|
Let's take bets on HA Goodman's next article title, I'll go with "Bernie Wins: FBI Disqualifies Hillary From Presidency"
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:20 |
|
|
YodaTFK posted:Scott Walker couldn't even make it to the part of the primary where votes are cast. Rubio couldn't take the state hes an elected senator of. You are a boob. In which democrats defend someone who if she was a republican and did those same things they would be laughing at. Because, Team Blue I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
greatn posted:Who is HA Goodman and why is everyone dunking on him? He's a nobody. He doesn't even have a checkmark. He's #1 super king of deluded Bernie supporters. He's written dozens of articles on how Bernie was going to win at every point along the way, including after the California primary. He was also certain, CERTAIN that Hillary was going to be indicted. mcmagic posted:In which democrats defend someone who if she was a republican and did those same things they would be laughing at. Because, Team Blue I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:In which democrats defend someone who if she was a republican and did those same things they would be laughing at. Because, Team Blue I guess. If the situation was different, our reactions would be different! I have no idea why stupid people think this is an amazing burn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:In which democrats defend someone who if she was a republican and did those same things they would be laughing at. Because, Team Blue I guess. if dems were making mountains out of molehills about some repub for 25 years with no real results, we'd probably make fun of that situation too
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:In which democrats defend someone who if she was a republican and did those same things they would be laughing at. Because, Team Blue I guess. sorry you must be confused. We've got plenty of reasons to laught at Christie & Bush, but I don't think people have been making a big deal about their email woes
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:In which democrats defend someone who if she was a republican and did those same things they would be laughing at. Because, Team Blue I guess. You sure showed us! Trump rates this post as 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:In which democrats defend someone who if she was a republican and did those same things they would be laughing at. Because, Team Blue I guess. Don't you have better things to do, like posting about the Enemies of Rutgers Athletics?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:No, because she did nothing to actually endanger national security. If you've ever worked even tangentally to IT security, you'd understand that her situation wasn't even a little bit unusual. Her Iraq War vote didn't endanger national security? Do you really think the problems with her end with this dumb unforced error of the email server?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Her Iraq War vote didn't endanger national security? Ah yes, I too remember the vote for the Iraq War being 51-49. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
If Hillary were a Republican then Democrats wouldn't vote for her, apparently this is news to some people?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Her Iraq War vote didn't endanger national security? Do you really think the problems with her end with this dumb unforced error of the email server? what do you suggest that democratic party members do that they are not currently doing in relation to HRC
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
CNN is now using the term "careless Clinton". Lean doeskin is apparently writing for them now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
emdash posted:what do you suggest that democratic party members do that they are not currently doing in relation to HRC It's too late now. She's already the nominee and the likely next President.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Her Iraq War vote didn't endanger national security? Do you really think the problems with her end with this dumb unforced error of the email server? That goal post moved real fast.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
emdash posted:if dems were making mountains out of molehills about some repub for 25 years with no real results, we'd probably make fun of that situation too That has actually helped her since she has been attacked for complete nonsense and not the actual problems with her record. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That goal post moved real fast. Uhh that has always been my issue with her starting before the 2008 Primary. The emails are just window dressing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:CNN is now using the term "careless Clinton". Lean doeskin is apparently writing for them now. Trump is a cancer and he is metastasizing
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That goal post moved real fast. Advancements in technology now allow for self moving goalposts. The future is now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Are we really going back to the loving Iraq War vote. The executive branch lied their rear end off to congress about the facts and reasons to go into Iraq, good on those who didn't vote for it. But in that climate, and with what they were being told by people who were being disingenuous I completely understand someone who voted for it even if I disagreed with it even then. More than half of the Democrats in the senate at that time voted for that thing, especially the fan favorite Joe Biden.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
