd be earning points for having honed the art of corruption to a fine art, seeing as though things don't stick, but "everyone knows".

Whereas Trump seems to be playing college corruptionball what with things being proveable with evidence and such.

Now here is someone who understands. Trump's amateurism is ok though because he's building a wall, and his opponents are stupid, or the chaos codex has a lot of things going for it or something.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
I'd have thought she'd be earning points for having honed the art of corruption to a fine art, seeing as though things don't stick, but "everyone knows".

Whereas Trump seems to be playing college corruptionball what with things being proveable with evidence and such.

Ha! Have an exalt!

But really Fraz nailed it... Both HRC and Trump are opposite side of the same coin.

Our next President is going to suck balls.

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
So in other words, you keep on spreading the same load of bull that's been spread for the last 25 years without a shred of proof...Yeah.

What is this 25 years you are referring to?

The fact that the Republican party has been spewing made up stories about the Clintons for the last 25 years. Ever since Hillary tried to get involved with healthcare reform during Bill's presidency.

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
So in other words, you keep on spreading the same load of bull that's been spread for the last 25 years without a shred of proof...Yeah.

What is this 25 years you are referring to?

The fact that the Republican party has been spewing made up stories about the Clintons for the last 25 years. Ever since Hillary tried to get involved with healthcare reform during Bill's presidency.

I see you're not disagreeing with what I actually wrote.
EDIT: I will agree in that some stories are farcical (Foster suicide being murder) some aren't (Whitewater docs just magically appearing on a table).
And of course the Devil in the Blue Dress...;-)

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
So in other words, you keep on spreading the same load of bull that's been spread for the last 25 years without a shred of proof...Yeah.

What is this 25 years you are referring to?

The fact that the Republican party has been spewing made up stories about the Clintons for the last 25 years. Ever since Hillary tried to get involved with healthcare reform during Bill's presidency.

I see you're not disagreeing with what I actually wrote.
EDIT: I will agree in that some stories are farcical (Foster suicide being murder) some aren't (Whitewater docs just magically appearing on a table).
And of course the Devil in the Blue Dress...;-)

No Frazz... they're all completely made up.

Get with the program brah!

 ShieldBrother wrote:

 skyth wrote:
And you are acting as if Clinton and Trump are on the same level of bad...Clinton is as 'bad' as other politicians. Trump is an order of magnitude worse.

How so? Because he's "Rayciss"?

Are you implying the guy who said 'the only people I want counting my money are short guys who wear yarmulkes all day' and tried to get Judge Curiel swapped out because 'he is, we believe, Mexican' isn't racist?

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
So in other words, you keep on spreading the same load of bull that's been spread for the last 25 years without a shred of proof...Yeah.

What is this 25 years you are referring to?

The fact that the Republican party has been spewing made up stories about the Clintons for the last 25 years. Ever since Hillary tried to get involved with healthcare reform during Bill's presidency.

I see you're not disagreeing with what I actually wrote.
EDIT: I will agree in that some stories are farcical (Foster suicide being murder) some aren't (Whitewater docs just magically appearing on a table).
And of course the Devil in the Blue Dress...;-)

It's pointless to argue. You already hate Democrats anyways. It's just after 25 years of calling wolf against Clinton with nothing real to show about it...I don't believe anything that is said by Republicans about her.

I mean...Look, you even mention the 'Blue Dress'. That is the level of idiocy that we are talking about. Bill having an affair is ridiculous to even investigate and gloat about finding 'something' about...It says nothing about policy that will be implemented or laws that will be passed. That is what is really important. Not to mention the guy that was all about taking Bill down for having an affair (Gingrich) was having his own affair at the time and left his wife who was suffering from cancer for his mistress...Really, the faux and hypocritical 'outrage' over what the Clintons are accused of doing is beyond the pale.

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
So in other words, you keep on spreading the same load of bull that's been spread for the last 25 years without a shred of proof...Yeah.

What is this 25 years you are referring to?

The fact that the Republican party has been spewing made up stories about the Clintons for the last 25 years. Ever since Hillary tried to get involved with healthcare reform during Bill's presidency.

I see you're not disagreeing with what I actually wrote.
EDIT: I will agree in that some stories are farcical (Foster suicide being murder) some aren't (Whitewater docs just magically appearing on a table).
And of course the Devil in the Blue Dress...;-)

It's pointless to argue. You already hate Democrats anyways. It's just after 25 years of calling wolf against Clinton with nothing real to show about it...I don't believe anything that is said by Republicans about her.

I mean...Look, you even mention the 'Blue Dress'. That is the level of idiocy that we are talking about. Bill having an affair is ridiculous to even investigate and gloat about finding 'something' about...It says nothing about policy that will be implemented or laws that will be passed. That is what is really important. Not to mention the guy that was all about taking Bill down for having an affair (Gingrich) was having his own affair at the time and left his wife who was suffering from cancer for his mistress...Really, the faux and hypocritical 'outrage' over what the Clintons are accused of doing is beyond the pale.

The takeaway from that sordid ordeal was...

Don't commit perjury.

Well, that would depend on what your definition of "is" is.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Well, that would depend on what your definition of "is" is.

Clintonian on displays.

The other less known impeachment was that he was also convicted of Obstruction of Justice.

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Well, that would depend on what your definition of "is" is.

Clintonian on displays.

If you're calling me such, try again, because I am no such thing. I know ninjas are hard to see, but the emote is there to show I was making a joke. Petty name calling should be beneath you.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Well, that would depend on what your definition of "is" is.

Clintonian on displays.

If you're calling me such, try again. I know ninjas are hard to see, but the emote is there to show I was making a joke. Petty name calling should be beneath you.

No... not you.

I'm saying that's a "Clintonian" parsing.

It's like this:

"I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish that goal and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false," Clinton said.

But he went out parsing until the end, admitting to giving "false" answers - but not to lying.

Things seem to be swinging Trumps way...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Every electoral update in the last week has shown Clinton weakening, and Trump strengthening.

RCP average has a slim Trump lead in both Florida and Ohio.