DescentBB

If you mean deliberately going to great lengths to avoid using the govt email system as is required is somehow bolstering her case you must be living on Venus.

no, as in not linking the email account to her name. That is security common sense.



Still, it's sort of odd, but predictable. I(the supposed Dem flack on this board....I'm not) states a reason why I feel Ms. Clinton doesn't have the temperment to be a good President, yet the right wing lackeys want to make this Bengazi II, as if Bengazi I worked at all. Astounding.

What is astounding how you were once chortling how Hillary was a shoo in for the Presidency. Now you seem to be hedging your bets. I suspect we'll next start getting posts from you about O'malley being a shoo in.

Slick has slightly changed his tune about Hillary, hasn't he?

Like I said, we don't need more Clintons or Bushies as presidents. They're just MOSS (more of the same s**t).

I agree TC, we don't need to establish family dynasties in our political system.

I just have a reallllly hard time believing that she didn't consider what she was doing.

As far as I'm concerned: she's expected to use govt email for two reasons: national security and accountability - and I find it implausable that a woman who managed to make it to secretary of state wouldn't understand that...

So I read this as a big middle finger to the American public, saying "I'm more important than the security of the country and I'll be damned if I'm going to be held accountable to you."

Well said Snoopy

tunnelcat wrote:Slick has slightly changed his tune about Hillary, hasn't he?

Like I said, we don't need more Clintons or Bushies as presidents. They're just MOSS (more of the same s**t).

you apparently weren't ever LISTENING to my tune. From the git-go, I have stated that I don't like her, didn't support her in 2008, actively worked against her. What I've been stating here is 1)she is VERY well organized with smarter staff this time around and 2)she presents a much more positive message that the GOP 'no-crowd'. That is it. Nothing has changed, and I started this very thread to illustrate WHY I don't get the warm, fuzzy feeling about her.

snoopy wrote:I just have a reallllly hard time believing that she didn't consider what she was doing.

As far as I'm concerned: she's expected to use govt email for two reasons: national security and accountability - and I find it implausable that a woman who managed to make it to secretary of state wouldn't understand that...

So I read this as a big middle finger to the American public, saying "I'm more important than the security of the country and I'll be damned if I'm going to be held accountable to you."

perhaps a bit harsher than my words, but essentially my whole point in the OP.

callmeslick wrote:

snoopy wrote:I just have a reallllly hard time believing that she didn't consider what she was doing.

As far as I'm concerned: she's expected to use govt email for two reasons: national security and accountability - and I find it implausable that a woman who managed to make it to secretary of state wouldn't understand that...

So I read this as a big middle finger to the American public, saying "I'm more important than the security of the country and I'll be damned if I'm going to be held accountable to you."

perhaps a bit harsher than my words, but essentially my whole point in the OP.

Yep. We've been agreeing on a few things lately slick... scary.

callmeslick wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Slick has slightly changed his tune about Hillary, hasn't he?

Like I said, we don't need more Clintons or Bushies as presidents. They're just MOSS (more of the same s**t).

you apparently weren't ever LISTENING to my tune. From the git-go, I have stated that I don't like her, didn't support her in 2008, actively worked against her. What I've been stating here is 1)she is VERY well organized with smarter staff this time around and 2)she presents a much more positive message that the GOP 'no-crowd'. That is it. Nothing has changed, and I started this very thread to illustrate WHY I don't get the warm, fuzzy feeling about her.

Don't get yer britches in a bunch slick. I've been reading. Her shine is definitely fading for you. Or was she one of those hold your nose things and choose because the opposition stinks worse.

callmeslick wrote:and to remind voters WHY to support her:

I’d rather see a clown car that can't find its way, than a laser guided missile straight to the wrong laws.

(cough…ACA….cough)

woodchip wrote:Instead, Clinton's accounts were registered under the names of aides, according to the review. She also used a proxy company to shield her involvement, a common practice among domain owners."

