US Election 2016

[BruceVC]

Bruce, let me pose a serious question to you. It is pretty much settled that Hillary Clinton used a private e-mail server to conduct State Dept. business. Even she admits that. The dispute is if she sent classified information that was later compromised. But put that aside for the moment. Have you wondered WHY she used a private server rather than the government's secure server? Why do that? Why even invite a problem that way? She is not stupid. She knows what server is for what.

 

Have you at least wondered about that? I believe I know the answer but I'd like to hear from you first.

Well there are numerous reasons for having your own email server, for example if you wanted to use a gmail or yahoo account and not use the resources of a company you work for you could use  a  private server or you  can setup your own private domain with your own SMTP address...and you would want to do this because it could be personal emails not government emails you sending

 

What are your reasons ?

[BruceVC]

"It reminds me of the numerous times I have said things like " Trump is responsible for the level of violence and protests at his rallies ".....but I cannot say with certainty that Trump actually expected this outcome and many of you guys feel he should not feel responsible at all"

 

The situations aren't even remotely similiar.   One is trying to link Trump to the behaviour of others who are responsible for their own actions and the other is  holding Clinton responsible for her own actions. How cna you not see the difference? Also, why are you pretending that Clinton is some ignoramous. Afterall, one of the things her supporters brag about her is all her experience and years in politics. She is no newb.

No the two examples are not suppose to be similar but the principle is similar

 

So despite my criticism of Trump much of the really negative things he has says I can't say " he knew this was going to happen " ...its the same as I can say about Clinton "  you cannot say she intentionally broke the law " 

[Hurlshort]

I'm not entirely convinced Hilary is an expert on email servers.  I would hope she would have technical people for those types of things.    

[Volourn]

Actually, I can use common sense. She is not an idiot. She has tons of political experience. She has legal knowledge too. I seriously doubt  she didn't know what she did was illegal. And, I believe you are being intellectually dishonest if  are claiming she was too dumb to know. Unless you are claiming that you REALLY want an ignorant  unknowledgable peon as the president? that is scary.

 

 

"I'm not entirely convinced Hilary is an expert on email servers.  I would hope she would have technical people for those types of things. "

 

Expert? No. But, reasonably knowledagble? yes. And, like you said, she likely ha s ateam of people to help her as well.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Volourn

[Wrath of Dagon]

I bet whatever justice department official said that is an Obola appointee.

 

Masters of deception: http://www.weeklystandard.com/obamas-foreign-policy-guru-boasts-of-how-the-administration-lied-to-sell-the-iran-deal/article/2002252

[Guard Dog]

 

Bruce, let me pose a serious question to you. It is pretty much settled that Hillary Clinton used a private e-mail server to conduct State Dept. business. Even she admits that. The dispute is if she sent classified information that was later compromised. But put that aside for the moment. Have you wondered WHY she used a private server rather than the government's secure server? Why do that? Why even invite a problem that way? She is not stupid. She knows what server is for what.

 

Have you at least wondered about that? I believe I know the answer but I'd like to hear from you first.

Well there are numerous reasons for having your own email server, for example if you wanted to use a gmail or yahoo account and not use the resources of a company you work for you could use  a  private server or you  can setup your own private domain with your own SMTP address...and you would want to do this because it could be personal emails not government emails you sending

 

What are your reasons ?

 

You are evading or misunderstanding my question. Why do you think Hillary Clinton used a private e-mail account to conduct State Department business? She has admitted she has done this much. Why do YOU think she would do that?

[Leferd]

It's a little old, but for what it's worth, this is the best reporting I've seen regarding an overview regarding Emailgate:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

[Guard Dog]

I'll give you a hint Bruce. The answer to my question is in the article Leferd posted. And it has nothing to do with classified information. Forget for a moment that is even an issue.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Bruce, let me pose a serious question to you. It is pretty much settled that Hillary Clinton used a private e-mail server to conduct State Dept. business. Even she admits that. The dispute is if she sent classified information that was later compromised. But put that aside for the moment. Have you wondered WHY she used a private server rather than the government's secure server? Why do that? Why even invite a problem that way? She is not stupid. She knows what server is for what.

