Wikiposts

2016 Election

Thread Tools
 
Old Jul 13th 2015 | 6:44 am
  #616  
sir_eccles's Avatar
Thread Starter
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,106
From: Phoenix, AZ
sir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by zargof
Of course Colin Powell used a personal email account when he was at State, but that doesn't stop Republican screaming about this.
My understanding is that John Kerry (i.e. the current SoS) is the first one to have been offered a .gov email address.
 
Old Jul 13th 2015 | 6:44 am
  #617  
lansbury's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 10,058
From: Milwaukie, Oregon
lansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by Steerpike
To me (as an IT professional), a personal server is probably MORE secure than a government server, but she's not using that argument and she does seem a bit vulnerable on this one - but hopefully it doesn't amount to much overall.
Thanks for posting that information, as I hadn't thought of it in terms of security. As someone who held elected office and had to live by the rules of open communication, it is the fact a private server allows her to hide from public view those emails. Who knows what emails were deleted and therefore never released. The rules for public officials apply to all, and the fact she circumnavigated them makes her unelectable. Not to mention the cock up at Benghazi. There is also the possibility of somewhat dubious fundraising by the Clinton Foundation. Did they take money for favors, they have certainly not worried about making themselves look above reproach. If she is the democratic candidate I shall either vote for the republican, depending on who it is, or not vote at all.

The only viable democratic candidate would be Joe Biden if he would run.
 
Old Jul 13th 2015 | 7:39 am
  #618  
Mrs Danvers's Avatar
BE Enthusiast
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 975
Mrs Danvers has a reputation beyond reputeMrs Danvers has a reputation beyond reputeMrs Danvers has a reputation beyond reputeMrs Danvers has a reputation beyond reputeMrs Danvers has a reputation beyond reputeMrs Danvers has a reputation beyond reputeMrs Danvers has a reputation beyond reputeMrs Danvers has a reputation beyond reputeMrs Danvers has a reputation beyond reputeMrs Danvers has a reputation beyond reputeMrs Danvers has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

I have no idea if this is true, but I'm finding it hard not to laugh......


Mexico's billion dollar drugs lord known as 'El Chapo' has gloated on Twitter about his escape from a maximum security jail by taunting authorities and threatening US-presidential hopeful Donald Trump.

Joaquin Guzman, billionaire head of the powerful Sinaloa Cartel, made his jail break on Saturday morning and is on the run from Altiplano jail, 50 miles outside of Mexico City, security officials said.

His audacious escape saw him dash through the mile-long tunnel system, which led to a building under construction next to the prison - from where he collected clothes left for him by his conspirators.

Read more: Mexican drug lord Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman taunts the world after his escape from prison | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
Old Jul 13th 2015 | 8:16 am
  #619  
Steerpike's Avatar
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,681
From: Bay Area, CA
Steerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by lansbury
Thanks for posting that information, as I hadn't thought of it in terms of security. As someone who held elected office and had to live by the rules of open communication, it is the fact a private server allows her to hide from public view those emails. Who knows what emails were deleted and therefore never released. The rules for public officials apply to all, and the fact she circumnavigated them makes her unelectable.
.
It seems like this was somewhat common practice, and I'd find it hard to assert that it makes her 'unelectable'. I guess if you could prove she was officially told not to do it and she repeatedly ignored that, maybe then you could argue she ignored the rules, but who really gives a hoot.
Originally Posted by lansbury
Not to mention the cock up at Benghazi. There is also the possibility of somewhat dubious fundraising by the Clinton Foundation. Did they take money for favors, they have certainly not worried about making themselves look above reproach. If she is the democratic candidate I shall either vote for the republican, depending on who it is, or not vote at all.

The only viable democratic candidate would be Joe Biden if he would run.
Honestly ... Benghazi ... this is the 'birth certificate' of the current election. Sadly some folks died, and that's always a bad thing, but ... let's keep things in perspective here! This has been investigated to death and nothing tangible has come out of it - not that Fox news pays any attention to these facts.