McMagic might be worse at political analysis than he is at magic card analysis. Best to ignore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Uhh that has always been my issue with her starting before the 2008 Primary. The emails are just window dressing. Dexo posted:The executive branch lied their rear end off to congress about the facts and reasons to go into Iraq, good on those who didn't vote for it. But in that climate, and with what they were being told by people who were being disingenuous I completely understand someone who voted for it even if I disagreed with it even then. taking anyone's vote and ignoring the context of the times is stupid - if I act on bad information, at the very least my blame for the consequences of my action is reduced theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It's too late now. She's already the nominee and the likely next President. between this and your other response, it seems like you are in a circular posting spree where nothing you're saying has any goal beyond "hillary bad, and people here aren't signaling that hillary bad enough for me" a lot of us do not like hillary that much, many even agree that she is bad! but at this point, and particularly in relation to this issue, it's a horse that's been beaten into liquid, bottled, and sold to righties with Clinton Derangement Syndrome, then they drank it, urinated it out, and drank it again, etc. Yes, she will probably be pres, and she will definitely do poo poo that we don't agree with, and people here will hopefully do whatever little part they can to hold her/the party to account. But asking people to perform some kind of anti-Clinton posting ritual because of today's events is really pointless
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:No, because she did nothing to actually endanger national security. If you've ever worked even tangentally to IT security, you'd understand that her situation wasn't even a little bit unusual. I can definitely agree with this- but isn't it reasonable to expect that as SecState, standards would be a little tighter around her access and communications? I mean this was clearly a failure at multiple levels, but should we just throw our hands up and say "oh well IT security in general is bad so it's fine" ?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Her Iraq War vote didn't endanger national security? Do you really think the problems with her end with this dumb unforced error of the email server? what does her email use during her stint as sec of state have to do with her vote as a senator on the iraq war? do you have that little reading comprehension?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:I can definitely agree with this- but isn't it reasonable to expect that as SecState, standards would be a little tighter around her access and communications? I mean this was clearly a failure at multiple levels, but should we just throw our hands up and say "oh well IT security in general is bad so it's fine" ? in an ideal world this would lead to better funding for IT in general for the government since it's important but lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:I can definitely agree with this- but isn't it reasonable to expect that as SecState, standards would be a little tighter around her access and communications? I mean this was clearly a failure at multiple levels, but should we just throw our hands up and say "oh well IT security in general is bad so it's fine" ? Department of State IT practices are bad and sadly the fact this is political fodder will forever obscure that. There is the sweet post about it that was reposted early today.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:you were clearly and obviously talking about the E-mail scandal, you ninny My only concern with invading someone with WMDs is if they are truly a mad dictator I don't think they'd be too against using then against an invading army, even on their own soil. I could see North Korea doing that if they had nukes and got invaded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:I can definitely agree with this- but isn't it reasonable to expect that as SecState, standards would be a little tighter around her access and communications? I mean this was clearly a failure at multiple levels, but should we just throw our hands up and say "oh well IT security in general is bad so it's fine" ? "Should be" and "is" are different things. I've worked in IT and can tell you that the ideal is very rarely the outcome. This is an ongoing problem and should be resolved but it isn't an exclusively Clinton one and shouldn't be about her or her exclusively like it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
emdash posted:a lot of us do not like hillary that much, many even agree that she is bad! but at this point, and particularly in relation to this issue, it's a horse that's been beaten into liquid, bottled, and sold to righties with Clinton Derangement Syndrome, then they drank it, urinated it out, and drank it again, etc. 1) Ewwwww 2) Taking this and adding on how some of those very same talking points have been used to attack her from the left (real or supposed) makes this even more ew.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:you were clearly and obviously talking about the E-mail scandal, you ninny Yeah, Like I'm seriously trying to picture a drat Senator from New York, with what information they were being fed at the time, not voting in the affirmative for the Iraq Resolution. And can't do it. Like It loving sucks sure, and is sub-optimal. But It's not like she was the lone snowflake in voting in the affirmative for it 58% of Democrats did. And like every report going through what congress was told, and the information provided to them has pointed to them outright being lied and misled about pretty much everything that linked 9/11 to Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:I can definitely agree with this- but isn't it reasonable to expect that as SecState, standards would be a little tighter around her access and communications? I mean this was clearly a failure at multiple levels, but should we just throw our hands up and say "oh well IT security in general is bad so it's fine" ? It's more "the security situation in the state department is so bad that she did dumb-ish things to be able to functionally do her job" IT security concerns shouldn't be a thing Hillary Clinton ever had to think about, because that absolutely shouldn't have been her job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:It's more "the security situation in the state department is so bad that she did dumb-ish things to be able to functionally do her job" I think the Waldman take on this is fair that when some concerns where voiced by IT staff, it was brushed off. I think that is something that should concern her.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Department of State IT practices are bad and sadly the fact this is political fodder will forever obscure that. Fair enough but I have a follow on question. If State policies are bad does that mean Kerry is also committing this same negligence? If not, why should Clinton get a pass? I'm honestly trying to understand why it's not a big deal when it seems like a normal working person would have been locked up for handling data this way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:My only concern with invading someone with WMDs is if they are truly a mad dictator I don't think they'd be too against using then against an invading army, even on their own soil. I could see North Korea doing that if they had nukes and got invaded. Well, if the US were going to attack a country like North Korea, there'd be considerations for that. There likely would be almost no ground troops involved until we had dismantled their leadership so they couldn't self-nuke or whatever. The only reason NK hasnt' been wiped out is that they have tacit support from China, who nobody wants to make angry, and that they don't really have the ability to hurt anyone who isn't South Korea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Fair enough but I have a follow on question. If State policies are bad does that mean Kerry is also committing this same negligence? If not, why should Clinton get a pass? I'm honestly trying to understand why it's not a big deal when it seems like a normal working person would have been locked up for handling data this way. I think you're underestimating how quickly electronic and computer things have changed in the past two decades. Policies are changing to adapt to them but they are slow to adapt. Even email is a relatively new thing to a lot of people and Colin Powell talked about how he had to actively push for it because there was a lot of pushback and rejection. Again, as someone who worked in IT, you will get *tons* of pushback and slowdown for any significant advancement. People do not want to change from what they're comfortable with and that makes it hard for policies to update. Also a normal person wouldn't have been locked up unless it was shown they were maliciously handling the data. The harshest possible outcome is not the same as the normal one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think the Waldman take on this is fair that when some concerns where voiced by IT staff, it was brushed off. I think that is something that should concern her. Fair enough - my point is that an easy-to-use off-the-shelf solution should have been available for her from day one. "IT's security concerns being brushed off" is basically what IT Departments exist for, in all organizations, everywhere, and Clinton making a bad call puts her in the hallowed ranks of "98% of C-level position holders in the world"
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:In which democrats defend someone who if she was a republican and did those same things they would be laughing at. Because, Team Blue I guess. numerous republicans are doing and have done the same thing, remember how this thread cheered on the FBI investigation of jeb bush's use of a private email server during his entire 8 years as florida governor?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Fair enough but I have a follow on question. If State policies are bad does that mean Kerry is also committing this same negligence? If not, why should Clinton get a pass? I'm honestly trying to understand why it's not a big deal when it seems like a normal working person would have been locked up for handling data this way. First, as Comey pointed out, no one else has ever been federally prosecuted for what Clinton did. Second, Kerry does use a DoS email address but likely had more options on how to access it than Clinton was given. However as Senator he did the same thing Clinton is being accused of http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/267949-kerry-sent-secret-email-to-clinton-from-personal-account
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Arguing that Clinton's history of poor, but politically expedient, judgment isn't a big deal because other political elites showed similarly poor judgment at times isn't a very convincing endorsement of her suitability for office.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:20 |
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Fair enough but I have a follow on question. If State policies are bad does that mean Kerry is also committing this same negligence? If not, why should Clinton get a pass? I'm honestly trying to understand why it's not a big deal when it seems like a normal working person would have been locked up for handling data this way. When she became SoS, she was told it'd be another 18 months until she'd have mobile email. Presumably four years later they finished that work order and Kerry has the ability to use mobile email. Also, Comey clearly said that a normal person would've gotten an administrative sanction for this, not locked up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 20:17
|
|
