SHOCK POLL: 71% of Dems Say Clinton Should Keep Running Even If Indicted...

[MrWonka]

What is your source of your speculation? They gave immunity to someone (Guccifer) who claims to have been in the server.

First, you're trusting a criminal that would say just about anything to get a lighter sentence. Not exactly reliable. He could have heard of her servers through the news media.

Second, even if her server got hacked it doesn't prove that she did anything reckless. As I've said even government servers are not all that safe. This Guccifer is wanted for hacking a number of different government entities including Colin Powell's website and US Senator Lisa Murkowski. His attacks were simple, he just guessed passwords something that can easily be done to a government server if the user has a weak password.

If someone outside the government has been inside the server, then how you can you know there was no threat to government security?

The question is would it be a greater threat than what could have been posed if all that information was on a government server. Given that there is no evidence that any information that was on the server was considered classified at the time, and given that hacking a government server wouldn't have been a whole lot more difficult there's no reason to believe that.

What non-IT profession do you work in that tells you that the only defense against a hack attempt is to shut down the server? Every server in the world is being probed regularly looking for vulnerabilities and yet somehow most of those server stay up each day.

Actually I do in fact work in IT for a government contractor, and while it is true that there are other defenses against attacks there is no reason to think similar protections weren't being employees on Clinton's server. I mean for all the evil things the Clinton's have been accused of do you seriously think they would allow their personal correspondence to go unprotected? The Clinton's are millionaires who can easily afford top of the line technology, and to hire full-time IT personnel to support it.

Every server in the world is being probed regularly looking for vulnerabilities and yet somehow most of those server stay up each day.

Actually you'd probably be surprised to find that they don't stay up that much at all they just have a lot redundancy that keeps the websites up even when an individual server goes down. Also most servers in the world don't have anybody attempting to hack them for any reason.

I see nothing but wishful thinking on your part for partisan reasons.

I see nothing but pessimistic thinking on your part looking for anything to confirm a pre-conceived notion that you have about the Clinton's. The reality is if there was any actual proof that they were the bad guys conservatives have made them out to be something would have stuck a long long time ago. The Clinton's have been doing nothing, but fight for the best interests of the country for the better part of 50 years. There decisions haven't always been perfect, but hindsight is 20/20.

Comparing the Clinton legacy to the Trump legacy it shouldn't even be remotely close who would be a better fit to lead the country.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I see nothing but pessimistic thinking on your part looking for anything to confirm a pre-conceived notion that you have about the Clinton's. The reality is if there was any actual proof that they were the bad guys conservatives have made them out to be something would have stuck a long long time ago. The Clinton's have been doing nothing, but fight for the best interests of the country for the better part of 50 years. There decisions haven't always been perfect, but hindsight is 20/20.

Comparing the Clinton legacy to the Trump legacy it shouldn't even be remotely close who would be a better fit to lead the country.

Amen, Mr. Wonka. AMEN!

 

[iguanaman]

Leftists belong to the party of corruption. Its pretty clear.

Nixon resigned due to corruption, Reagan ran a secret war and got a few of his people jailed for it. GW Bush invaded a sovereign nation based on lies. But pile of unsubstantiated BS about the Clintons makes Democrats worse. Those partisan blinders you are wearing work great don't they.

 

[disneydude]

sexual harassment of a subordinate is contrary to the law. Sexual harassment protocols were in place for the executive branch by 1990.

I'm not disagreeing with that. With Lewinsky though there was never an allegation that it was "sexual harassment". She has always indicated that it was a consensual act. Regardless....its still a completely different situation.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

First, you're trusting a criminal that would say just about anything to get a lighter sentence. Not exactly reliable. He could have heard of her servers through the news media.

Second, even if her server got hacked it doesn't prove that she did anything reckless. As I've said even government servers are not all that safe. This Guccifer is wanted for hacking a number of different government entities including Colin Powell's website and US Senator Lisa Murkowski. His attacks were simple, he just guessed passwords something that can easily be done to a government server if the user has a weak password.


