Doesn't the content of the phone calls matter? I dont see anywhere it is confirmed it was sensitive information.

I can't wait until the people running for pres are not so old they don't have a fucking clue about technology. Obama was recently technologically inclined. Hillary, clearly not so much.

I dont know, why weren't there any safety measures in place to prevent an accidental opening like this? We've already had one president develop Alzheimers while I office. It seems to me that, and I'm serious here, the fault is not entirely hers. It was sooo easy to make this mistake. There needs to be better security measures in place that one old lady who has no fucking clue what she did wrong, from a technical standpoint.

(May 18, 2016 at 8:40 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That's just Wyrd Nymph, lol, he doesn't mean it, or..if he does, it'd be impossible to tell.

If I were Admin, I'd permanently change his user title to "Shitposter Extraordinaire".

It's really the only thing he's good for. When's the last time Woggie has made a cogent point without invoking his own bigotry or biases?

I think...and I'm just spitballing here, he's actually trying to shed light on bigotry and bias as he sees it, lol.  Often, it's hidden behind a smiling face, or pleasant sounding intentions.  Genteel Asshattery, not unlike what many of us might have experienced if we grew up in the deep south.  It's only when someone says -exactly- what we're thinking (we, as in..the aggregate) without flinching or attempting to disguise it or showing deference to the conventions of what you do or don't say (often formed by and for the benefit of those very bigots themselves)..that we even realize it's there.

Call me an optimist.  

-and if I'm wrong about all of that..at least it's a pleasant fiction that you can console yourself with whenever you see his posts.......

(May 18, 2016 at 4:53 pm)Divinity Wrote: Most democratic voters don't give a damn about her emails.

It's a good job that Clinton doesn't need the support of democrat voters who do give a damn about her emails, plus independents, etc. Oh wait...

(May 18, 2016 at 9:47 pm)Aroura Wrote: Doesn't the content of the phone calls matter? I dont see anywhere it is confirmed it was sensitive information.

To some degree yes, and to some degree no. I'm sure there are rules saying that unsecured lines are OK in some circumstances, but do we know that this was one of those circumstances? My initial thoughts are that this was probably not allowed. Clinton would have chosen to use an unsecured line immediately if given the opportunity. The fact that they tried to use a secure line for an hour suggests to me that they were supposed to use a secure line. Honestly, if this were a call that did not need to happen securely, I can't see why they would try to do it securely for an hour before giving up.

It's the attitude that really annoys me. Security is important, nowadays more than ever.

(May 16, 2016 at 7:58 pm)Mothonis Wrote:

(May 16, 2016 at 7:54 pm)abaris Wrote: And? What then? Dump?

Iam not afraid of trump.And hillary she be held accountable just like everyone else

But how can you vote for Trump when he hasn't released his taxes?  For that matter, how can anyone vote for someone who will not disclose any policy stance?

(May 16, 2016 at 8:10 pm)Mothonis Wrote:

(May 16, 2016 at 8:03 pm)abaris Wrote: Which means, you're not working. Otherwise you would be concerned over the economy.

Hillary is owned by the same special interest groups thst hurt us.and i will not base my vote on fear.

Is that code for "real world considerations"?

(May 19, 2016 at 11:01 am)Tiberius Wrote: It's a good job that Clinton doesn't need the support of democrat voters who do give a damn about her emails, plus independents, etc. Oh wait...

It's a good thing her opponent is still Donald Fucking Drumpf.  If the Republicans were really so worried about the EMAIL scandal, then they'd have nominated someone electable and more moderate instead of the fuckheads they put up.  Drumpf is a piece of shit xenophobe who wants to ban muslims from the country (unconstitutional), wants to punish women for abortions (he went back on it, but the fact that he said it makes him fucking crazy), wants to nominate a supreme court justice who thinks it's perfectly okay to punish people for having gay sex in their own home, doesn't have a goddamn clue about how to run the country, and the only thing he's running on is building a goddamn wall that he claims Mexico will pay for (even though that's not going to happen, and even if it did it wouldn't do any fucking good because apparently despite working in real estate development he doesn't understand that there are these things called ladders and ways to dig under said wall)

(May 19, 2016 at 11:01 am)Tiberius Wrote: To some degree yes, and to some degree no. I'm sure there are rules saying that unsecured lines are OK in some circumstances, but do we know that this was one of those circumstances?

Do we know -anything- about it?  No.  You consistently frame the questions to imply guilt, and even go so far as to say you would consider her guilty -of something-  if she was found not to have done anything illegal.

Quote:My initial thoughts are that this was probably not allowed. Clinton would have chosen to use an unsecured line immediately if given the opportunity. The fact that they tried to use a secure line for an hour suggests to me that they were supposed to use a secure line. Honestly, if this were a call that did not need to happen securely, I can't see why they would try to do it securely for an hour before giving up.

-and since we don;t know whether or not the subsequent call ever occurred....or what was spoken about if it did, or whether procedure was followed in response to the tech failure in that call that may have never taken place........

Quote:It's the attitude that really annoys me. Security is important, nowadays more than ever.

The attitude that you've manufactured, whole cloth..out of very literally nothing? Even the story we -do- have reports that she suggested steps be taken to protect sensitive data. Here's a "for all we know" for ya. An aide leans in and says, "I'm sorry, Mrs Clinton, we can't do that".

I'm not much of a fan of Hillary either, but this is an election cycle, and this was dug up by a group trying to make sure she wouldn't win. It is -very- common to try and bury a candidate in controversy. The truth of the accusations are almost entirely immaterial. She hasn't been indicted, and even if indicted, she will need to be convicted...otherwise all of this is hot air.

The only argument I hear from Hilary fans as top why people should vote for her is: "She's not Donald Trump". They don't ever attempt to sell her to us. They assume Hilary is entitled to their vote by virtue of not being Donald Trump because there is a crappy two party system, which people could get rid of at the polling booth.

Hilary isn't giving people reasons to vote for her. She speaking in clichés and platitudes and most of her polices are dictated by either the polls or her cooperate donors. What does Hillary truly believe in? What drives her to want to be president? She'd be just as bad as Donald Trump as president - if not worse - because she would mean more war and, remember, she voted for Patriot Act and I'm she'd be quite happy to screw the ordinary citizen even more as president.