 

Have you at least wondered about that? I believe I know the answer but I'd like to hear from you first.

Well there are numerous reasons for having your own email server, for example if you wanted to use a gmail or yahoo account and not use the resources of a company you work for you could use  a  private server or you  can setup your own private domain with your own SMTP address...and you would want to do this because it could be personal emails not government emails you sending

 

What are your reasons ?

 

You are evading or misunderstanding my question. Why do you think Hillary Clinton used a private e-mail account to conduct State Department business? She has admitted she has done this much. Why do YOU think she would do that?

 

Well she may have just been familiar with using her private address, yes in principle she should use her government email to discuss anything related to the department but if someone gets an email from Hilary Clinton from her private email why wouldn't they respond normally ? So it could have been a bad habit 

 

A person could also use a private email if they want less  accountability around what they want to say or any instructions or discussions  they may have  and they dont want an official email trail or monitoring. Obviously any email sent from an official US email server would be under scrutiny 

[Guard Dog]

 

 

A person could also use a private email if they want less  accountability around what they want to say or any instructions or discussions  they may have  and they dont want an official email trail or monitoring. Obviously any email sent from an official US email server would be under scrutiny 

 

Correct. Now here is the problem. As the Secretary of State every e-mail she sends in the performance of her duties becomes the property of the United States Government the instant she hits "send". Every correspondence involving the business of the United States is subject to oversight by the Congress and appropriate law enforcement agencies, as well as FOI requests once the appropriate time has passed. But the e-mails on her private server that she has ADMITTED she used for the business of the United States are beyond the reach of the agencies of the government that they BELONG to. And when she was directed to produce those messages, she deleted them. http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/hillary-clinton-personal-email-server/

 

Do you see the problem here Bruce? The reason she used a private e-mail server to do the business of the United States was so she could do so in secret. What do you suppose she was trying to hide? She is not stupid. She knows who her e-mails belong to. Good Lord it was explained to me on my first day of work at my job that every e-mail I send, every study I write, every notebook page I put my pen to immediately becomes the property of the State of TN. If the lowest ranking engineer from the TDEC understands this don't you think the Secretary of State of the United States does? 

 

So, what us she trying to hide? Because there can be no other logical explanation.

 

Now, the classified information thing I told you to forget a moment ago... add that back in. Now where are we?

Edited May 7, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Serrano]

 Unless you are claiming that you REALLY want an ignorant  unknowledgable peon as the president? that is scary.

 

 

Wasn't that the position of the people who re-elected Bush though? 

[HoonDing]

If US president actually had any power, Drumpf'd be a North American Chavez at best and start a nuclear war at worst. Can't see the big deal.

 

The alternative is still worse.

[Valsuelm]

If US president actually had any power, Drumpf'd be a North American Chavez at best and start a nuclear war at worst. Can't see the big deal.

 

The alternative is still worse.

 

I'd have taken Chavez for U.S. President over almost every person who has ran for office in the last ~30 years.

 

And yes... the alternative is worse.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Oerwinde]

After seeing what Chavez' policies have done to Venezuela....

[Valsuelm]

@ the Hillary didn't willfully break the law or doesn't understand how email servers work crowd:

So you think she's innocent but admit she's incompetent.

Alrighty then!

[BruceVC]

After seeing what Chavez' policies have done to Venezuela....