The question is would it be a greater threat than what could have been posed if all that information was on a government server. Given that there is no evidence that any information that was on the server was considered classified at the time, and given that hacking a government server wouldn't have been a whole lot more difficult there's no reason to believe that.


Actually I do in fact work in IT for a government contractor, and while it is true that there are other defenses against attacks there is no reason to think similar protections weren't being employees on Clinton's server. I mean for all the evil things the Clinton's have been accused of do you seriously think they would allow their personal correspondence to go unprotected? The Clinton's are millionaires who can easily afford top of the line technology, and to hire full-time IT personnel to support it.



Actually you'd probably be surprised to find that they don't stay up that much at all they just have a lot redundancy that keeps the websites up even when an individual server goes down. Also most servers in the world don't have anybody attempting to hack them for any reason.



I see nothing but pessimistic thinking on your part looking for anything to confirm a pre-conceived notion that you have about the Clinton's. The reality is if there was any actual proof that they were the bad guys conservatives have made them out to be something would have stuck a long long time ago. The Clinton's have been doing nothing, but fight for the best interests of the country for the better part of 50 years. There decisions haven't always been perfect, but hindsight is 20/20.

Comparing the Clinton legacy to the Trump legacy it shouldn't even be remotely close who would be a better fit to lead the country.

You've created your own narrative and using it for your own defense. I'm looking at it objectively. If anyone in my company set up their own email server and managed company business on that device, then they would be fired and pursued in civil court. I don't know what was or was not compromised, it is the Obama administration doing the investigating and conflicting representations of how cooperative the witnesses are or are not.

I have no preconceived notions about the topic. I have acknowledged partisanship by Congress but my reactions are to the investigations of the Obama administration. In fact, it is you that brought this up in the context of the election. I see this as an issue outside the election based upon the actions and inactions of former government employees. My political question was asking what percent of Democrats would support HDR if she were convicted. Would you under those circumstances?

As for your IT qualifications, fine you work for a government contractor. I'm sure there are many thousands of those, but probably not many working with setting up and securing emails. You mentioned websites which leads me to believe that you may not know much about email. That's one of my headaches to deal with and I have yet to see what was done to secure HDR's email server. Plenty of rich people are hacked so just because she may have the means to add more defenses, doesn't mean she did--that is another of your assumptions based solely on wealth.

 

[Frank Apisa]

You've created your own narrative and using it for your own defense. I'm looking at it objectively. If anyone in my company set up their own email server and managed company business on that device, then they would be fired and pursued in civil court. I don't know what was or was not compromised, it is the Obama administration doing the investigating and conflicting representations of how cooperative the witnesses are or are not.

I have no preconceived notions about the topic. I have acknowledged partisanship by Congress but my reactions are to the investigations of the Obama administration. In fact, it is you that brought this up in the context of the election. I see this as an issue outside the election based upon the actions and inactions of former government employees. My political question was asking what percent of Democrats would support HDR if she were convicted. Would you under those circumstances?

As for your IT qualifications, fine you work for a government contractor. I'm sure there are many thousands of those, but probably not many working with setting up and securing emails. You mentioned websites which leads me to believe that you may not know much about email. That's one of my headaches to deal with and I have yet to see what was done to secure HDR's email server. Plenty of rich people are hacked so just because she may have the means to add more defenses, doesn't mean she did--that is another of your assumptions based solely on wealth.

Ummm...ummm...

...oh, never mind.

 

[Absentglare]

BahahAhahhahaa

Good ****ing luck getting an indictment. The smoke and mirrors "unnamed sources claim Hillary ate babes," bull**** might work on gullible, perpetually afraid senior citizens, but i doubt you'll get our criminal justice system to engage in this petty political shenanigan.