Just FYI, the descentbb.net domain is also registered through a proxy company, it has nothing to do with political scheming or shielding someones involvement. The actual reason is so when you do a whois lookup which is free on the internet, the record does not immediately print out the full name, physical address, email and phone number of the person who registered it. All that information that has to be kept accurate and valid on .com/net/org/etc domains registered in the US, the service is there to protect us from spammers, scams and identity thieves. Don't you think someone as high profile as Hillary Clinton would have a valid need for a service like that?

Krom wrote:

woodchip wrote:Instead, Clinton's accounts were registered under the names of aides, according to the review. She also used a proxy company to shield her involvement, a common practice among domain owners."

Just FYI, the descentbb.net domain is also registered through a proxy company, it has nothing to do with political scheming or shielding someones involvement. The actual reason is so when you do a whois lookup which is free on the internet, the record does not immediately print out the full name, physical address, email and phone number of the person who registered it. All that information that has to be kept accurate and valid on .com/net/org/etc domains registered in the US, the service is there to protect us from spammers, scams and identity thieves. Don't you think someone as high profile as Hillary Clinton would have a valid need for a service like that?

Isn't the system she is mandated by law to use already as secure as the one she created outside the law to use instead?
Isn't the most important difference between the two systems that she owns hers (thus she alone could delete any file she wants and how would anyone know) and the people govern the Federal system that she was supposed to use?

It seems to me those distinctions are much more important than any similarity you can point out to some other system that isn't designed to meet the requirements set out by federal law.

She offered this excuse:

Clinton explained that she used a personal email address so that she didn't have to carry around two phones or devices.

I'm just an average guy with multiple email accounts to keep my work stuff seperate from my personal stuff and I don't carry more than one device. I think most junior high school students and above understand that is easy to do with a smart phone or iPad or etc., etc.

I think she has bucket loads of contempt for regular people to offer such a weak excuse.
She (like the rest of the lefties at the top) has been allowed by the media to operate with impunity for so long she now feels put out for even having to give an answer.
I would suggest she has balls the size of grapefruit but it doesn't take balls if you know there won't be any one allowed to challenge you. Maybe this will be the tipping point for the media as they search for a way to feign integrity. Or maybe they too have been allowed too much.

TC, it is DEFINITELY a lesser of two evils thing with me. In fact, I'm hoping that someone emerges to challenge her, and succeeds, as Obama did, for the same reasons(superior intellect, better long-range vision for the nation, etc). There was NEVER any bloom on the rose. All I've ever said is that she positioned herself in a position of inevitablity past anything I'd ever seen in my political life.

Well, I hope the Dems dig up someone better who can take on the Republican machine mano a mano and not flinch, because I think Hillary is arrogant and she is going to try and crown herself presumptive queen.........again.

Will Robinson wrote:Isn't the system she is mandated by law to use already as secure as the one she created outside the law to use instead?
Isn't the most important difference between the two systems that she owns hers (thus she alone could delete any file she wants and how would anyone know) and the people govern the Federal system that she was supposed to use?

Doesn't matter. You've seen how easy it is for identity thieves and scammers can get personal information. Imagine what you could do if you had the personal information of a politician.

tunnelcat wrote:Well, I hope the Dems dig up someone better who can take on the Republican machine mano a mano and not flinch, because I think Hillary is arrogant and she is going to try and crown herself presumptive queen.........again.

well, it didn't work out in 2008, when she acted the same way. Saw the 'defense' press conference and came away feeling like I always have about her.

I watched an interview with Jim Webb the other day, and from what I saw…I liked.

Spidey wrote:I watched an interview with Jim Webb the other day, and from what I saw…I liked.

can agree with the overall assessment, at least on character alone.

Spidey, from Senator Webb's exploratory statement of purpose:

"We haven’t been perfect and from time to time, as with today, we have drifted to the fringes of allowing the very inequalities that our Constitution was supposed to prevent. Walk into some of our inner cities if you dare, and see the stagnation, poverty, crime, and lack of opportunity that still affects so many African Americans. Or travel to the Appalachian Mountains, where my own ancestors settled and whose cultural values I still share, and view the poorest counties in America – who happen to be more than 90 percent White, and who live in the reality that “if you’re poor and White you’re out of sight.”

