In your binary view of the political universe, is it even possible for someone to disagree with you concerning Hillary Clinton, and for that person not to consider her a "hero"?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3
- Thread starter Travis
- Start date
- Status
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Strawman accusation ad hominem with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response "your binary view" doesn't apply in my case, but thanks for playing.
The lie is that she had already installed her private server when Powell sent the email. She didn't do it based on his advice. And as others have pointed out, when Powell became SecState in 2001, State's messaging system was relatively primitive. By 2009, it had become more sophisticated, and was subject to laws and regulations that didn't apply in 2001.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/colin-p...-have-been-trying-to-pin-email-scandal-on-me/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/22/politics/colin-powell-rejects-clinton-email-defense/
If Clinton honestly wanted advice, she would have consulted her immediate predecessor, Condoleezza Rice.
Last edited:
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
Can you provide a quote that backs up your claim that Clinton claimed to install her server after or based on Powells advice? Because, as with your claim of her using the word "server", it appears you have added something not originally claimed by Clinton which changes the meaning.
Belz...
Fiend God
And how would you know if it were a crime or just careless negligeance or some other sort of non-malicious error?
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
There is a difference, like a blue gown ball differs from a red summer dress. But they are also both still dresses.
My question is, so what? What about that difference, private server or private service, matters? I'm at a loss for why some people (not necessarily you) are constantly pointing out having her own server is relevant, as if had it only been a private email service that wouldn't have been as bad.
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Which is a good thing, not a more evil thing.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
There is also the singular views: this one thing equals all judgement and skill in every other area of one's job.
And then unilaterally considering that fallacy in isolation of the alternative choice, Trump.
What is the point of going on and on about this single issue unless one is trying to promote the idea she should not be elected. But the choice is not to elect or not elect Clinton, the choice is Trump or Clinton. And Clinton's judgement and honesty issues pale in comparison to the utter failure of a POTUS candidate that Trump is.
Last edited:
Maybe this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/u...ll-advised-her-to-use-private-email.html?_r=0
The clear implication is that she didn't decide what to do until after she got his advice. Most people don't do something, then ask after the fact what they should do. But if you are asking whether she actually uttered the words "I installed my private server because Colin Powell told me he used a private account," no, I don't think that sentence is in the record.
But the core of Clinton's "Colin Powell" defense is "I only did what he did." But she didn't know what Powell did until after she set up her own system, a decision that needs to stand or fall on its own merits.
And in fact, Clinton didn't "do what he did."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-of-her-email-practices-is-just-plain-wrong/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ecking-the-hillary-clinton-email-controversy/
Let's stipulate that Clinton is infinitely preferable to Trump. That doesn't mean that Clinton is without flaws, or that her history and judgment are not subject to examination and criticism. I suspect you will be more disappointed than most of us with President Clinton's administration.
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
And, yet again, you are adding to Clinton's statements words or implications that just aren't there. These additions give an inaccurate spin to the actual words and actions Clinton said and did.
Are you actually claiming now that there is no way for Clinton to have known Powell used private email until he sent her that information in a written memo?
caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
Is there something wrong with promoting the idea she should not be elected? Especially as a counter to people promoting the idea that she should be elected.
No it isn't.
Okay, you win: Hillary would never have dreamed of installing a server in her basement if Colin Powell hadn't sent a parrot to land on her shoulder and whisper "private email" in her ear. The fact that she never asked her predecessor or career State officials for advice isn't a consideration at all.
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
No one has claimed that she decided to use personal email or a personal server based on advice from Powell other than you. Do you have any evidence that she asked Powell about his email use, rather than that he offered unsolicited advice? Further, asking someone who has never used personal email, such as Rice, for advice on personal email seems like a stupid idea.
Last edited:
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, the next President will be either Clinton or Trump. There are no other realistic choices. Therefore, promoting that Clinton should not be President is promoting that Trump should. It also works the other way, promoting that Trump should not equates to that Clinton should.
Clinton should have asked Rice and other officials about State Department procedures for proper use of government communications, and Clinton should have had the common sense to separate her government and personal emails.
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
What governmental email did Rice use? If none, it would have been unproductive to ask her.
And Clinton wouldn't know what Rice would say unless she asked. Rice might well have said "I don't send emails, I just tell my assistants to send'em." The point is that Clinton didn't care what her predecessor did. If she had, there might be no controversy now.
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
Your evidence that Clinton had no way of knowing that Rice did not use emails will be provided before or after your evidence that Clinton had no way of knowing Powell's use of private email?
caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
This is circular: Assume that either X or Y must be president. Therefor, promoting that X should not be president entails promoting that Y should be president and vice versa.
Who, if anyone, will be president is neither logically nor physically predetermined - even if only down to 2 choices. It is determined by the aggregate choices made by a set of individuals, such as yourself, all of whom have a wide range of choices available to them.
Your appeal to "realism" falls flat on its face for being nothing but a self-imposed restriction. Suppose I am at a pub and have a choice between drinking a beer or a soda. Me declaring "the only realistic choice is drinking a beer" because I prefer beer over soda has nothing to do with realism but everything to do with me rationalizing away my own preference with an appeal to "realism". There is, after all, nothing logical or physical stopping me from drinking the soda instead. Appeals to realism are then of course also the prime rationalization of the political right - "it's just not realistic to take in more refugees", "austerity is the only realistic choice", etc.
- Status