DescentBB

by next Labor Day, Cruz and Hillary are the candidates, and he gets declared ineligible and she gets indicted? Good times!

I still think Trump gets the nod, even though he is an ass. Cruz just pissed off every New Yorker and self-respecting liberal around the country. Even I would vote for Trump before I'd vote for Cruz and it would take a LOT for me just to vote for Trump.

there's just no way it'll be Trump.

As I keep saying: once the serious candidates stop splitting support between them, one will emerge and take 70%+ and then Trump will be a loser. It might not be Cruz. Rubio is looking strongest of the other candidates right now.

callmeslick wrote:by next Labor Day, Cruz and Hillary are the candidates, and he gets declared ineligible and she gets indicted? Good times!

Obama could just declare himself president for life.

Problem solved.

Spidey wrote: Obama could just declare himself president for life.

Problem solved.

I wouldn't put it past him. He's done everything else he could to make the USA another banana republic.

Jade Helm

Fast and Furious

Lothar wrote:there's just no way it'll be Trump.

As I keep saying: once the serious candidates stop splitting support between them, one will emerge and take 70%+ and then Trump will be a loser. It might not be Cruz. Rubio is looking strongest of the other candidates right now.

Don't know how you arrive at this. Latest Reuters poll has Trump at 40% and Rubio at 8%.
The next two highest are Cruz at 15% and Carson at 9%. If Cruz and Carson drop out their supporters won't be turning to Rubio but to Trump. That gives Trump a possible 64%. No matter if Rubio then gets the left overs there is no way he gets the GOP nomination.

Lothar wrote:there's just no way it'll be Trump.

As I keep saying: once the serious candidates stop splitting support between them, one will emerge and take 70%+ and then Trump will be a loser. It might not be Cruz. Rubio is looking strongest of the other candidates right now.

What will you do if he does win the nomination? You'll have the same decision that I do if Hillary wins the Dem nomination. You can't stand Trump and I can't stand Hillary. What to do.......

tunnelcat wrote:What to do.......

It's easy, you do your civic duty and vote for the most qualified candidate. There is no contest between Trump and Mrs. Clinton. Hillary has an outstanding resume.

vision wrote: Hillary has an outstanding resume.

Yeah like:
White Water,
Travel gate,
Covering up Bill extra-marital affairs and rapes,
Failure to get a medical bill passed when her hubby gave her the reins to do so'
Benghazi
And now having used a personal server to convey classified govt. documents.

The only qualifications she has is to dress in a orange jumpsuit.

vision wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:What to do.......

It's easy, you do your civic duty and vote for the most qualified candidate. There is no contest between Trump and Mrs. Clinton. Hillary has an outstanding resume.

Mrs. Hillary Clinton, who always has a glued on smile for when the cameras are pointed in her direction and never seems genuine when she speaks? Gawd, what a choice. Trump the Bloviating Asswipe or Hillary the Arrogant Queen.

Now I will grant you vision, if Ted Cruz wins the Republican nod, I'd have to vote for Hillary without hesitation.

tend to agree with most of that TC, except for the fact that Trump plays to the same angry, hateful souls who have tried to drag the US under for 7 years now. That can't be supported by anyone, for any reason. Thus, I'd vote for Hillary, were that the choice versus Trump or Cruz. Were the GOP to do an about face and try to deal in inclusion and compromise and actually having a functional government, I'd consider the nominee. I just don't see that right now.

tunnelcat wrote:What will you do if he does win the nomination?

Find a third party candidate who isn't terrible. Since I also can't vote for either Hillary or Bernie...

Also: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ian-213533

vision wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:What to do.......

It's easy, you do your civic duty and vote for the most qualified candidate. There is no contest between Trump and Mrs. Clinton. Hillary has an outstanding resume.

Resume for what? Prison?

What should Clinton be in prison for?

I'm still waiting for the people to say the same things about Cruz that they did about Obama. I'm pretty sure I posited that question here long ago; I'm pretty sure that none of the guys would admit that Obama was a natural born citizen. But here we are, in fact, and Cruz is in an even WORSE spot, he wasn't born in America, not even up for debate. Born to a citizen mother, just like Obama, but in a foreign country. Where is Orly Taitz? Where is Sheriff Joe? Maybe Trump's team is "finding out all kinds of stuff" in Canada like they did in Hawaii...what happened to all that stuff by the way?

As for me, I don't care about it. Born to a US citizen makes you a citizen, but that dang natural born has never been litigated. Do we really want this Supreme Court making any kind of decision like that? SCOTUS is just as political as the other branches, and what a shame that is.

Vander wrote:What should Clinton be in prison for?

Maybe having classified documents on a personal server. You might want to check around about it.