The Democratic Party used to be the place where people like these could come not for a handout but for an honest handshake, good full-time jobs, quality education, health care they can afford, and the vital, overriding belief that we’re all in this together and the system is not rigged."


it heartens me to hear you express some respect for a man I worked to get elected to Senate, and whose reasons for leaving after one term I sympathize with. My gut says he needs to be paired with someone who can more vigorously sell the overall message.....Jim isn't known for rousing speeches, which was ok in Virginia, not for a Presidential run.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Isn't the system she is mandated by law to use already as secure as the one she created outside the law to use instead?
Isn't the most important difference between the two systems that she owns hers (thus she alone could delete any file she wants and how would anyone know) and the people govern the Federal system that she was supposed to use?

Doesn't matter. You've seen how easy it is for identity thieves and scammers can get personal information. Imagine what you could do if you had the personal information of a politician.

It does matter.
Unless you want to keep the conversation sidetracked to only focus on the security of the data.
All that other stuff....the law...transparency....integrity...access by due process....all that...it matters a lot. Especially for a candidate for President who has preached about it like the mouth of God herself!

If she was a republican you can bet you would be hearing all about how 'She is finished as a candidate...etc' from a lot of people and media outlets who are instead relatively silent about it only because she isn't one.
Right now their opinion is on hold as they wait to see if she is still their best bet to retain the Whitehouse. Waiting for damage control reports to tell them which way their moral compass points.
Oh joy, nothing like true men of principle at the wheel to keep the country on course...

Will Robinson wrote:It does matter.
Unless you want to keep the conversation sidetracked to only focus on the security of the data.

No, there's no sidetracking happening here. Security of communique is the point of this thread.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:It does matter.
Unless you want to keep the conversation sidetracked to only focus on the security of the data.

No, there's no sidetracking happening here. Security of communique is the point of this thread.

Really?
You might want to try reading it again, starting with the title. Lol
I think it wasn't concieved as a 'data security topic' nor have the responses been so narrowly focused.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:I watched an interview with Jim Webb the other day, and from what I saw…I liked.

can agree with the overall assessment, at least on character alone.

Hey, this guy is interesting. Thanks for pointing him out, guys.

Will Robinson wrote:

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:It does matter.
Unless you want to keep the conversation sidetracked to only focus on the security of the data.

No, there's no sidetracking happening here. Security of communique is the point of this thread.

Really?
You might want to try reading it again, starting with the title. Lol
I think it wasn't concieved as a 'data security topic' nor have the responses been so narrowly focused.

ummm, yes, security was one of the two core elements that disturbed me about Ms.Clinton's actions, which I laid out in the OP.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:It does matter.
Unless you want to keep the conversation sidetracked to only focus on the security of the data.

No, there's no sidetracking happening here. Security of communique is the point of this thread.

Really?
You might want to try reading it again, starting with the title. Lol
I think it wasn't concieved as a 'data security topic' nor have the responses been so narrowly focused.

ummm, yes, security was one of the two core elements that disturbed me about Ms.Clinton's actions, which I laid out in the OP.

Well call me over scrupulous but it looks to me there was but one core point. That you find her to be less than smart enough to be your favorite choice. The security is an example you raised to illustrate your one core point.

I think, having watched you over the duration that you wouldn't mind keeping the discussion focused around the data security because it isn't hard to realize her private server, guarded by a 24/7 Secret Service detail is just as safe as emails from the governments system Edward Snowden was able to copy onto a hard drive or two and walk free with. Thus rendering that 'single issue' moot. By election time anyone bringing it up will be met with the indignation of her complaint that 'email-gate' is old news and has already been dealt with...security was never an issue...right wing haters...etc.