As for the Clinton foundation ... it's a private foundation and all manner of people contribute to it, for all manner of reasons. Trying to prove 'cause and effect' here is going to be impossible (not that Fox, Koch, and others won't die trying).

Are you really saying you would consider voting Democrat, but these specific issues are dissuading you?
 
Old Jul 13th 2015 | 8:36 am
  #620  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 13,212
From: San Francisco
Giantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by Steerpike
Honestly ... Benghazi ... this is the 'birth certificate' of the current election. Sadly some folks died, and that's always a bad thing, but ... let's keep things in perspective here! This has been investigated to death and nothing tangible has come out of it - not that Fox news pays any attention to these facts.
If Benghazi is the biggest "cock up" we can pin on Clinton, then that's a positive for her imo, the tragic deaths of four people notwithstanding. We're on our seventh Congressional inquiry now, and I'm sure the Republicans will keep it alive until the election. The fact that the Republicans were using this to fund raise really tells you all you need to know about this "scandal".
 
Old Jul 13th 2015 | 8:51 am
  #621  
sir_eccles's Avatar
Thread Starter
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,106
From: Phoenix, AZ
sir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by Steerpike
Benghazi ... this is the 'birth certificate' of the current election
I may have to steal that!
 
Old Jul 13th 2015 | 10:25 am
  #622  
lansbury's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 10,058
From: Milwaukie, Oregon
lansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by Steerpike
It seems like this was somewhat common practice, and I'd find it hard to assert that it makes her 'unelectable'. I guess if you could prove she was officially told not to do it and she repeatedly ignored that, maybe then you could argue she ignored the rules, but who really gives a hoot.
It is standard practice for emails from public officials to go through the servers of the entity they were elected or appointed too. I am sure she was told that, I don't know any public official who has not received that information as part of their welcome to office briefing. She could have used her private email as long as DoS were copied so it was on their servers. Failure to do so is not something to be brushed off with who gives a hoot. If she failed to do so there was a reason, she was taking steps to prevent information reaching the public domain. She is not fit to hold any public office.

Are you really saying you would consider voting Democrat, but these specific issues are dissuading you?
I am saying I will not vote for Clinton if she runs for any elected office. She displays the same mentality to the rules as Nixon did.
 
Old Jul 13th 2015 | 10:43 am
  #623  
sir_eccles's Avatar
Thread Starter
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 8,106
From: Phoenix, AZ
sir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by lansbury
I am saying I will not vote for Clinton if she runs for any elected office. She displays the same mentality to the rules as Nixon did.
As does everyone else running, they are politicians. What's your point?
 
Old Jul 13th 2015 | 10:48 am
  #624  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 13,212
From: San Francisco
Giantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by lansbury
She could have used her private email as long as DoS were copied so it was on their servers. Failure to do so is not something to be brushed off with who gives a hoot. If she failed to do so there was a reason, she was taking steps to prevent information reaching the public domain. She is not fit to hold any public office.
That's a big assumption. It's one possible reason, but there are several others.
 
Old Jul 13th 2015 | 11:07 am
  #625  
WEBlue's Avatar
Under blue skies
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,624
From: East Anglia->New England
WEBlue has a reputation beyond reputeWEBlue has a reputation beyond reputeWEBlue has a reputation beyond reputeWEBlue has a reputation beyond reputeWEBlue has a reputation beyond reputeWEBlue has a reputation beyond reputeWEBlue has a reputation beyond reputeWEBlue has a reputation beyond reputeWEBlue has a reputation beyond reputeWEBlue has a reputation beyond reputeWEBlue has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Aaannd here's Scott Walker!

