Red Mosquito

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

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.

it's mildly irritating insofar as she is quick to get on a high horse about other (admittedly far more sensitive and damaging) national security leaks. But like Benghazi, this has struck me as much ado about nothing (with the caveat that I haven't examined this issue that closely)

Man I wish I had to time to really participate here right now. Chud already said what I was going to say which is that based on the very brief description of Ruddo's political beliefs it seems like Hillary would be the candidate for him.

Hasn't it been confirmed that multiple past SoS's have also used their personal email while serving in that capacity?

stip wrote: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.

Agreed 100%

cutuphalfdead wrote:

stip wrote: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.

Agreed 100%

Yep.

Part of me does wonder how trump would actually govern, though. Based on interviews I've seen it seems like he might actually be a secret liberal.

I'm perfectly fine with Clinton's hawkish leanings.

tommymtcom wrote:Part of me does wonder how trump would actually govern, though. Based on interviews I've seen it seems like he might actually be a secret liberal.

He seems like such a power chaser to me. In the 90's he was friends with the Clintons, because they had power. He is interested in the power of celebrity. He brags about the power he has. He creates an unapologetic historical lie on a plaque for a golf course because, guess what bitches, I can. He currently wants the power the Republican base holds the key to, so now he caters to them.

If he wants something Iran has, he'll buddy up. If he doesn't, he'll posture enough to piss them off. If he wants to be in business with big oil after he's done, he'll hand them the keys to the kingdom. If not, what he does about them will depend on who it affects and whose power he's a little horny about.

4/5 wrote:Hasn't it been confirmed that multiple past SoS's have also used their personal email while serving in that capacity?

Yes.

And many Republicans are forgetting that W. "lost" 22 million e-mails that were hosted on an RNC server. That's probably closer to being "illegal" (Presidential Records Act) than what Hilldog did.

On the subject of posturing, Trump kinda would be America's Vladimir Putin.

McParadigm wrote:On the subject of posturing, Trump kinda would be America's Vladimir Putin.

When asked about the report tying Putin to that ex-spy murdered in London (plutonium poisoning, if you forget):

"Have they found him guilty? I don't think they've found him guilty," Trump said in a Tuesday interview with Fox Business Network anchor Maria Bartiromo. "They say a lot of things about me that are untrue, too."

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-t ... sia-2016-1

McParadigm wrote:

tommymtcom wrote:Part of me does wonder how trump would actually govern, though. Based on interviews I've seen it seems like he might actually be a secret liberal.

He seems like such a power chaser to me. In the 90's he was friends with the Clintons, because they had power. He is interested in the power of celebrity. He brags about the power he has. He creates an unapologetic historical lie on a plaque for a golf course because, guess what bitches, I can. He currently wants the power the Republican base holds the key to, so now he caters to them.

If he wants something Iran has, he'll buddy up. If he doesn't, he'll posture enough to piss them off. If he wants to be in business with big oil after he's done, he'll hand them the keys to the kingdom. If not, what he does about them will depend on who it affects and whose power he's a little horny about.

All Presidents (and candidates for that matter) are power chasers.

I literally started a follow up post saying "cue someone saying 'all politicians are etc,' then decided that I'd just let someone do it.

4/5 wrote:Man I wish I had to time to really participate here right now. Chud already said what I was going to say which is that based on the very brief description of Ruddo's political beliefs it seems like Hillary would be the candidate for him.

Wesley Clark is the candidate for me.

Here's an op ed piece supporting Sanders as the pragmatic, better on foreign policy (among other things), candidate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Not a fan of vanden Heuvel.

turned2black wrote:Not a fan of vanden Heuvel.

wouldn't expect you to be

But seriously, it is becoming more and more frustrating for me to vote because I always find something major wrong with every candidate. I guess I have to prioritize and figure out what policies/values I'm willing to sacrifice for ones that I'm not, if that makes sense. My wife and I are past having any more kids, so I guess I don't care about ab*rtion, but I'm worried about retirement so Social Security should be high on my list. While I welcome the apocalypse, I don't want to die of radiation poisoning. I like owning guns but don't see the need for a whole closet full of them. I want to be able to burn leaves without my HOA getting on my ass, but I want them to do something about the rental house down the street that has shady people living there. I don't care if the government spies on me and collects my data, I just don't want them ever telling my wife what kind of pr0n I look at. If having the fast food worker construct my burger properly means higher minimum wage and a more expensive burger, then I'm out. I'd rather spend more money on legitimate space travel and less on global warming. It's already hot, what is a few degrees more? I'd like to know what world organizations are secretly preventing places like Africa from becoming civilized places, but I don't want them to be exposed so that they can't keep the bad guys from taking over.

Who should I vote for?

cutuphalfdead wrote:

turned2black wrote:Not a fan of vanden Heuvel.

wouldn't expect you to be

Why's that?

I'm not offended, I'm just curious.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:My wife and I are past having any more kids, so I guess I don't care about ab*rtion

that's fucked up, ruddo