Maybe

Maybe indeed. From all I've seen, her use of personal email was legal. At least at the time.

Is this really her most egregious act that should be punished with jail time? Got any more?

Vander wrote:From all I've seen, her use of personal email was legal

The rules surrounding the use of classified documents are very strict, and the punishments are very harsh. If she was an ordinary contractor who had mishandled classified documents the way she did, I have no doubt she'd be in jail, and disqualified from ever holding a job that involved classified material again. (This is based on the sort of info that's been on CNN regarding classified documents on her insecure server, and what I know from people with clearances, not on Glenn Beck conspiracies or anything like that.)

I don't know if those laws should apply the same way to someone in her position as to an ordinary contractor. But I also think it's ridiculous that people act like it wasn't, at the very least, a colossal slip-up that needs to be carefully investigated.

woodchip wrote:

Lothar wrote:there's just no way it'll be Trump.

As I keep saying: once the serious candidates stop splitting support between them, one will emerge and take 70%+ and then Trump will be a loser. It might not be Cruz. Rubio is looking strongest of the other candidates right now.

Don't know how you arrive at this. Latest Reuters poll has Trump at 40% and Rubio at 8%.
The next two highest are Cruz at 15% and Carson at 9%. If Cruz and Carson drop out their supporters won't be turning to Rubio but to Trump

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/don ... _cid=538fb

I fully expect it to be Rubio, with somebody boring like Kasich or Huckabee as the VP nominee. Because as stupid as the Republican party *looks* in some of these debates, they're not stupid enough to actually go to a general election with a toxic candidate like Trump.

oh, I think they could, because the lot of them seem unwilling to step aside for the general good of the party. Oh, and Huckabee is anything but boring. He is a religious extremist, rather akin to picking a radical Sunni Imam for veep.

The rules surrounding the use of classified documents are very strict, and the punishments are very harsh.

But that's the thing, I haven't seen anyone make the claim that the documents (the emails themselves or information within the emails) were classified at the time. The classification appears to have happened after the fact. So yes, she apparently now possesses classified material, though I'm not sure of the rules on possessing classified materials that weren't classified at the time of procurement.

I do find it a bit ridiculous that she was using her personal email, but here's the slack I give: I don't expect people such as Clinton to be IT security experts. I know from experience that CEO types are generally more concerned with convenience than security. I would've expected State Dept. IT to put the kibosh on this right away, but apparently there weren't strict guidelines at the time concerning this stuff. (this last bit is what I find most damning about the situation)

So I don't see nefarious intent on Clinton's part. (If there were, I would expect her to use .gov for the white communications, and the .com to discuss her plot to take everyones guns) Rather, I see government IT infrastructure working with outdated concepts of security.

Vander wrote:So I don't see nefarious intent on Clinton's part... Rather, I see government IT infrastructure working with outdated concepts of security.

Good point.

As someone who worked with military contracts and had classified clearance, Mrs. Clinton's case is not as clean cut as some would like to make it. Security policies change all the time. There is a whole lot of truly ridiculous, insecure protocol in the government. A friend of mine is going through this crap right now. He's been regularly doing contract work in Korea for several years. About six months ago his contact at the base changed and decided not to clear him for work, citing "improper documentation," even though he's always given them exactly what they asked for. Today he is cleared with the same documents. It's just silly, and apparently affects all branches and levels of government.

Is everyone forgetting what she did was improper in the first place…regardless of whatever happened as a result.

Sure...what if this and what if that...what she did was wrong...period.

Lothar wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:What will you do if he does win the nomination?

Find a third party candidate who isn't terrible. Since I also can't vote for either Hillary or Bernie...

Also: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ian-213533

That depends. If it looks like any of the current top tier Republicans win, I'll have to vote for the strong Democrat and hold my nose doing it, unless a charismatic and strong third party candidate rises up to challenge all these bozos.

As for the Politico article, that makes no sense. Why would a bunch of government hating xenophobes want an authoritarian government? Talk about a schizophrenic mindset, or a bunch of babies needing a father figure to led them along by their ears.

tunnelcat wrote:Why would a bunch of government hating xenophobes want an authoritarian government?

They just want their kind of authoritarian.

Lothar wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:What will you do if he does win the nomination?

Find a third party candidate who isn't terrible. Since I also can't vote for either Hillary or Bernie...

Also: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ian-213533

Whenever someone is statistically making a large number of comparisons, I'm concerned about the multiple comparisons problem.

Lothar wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Why would a bunch of government hating xenophobes want an authoritarian government?

They just want their kind of authoritarian.

I pondered this very question when I read that article. After 7 years of calling Obama a dictator, it turns out they LIKE dictators, so long as they think the dictator will support their point of view.