 

[BWG]

The Democratic/Progressive rank and file have made it abundantly clear, time and again, that they really don't hold their leaders to any kind of moral standard whatsoever. The ends are almost universally viewed as justifying the means.

So long as the candidate/politician/celebrity/what-have-you in question is "on the right team," and in even the remotest sense opposed to the Right, they'll gladly look the other way regardless of the offense in question. What's more, they'll gladly look the other way while basically calling for a Republican to be all but literally lynched from the nearest tree for something less than half as egregious as what they'll tolerate from a Dem.

The modern Left is... Legitimately rather frightening in this regard.

A Texas grand jury indicted Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on felony securities fraud charges almost a year ago and he's still there.

I don't think I have to really identify Paxton's political affiliation, it's Texas after all.

Now what was that about being on the 'RIGHT' team?

 

[MrWonka]

You've created your own narrative and using it for your own defense. I'm looking at it objectively.

An American who claims they are looking at a situation like this "objectively" would presume innocence until there is proof of guilt. You seem to want to convict her already, when the fact is the investigators still don't know if they have any evidence to even file charges of any kind.

If anyone in my company set up their own email server and managed company business on that device, then they would be fired and pursued in civil court.

No, they actually wouldn't. It is incredibly common for co-workers to exchange information using their own personal cell phones. Your work email is generally provided as more of a matter of convenience to keep things organized than anything else. At my job our team set up a Slack messaging group to help improve our communication. None of the information shared on there is controlled by the company. Slack, Skype, Lync, Gchat..... all of these services are widely used in the corporate world and any messages sent across them are the property of the services no your company.

My political question was asking what percent of Democrats would support HDR if she were convicted. Would you under those circumstances?

Not if it was actually something serious, but she won't actually be convicted of anything the whole point of theorizing about it is called push polling.

It reminds me of back in the 2000 primary when Bush's team made a bunch of phone calls in SC asking republican primary voters if they'd still vote for John McCain if they heard he had an illegitimate black child. Of course he didn't have one, but by even asking such a question they were implying that he might. The question wasn't designed to determine an answer to a legitimate question it was designed to put that idea in the minds of voters to hopefully influence their decision. That is precisely what republicans are trying to do. They don't have evidence to actually indict her on anything, but they want you to believe the potential is out there for it to happen to keep people from voting for her. That has been their plan all along.

This is why the notion of innocent until proven guilty is so unbelievably important. The founders knew the damage that can be done by accusations. Just by accusing someone of something like witchcraft, or child molestation you can destroy them. It doesn't matter if the accusation is true, it doesn't matter if you can prove it, just making the accusation alone will cause half the people to believe it and that's often times all you need to destroy them.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

An American who claims they are looking at a situation like this "objectively" would presume innocence until there is proof of guilt. You seem to want to convict her already, when the fact is the investigators still don't know if they have any evidence to even file charges of any kind.


No, they actually wouldn't. It is incredibly common for co-workers to exchange information using their own personal cell phones. Your work email is generally provided as more of a matter of convenience to keep things organized than anything else. At my job our team set up a Slack messaging group to help improve our communication. None of the information shared on there is controlled by the company. Slack, Skype, Lync, Gchat..... all of these services are widely used in the corporate world and any messages sent across them are the property of the services no your company.


Not if it was actually something serious, but she won't actually be convicted of anything the whole point of theorizing about it is called push polling.

It reminds me of back in the 2000 primary when Bush's team made a bunch of phone calls in SC asking republican primary voters if they'd still vote for John McCain if they heard he had an illegitimate black child. Of course he didn't have one, but by even asking such a question they were implying that he might. The question wasn't designed to determine an answer to a legitimate question it was designed to put that idea in the minds of voters to hopefully influence their decision. That is precisely what republicans are trying to do. They don't have evidence to actually indict her on anything, but they want you to believe the potential is out there for it to happen to keep people from voting for her. That has been their plan all along.

