2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part X

[Axver]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Well, people still wonder what's on the missing Nixon tapes...not impossible that missing Clinton e-mails had things that would be potentially damaging to her.

I do think this issue is far from over. I can't wait until the ninth select committee really gets to the bottom of it all.

It's fascinating how you and the Trump delcon fascists are parroting the same lines, right down to the casual sexism.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

A private email server, a gmail account, and an email account on a government server are not all equivalent in terms of security. The distinctions matter, and it's utterly exhausting listening to the mental gymnastics Clinton supporters will go through in order to avoid whatever cognitive dissonance would result from admitting that they support a candidate who, as far as we can rationally assume, behaved astronomically stupidly, at best. The obscurantism on this issue is embarrassing. This isn't really aimed at you, BVS, but at people diminishing this issue in general

No, gmail accounts, government servers, and private servers are not equal in terms of security. Neither are the distinctions minor. If an understanding of the wide range of network security measures that are used won't prove this point, James Coney's specific reference to the fact that her server was less secure than gmail should.

No, private email servers are not particularly common among private citizens. An an email account like me@mywebsite.com is not necessarily the same thing as a private email server.

No, you missed my point entirely. Yes a government server is more secure than her private server, but only when the information is sitting on that server. Once you allow government employees to email to anyone outside that server, using their phones, or remoting into that server all of that security is worthless. At that point the fact she has her own server is a moot point. Unless you are emailing only within a private intranet you are only as secure as the weakest link within your communication; so even if you email from a government server and someone receives while on their phone, that info is only as secure as their phone. So we're playing dumb or are simply ignorant if we think the private email vs private server issue is one of security.

But would the private email accounts used by Rice and Powell be any different? Were they set up on servers that investigations would have access to?

But here is where things get foggy for me; where are we getting this 50,000/ 30,000 erased number from? How were they able to determine the amount sent or received but not able to recover the info? And I'll admit I'm not an engineer, but I sold enough Exchange servers to understand how they work.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

You support murder and I don't.

But you do apparently hope that she suffers from some sort of debilitating health issue... soooo yea.

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

She wanted to have control over the process and have privacy that the transparency of a government e-mail address wouldn't allow...that much is obvious. Would she have been so intent on doing it if she weren't planning to run for President? Perhaps not.

I guess I can still hope her health issues act up before the convention.

"How DARE you, BigMac!"

Yawn. If you support drone strikes, you support the active killing of human beings. Wishing someone would just get sick for the benefit of the American people is hardly on the same level as actively murdering other people, regardless of their crimes. Clinton and her followers are the sick ones.

There's stll time. There's still time.

If you think that if Sanders were elected that he would stop drone strikes, you are mistaken.

[Salome]

Originally Posted by womanfish

If you think that if Sanders were elected that he would stop drone strikes, you are mistaken.

I think delusional is the word you were looking for.
Mistaken would suggest a certain clarity of mind.

[womanfish]

What is also lost in all this is that, A pure and openly confessed Republican witch hunt to bring down Hillary Clinton was put into motion with Benghazi, which led to them leaping onto the private email issue. They had nothing on Benghazi, so they spun the email thing, which was not much different than how her predecessors handled their email, into the biggest crime in political history.
It was then taken over by the FBI, led by Comey, a conservative, that was a major player in the previous faux scandal of Whitewater. Hardly impartial.
He then (I'm sure infuriatingly) can't find any way to bring legal charges, so he then, in unprecedented fashion, comes out and gives a lengthy damning statement, ripping Clinton up and down in a near personal manner, that would NOT have been given if the person being looked at had any other last name than Clinton.

The whole thing stinks from the fraudulent start. And the bulk of Americans are too stupid to sort it out.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by womanfish

If you think that if Sanders were elected that he would stop drone strikes, you are mistaken.

This is correct. Foreign policy is the weakest side of Sanders' politics (for mine).

[anitram]

Originally Posted by womanfish

The whole thing stinks from the fraudulent start. And the bulk of Americans are too stupid to sort it out.

I think one other thing that is patently obvious is that the Clintons are their own worst enemy. You would think that a person who clearly had designs on the presidency, who was serving in the SoS role that was inevitably going to be highly scrutinized by the opposition would understand the concept of doing everything above board and then some. But no. This was a witch hunt for sure but it's also contributory negligence on Hillary's part.

