As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Democratic Primary: Will Never End

1969799101102

Posts

  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    If the E-mails were a thing Bernie would be grilling her on it every chance he gets. Or at least his campaign would. Lord knows they have no issue jumping on things that seem shady even if they're not.

    The fact that they aren't is proof enough for me that it's completely non-sense and always has been.

    No I don't.
  • AssuranAssuran Is swinging on the Spiral Registered User regular
    I believe her handling of the server is actually in violation of the Classified Laws Act (18 US 798), specifically section A2. From everything I've seen, the Server did not have adequate security which was brought up to Sec. Clinton, who acknowledged the risks but continued to ignore the recommendations. If any documents on the server were classified, knowingly or unknowingly, that's a clear violation of the law.

    I can't prove it, because I don't have access to the documents, but I do work in Law Enforcement. The FBI, when we work with them, sends out 1-3 agents at a time. If they actually have dozens working on the case, my personal experience is that there is something there.

    Again, I can't prove it, but I firmly believe the law was violated.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited April 2016
    htm wrote: »
    More than a Democrat winning the presidency (which is looking increasingly likely as we inch closer to the end of these primaries), I want Democrats to learn from 2010/2014 and actually fight in the midterms, not just to maintain the seats they have, but to gain more.

    The midterm problem for the Ds is structural. It's probably not something that a DNC chair can solve. Basically, the Rs have a huge voting bloc (retirees) who don't have to go to work or school on midterm election day. If there's no presidential election amping up the hype level, then most voters won't even be aware that midterm election are happening.

    A DNC chair can't Green Lantern increased turn out into existence. You could make the argument that the DNC should be devoting huge resources to driving mid-term turnout, but even if/when it does, whatever resources the DNC could muster are small potatoes compared to the ambient political awareness created during a presidential election. High presidential election turn out is the result of 9 months of continuous campaigning and billions and billions of dollars worth of free media coverage. There's just no way the DNC could even come close to spending those sorts of resources and generating that level of awareness in a midterm year.

    And without that level of awareness and expectation, who votes? Not the people who have to go to school or work.

    The only real solution to low midterm turn out is to make election day into a bank holiday.

    Turnout is definitely an issue, but the party chair can do a lot, actually.

    Leaving seats uncontested is fucking stupid. There is no real push to raise and direct funds to contesting seats at midterms right now, and the chair has the power and pulpit to see that done.

    And the chair also helps set the tone. Look at this stupid shit DWS pulled in 2014. Putting distance between the people she was supposed to be assisting in their runs for office and a relatively popular president because of Republican attack ads is terminally idiotic.

    The chair is important, and the one the Democrats have now is not just inadequate, she's actively hurting the party and, by extension, the downticket races we desperately need to win. Getting someone in there that will contest as many seats as possible, direct funds where they're needed, and properly advocate for the party and its leaders will make a Brobdingnagian difference.

    joshofalltrades on
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Assuran wrote: »
    I believe her handling of the server is actually in violation of the Classified Laws Act (18 US 798), specifically section A2. From everything I've seen, the Server did not have adequate security which was brought up to Sec. Clinton, who acknowledged the risks but continued to ignore the recommendations. If any documents on the server were classified, knowingly or unknowingly, that's a clear violation of the law.

    I can't prove it, because I don't have access to the documents, but I do work in Law Enforcement. The FBI, when we work with them, sends out 1-3 agents at a time. If they actually have dozens working on the case, my personal experience is that there is something there.

    Again, I can't prove it, but I firmly believe the law was violated.

    I sincerely doubt the FBI is treating this just like the cases you have seen where 1-3 agents come out. They need to be thorough and fair, so they put people on it (cite for dozens? I feel like that was just a rumor or something).

    Your anecdotal regular law enforcement experience is basically not a good measure of comparison to a high profile investigation into a national figure.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    And not to open a can of worms, but you need to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election. Your third party vote (or abstention from voting) will only help the Republicans.

  • htmhtm Registered User regular
    htm wrote: »
    More than a Democrat winning the presidency (which is looking increasingly likely as we inch closer to the end of these primaries), I want Democrats to learn from 2010/2014 and actually fight in the midterms, not just to maintain the seats they have, but to gain more.

    The midterm problem for the Ds is structural. It's probably not something that a DNC chair can solve. Basically, the Rs have a huge voting bloc (retirees) who don't have to go to work or school on midterm election day. If there's no presidential election amping up the hype level, then most voters won't even be aware that midterm election are happening.

    A DNC chair can't Green Lantern increased turn out into existence. You could make the argument that the DNC should be devoting huge resources to driving mid-term turnout, but even if/when it does, whatever resources the DNC could muster are small potatoes compared to the ambient political awareness created during a presidential election. High presidential election turn out is the result of 9 months of continuous campaigning and billions and billions of dollars worth of free media coverage. There's just no way the DNC could even come close to spending those sorts of resources and generating that level of awareness in a midterm year.

    And without that level of awareness and expectation, who votes? Not the people who have to go to school or work.

