Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
So apparently the National Enquirer is reporting that Hillary had several strokes and is suffering from MS.

Yeah, I know, they're a tabloid, but the got John Edwards' bastard right, so they're able to do real investigative journalism BUY A FACT BY MISTAKE at least some of the time.
Click to expand...
FTFY
 
Bob001 said:
Hillary is pretty much at the center of the Democratic establishment, and she's raised by far the most money from Democratic donors. The Democrats who aren't behind her have real doubts about whether she could win the general election.

Subject for discussion: Can Hillary be considered without remembering who she's been married to for forty years?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB919379691540145000

(To beat paywall, copy headline, Google search for it, and select it from results.)
Click to expand...
You do know Bill Clinton was a very popular President, right?

Perhaps you are confusing the GOP hatred of him with the country's positive perception?

GW, on the other hand, very unfavorable opinion. From Wiki:
In May 2006, a CNN poll comparing Clinton's job performance with that of his successor, George W. Bush, found that a strong majority of respondents said Clinton outperformed Bush in six different areas questioned.[8] ABC News characterized public consensus on Clinton as, "You can't trust him, he's got weak morals and ethics – and he's done a heck of a good job."[9] Clinton's 65% Gallup Poll approval rating was also the highest Gallup approval rating of any Postwar President leaving office, one point ahead of Reagan.[10]
Click to expand...

Like it or not, people have a high opinion of how Bill did his job.
 
I'm still not sure that I have a problem with her security through obscurity approach to email. The Federal government has not shown any real prowess or expertise when it comes to cyber security, and her server was never attacked or breached, so I have a hard time getting bent about this. I try to stoke the outrage, but it just fizzles.

If we did an instantaneous audit on all government officials with clearance, what percentage do you think have confidential or classified information improperly stored in a home office or on an unsecured computer or device? I'd say at least 40%, the other 60% refusing to take home work.
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
How so? She never denied having deleted emails.
Click to expand...

The issue is that she alone decided what was to be deleted as "personal." She has implied that they are about trivial matters like her yoga classes and Chelsea's wedding plans. If she deleted any emails that could be embarrassing -- whether involving State Department business, Clinton foundation business, foreign donations to the foundation, hubby's foreign speaking engagements, private opinions of President Obama, etc., etc. -- she will look bad. She keeps saying that she didn't do anything illegal. Even if that's entirely true, it doesn't mean that her emails won't affect judgments about her.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I'm still not sure that I have a problem with her security through obscurity approach to email. The Federal government has not shown any real prowess or expertise when it comes to cyber security, and her server was never attacked or breached, so I have a hard time getting bent about this. I try to stoke the outrage, but it just fizzles.

If we did an instantaneous audit on all government officials with clearance, what percentage do you think have confidential or classified information improperly stored in a home office or on an unsecured computer or device? I'd say at least 40%, the other 60% refusing to take home work.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your basis for that assessment might be. But people have been prosecuted and even gone to jail for having unsecured classified material at home. Most government employees take the restrictions more seriously than you think.
 
Bob001 said:
The issue is that she alone decided what was to be deleted as "personal." She has implied that they are about trivial matters like her yoga classes and Chelsea's wedding plans. If she deleted any emails that could be embarrassing -- whether involving State Department business, Clinton foundation business, foreign donations to the foundation, hubby's foreign speaking engagements, private opinions of President Obama, etc., etc. -- she will look bad. She keeps saying that she didn't do anything illegal. Even if that's entirely true, it doesn't mean that her emails won't affect judgments about her.
Click to expand...
Agreed, others may have, like I did, gloss over the word "might" in you post :) So yes, she might.
 
Bob001 said:
The issue is that she alone decided what was to be deleted as "personal." She has implied that they are about trivial matters like her yoga classes and Chelsea's wedding plans. If she deleted any emails that could be embarrassing -- whether involving State Department business, Clinton foundation business, foreign donations to the foundation, hubby's foreign speaking engagements, private opinions of President Obama, etc., etc. -- she will look bad. She keeps saying that she didn't do anything illegal. Even if that's entirely true, it doesn't mean that her emails won't affect judgments about her.
Click to expand...

Those sound like personal emails. How exactly would details of those emails come to public attention ?
 
Bob001 said:
I'm not sure what your basis for that assessment might be. But people have been prosecuted and even gone to jail for having unsecured classified material at home. Most government employees take the restrictions more seriously than you think.
Click to expand...

My basis is a very limited exposure to some people with classified materials and a very broad exposure to some with confidential materials. It may be incorrect due to a small sample size.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I'm still not sure that I have a problem with her security through obscurity approach to email. The Federal government has not shown any real prowess or expertise when it comes to cyber security, and her server was never attacked or breached, so I have a hard time getting bent about this. I try to stoke the outrage, but it just fizzles.

If we did an instantaneous audit on all government officials with clearance, what percentage do you think have confidential or classified information improperly stored in a home office or on an unsecured computer or device? I'd say at least 40%, the other 60% refusing to take home work.
Click to expand...

How do we know this?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Those sound like personal emails. How exactly would details of those emails come to public attention ?
Click to expand...

Emails regarding "state department business" sound like "personal emails."

:eye-poppi

Ladies and gentlemen, mr Conway twitty........

/this post makes more sense than the one to which I am replying.....
 
Dr. Keith said:
I'm still not sure that I have a problem with her security through obscurity approach to email. The Federal government has not shown any real prowess or expertise when it comes to cyber security, and her server was never attacked or breached, so I have a hard time getting bent about this. I try to stoke the outrage, but it just fizzles.

If we did an instantaneous audit on all government officials with clearance, what percentage do you think have confidential or classified information improperly stored in a home office or on an unsecured computer or device? I'd say at least 40%, the other 60% refusing to take home work.
Click to expand...

Try 90%.

What amazes me is how trumped up the outrage is over nothing. Our country was not in danger. :rolleyes:
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Try 90%.

What amazes me is how trumped up the outrage is over nothing. Our country was not in danger. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'd say zero. You think people are taking home classified intelligence on a unsecured device?

That is automatic lose security clearance and likely job.

90% of people with security clearances breach their security clearances?

Wow.
 
16.5 said:
I'd say zero. You think people are taking home classified intelligence on a unsecured device?

That is automatic lose security clearance and likely job.

90% of people with security clearances breach their security clearances?

Wow.
Click to expand...

Zero is pretty absolute. Considering that there have been people locked up in recent years for giving away or selling secret information, I'm going to say your zero is disproved for all intents and purposes. Unless, of course, you assume that Assange, Snowden, the Russians, the Chinese, the Israelis, and some of our "friends" in the EU all got those documents directly from the various government servers (or "they just fell off the back of a truck, I swear") and moved them to the WWW directly from inside the departments. My assumption is going to be that certain employees probably moved that stuff out on thumb drives or other "non-secure" devices.

I'm going to say somewhere between the two... from 1 to 89%.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom