Octopus Overlords

Isgrimnur wrote:Including the stuff he says about himself.

Pyperkub wrote:Looks like Clinton has wised up : Clinton campaign mandated to use Signal

GreenGoo wrote:Shrug. I'm sure the 15 other investigations were legit.

GreenGoo wrote: What's interesting to me is that I was suitably pissed at how they handled the news of the Benghazi attack and what they said during the early hours of the event.

I haven't forgiven the administration for what I felt were deliberately misleading statements. At no point did I think they had hung their personnel out to dry nor mishandled anything other than the information they made public at first.

Holman wrote:Compare Benghazi with the invasion of Iraq.

One of the first things President Obama did was make clear that he was not out to score political points from investigating the months of lies and intentional deception leading to the invasion. Remember, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed from a full-scale foreign policy debacle that didn't have to happen. Obama seems to have decided that domestic tranquility was better served by not enacting what would only have been justice on those who wrought all that suffering and waste.

Benghazi was a tragedy handled poorly in its aftermath. Iraq was an intentional scheme that ruined our country and the world in ways we're still just seeing.

Rip wrote: Don't worry once Trump wins he will let Hillary and Obama off as well. Just has to do what O has done and act like the failure is assumed and no investigation is necessary.

GreenGoo wrote:Wait, what? You think there is something about Obama's tenure that requires investigation that will go uninvestigated? What on earth could that be?

There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton.

We don't come to this decision easily. This newspaper has not recommended a Democrat for the nation's highest office since before World War II — if you're counting, that's more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections. The party's over-reliance on government and regulation to remedy the country's ills is at odds with our belief in private-sector ingenuity and innovation. Our values are more about individual liberty, free markets and a strong national defense.
...
Resume vs. resume, judgment vs. judgment, this election is no contest.
...
Those are real shortcomings. But they pale in comparison to the litany of evils some opponents accuse her of. Treason? Murder? Her being cleared of crimes by investigation after investigation has no effect on these political hyenas; they refuse to see anything but conspiracies and cover-ups.

We reject the politics of personal destruction. Clinton has made mistakes and displayed bad judgment, but her errors are plainly in a different universe than her opponent's.

Trump's values are hostile to conservatism. He plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best. His serial shifts on fundamental issues reveal an astounding absence of preparedness. And his improvisational insults and midnight tweets exhibit a dangerous lack of judgment and impulse control.

After nearly four decades in the public spotlight, 25 of them on the national stage, Clinton is a known quantity. For all her warts, she is the candidate more likely to keep our nation safe, to protect American ideals and to work across the aisle to uphold the vital domestic institutions that rely on a competent, experienced president.

Isgrimnur wrote:Dallas Morning News

After nearly four decades in the public spotlight, 25 of them on the national stage, Clinton is a known quantity. For all her warts, she is the candidate more likely to keep our nation safe, to protect American ideals and to work across the aisle to uphold the vital domestic institutions that rely on a competent, experienced president.

YellowKing wrote:I'm of the same mind, but part of my vote for Hillary is a protest vote against the Republican party in general. It's basically my way of saying a big "Fuck You" to a party who let me down by becoming more concerned with bathrooms and email servers than actual issues.

In fact, there's a very good chance I'll just vote a straight Democratic ticket, which is my version of nuking from orbit.

El Guapo wrote:It's honestly hard for me to fathom how anyone could seriously entertain voting third party in any remotely competitive state when the election is Trump vs. a conventional (if flawed) politician. Trump is a crazy demagogue with significant ties to a vicious despot (Putin) and who has demonstrated essentially zero understanding of significant issues nor respect for democratic norms. If this were Clinton vs. anyone else in the Republican field (even Walker, who I despise), I could understand it, but here...

I will add the caveat that in clearly non-competitive states it doesn't matter (though even there I would be uneasy voting third party), and that I understand supporting Johnson at this stage where there's at least a 1% chance that he could catch fire, qualify for the debates, and take off from there. But if Johnson (as is very very likely) stays more or less where he is...seems insanely reckless.