[anitram]

This probably warrants its own thread, but those of you who are 100% opposed to drone strikes, what do you propose in the alternative? Complete disengagement (and then when 9/11 type attacks happen we just suck it up)? Troops on the ground (whose)?

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by anitram

Complete disengagement (and then when 9/11 type attacks happen we just suck it up)?

I admit I don't have a solution on foreign policy, but this is the attitude I see from the leftists who are given great pause on Obama's foreign policy plan. It goes back to the concept of "What inspires those in the Middle East to hate the west?" and the belief that every time we retaliate against them for something, we're creating more motivation, more recruiting techniques for the ISIS's of the world. So, yes, we may suffer some terrorist attacks and may look weak for not responding to them, but my understanding is that they believe long-term, sitting on our hands for a few rounds will reduce the frequency and motivation for these attacks. That their main goal is provoking a response from the US, and when no response comes, that's when we start gaining ground.

I don't really buy any of that. I don't yet buy that we need to settle for drone strikes either. But I don't have any solution as of yet.

[martha]

Originally Posted by Axver

It's fascinating how you and the Trump delcon fascists are parroting the same lines, right down to the casual sexism.

Don't underestimate the power of the Bernie Butthurt.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by anitram

This probably warrants its own thread, but those of you who are 100% opposed to drone strikes, what do you propose in the alternative? Complete disengagement (and then when 9/11 type attacks happen we just suck it up)? Troops on the ground (whose)?

I'd be interested to hear this discussion play out, but given my own perspectives/views (in the greater scheme of things) I don't think there is any need for me to take part.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

I admit I don't have a solution on foreign policy, but this is the attitude I see from the leftists who are given great pause on Obama's foreign policy plan. It goes back to the concept of "What inspires those in the Middle East to hate the west?" and the belief that every time we retaliate against them for something, we're creating more motivation, more recruiting techniques for the ISIS's of the world. So, yes, we may suffer some terrorist attacks and may look weak for not responding to them, but my understanding is that they believe long-term, sitting on our hands for a few rounds will reduce the frequency and motivation for these attacks. That their main goal is provoking a response from the US, and when no response comes, that's when we start gaining ground.

I don't really buy any of that. I don't yet buy that we need to settle for drone strikes either. But I don't have any solution as of yet.

I agree with you, I don't buy that either. Because the main effect of ISIS (and other terror groups/offshoots) has been regional destabilization. In a place like Iraq, you can blame the invasion for setting the grounds where terror could ferment until it spilled over across borders. And as a consequence of that you now see slow destabilization of Europe as well, because of the hundreds of thousands of refugees and migrants pouring in through open borders. These things don't happen in a vacuum.

And it is not that simple, because the above ignores the development of terror cells outside the immediate region (take a look at what's happening in places like Somalia and Nigeria, for example) where Americans have either not been engaged at all or not for a very long time. The overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks aimed at civilians happen without any subsequent military reaction from the west. Yet they keep happening. And it would be tragic, but probably acceptable to the rest of the world if their consequences were localized. But they are not, they are far-reaching.

It's so simplistic to just treat ISIS et al. like they are toddlers, i.e. ignore them and they'll go away.

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by anitram

I think one other thing that is patently obvious is that the Clintons are their own worst enemy. You would think that a person who clearly had designs on the presidency, who was serving in the SoS role that was inevitably going to be highly scrutinized by the opposition would understand the concept of doing everything above board and then some. But no. This was a witch hunt for sure but it's also contributory negligence on Hillary's part.

I agree. I can't defend the stupidity or dismissiveness of what she did. But I do think part of it was because she was under such scrutiny. And it completely backfired. Imagine being under constant attack from the GOP, I think she wanted to have control over her own correspondence. This was obviously a stupid move. But I in no way think she set it up so she could secretly do anything.
That's the other part that people seem to ignore. If she did this in order to pull off some grand sabotage of the country, and funnel her bribe money from Saudi Arabia and Foundation and traffic Vietnamese babies into sweatshops to make drones to spy on gun owners, or whatever crazy bullshit that the right wing wants to make up, then wouldn't she have DONE IT?!?!

No she went 8 years conducting routine work related business and talking about fresh apples, tea, and watching Madame Secretary on her personal emails.