Scott Walker’s Announcement Video - Video - NYTimes.com
 
Old Jul 13th 2015 | 11:09 am
  #626  
zargof's Avatar
I love my brick!
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 9,304
From: Peachy
zargof has a reputation beyond reputezargof has a reputation beyond reputezargof has a reputation beyond reputezargof has a reputation beyond reputezargof has a reputation beyond reputezargof has a reputation beyond reputezargof has a reputation beyond reputezargof has a reputation beyond reputezargof has a reputation beyond reputezargof has a reputation beyond reputezargof has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by WEBlue
You've got to love those clown cars. Just when you think there isn't room for any more clowns, they manage to squeeze one more in.
 
Old Jul 13th 2015 | 11:23 am
  #627  
lansbury's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 10,058
From: Milwaukie, Oregon
lansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by Giantaxe
That's a big assumption. It's one possible reason, but there are several others.
It is far from a big assumption. There is only one reason I have seen holders of public office try and hide emails, and that is because they didn't want the contents made public.
 
Old Jul 13th 2015 | 11:25 am
  #628  
lansbury's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 10,058
From: Milwaukie, Oregon
lansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond reputelansbury has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by sir_eccles
As does everyone else running, they are politicians. What's your point?
Really every politician. As someone who has held an elected office I find your comments a personal insult and about on a par with the level of intelligence most of your posts demonstrate.
 
Old Jul 13th 2015 | 11:31 am
  #629  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 13,212
From: San Francisco
Giantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by lansbury
It is far from a big assumption. There is only one reason I have seen holders of public office try and hide emails, and that is because they didn't want the contents made public.
Again, you are making an assumption that she was "trying to hide" emails. There are other explanations.
 
Old Jul 13th 2015 | 12:02 pm
  #630  
Leslie's Avatar
WTF?
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 79,866
From: Homeostasis
Leslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond reputeLeslie has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by Steerpike
I'll be voting for Hilary simply because she's likely to continue ACA, and because she's not likely to try to disenfranchise poor black voters, bring prayer into the classroom, bomb Iran, and all the other things a Republican would likely push for.
I dunno, she's much more likely to bomb Iran than Rand Paul. But, you're on point and I care about the same issues. I'll go further and say I'm very comfortable with having her in office most specifically in regard to women's reproductive rights (abortion) and, of course, gay rights.

I also feel that she's a practical, competent bureaucrat who will be at least moderately effective. But I must say, seeing her in her first interview the other day, my heart sank ... she is not that good on the public stage and I fear that a charismatic Republican candidate could beat her. Luckily, that seems to be rather unlikely at the moment.

Does Hilary have a defensible position on the 'email' issue, in your opinion (Leslie)? To me (as an IT professional), a personal server is probably MORE secure than a government server, but she's not using that argument and she does seem a bit vulnerable on this one - but hopefully it doesn't amount to much overall.
On the email issue, the short answer is that I don't really know but she's probably fine on that front. Nobody that was going to vote for her is going to now vote for Jeb Bush because of emailgate. The only people that matter are the undecided voters in the swing states. Sorry folks but most of our votes just don't count. So, is that sliver of voters going to care so deeply about this "scandal"? I doubt it. First of all, it's too confusing to make a good scandal. Folks really need cut and dried stuff like robberies, murders, and screwing around for their scandal fix.

Secondly, I think it's completely fabricated outrage on the Republicans part and most (non Republican) voters are smart enough to see the side show for what it is. What it actually was though is lazy and typical Clinton behavior --- The rules don't apply to them. There was no reason why she couldn't have done what we all do and had a personal email account and a business email. Why she lumped them all together, so that later she had to delete her personal emails, is beyond me. However, she is allowed to have personal emails, not only permitted but encouraged as a matter of fact. So, as a general rule, if she has something to hide, she's supposed to use her personal email like a normal politician. I don't think she was doing anything nefarious or hiding any diabolical anti-American behavior. That's a ridiculous notion.

Last edited by Leslie; Jul 13th 2015 at 12:19 pm.
 


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.