This is why the notion of innocent until proven guilty is so unbelievably important. The founders knew the damage that can be done by accusations. Just by accusing someone of something like witchcraft, or child molestation you can destroy them. It doesn't matter if the accusation is true, it doesn't matter if you can prove it, just making the accusation alone will cause half the people to believe it and that's often times all you need to destroy them.

Ok, Mr web developer without detailed knowledge of how email works, please don't pretend to explain what you don't understand. Company email is provided for the company to maintain a record of company based activities. This is how a company can ensure that just because a user presses delete, doesn't mean that the email is actually gone--tell me you didn't think it really was. We aren't talking about skype or slack or any other service using the company network which can be archived by that company. If the service is being used is run by the company then it is owned by the company. Again, another tangent on your part, the topic is email.

I never convicted HDR of anything, I have been viewing the news articles like everyone else and looking at it as a corporation would. The statement made by government officials is certainly not enough to convict her of anything, but it also doesn't preclude an indictment being found. You have ruled that out completely because of your own political wishful filter. True the government doesn't work like a corporation but that isn't really on the topic either.

Your example of push polling is another slanted view of the topic and hand, but keep it going, Frank enjoys it.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

If they had just nominated Sanders instead of being a bunch of corporate elitist sell-outs...

 

[MrWonka]

Ok, Mr web developer without detailed knowledge of how email works, please don't pretend to explain what you don't understand. Company email is provided for the company to maintain a record of company based activities. This is how a company can ensure that just because a user presses delete, doesn't mean that the email is actually gone--tell me you didn't think it really was.

It can be used for that purpose sure, but that does not prevent anybody from using external forms of communication.

We aren't talking about skype or slack or any other service using the company network which can be archived by that company. If the service is being used is run by the company then it is owned by the company. Again, another tangent on your part, the topic is email.

No, the topic is inter-group communication outside the control of the company. Newsflash: it exists, it's incredibly common, and it will not get you fired at almost any sensible company in the world.

You have ruled that out completely because of your own political wishful filter.

No, I have ruled it out because after over two long years of investigations a highly motivated republican lead team of investigators has still not come up with anything to actually charge her with. Furthermore in order for formal charge to be handed down it would require the Justice Department and President Obama to give an okay. If there was a real smoking gun so obvious that it would require President Obama to allow it they would have found it a long long time ago.

Your example of push polling is another slanted view of the topic and hand,\

No, I just understand how republicans think, and I know this is exactly the type of scheme they love to hatch. They've done it many times before and they'll do it again. If they had actually found something they would have charged Clinton a long time ago. They are deliberately stretching this out in the hopes that they can use it to influence the election or maybe even try and use it as an excuse to try and impeach her when she wins the general election.

 

[MrWonka]

If they had just nominated Sanders instead of being a bunch of corporate elitist sell-outs...

You really don't understand that Libertarianism and Socialism are contradictions of each other do you? A libertarian-socalist makes about as much sense as calling your pet a Cat-Dog.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

You really don't understand that Libertarianism and Socialism are contradictions of each other do you? A libertarian-socalist (?)makes about as much sense as calling your pet a Cat-Dog.

You expect me to take you seriously, despite the fact you can't even spell Socialist correctly...

:lamo

I'm not even gonna bother with you. You're so easy it's sad.

 

[MrWonka]

You expect me to take you seriously, despite the fact you can't even spell Socialist correctly...

I'm not even gonna bother with you. You're so easy it's sad.

