(May 19, 2016 at 11:05 am)Whateverist the White Wrote:

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

No, it is a reflection of her character and record

(May 19, 2016 at 5:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(May 19, 2016 at 3:18 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Forgive my impertinence, but if I'm reading you right, she's guilty of being stupid about handling sensitive business in an insensitive manner -- i.e., lacking common sense?

If you want to label it as lacking common sense, then sure. However I would go slightly further than that. When you are given security clearance and are going to handle sensitive information, you usually have to read and sign a document stating that you understand the procedures in place, and the importance of handling sensitive data properly. So at the very least, she knew what the procedures were (assuming she actually read the document) and skirted around some of them.

Having held a Secret clearance myself, I can attest that yes, you must sign documents (multiple, not just one) attesting to your understanding of sensitive handling.

I do think that ex post facto classification is an odd circumstance and may afford her wiggle-room.

To my mind that still bespeaks a lack of common-sense; however data might be classified by the government, it should be apparent to someone especially in such a high position (assuming they have knowledge on the topic at hand) that sensitive data is, well, sensitive.

To put it terms of my experience: the number of bombers at my base during Desert Storm was not classified, but it wasn't information I talked about, period. It seemed to me that discretion wasn't just the better part of valor, but also security. We got that sort of indoctrination in Basic Training, that even a portion of the truth can help an active intel operation.

Disqualifier? I'm not so sure. Evidence of sloppy thinking? No doubt.

(May 19, 2016 at 7:49 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(May 19, 2016 at 5:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote: If you want to label it as lacking common sense, then sure. However I would go slightly further than that. When you are given security clearance and are going to handle sensitive information, you usually have to read and sign a document stating that you understand the procedures in place, and the importance of handling sensitive data properly. So at the very least, she knew what the procedures were (assuming she actually read the document) and skirted around some of them.

Having held a Secret clearance myself, I can attest that yes, you must sign documents (multiple, not just one) attesting to your understanding  of sensitive handling.

I do think that ex post facto classification is an odd circumstance and may afford her wiggle-room.

To my mind that still bespeaks a lack of common-sense; however data might be classified by the government, it should be apparent to someone especially in such a high position (assuming they have knowledge on the topic at hand) that sensitive data is, well, sensitive.

To put it terms of my experience: the number of bombers at my base during Desert Storm was not classified, but it wasn't information I talked about, period. It seemed to me that discretion wasn't just the better part of valor, but also security. We got that sort of indoctrination in Basic Training, that even a portion of the truth can help an active intel  operation.

Disqualifier? I'm not so sure. Evidence of sloppy thinking? No doubt.

You nailed another one.

(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

You aren't afraid of Trump? Are you paying attention?

(May 19, 2016 at 8:27 pm)Mermaid Wrote:

(May 16, 2016 at 7:58 pm)Mothonis Wrote: Iam not afraid of trump.And hillary she be held accountable just like everyone else

You aren't afraid of Trump? Are you paying attention?

Yes,he is harmless because his own party doesnt support him meaning he wont get anything passed,meanwhile his election would drive voters to flip the house to dems in order to hurt him

To use the words of an old French politician, the Republicans have "chained themselves to a corpse."

He's not harmless--the perception overseas counts big on the world economy stage. He has hinted he will default on our debt (because bankruptcy works in the business world) which would tank the dollar and put our tenuous but monumentally important trade relationship with the Chinese in danger, he is nearly universally loathed in the EU, and he is trying to approach diplomacy like a fucking business deal, which it couldn't be more polar opposite to.

You think our economy tanking at the same time the dollar inflates is harmless, you have your head in the sand.

He can't actually do that, and his subsequent comments in that regard have shown that he doesn't even have a clue what he's talking about....so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Just another soundbyte, like all that nonsense about a wall.

Or, maybe, he just misinterpreted the question as "Mr Trump, in a fantasy world where you have abilities beyond those of the office you seek, and things worked in a manner amenable to your fever dreams...how would you handle our debt issues?"

I know he can't, but again, perception can have a huge effect, even if temporary. But a temporary shift in the world of economics can have disastrous chain of events type effects.

The only thing more foolish than Trumps plans, would be failing to take full advantage of US trade because of the ramblings of an idiot.