There just is no there there. It's all bullshit.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by anitram

I think one other thing that is patently obvious is that the Clintons are their own worst enemy. You would think that a person who clearly had designs on the presidency, who was serving in the SoS role that was inevitably going to be highly scrutinized by the opposition would understand the concept of doing everything above board and then some. But no. This was a witch hunt for sure but it's also contributory negligence on Hillary's part.

Exactly.

And those who said things like "had she known she would be running for president she'd have been more careful..." please, the only way she wasn't running this year was if she croaked (as BigMac had hoped) prior.

Crooked Hillary vs. Orange Donald. What a reverse Sophie's Choice. We're all fucked.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

I'd be interested to hear this discussion play out, but given my own perspectives/views (in the greater scheme of things) I don't think there is any need for me to take part.

I actually would really like to hear your views because I myself struggle with this topic. I have to admit my struggle is on an intellectual level (as a lawyer I question the legality, the precedent being set and the broader implications) rather than on an emotional level. So I'm interested in hearing how other people have reconciled their own views.

[PhilsFan]

I think it's very easy to simultaneously understand that it was stupid and reckless on the part of Clinton (which is not something you want your Secretary of State to be, let alone your president) while also a purely political issue for the GOP. It's been public knowledge for three years that Clinton was not using federal email accounts. The GOP did not start to give a shit until she was a presidential candidate in 2015.

[mikal]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

But you do apparently hope that she suffers from some sort of debilitating health issue... soooo yea.

I'm so pro life that I'm going to shoot up a Planned Parenthood clinic!

[anitram]

Originally Posted by womanfish

I agree. I can't defend the stupidity or dismissiveness of what she did. But I do think part of it was because she was under such scrutiny. And it completely backfired. Imagine being under constant attack from the GOP, I think she wanted to have control over her own correspondence.

Yeah it's interesting because I think that she has developed quite a thick skin in respect of the GOP attacks. I mean, think back to the early 90s when they essentially scuttled her healthcare plans and left her shaken, if not devastated. Today's Hillary has the benefit of past experience and resilience. But at the end of the day, much to the dismay of many, she's still human.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by anitram

It's so simplistic to just treat ISIS et al. like they are toddlers, i.e. ignore them and they'll go away.

I think ISIS is a very different animal than anything we've seen in the past. It is so vile and so hated by everyone else, but so capable of spreading itself through pure misery and destruction. Perhaps the fact that it is a reasonably clear target and that its on-the-ground support seems to be motivated by fear more than anything makes it appropriate for there to be some sort of military response (maybe one even greater than the bungled mess of drone strikes and non-allies-being-allies so far).

But, more generally, I find the argument that Western interventionism breeds further terrorism pretty convincing, for a few reasons. First, because terrorists generally cite Western interventionism as their motivator themselves. Second, because we have a nasty tendency towards ill-planned ham-fisted intervention catastrophes that leave behind comparable levels of destruction to what there was when we arrived (it's not a coincidence that ISIS developed half in a country that hosted a messy US intervention and half in a country that has been hosting a disastrous Russian intervention).

But it's hard to make foreign policy off of such convictions. My inclination (not very strongly held) is that ISIS needs to be defeated but there needs to be a general policy of non-intervention after that. But that is easier said that done. Terrorist attacks may happen anyway. There may be ruthless dictatorships and there will be awful religious extremists running the show - not because Islam is a particularly violent or bad religion (which I absolutely do not believe), but because there will be for a long, long time a legacy of destruction and economic misery in the region. Say what you will about the disastrous Iraq invasion, but Saddam Hussein was an *awful* dictator, and it's not hard to understand why people wanted him gone. But is there anything Western intervention can do about it without causing more destruction? And if there are terrorist attacks here, will more intervention (drones or otherwise) solve that or breed more?

Slightly off-topic but related: the most difficult question to me about the region comes from Israel. It's not hard to close your eyes and sympathize with the viewpoint that Israel is not much more than a Western imperial settler-state - especially if you don't happen to be Jewish or Christian. Western support for Israel will always create anger. But it's hard for me to muster up the desire to advocate that the West shouldn't support Israel, or that Israel shouldn't vigorously defend itself, but maybe that's just because I'm too much of a shill for Western liberalism. Regardless, recent right-wing Israeli governments haven't done themselves favors with their colonization of the West Bank.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference