or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Why Hillary will be the next POTUS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Hillary will be the next POTUS - Page 68

post #1006 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Lotus View Post
 

 

Damage the Republican brand?  It was the Republicans who nominated him.  The guy is running as anti-free trade and is openly against private property rights (he thought Kelo was one of the greatest SCOTUS decisions ever).  To me that is the antithesis of what the Republican brand stood for, but it appears Republicans care about Mexicans more than anything else.

post #1007 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Lotus View Post

Trump > Crooked Hillary. Hillary should be done for with the email scandal but this country is corrupted and the system is rigged!
\
Probably so, but the bigger problem is that it's filled with stupid assclowns like you.
post #1008 of 3334
Thread Starter 
So how awkward is it going to be to give the highest of all top secret clearances to a person the FBI just told the public was "extremely careless" with top secret information?
post #1009 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Lotus View Post



Lolololol. She's stupid because she's pretty. Only uggos can be smart, which sucks for them since everyone knows a woman's real value is in her appearance.
post #1010 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

So how awkward is it going to be to give the highest of all top secret clearances to a person the FBI just told the public was "extremely careless" with top secret information?

I cited this earlier as evidence of my "some animals are more equal than others" point, and it was completely ignored.
post #1011 of 3334
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

I cited this earlier as evidence of my "some animals are more equal than others" point, and it was completely ignored.

I know that feeling...
post #1012 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I know that feeling...

Solidarity, my e-bro.
post #1013 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

I cited this earlier as evidence of my "some animals are more equal than others" point, and it was completely ignored.
Well, if your point is that the person who is elected President (taking the hypothetical/assumption I think you guys are using) is not treated exactly the same as everyone else, that's certainly true.
post #1014 of 3334

Wouldn't she have had it as secretary of state?

post #1015 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Wouldn't she have had it as secretary of state?
Well, I think that's sort of the problem.
post #1016 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Well, if your point is that the person who is elected President (taking the hypothetical/assumption I think you guys are using) is not treated exactly the same as everyone else, that's certainly true.

My point, and I'm not speaking for Piob here, is that she is presumably still eligible for security clearance, which would not be an option for a rank-and-file bureaucrat who handled classified information the way she did. That is evidence she is receiving preferential treatment, and it goes to my earlier point that, while I understand that the quote from Comey's statement I used earlier did not involve legal sanction, it's clear that she is protected from any sanction. Taken in that light, I think Comey's statement illustrates the fact that her status as one of our political elite has made her part of a class that does not play by the same rules as the rest of us (which was the thrust of my very first post in this thread).
post #1017 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Damage the Republican brand?  It was the Republicans who nominated him.  The guy is running as anti-free trade and is openly against private property rights (he thought Kelo was one of the greatest SCOTUS decisions ever).  To me that is the antithesis of what the Republican brand stood for, but it appears Republicans care about Mexicans more than anything else.

Hey, if that means we can get the Acela amtrak trains running near full speed, it may not be a bad thing
post #1018 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

My point, and I'm not speaking for Piob here, is that she is presumably still eligible for security clearance, which would not be an option for a rank-and-file bureaucrat who handled classified information the way she did. That is evidence she is receiving preferential treatment, and it goes to my earlier point that, while I understand that the quote from Comey's statement I used earlier did not involve legal sanction, it's clear that she is protected from any sanction. Taken in that light, I think Comey's statement illustrates the fact that her status as one of our political elite has made her part of a class that does not play by the same rules as the rest of us (which was the thrust of my very first post in this thread).

I understand that generally. Do I generally believe in even-handed treatment, and would I generally prefer that folks with security clearances have a track record of being responsible and careful with communications they participate in pursuant thereto? Absolutely. But yes, if you are elected President you get to shortcut or bypass some rules that otherwise would apply to other folks. Apologies if I'm conflating Pio's point and yours, but lots of assholes I don't trust and who might not pass a full security screening on the merits run for President -- but I wouldn't suggest that they're not entitled to automatic, carte-blanche access to top secret information if they're elected.

To your no sanction point, part of that is because she is no longer Secretary of State, so employment sanctions that might otherwise apply aren't available. I've moved on from my government job, where I had access to various sorts of confidential information. Were an investigation to find that I was careless in my handling of that information, but that there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges, I'd be free of any sanction as well.
post #1019 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post


My point, and I'm not speaking for Piob here, is that she is presumably still eligible for security clearance, which would not be an option for a rank-and-file bureaucrat who handled classified information the way she did. That is evidence she is receiving preferential treatment, and it goes to my earlier point that, while I understand that the quote from Comey's statement I used earlier did not involve legal sanction, it's clear that she is protected from any sanction. Taken in that light, I think Comey's statement illustrates the fact that her status as one of our political elite has made her part of a class that does not play by the same rules as the rest of us (which was the thrust of my very first post in this thread).

 

Everyone, whether they acknowledge or not, knows that the political class doesn't play by the same rules as us.  They're exempt from insider trading rules, they're exempt from Obamacare mandates, they're exempt from all the airport security nonsense they put in place, they investigate themselves when someone does something illegal or unethical, etc, etc.

It is just now the head law enforcement officer openly said that.  To me that's the scariest part.  We have gotten to the point where the head of the FBI can come out and admit that she plays by different rules than us and it isn't universally upsetting.  I can't imagine this playing out the same way 100 or 200 years ago.  Today, it is like a 60/40 split who is outraged - everyone who sees themselves on the right and Berniebros.  The partisan Ds just line-up in blind defense.  The same thing would happen if the shoe had been on the other foot (the media coverage might not be the same though).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


Well, I think that's sort of the problem.

 

Agreed.  I had lowly secret clearance once.  If had taken a thumb drive of documents home with me and stored them on my personal computer, I would have lost my clearance and thus my job.  Probably worse.  If the military found out after I was out, they probably would have prevented me from getting clearance in the future.

post #1020 of 3334
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


Well, I think that's sort of the problem.

 

Agreed.  I had lowly secret clearance once.  If had taken a thumb drive of documents home with me and stored them on my personal computer, I would have lost my clearance and thus my job.  Probably worse.  If the military found out after I was out, they probably would have prevented me from getting clearance in the future.

You say you were in the military and then question privilege ? The US military????

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Why Hillary will be the next POTUS