Clearly Vals measurement of a good leader is someone who drives the economy of country into the ground .....makes sense 

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

A person could also use a private email if they want less  accountability around what they want to say or any instructions or discussions  they may have  and they dont want an official email trail or monitoring. Obviously any email sent from an official US email server would be under scrutiny 

 

Correct. Now here is the problem. As the Secretary of State every e-mail she sends in the performance of her duties becomes the property of the United States Government the instant she hits "send". Every correspondence involving the business of the United States is subject to oversight by the Congress and appropriate law enforcement agencies, as well as FOI requests once the appropriate time has passed. But the e-mails on her private server that she has ADMITTED she used for the business of the United States are beyond the reach of the agencies of the government that they BELONG to. And when she was directed to produce those messages, she deleted them. http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/hillary-clinton-personal-email-server/

 

Do you see the problem here Bruce? The reason she used a private e-mail server to do the business of the United States was so she could do so in secret. What do you suppose she was trying to hide? She is not stupid. She knows who her e-mails belong to. Good Lord it was explained to me on my first day of work at my job that every e-mail I send, every study I write, every notebook page I put my pen to immediately becomes the property of the State of TN. If the lowest ranking engineer from the TDEC understands this don't you think the Secretary of State of the United States does? 

 

So, what us she trying to hide? Because there can be no other logical explanation.

 

Now, the classified information thing I told you to forget a moment ago... add that back in. Now where are we?

 

Okay I see your concern, its not unreasonable 

[Namutree]

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/06/glenn-beck-america-petulant-child-god-must-punish-supporting-trump-cruz/

 

This might be the funniest story I've seen in a while.

 

Glenn Beck: Listen to me lecture all of you about how horrible and childish you are while I rub my face in cheetos. You're all just giving in to anger and hate so I'm sure God will send all you horrible children to hell.

 

EDIT: I want a Glenn Beck rubs his face in cheetos GIF.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Namutree

[Valsuelm]

After seeing what Chavez' policies have done to Venezuela....

What's been happening in Venezuela the last few decades is quite complex, and certainly what's been going on to hurt Venezuela is a bit more than Chavez's policies.There's been little in the western media about the nation other than to demonize Chavez. One should ask themselves why Chavez (or anyone for that matter ever) is demonized.

 

That said, Chavez wasn't perfect (ie: he was a socialist and I'm no fan of socialism) but he did have his nation's best interests at heart much more than almost any current western leader does. That counts for more than a little in a world where most nations' leaders (and most major candidates who ever run to be leader) are at the end of puppet strings of globalist bankers, et al.

[Hurlshort]

Old people don't like new technology, that's a fact!  

 

I would guess the vast majority of politicians are morons when it comes to technology.  That really isn't saying much.  The vast majority of people I work with are morons when it comes to technology as well.    

 

Were Blackberries even still popular back when this happened?

Edited May 7, 2016 by Hurlshot

[Oerwinde]

 

After seeing what Chavez' policies have done to Venezuela....

What's been happening in Venezuela the last few decades is quite complex, and certainly what's been going on to hurt Venezuela is a bit more than Chavez's policies.There's been little in the western media about the nation other than to demonize Chavez. One should ask themselves why Chavez (or anyone for that matter ever) is demonized.

 

That said, Chavez wasn't perfect (ie: he was a socialist and I'm no fan of socialism) but he did have his nation's best interests at heart much more than almost any current western leader does. That counts for more than a little in a world where most nations' leaders (and most major candidates who ever run to be leader) are at the end of puppet strings of globalist bankers, et al.

 

 

Oh, I liked Chavez. I probably would have voted for him back in the day had I been Venezuelan. After seeing the Oliver Stone documentary on all the Chavista leaders being elected across South America in protest against US influence I really thought he was a good guy, and he very well may have been. But the policies he put in place have lead to a complete economic collapse in Venezuela, and its looking like hyperinflation. My turn to the right has only happened recently, but seeing Venezuela fall so far is one of the reasons I did so. Had Chavez been the head of state with a more right leaning head of government handing domestic issues I think he definitely would have been remembered fondly.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Had Chavez been the head of state with a more right leaning head of government handing domestic issues I think he definitely would have been remembered fondly.

How so?

[Valsuelm]

 

 

After seeing what Chavez' policies have done to Venezuela....

