or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › OFFICIAL Trump v. Clinton Debate Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OFFICIAL Trump v. Clinton Debate Thread - Page 36

post #526 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

i guess that's explains perfectly why she beat Bernie too

I thought it was because three million more people voted for her than Bernie puzzled.gif
post #527 of 724
Thread Starter 
IMO, Bernie was the best part about this election cycle.
post #528 of 724
Getting the e-mails from the other parties is how the FBI has been able to recover many of the deleted emails. As far as which ones had classified information on them, it was a hundred or so that were clearly classified at the time, a couple that were actually labeled classified, and a couple thousand that had information that should have been marked classified but wasn't (the so-called 'classified later' e-mails).

I find it hard to believe that the state department is as oblivious or "extremely careless" with classified info on its unclassified servers.
post #529 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

i guess that's explains perfectly why she beat Bernie too

I thought it was because three million more people voted for her than Bernie puzzled.gif

according to our friend otc she was apparently telling the truth more often than Bernie
post #530 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I know you Trump people don't like to see this kind of stuff, but there actual "facts" and "numbers" here.

Before the debate, Trump had been leading in Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, and Iowa. Now he's losing all of them. It's literally the worst post-debate polling cycle in modern history. The public has made it pretty clear who they thought won, and by how much.

But a lot of that decline was because of Miss Universe, not just the debate. I'm not disagreeing with you on the fact that Trump lost the first debate, I just don't think he lost as badly as Hillary lost last night. We know this because of the headlines. They're panicking. Everyone assumed he would perform poorly in the debate, especially with the tape release. They were wrong. Headlines have shifted to "Paul Ryan Won't Defend Trump." If Hillary gave even a mediocre performance last night, the headlines would be declaring her a clear winner. Even CNN can't run that with a straight face.
post #531 of 724
Yes, and in those emails they are recovering, they aren't finding any smoking guns...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I find it hard to believe that the state department is as oblivious or "extremely careless" with classified info on its unclassified servers.

That argument seems senseless to me.

She was a part of the state department. She was sending and receiving many of those emails with other state department staff. It doesn't respond at all.

1. She would have had roughly the same email behavior had her emails been hosted by the state department (subject to blackberry technical limitations and whatever sorts of process issues lawyerdad was mentioning).
2. Her email partners would have undoubtedly behaved the same as well (most of the people emailing with Hillary probably had no idea she was using a personal email server).
3. She had access to the closed classified system, and was the approved means of transmitting classified information. She probably had daily contact with lots of classified information, basically none of which was through her private email.

It seems absurd that it is somehow a big deal that only 3 out of 60k+ emails were marked confidential and a hundred more were "obviously" confidential but not marked. That's nothing. That's why this is a stupid issue. Confidential isn't even that big of a classification--most confidential information is pretty innocuous on its own (only useful in conjunction with other information) so even if these tiny pieces got out, it isn't like it is some major national security incident. There were no Top Secret emails...
post #532 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

I thought it was Gary Johnson who believes in trade and friendship with everyone?

 

Does Hillary actually believe anything?  Or does she just say whatever her audience wants to hear and is more deft than Trump?

post #533 of 724
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Does Hillary actually believe anything?  Or does she just say whatever her audience wants to hear and is more deft than Trump?

Hillary believes she will die a billionaire and I think she's correct.
post #534 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

Yes, and in those emails they are recovering, they aren't finding any smoking guns...
That argument seems senseless to me.

She was a part of the state department. She was sending and receiving many of those emails with other state department staff. It doesn't respond at all.

1. She would have had roughly the same email behavior had her emails been hosted by the state department (subject to blackberry technical limitations and whatever sorts of process issues lawyerdad was mentioning).
2. Her email partners would have undoubtedly behaved the same as well (most of the people emailing with Hillary probably had no idea she was using a personal email server).
3. She had access to the closed classified system, and was the approved means of transmitting classified information. She probably had daily contact with lots of classified information, basically none of which was through her private email.

It seems absurd that it is somehow a big deal that only 3 out of 60k+ emails were marked confidential and a hundred more were "obviously" confidential but not marked. That's nothing. That's why this is a stupid issue. Confidential isn't even that big of a classification--most confidential information is pretty innocuous on its own (only useful in conjunction with other information) so even if these tiny pieces got out, it isn't like it is some major national security incident. There were no Top Secret emails...

 

My big objection to the whole situation is quite simply this: I had secret clearance at one point.  If I had done what she did, they would have fired me and prevented me from getting secret clearance again, which would limit the jobs I could take.  While Hillary quit before she could get fired, these lapses won't prevent her from taking a job that gives her access to even more classified information including the most top secret information.

post #535 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


Hillary believes she will die a billionaire and I think she's correct.


I believe I'm going to live forever in a sexy robot body, but maybe I just spent too much time talking to @Harold falcon before he went AWOL.

post #536 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Does Hillary actually believe anything?  Or does she just say whatever her audience wants to hear and is more deft than Trump?

Oh, I assume so. She has a history that demonstrates a long-standing commitment to various (mostly social) issues. Have whatever idealistic principles she might once have had been worn down by decades of pragmatism and the self-replicating rationalization that short-term political expediency is justified to keep the dream alive? I'm sure.
I suspect that the answer to each of your questions is at least a partial yes.
post #537 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

My big objection to the whole situation is quite simply this: I had secret clearance at one point.  If I had done what she did, they would have fired me and prevented me from getting secret clearance again, which would limit the jobs I could take.  While Hillary quit before she could get fired, these lapses won't prevent her from taking a job that gives her access to even more classified information including the most top secret information.

But did your job allow you to run your own email server under the official rules at the time? If you were secretary of state, I'm not sure you would have been treated any differently than Hillary was.

Also (I have no idea), how many of the "bad" emails on her server were sent by her (originally, not in the black hole of previous replies) vs how many were sent by someone else to her?
post #538 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

It seems absurd that it is somehow a big deal that only 3 out of 60k+ emails were marked confidential and a hundred more were "obviously" confidential but not marked. That's nothing. That's why this is a stupid issue. Confidential isn't even that big of a classification--most confidential information is pretty innocuous on its own (only useful in conjunction with other information) so even if these tiny pieces got out, it isn't like it is some major national security incident. There were no Top Secret emails...

You keep messing up the facts here. It was three marked classified in the e-mails, a hundred containing information that was classified but not marked in the e-mail, and thousands containing classified information that hadn't yet been marked classified (but generally should have been at the time).

That's separate from what she used the server for that was "secret" or "top secret," but it was quite a bit. At least 8 "chains," were "top secret" and 36 were "secret."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/fbi-findings-damage-many-of-hillary-clintons-claims.html

And that's from the ones that were recovered.

I don't know how the state department's unclassified e-mail server was managed, but I doubt it was abused the same way Clinton's was.
post #539 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

LOL, clearly my comment about butthurt was offbase.

Be nice, Wojt isn't used to the types of democracy where you can't jail the opposition


Can you think of any special committee that had 4 out 7 members of one party and whose work would end in definite jail time for a certain president had he not be pardoned?
post #540 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

Can you think of any special committee that had 4 out 7 members of one party and whose work would end in definite jail time for a certain president had he not be pardoned?
Greger?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › OFFICIAL Trump v. Clinton Debate Thread