Ah yes, the subtle ad hominem. One thing I have noticed over the years is that there is no greater sign that I'm winning an argument than when someone starts trying to attack my spelling or grammar. It shows you have no ability to refute my points, but in an effort to sneak out of the argument you go with a subtle ad hominem that most people will let you get away with. Claim that a simple typo in a forum post is some how evidence of intelligence and you can get away with anything. If you're going with personal attacks I have more respect for more obvious forums. At least those generally come out of frustration from trying. The subtle ones show that even you realize you're wrong, but can't admit to it.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Ah yes, the subtle ad hominem. One thing I have noticed over the years is that there is no greater sign that I'm winning an argument than when someone starts trying to attack my spelling or grammar. It shows you have no ability to refute my points, but in an effort to sneak out of the argument you go with a subtle ad hominem that most people will let you get away with. Claim that a simple typo in a forum post is some how evidence of intelligence and you can get away with anything. If you're going with personal attacks I have more respect for more obvious forums. At least those generally come out of frustration from trying. The subtle ones show that even you realize you're wrong, but can't admit to it.

OK then big tough guy, prove it. By the way, it's kind of pathetic you're trying to blame your poor grammar on me. I'm not the one who made himself look like an ass by claiming to know a lot about a subject he can't even spell the damn name of right.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

It can be used for that purpose sure, but that does not prevent anybody from using external forms of communication.


No, the topic is inter-group communication outside the control of the company. Newsflash: it exists, it's incredibly common, and it will not get you fired at almost any sensible company in the world.



No, I have ruled it out because after over two long years of investigations a highly motivated republican lead team of investigators has still not come up with anything to actually charge her with. Furthermore in order for formal charge to be handed down it would require the Justice Department and President Obama to give an okay. If there was a real smoking gun so obvious that it would require President Obama to allow it they would have found it a long long time ago.



No, I just understand how republicans think, and I know this is exactly the type of scheme they love to hatch. They've done it many times before and they'll do it again. If they had actually found something they would have charged Clinton a long time ago. They are deliberately stretching this out in the hopes that they can use it to influence the election or maybe even try and use it as an excuse to try and impeach her when she wins the general election.

Again, you have framed the argument just the way you like. It isn't about stopping external forms of communications, it is being in control of the platforms of official communication. Only the controller of a domain can determine what is official from that domain. Heck, HDR hasn't had activated SPF from her own server. If I want to block any specific traffic on my network, I can, but that doesn't mean that I do. Clearly an outside email server is outside the reach of the FOIA law.

News flash: The Inspector General of the State Department isn't a Republican and isn't lead by anyone in Congress. Perhaps you can something really bad to say about Mr. Linick: https://oig.state.gov/about/IG.

So you understand how republicans think and their schemes? How comforting for you.

 

[MrWonka]

OK then big tough guy, prove it. By the way, it's kind of pathetic you're trying to blame your poor grammar on me.

I'm not blaming you for my typo. I'm pointing out that you're attempting to exploit an obviously simple typo to avoid addressing the reality that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm not the one who made himself look like an ass by claiming to know a lot about a subject he can't even spell the damn name of right.

Again, there is a difference between a typo, and not actually knowing how to spell something. In either I would much rather struggle with spelling a word, than struggle with understanding a word. Given that a libertarian is someone who believes in small government and free markets where as a socialist is someone who believes in big government with central economic planning anybody who would refer to themselves as a libertarian-socialist clearly has no idea what either one of those terms actually means.

 

[MrWonka]

Again, you have framed the argument just the way you like. It isn't about stopping external forms of communications,

Yes it is. You claimed that in your place of work if people were conducting communications on an outside non-company server they would be fired. I gave you numerous examples of that not being true proving you wrong.

Clearly an outside email server is outside the reach of the FOIA law.

Not anymore so than having one on one conversations that are not written down or recorded at all would be. The server is intended for everyday chatter back and forth between advisers not official business. You can certainly argue that she pushed the limits of that, but off the record communication between politicians and their advisers is standard issue. There's nothing you can do to stop it.

News flash: The Inspector General of the State Department isn't a Republican and isn't lead by anyone in Congress. Perhaps you can something really bad to say about Mr. Linick:

Nobody is claiming that he is, but by his own admission they asked Clinton to change her email policy a number of times. They didn't throw her out of office for it. They maybe didn't like it. It may have went against best practices, or recommended procedures, but that's very different than it being illegal.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm not disagreeing with that. With Lewinsky though there was never an allegation that it was "sexual harassment". She has always indicated that it was a consensual act. Regardless....its still a completely different situation.

that's not relevant when the relationship is so slanted in terms of power.