Spidey wrote:Is everyone forgetting what she did was improper in the first place…regardless of whatever happened as a result.

Sure...what if this and what if that...what she did was wrong...period.

I assume you are talking about the emails. And if you are, I'm not convinced of anything "improper." Her job is complicated.

Lothar wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Why would a bunch of government hating xenophobes want an authoritarian government?

They just want their kind of authoritarian.

Actually, it's male dominance thing. I did some "researching", in other words, asked a few males, and found out that most males don't like leaders they perceive as weak or unworthy of being called their leader, as they see Obama. They want a strong alpha leader and will follow such a leader into purgatory and death if necessary, even if that leader is wrong. They won't follow a leader they think is weak, even if that leader is right.

Vander wrote:

I don't see nefarious intent on Clinton's part.

Been living off the planet for the last 30 years have you? Every breath she draws has nefarious (entirely self-centered and self-serving psychopathic) intent.

you see, that's where the hyperbole makes you look a fool, NS. I'd agree that she is self-centered(see under synonyms for 'politician') and self-serving.
I don't see her to be either nefarious or, heaven forbid, psychopathic. That latter would seem to be more projection on your part than anything else.

Vander wrote:

The rules surrounding the use of classified documents are very strict, and the punishments are very harsh.

But that's the thing, I haven't seen anyone make the claim that the documents (the emails themselves or information within the emails) were classified at the time.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hil ... ig-n499886

That sort of information, generally speaking, starts out deeply classified. This isn't the ordinary "oops, your paperwork is not in order, you only have Pickle Green clearance and you need Pickle Yellow for this bit of information because it was recently reclassified" kind of paperwork snafu. There are CNSS directives on securing systems that transmit this sort of information (not hard to find: http://iac.dtic.mil/csiac/download/ia_policychart.pdf ) and many of the directives are openly available, and they've been in place for a long time.

I know Hillary is not an IT pro. But she had someone set up her e-mail server, and that person should have known better, and probably so should the people who were e-mailing her at a private e-mail address. And, to be blunt, so should Hillary -- not necessarily in detail, but in general, that she's going to be handling classified information and that therefore her server needs to be properly set up. I have a hard time with the "ignorance" defense, because this is the sort of thing you simply can't be ignorant of in that position.

It's still not clear. There is a lot of ambiguity here. To me it looks like this is the negative result of government bureaucracy than malice or even negligence. Again, I've done technical work for the government. I've seen how their tech runs. It's a patchwork of systems with little unity.

As I said at the outset of this whole 'scandal', months ago: the main negative isn't so much what was seen or transmitted, but the arrogance of being above the system and rules that seems to exude from the whole matter. She dismissed the whole thing at first, and that is exactly the snarky attitude that puts folks off about Ms Clinton.

callmeslick wrote:...being above the system and rules...

But this is exactly my point, I don't think the rules are clear in this matter. It's why there is a problem in the first place.

My wife, who is a cyber-security professional working on DoD supercomputers, referred to Hillary running her own e-mail server as "astonishingly stupid" and "the cyber-security equivalent of the president dismissing the secret service and carrying around a shotgun for protection".

It's completely indefensible. This isn't a case of "unclear rules". It would be a career-ending mistake for basically anybody working with classified information, especially at high levels. Hillary acting like she's above the rules definitely makes the issue worse, but the fact that it happened in the first case displays an astonishing level of incompetence.

Lothar wrote:My wife, who is a cyber-security professional working on DoD supercomputers, referred to Hillary running her own e-mail server as "astonishingly stupid" and "the cyber-security equivalent of the president dismissing the secret service and carrying around a shotgun for protection".

That's in interesting anecdote, but I also worked for the DoD and I think the issue is more complicated than what we can gather from news reports. I've literally used insecure DoD software and brought up the point to supervisors who just shrug and say things like "we're working on it" ot "that's what they gave us." The DoD policies are not homogeneous, and I would bet everything I own on the same being true in other parts of government, regardless of how high up the chain you go. I think people are confusing a lot of different elements in this case.

I'm not a fan of Mrs. Clinton, but I'm having a hard time seeing malice or negligence here. Call me skeptical because of my own experience with our government. I'll wait for more evidence before making a judgment.

Of course it's indefensible. But until it's shown that she was emailing around classified info willy nilly, my position is that the situation is understandable. There shouldn't be *any* classified info in the email. My understanding is that they have separate communication mediums for classified info, so using email for that is already wrong. But for unclassified communication, personal email was allowed. Why did she choose to use a personal account rather than state.gov? My guess is she did it because it was both more convenient and it gave her more control. And it was allowed as long as she complied with records rules. Whether or not she did, people will probably believe what they want to believe. (I would say there is 100% probability there is at least one email she should've turned over but didn't)