What's been happening in Venezuela the last few decades is quite complex, and certainly what's been going on to hurt Venezuela is a bit more than Chavez's policies.There's been little in the western media about the nation other than to demonize Chavez. One should ask themselves why Chavez (or anyone for that matter ever) is demonized.

 

That said, Chavez wasn't perfect (ie: he was a socialist and I'm no fan of socialism) but he did have his nation's best interests at heart much more than almost any current western leader does. That counts for more than a little in a world where most nations' leaders (and most major candidates who ever run to be leader) are at the end of puppet strings of globalist bankers, et al.

 

 

Oh, I liked Chavez. I probably would have voted for him back in the day had I been Venezuelan. After seeing the Oliver Stone documentary on all the Chavista leaders being elected across South America in protest against US influence I really thought he was a good guy, and he very well may have been. But the policies he put in place have lead to a complete economic collapse in Venezuela, and its looking like hyperinflation. My turn to the right has only happened recently, but seeing Venezuela fall so far is one of the reasons I did so. Had Chavez been the head of state with a more right leaning head of government handing domestic issues I think he definitely would have been remembered fondly.

 

 

In western media he would have just been portrayed as a 'right wing radical'. He still would been demonized, just with slightly different verbiage. He is remembered fondly by many in Venezuela, and elsewhere. One just wouldn't know that from reading/watching major western media outlets.

 

A problem just about anyone who would stand up to the globalists have, no matter what their economic leanings, as the leader of Venezuela (or most other nations), is that at this point a variety of globalist corporations, and more importantly globalists bankers under the flag of The World Bank (and others) already have a vice grip on the economy. They can and will pull the rug out from under it if their power is threatened. There's only a few nations on earth that are above this, to varying degrees: Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, Israel, and Saudi Arabia (also formerly Libya) are among those few.

 

This is kind of getting off topic though, and deserving of it's own thread. [Not sure I want to discuss it in depth on this forum though]

 

I've not seen Stone's documentary, but perhaps I'll check it out.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

 

After seeing what Chavez' policies have done to Venezuela....

What's been happening in Venezuela the last few decades is quite complex, and certainly what's been going on to hurt Venezuela is a bit more than Chavez's policies.There's been little in the western media about the nation other than to demonize Chavez. One should ask themselves why Chavez (or anyone for that matter ever) is demonized.

 

That said, Chavez wasn't perfect (ie: he was a socialist and I'm no fan of socialism) but he did have his nation's best interests at heart much more than almost any current western leader does. That counts for more than a little in a world where most nations' leaders (and most major candidates who ever run to be leader) are at the end of puppet strings of globalist bankers, et al.

 

 

Oh, I liked Chavez. I probably would have voted for him back in the day had I been Venezuelan. After seeing the Oliver Stone documentary on all the Chavista leaders being elected across South America in protest against US influence I really thought he was a good guy, and he very well may have been. But the policies he put in place have lead to a complete economic collapse in Venezuela, and its looking like hyperinflation. My turn to the right has only happened recently, but seeing Venezuela fall so far is one of the reasons I did so. Had Chavez been the head of state with a more right leaning head of government handing domestic issues I think he definitely would have been remembered fondly.

 

Oerwinde the issue with leaders like Chavez is he relied on the high Oil price for a decade or so to drive social transformation programs and his own interpretation of socialism 

 

But it was an illusion, a facade. Its the same reality that Putin faces....any country must diversify its economy. You can cannot just rely on commodity exports 

[Oerwinde]

 

Had Chavez been the head of state with a more right leaning head of government handing domestic issues I think he definitely would have been remembered fondly.

How so?

Heads of state are generally in charge of foreign affairs, where his charisma and strength of will would have been huge assets, as they were while he was in power, but the negative aspects, like removing term limits, disasterous economic policies, etc, wouldn't have been able to go through. Like if Mugabe had quit after 2 terms he might have been remembered fondly instead of as a dictator, Chavez will be remembered as the man who set Venezuela on the path to ruin.