I imagine that is where her side will take her defense, trying hard to deflect away from the character issue of her not making her emails a part of the official record until a) being caught and b) only then providing those emails she decides need to be available while keeping the server away from further scrutiny.
And I bet, if she becomes the nominee you won't be telling us she isn't smart enough and you will join in the chorus of trying to reduce the issue to a simple data security non-issue.

no, Will, if she wins, I will merely state that she is the lesser of two dubious choices, by a great margin, compared to the GOP clown-car.

callmeslick wrote:no, Will, if she wins, I will merely state that she is the lesser of two dubious choices, by a great margin, compared to the GOP clown-car.

the only clown is Hillary and the lie wagon she travels on. Lets see, white Water files go missing and Hillary Clinton says she knows nothing about it. Two years later the files show up on a counter in the White house. Then there is the time she landed in Bosnia and had to dodge sniper fire when exiting the plane. Then they were dead broke when they left the White House (wonder where the 7 mill went she got as a advancement for a book she wrote). And most recently how she used only one cell phone for ease of handling emails forgetting a couple weeks earlier in a speech she gave at Silicon Valley, that she had a I-phone, I-pad and a Black Berry.

So as you can see Hillary is the biggest laughing stock in the game.

let's see, Woody. It is somehow her fault for getting shot at? You seem to come up real short on actual grievances compared to anything one can locate on Walker, Perry, Carson, et al. Likely, so would the public, if those folks meet up with Hillary in a Presidential run. I still suggest that the Dems can find someone better, someone far more uniting in nature, and someone far brighter. Still, I have boxwood bushes brighter than most of the current GOP field, and rose bushes far more welcoming to the general public than any of them. There is utterly no one in the GOP field, save perhaps Jeb Bush, if he went back to who he was as Governor(although the sellout to the right uneases me thus far) that has the intellect to be President, combined with the concern for the long-term welfare of the nation. None.

Spidey wrote:I watched an interview with Jim Webb the other day, and from what I saw…I liked.

Same here.

Will Robinson wrote:Really?
You might want to try reading it again, starting with the title. Lol
I think it wasn't concieved as a 'data security topic' nor have the responses been so narrowly focused.

you know as well as I do that the title sometimes has nothing to do with the OP. come on man, that's as weak as it gets. I know you can do better than that.

callmeslick wrote:let's see, Woody. It is somehow her fault for getting shot at? You seem to come up real short on actual grievances compared to anything one can locate on Walker, Perry, Carson, et al. Likely, so would the public, if those folks meet up with Hillary in a Presidential run.

Wow, I didn't know you were that ignorant. She never got shot at and was just another big lie. Being a blatant liar is not what the public wants.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Really?
You might want to try reading it again, starting with the title. Lol
I think it wasn't concieved as a 'data security topic' nor have the responses been so narrowly focused.

you know as well as I do that the title sometimes has nothing to do with the OP. come on man, that's as weak as it gets. I know you can do better than that.

In this case it is obvious to all but you the focus of the conversation is about 'Is she smart enough?' with data security being nothing but a puff of smoke.

So, no thanks, go blow it up someone else's rear end, I'm good here.

Will Robinson wrote:So, no thanks, go blow it up someone else's rear end, I'm good here.

And I guess you're the only one who can see things clearly?

Man, what would we do without you, keeping all of us naive people on the straight and narrow.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:So, no thanks, go blow it up someone else's rear end, I'm good here.

And I guess you're the only one who can see things clearly?

Man, what would we do without you, keeping all of us naive people on the straight and narrow.

No, actually I implied you are the only one not seeing things clearly.
But I guess you didn't see that, either.
That is why the 'short bus' is short, because, thankfully, there aren't that many that need that ride.

Will Robinson wrote: No, actually I implied you are the only one not seeing things clearly.
But I guess you didn't see that, either.
That is why the 'short bus' is short, because, thankfully, there aren't that many that need that ride.

You might need to see a doctor about your selective vision. Check the first reply to the OP.

oh, I can't resist:

LoL