Red Mosquito

Someone needs to tell Tom Delay how this indictment thing works.

The FBI can recommend anything it wants, but it's ultimately Obama's decision (or more specifically Justice Department prosecutors from the U.S. attorney’s office, who are under his control).

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Strat wrote:no fucking way trump wins. No fucking way. No. no no. no.

How is Clinton any better?

experience in governance

turned2black wrote:I don't really get a lot of the hatred of Hillary.

There's a lot of BS revisionist history going on with her time as Secretary of State. The right's obsession with Benghazi seems to have really polluted popular opinion. When she left that post she was largely lauded. Even McCain, during the initial shitstorm of Benghazi, said she was a very good Secretary of State. Most thought she was hamstrung by Obama's overly cautious first term on foreign affairs and therefore didn't really get a signature accomplishment.

this

cutuphalfdead wrote:

turned2black wrote:I don't really get a lot of the hatred of Hillary.

There's a lot of BS revisionist history going on with her time as Secretary of State. The right's obsession with Benghazi seems to have really polluted popular opinion. When she left that post she was largely lauded. Even McCain, during the initial shitstorm of Benghazi, said she was a very good Secretary of State. Most thought she was hamstrung by Obama's overly cautious first term on foreign affairs and therefore didn't really get a signature accomplishment.

this

For me, the Benghazi issue has nothing to do with it. I guess because I worked in highly classified environments, I'm aware of the damage of sensitive info getting out. I just can't see how the e-mail issue isn't a bigger deal with everyone, not just the idiots at Fox News. I don't think you guys understand what would happen to anyone else in that situation. You would never hear from them again. Quite frankly, I'm surprised she isn't just blaming it all on a staffer.

Let me speak clearly, guys, I'm not comparing the two. Trump is awful. Yes. Hilary is not as awful, yes. But that doesn't mean she is anywhere close to the best candidate for the presidency.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Let me speak clearly, guys, I'm not comparing the two. Trump is awful. Yes. Hilary is not as awful, yes. But that doesn't mean she is anywhere close to the best candidate for the presidency.

I agree. She's way too conservative for me.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Let me speak clearly, guys, I'm not comparing the two. Trump is awful. Yes. Hilary is not as awful, yes. But that doesn't mean she is anywhere close to the best candidate for the presidency.

I agree. She's way too conservative for me.

I'm not even talking about her political stance. I'm talking about her thinking that having all that information on a personal server is ok and continuing to think she did nothing wrong.

I admittedly don't know all that much about the e-mail scandal, but everything I have heard makes it sound like not that big of a deal.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I admittedly don't know all that much about the e-mail scandal, but everything I have heard makes it sound like not that big of a deal.

Except for the fact that the law is that all official government business is to be conducted through government email only, yeah it really isn't a big deal.

I question her judgment because she thought the invasion of Iraq was a good idea.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I admittedly don't know all that much about the e-mail scandal, but everything I have heard makes it sound like not that big of a deal.

Except for the fact that the law is that all official government business is to be conducted through government email only, yeah it really isn't a big deal.

I mean...that still doesn't sound like that big of deal to me. Was she talking about ultra-sensitive information through the e-mails in question?

cutuphalfdead wrote:I question her judgment because she thought the invasion of Iraq was a good idea.

Yup.

America's war antics during the last 15 years perfectly mirror a college freshman's decision to party hardy every weekend, then eventually drop out with shitty grades. Anybody involved or supportive of this feels just a little bit dubious.

Listen, I'm not the smartest person when it comes to politics. And I am a very left-leaning conservative. In fact, the only reason I consider myself conservative at all is because of my views regarding military and national security. Everything else for me would be considered pretty liberal. But I have seen first hand how lazy handling of sensitive information can lead to disastrous consequences. There are very easy to follow guidelines that can prevent a lot of data leaks/breaches. So when someone blatantly doesn't follow them, even if nothing is compromised, is very lazy, irresponsible, and worrisome. And if it is some staffer doing it, they get punished and move on. But this is someone who wants to be president. I'm sure some of you brainiacs can argue otherwise, but I like to think I bring a somewhat unique viewpoint to this argument.

Team Ruddo. It doesn't only matter what info was at risk, it also matters how irresponsible and dishonest it revealed her to be.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I admittedly don't know all that much about the e-mail scandal, but everything I have heard makes it sound like not that big of a deal.

Except for the fact that the law is that all official government business is to be conducted through government email only, yeah it really isn't a big deal.

That's NOT accurate. It was NOT against the law to use a personal server when she was SoS. It was discouraged, but it was NOT illegal.

You could say she used bad judgment, but she did nothing illegal.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Listen, I'm not the smartest person when it comes to politics. And I am a very left-leaning conservative. In fact, the only reason I consider myself conservative at all is because of my views regarding military and national security. Everything else for me would be considered pretty liberal. But I have seen first hand how lazy handling of sensitive information can lead to disastrous consequences. There are very easy to follow guidelines that can prevent a lot of data leaks/breaches. So when someone blatantly doesn't follow them, even if nothing is compromised, is very lazy, irresponsible, and worrisome. And if it is some staffer doing it, they get punished and move on. But this is someone who wants to be president. I'm sure some of you brainiacs can argue otherwise, but I like to think I bring a somewhat unique viewpoint to this argument.

I'm not trying to completely dismiss it, but I'm kind of going with a no harm no foul view on this right now.

With that said, if you can put the emails aside, if you describe yourself as a very left leaning conservative I would think HRC would be your candidate.

If there is a woman president, she better be hot, Pete

turned2black wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I admittedly don't know all that much about the e-mail scandal, but everything I have heard makes it sound like not that big of a deal.

Except for the fact that the law is that all official government business is to be conducted through government email only, yeah it really isn't a big deal.

That's NOT accurate. It was NOT against the law to use a personal server when she was SoS. It was discouraged, but it was NOT illegal.

You could say she used bad judgment, but she did nothing illegal.

Starting out a presidential bid with bad judgement regarding sensitive government info doesn't seem like the best strategy, imo

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

turned2black wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I admittedly don't know all that much about the e-mail scandal, but everything I have heard makes it sound like not that big of a deal.

Except for the fact that the law is that all official government business is to be conducted through government email only, yeah it really isn't a big deal.

That's NOT accurate. It was NOT against the law to use a personal server when she was SoS. It was discouraged, but it was NOT illegal.

You could say she used bad judgment, but she did nothing illegal.

Starting out a presidential bid with bad judgement regarding sensitive government info doesn't seem like the best strategy, imo

But how sensitive was the material, really? This seems like an ultimately insignificant case of questionable judgment, but nothing more dramatic or damning than that.

Hilary Clinton is a pro-corporate hawkish moderately social liberal. That disqualifies her from being the kind of democrat I want, but she's well within the mainstream of center-left american politics. The discomfiture non conservatives have with Hilary is hard to figure out without having to go to some mean places.

She does not inspire me. I don't particularly like her. I don't particularly like most of the democrats, who for decades have been pro-corporate and a bit too hawkish (or unwilling to contest the neo-liberal foreign policy consensus). But her presidency would hardly be a disaster. It is just less likely to actually attack the root problems the US needs to address then Sanders.