 

[KLATTU]

Y
Republicans have been crying wolf about the Clinton's and Hillary specifically for so long that even if you found actual evidence that they did something wrong at this point nobody would believe you anyway or care.

That rings awfully hollow after that latest OIG report . Turns out all us Republicans who have called her a seial pathological liar have been vindicated, huh?

 

[KLATTU]

. GW Bush invaded a sovereign nation based on lies. y.

IF Bush lied then so did th eHillary Clinton.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Can't get any more balatant that that huh?

. GW Bush invaded a sovereign nation based on lies. But pile of unsubstantiated BS about the Clintons makes Democrats worse. Those partisan blinders you are wearing work great don't they.

Unsubstantiated? Did you write that before the IG report?
Defending her after that makes you look REALLY sleazy-like her in fact.

 

[Paperview]

Yes the nation has sunk this low....and liberals who raise hell over anything a Republican does, even a traffic infraction, and would use it against them as a potential president, will gladly overlook all the criminality attached to Hillary....not to mention all the lies she has been caught in....

Just the fact that she is being actively investigated, should be a dis-qualifier.

Not even indicted, eh? Just investigated.


Interesting.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

I'm not blaming you for my typo. I'm pointing out that you're attempting to exploit an obviously simple typo to avoid addressing the reality that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Your straw house is blowing away...

Again, there is a difference between a typo, and not actually knowing how to spell something. In either I would much rather struggle with spelling a word, than struggle with understanding a word.

Going... going...

Given that a libertarian is someone who believes in small government and free markets where as a socialist is someone who believes in big government with central economic planning anybody

Gone.

In its oldest usage, left-libertarianism is a synonym for anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics, either anarchism in general or social anarchism in particular.[1][2]

1: "Anarchism". In Gaus, Gerald F.; D'Agostino, Fred, eds. (2012). The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy. p. 227
2: Bookchin, Murray and Biehl, Janet (1997). The Murray Bookchin Reader. Cassell: p. 170. ISBN 0-304-33873-7

Left-Libertarianism: Libertarian socialism

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[55][56] left-libertarianism[57][58] and socialist libertarianism[59]) is a group of anti-authoritarian[60] political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy,[61] as well as the state itself.[62] It criticizes wage labour relationships within the workplace,[63] instead emphasizing workers' self-management of the workplace[62] and decentralized structures of political organization,[64][65][66] asserting that a society based on freedom and justice can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[67] Libertarian socialists advocate for decentralized structures based on direct democracy and federal or confederal associations[68] such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.[69][70] All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian[71] and voluntary human relationships[72] through the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life.[73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80]

Geoffrey Ostergaard
An Anarchist FAQ - I.1 Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron?
Roderick T. Long
The Soviet Union Versus Socialism
Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism
Individual Liberty
Anarchism as a Theory of Organization
George Woodcock on George Orwell
Mikhail Bakunin, social anarchist
Libertarian socialism
Noam Chomsky

It is in essence permanent and infinite revolution and enlightenment. The status quo and civil stagnation will become obsolete.
Dictators, oligarchs, authoritarianism, and corruption become impossible.

 

[iguanaman]

IF Bush lied then so did th eHillary Clinton.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Can't get any more balatant that that huh?

Unsubstantiated? Did you write that before the IG report?
Defending her after that makes you look REALLY sleazy-like her in fact.

Congress was fed a bunch of lies disguised as facts in order to get their votes. A lot of Senators were fooled, not only Hillary. She certainly did not give the order to invade Iraq either. No one is defending Bush's lies now either. Everyone thinks the Iraq invasion was a huge blunder.