Quote:How come it doesn't bother people when Hilary Clinton puts national security at risk?

Because it only bothers nazi shitheads who want to see a stupid motherfucker like Drumpf in the White House.

I'm talking about YOU.

(May 16, 2016 at 11:50 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Must be a record, this thread went from zero to shit in 3.32  posts.

Excellent observation.

(May 16, 2016 at 11:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:How come it doesn't bother people when Hilary Clinton puts national security at risk?

Because it only bothers nazi shitheads who want to see a stupid motherfucker like Drumpf in the White House.

It also bothers people who actually understand the seriousness of Clinton's actions. Maybe you haven't dealt with sensitive data before Minimalist, but I have, and I can tell you that people who don't follow procedure when handling classified materials or information of a sensitive nature routinely find themselves losing their clearance, facing criminal charges, and spending time in jail.

They do not, and should not, end up as a candidate for President.

I honestly couldn't give two fucks if her actions mean Trump gets elected. If that happens, it's her fault for not taking the national security of the American people seriously while she was in office.

Shouldn't we wait until the FBI presents a case, and she's convicted...before we start talking about her actions in any meaningful sense?  I know you're new here...but we have this thing called the presumption of innocence. 

Don't get me wrong, if she's convicted of a crime...I'd help put the logs under her pyre, but I think we're being a little hasty. If we refused to consider candidates for the presidency based upon whether or not the candidate had ever been accused or suspected of illegality...we'd be more than a few presidents short.

(May 18, 2016 at 9:48 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(May 16, 2016 at 11:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Because it only bothers nazi shitheads who want to see a stupid motherfucker like Drumpf in the White House.

It also bothers people who actually understand the seriousness of Clinton's actions. Maybe you haven't dealt with sensitive data before Minimalist, but I have, and I can tell you that people who don't follow procedure when handling classified materials or information of a sensitive nature routinely find themselves losing their clearance, facing criminal charges, and spending time in jail.

They do not, and should not, end up as a candidate for President.

I honestly couldn't give two fucks if her actions mean Trump gets elected. If that happens, it's her fault for not taking the national security of the American people seriously while she was in office.

I take security clearances pretty seriously too.

I declined to be investigated for a clearance at a former employer back in the 80s as the investigation would endanger the people in the AIDS volunteer group I was associated with.  There were no protections in the late 80s for those with HIV, and I wasn't going to cause them any further problems.

This did not go over very well with my boss.  I couldn't even disclose why I wouldn't submit to the process without getting in a jackpot situation with the higher ups in my department.

(and appreciate the irony here, I'm not getting a clearance because I CAN keep secrets)

If someone can't comport to the rules of the clearance requirements, one needs to decline.  I did it, and I'm not thrilled that others think they can have it both ways and play it by their own rules.

You couldn't get a job at McDonald's if you're being investigated by the FBI so the fact that Hillary is running to be president shows how detected from reality she is. For somebody who claims to hate Donald Trump, she is doing everything she can to see him elected. From cheating, lying and general voter disenfranchisement, she is making it increasingly likely a Republican will enter the Oval Office. He poll lead over Donald Trump is quickly disappearing.

(May 18, 2016 at 10:14 am)Rhythm Wrote: Shouldn't we wait until the FBI presents a case, and she's convicted...before we start talking about her actions in any meaningful sense?  I know you're new here...but we have this thing called the presumption of innocence. 

Don't get me wrong, if she's convicted of a crime...I'd help put the logs under her pyre, but I think we're being a little hasty. If we refused to consider candidates for the presidency based upon whether or not the candidate had ever been accused or suspected of illegality...we'd be more than a few presidents short.

No, I don't think we should be waiting, and here's why. This has very little to do with whether her actions were illegal, and everything to do with the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind her actions.

I think most of us who have worked for a company would agree that using a personal email for work related matters is astoundingly unprofessional. This was a government employee though, someone in one of the highest levels of government. That goes well beyond unprofessional in my eyes. Even if it were technically legal for her to do so, what would people think if the President was found to be using a Gmail account for work related emails?

Some details we do know, from freedom of information requests and also from Internet scans that happened before the server was discovered. We know that it had a vulnerable version of RDP running (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/14/...e_pillory/), we know that for 3 months, communications to and from the server were entirely unencrypted (https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/what-ve...ail-server). In that 3 month period, Clinton travelled to a number of countries with the capability of spying on insecure communications (China, Israel, etc.).

Again, even if the server was perfectly legal, the facts are that potentially classified information, even if that information was retroactively classified, was being sent insecurely, and being stored on a server which had a vulnerability that could allow attackers to compromise it. Even if document A was not marked as classified when it was sent, if it were picked up by the Chinese government whilst being sent insecurely from or to Clinton's phone, then China have document A, and document A is now classified, meaning that China have a classified document, all because Clinton used an insecure private server.

The main problem with Clinton's server is that she used it, whether intentionally or not, to avoid oversight. Oversight which would have involved 24/7 I.T. teams ensuring that the infrastructure was protected and up to date, that regular security testing was carried out, and (more importantly) that potentially classified data was handled correctly.

That's why she shouldn't be President. Even if she is found not guilty on a technicality, she is still guilty of perhaps the most irresponsible handling of government data in history.

Most democratic voters don't give a damn about her emails. Especially when the fucker running against her ran a scam in Trump University. Especially when the asshole who is her opponent has manipulated the bankruptcy laws in order to make his goddamn fortune. But even if he wasn't her opponent, her opponent would still be an asshole because the other choice is Ted Cruz or another Republican asshole.

I'd be willing to bet this is a lot more common than we realize too. The focus is on Hillary because she's going to be under a microscope. Maybe she should be. But it's up to the voters to decide if she should be president, not some partisan hacks who don't want her to be President and are perfectly fine with President Fuckhead. Didn't millions of emails go missing a few years ago from Karl Rove? That's millions, not thousands. Yes, Karl Rove isn't going to be President. If Freedom of Information and all that is what's really important though, then it doesn't matter if he's never running for public office again or not. Somehow that never got quite the attention Hillary did. I wonder if it's because of partisan politics? I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that it is.

(May 16, 2016 at 10:40 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(May 16, 2016 at 7:51 pm)Mothonis Wrote: I hope she is taken down by this,she seems to think she is above the law

She's a lesbian so she lacks good sense.

Seriously, what the hell does this mean?

My son is gay and he has plenty of good sense. One's sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with having good sense

That's just Wyrd Nymph, lol, he doesn't mean it, or..if he does, it'd be impossible to tell.