GreenGoo wrote:So I read the actual correspondence between Powell and Clinton with regard to blackberries, email and communication in general. He literally tells her to dodge Government infrastructure because that's what he did and even ignores CIA/NSA warnings about what he's doing.

I knew he guided her in general but the details are pretty clearly "avoid doing it according to protocol". He claims that she was already doing it before he sent the email but whether that's true or not does not change the hypocrisy of ignoring his usage while the country was gearing up for and executing a war, where classified things might actually matter, while spending millions to investigate the same behaviour of the opposing party's secretary of state for the same behaviour.

Before I was like "this is nuts" but not really outraged. But now I'm pretty outraged. Particularly so because they have found nothing substantial, so not only is the double standard glaring, it's been a fruitless waste of money.

GreenGoo wrote: He claims that she was already doing it before he sent the email but whether that's true or not does not change the hypocrisy of ignoring his usage

GreenGoo wrote:Perhaps, but it was clearly condoned until now. I think a better approach would be clarify what is expected, what is not allowed and what will result in legal action in the future.

Sure you can retroactively go after people for "business as usual" behaviour because they should have known better, but when it's the norm and been acceptable (to who, is the important question) it's often easier and more reasonable to make it clear that this behaviour will no longer be tolerated going forward.

Still, if you want to go back through all the Secretaries since email has been created and investigate each of them, I guess go for it. I think there are better uses for the resources. Like governing instead of forming a new partisan committee to investigate when the previous one winds down (this applies to both sides of the aisle).

Oversight is important. Using oversight for political sabotage is a shitty waste of time and money.

El Guapo wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: He claims that she was already doing it before he sent the email but whether that's true or not does not change the hypocrisy of ignoring his usage

From what I understand it's pretty clearly untrue. Evidently Powell has said that Clinton contacted her about the issue after she had already been Secretary of State for a year. Only the e-mails recently released show Powell giving her the advice you mention in an e-mail dated two days after she became Secretary of State.

GreenGoo wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: He claims that she was already doing it before he sent the email but whether that's true or not does not change the hypocrisy of ignoring his usage

From what I understand it's pretty clearly untrue. Evidently Powell has said that Clinton contacted her about the issue after she had already been Secretary of State for a year. Only the e-mails recently released show Powell giving her the advice you mention in an e-mail dated two days after she became Secretary of State.

But that's only important if you care who (and by who, I mean which side of the aisle) got her moving down this path in the first place. Whether Powell got her started or just did the same thing, the hypocrisy doesn't change, and therefore double standard is just as obviously partisan persecution.

My point is only that both sides did it. It appeared to be the acceptable norm. Yet Clinton is pilloried for it but not a peep about Powell (from the people who are (trying) to make a federal case out of it and with the power to actually do something about it. Rip need not apply ).

I guess all I'm saying is that we can remove the argument over whether Powell told her before or after she started doing it, because the answer to that argument is meaningless except academically. So when some people say "he sent it first" and others say "no he didn't" we should say "whenever he did it is irrelevant, lets focus on why it was acceptable for Powell but not for Clinton, because that will clarify how serious this behaviour really is (or isn't)".

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Perhaps, but it was clearly condoned until now. I think a better approach would be clarify what is expected, what is not allowed and what will result in legal action in the future.

Sure you can retroactively go after people for "business as usual" behaviour because they should have known better, but when it's the norm and been acceptable (to who, is the important question) it's often easier and more reasonable to make it clear that this behaviour will no longer be tolerated going forward.

Still, if you want to go back through all the Secretaries since email has been created and investigate each of them, I guess go for it. I think there are better uses for the resources. Like governing instead of forming a new partisan committee to investigate when the previous one winds down (this applies to both sides of the aisle).

Oversight is important. Using oversight for political sabotage is a shitty waste of time and money.

It isn't about whether they have e-mails. It is about using them to avoid records LAWS. Laws are for everyone. If you don't enforce them there is little point in having them.