    The only real solution to low midterm turn out is to make election day into a bank holiday.

    Turnout is definitely an issue, but the party chair can do a lot, actually.

    Leaving seats uncontested is fucking stupid. There is no real push to raise and direct funds to contesting seats at midterms right now, and the chair has the power and pulpit to see that done.

    And the chair also helps set the tone. Look at this stupid shit DWS pulled in 2014. Putting distance between the people she was supposed to be assisting in their runs for office and a relatively popular president because of Republican attack ads is terminally idiotic.

    The chair is important, and the one the Democrats have now is not just inadequate, she's actively hurting the party and, by extension, the downticket races we desperately need to win. Getting someone in there that will contest as many seats as possible, direct funds where they're needed, and properly advocate for the party and its leaders will make a Brobdingnagian difference.

    I agree that DWS is terrible and that the DNC leaves too many states uncontested, and I will be happy when she's gone and ecstatic if her successor is someone who embraces Obama's legacy and implements a 50 state strategy.

    However, even if the next DNC chair is awesome and the DNC does everything right, the Ds will still get trounced during the midterms.

  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    .
    Assuran wrote: »
    I believe her handling of the server is actually in violation of the Classified Laws Act (18 US 798), specifically section A2. From everything I've seen, the Server did not have adequate security which was brought up to Sec. Clinton, who acknowledged the risks but continued to ignore the recommendations. If any documents on the server were classified, knowingly or unknowingly, that's a clear violation of the law.

    I can't prove it, because I don't have access to the documents, but I do work in Law Enforcement. The FBI, when we work with them, sends out 1-3 agents at a time. If they actually have dozens working on the case, my personal experience is that there is something there.

    Again, I can't prove it, but I firmly believe the law was violated.

    The FBI has already found the server was secure (and actually more so than the State servers).

    18 US 798 requires
    (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0330-mcmanus-clinton-email-prosecution-20160330-column.html
    The laws governing the misuse of classified information require that the offender knew the material was classified and either delivered it to someone who wasn't authorized to receive it or removed it from government custody “with the intent to retain” it.

    So the first test is whether Clinton knew she was putting classified information into an unclassified system. Clinton and her aides have insisted that she didn't. They say none of her emails included material that was marked as classified at the time.

    Some of her emails were later reclassified, including 22 that have been designated “top secret” — but they weren't classified when she sent or received them.

    Second, did she “willfully communicate” classified information to anyone not authorized to receive it? She says she didn't, and there's no known evidence that she did. Most of her exchanges were with other officials who were cleared to look at secret material.

    Third, did she remove classified information “with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location”?

    “If all she was doing was exchanging emails with her staff, I don't think they can prove that she had the intent to retain anything,” a former top government lawyer told me.
    And each of those standards must be met for her actions to be illegal.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    Yup, this is a situation where lots of people who say "I believe that..." actually mean "I want to believe that..."

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    I am ... intrigued? ... to see what this thread full of smart people thinks about the Clinton e-mail legal issues. I haven't noticed it come up before, though I'm sure it has.

    It was a shady but not technically illegal way to get around federal records laws, just like when George W Bush did more or less the exact same thing with that personal email account.

    Then the GOP blew it completely out of proportion trying to turn it into a career-ending scandal, because I guess they didn't cry wolf enough times after Benghazi, or Whitewater, or Vince Foster's death, and I decided I didn't actually care anymore.

  • AssuranAssuran Is swinging on the Spiral Registered User regular
    The Washington Post has reported [dozens of FBI agents were involved in the case.

    It's possible this is much ado about nothing, and I freely admit that the FBI is incentivized to finish the investigation prior to the General Election.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Oh yeah my bad, I was remembering the article saying 147 agents (lol wut) that was totally incorrect.

  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    Assuran wrote: »
    The Washington Post has reported [dozens of FBI agents were involved in the case.

    It's possible this is much ado about nothing, and I freely admit that the FBI is incentivized to finish the investigation prior to the General Election.

    Yes, the article that reported based on a partial and incorrect leak is credible.

    C'mon man, the retraction is the first sentence and "less than fifty" looks a lot like "I'm not humoring you but 150 is super wrong"

    I ate an engineer
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    Assuran wrote: »
    I believe her handling of the server is actually in violation of the Classified Laws Act (18 US 798), specifically section A2. From everything I've seen, the Server did not have adequate security which was brought up to Sec. Clinton, who acknowledged the risks but continued to ignore the recommendations. If any documents on the server were classified, knowingly or unknowingly, that's a clear violation of the law.

    I can't prove it, because I don't have access to the documents, but I do work in Law Enforcement. The FBI, when we work with them, sends out 1-3 agents at a time. If they actually have dozens working on the case, my personal experience is that there is something there.

    Again, I can't prove it, but I firmly believe the law was violated.

    (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
    (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
    (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes;


    Uhh... Wut?

    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Assuran wrote: »
    The Washington Post has reported [dozens of FBI agents were involved in the case.

    It's possible this is much ado about nothing, and I freely admit that the FBI is incentivized to finish the investigation prior to the General Election.

    MSNBC, using sources who are not Republicans trying to smear Hillary Clinton, says about 12.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • MvrckMvrck Dwarven MountainhomeRegistered User regular
    Assuran wrote: »

    Again, I can't prove it, but I firmly believe the law was violated.

    When belief trumps proof you should probably consider rethinking your stance.

  • htmhtm Registered User regular
    Assuran wrote: »
    I believe her handling of the server is actually in violation of the Classified Laws Act (18 US 798), specifically section A2. From everything I've seen, the Server did not have adequate security which was brought up to Sec. Clinton, who acknowledged the risks but continued to ignore the recommendations. If any documents on the server were classified, knowingly or unknowingly, that's a clear violation of the law.

    I can't prove it, because I don't have access to the documents, but I do work in Law Enforcement. The FBI, when we work with them, sends out 1-3 agents at a time. If they actually have dozens working on the case, my personal experience is that there is something there.

    Again, I can't prove it, but I firmly believe the law was violated.

    Politico has a pretty good article about why Hillary email scandal is a big nothingburger: Past cases suggest Hillary won’t be indicted.

    TL;DR: the law regarding handling of classified material is kind of a mess and Clinton may well have broken it in a minor fashion. However, in the opinion of nearly everyone except Rudy Giuliani, the actual offense didn't even rise to the level of misdemeanor and prosecutors decline to press charges in the vast majority of similar cases.

  • AssuranAssuran Is swinging on the Spiral Registered User regular
    redx wrote: »
    Assuran wrote: »
    I believe her handling of the server is actually in violation of the Classified Laws Act (18 US 798), specifically section A2. From everything I've seen, the Server did not have adequate security which was brought up to Sec. Clinton, who acknowledged the risks but continued to ignore the recommendations. If any documents on the server were classified, knowingly or unknowingly, that's a clear violation of the law.

    I can't prove it, because I don't have access to the documents, but I do work in Law Enforcement. The FBI, when we work with them, sends out 1-3 agents at a time. If they actually have dozens working on the case, my personal experience is that there is something there.

    Again, I can't prove it, but I firmly believe the law was violated.

    (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
    (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
    (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes;


    Uhh... Wut?

    If Sec. Clinton knew the server was vulnerable to attacks (as her staff warned) and knowingly put classified documents on it, it's a pretty clear violation of section 2. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about it.

    We'll wait and see. I've already conceded she is unlikely to face charges for a variety of reasons (it was literally in my first post).

  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    As a dude who held a clearance for most of his career, gov't standards for handling classified material are fucking horrible - generally ends up classifying WAY too much since everything that touches something classified tends to become classified by association.

    Also, when classified material ends up published in the public domain, now you have to treat the public domain sources as classified material in a weird sort of shadow dance.

    And fuck retroactive classification forever.

    Of course, classification is such a thicket with such harsh penalties, that no one ever wants to take it on, so it just metastasizes year after year, costing us billions of dollars and making government work and contracting more expensive, less productive and vastly more horrible every year.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited April 2016
    Assuran wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    Assuran wrote: »
    I believe her handling of the server is actually in violation of the Classified Laws Act (18 US 798), specifically section A2. From everything I've seen, the Server did not have adequate security which was brought up to Sec. Clinton, who acknowledged the risks but continued to ignore the recommendations. If any documents on the server were classified, knowingly or unknowingly, that's a clear violation of the law.

    I can't prove it, because I don't have access to the documents, but I do work in Law Enforcement. The FBI, when we work with them, sends out 1-3 agents at a time. If they actually have dozens working on the case, my personal experience is that there is something there.

    Again, I can't prove it, but I firmly believe the law was violated.

    (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
    (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
    (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes;


    Uhh... Wut?

    If Sec. Clinton knew the server was vulnerable to attacks (as her staff warned) and knowingly put classified documents on it, it's a pretty clear violation of section 2. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about it.

    We'll wait and see. I've already conceded she is unlikely to face charges for a variety of reasons (it was literally in my first post).

    She disclosed information concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes?

    By not securing her mail sever?

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    Assuran wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    Assuran wrote: »
    I believe her handling of the server is actually in violation of the Classified Laws Act (18 US 798), specifically section A2. From everything I've seen, the Server did not have adequate security which was brought up to Sec. Clinton, who acknowledged the risks but continued to ignore the recommendations. If any documents on the server were classified, knowingly or unknowingly, that's a clear violation of the law.

    I can't prove it, because I don't have access to the documents, but I do work in Law Enforcement. The FBI, when we work with them, sends out 1-3 agents at a time. If they actually have dozens working on the case, my personal experience is that there is something there.

    Again, I can't prove it, but I firmly believe the law was violated.

    (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
    (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
    (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes;


    Uhh... Wut?

    If Sec. Clinton knew the server was vulnerable to attacks (as her staff warned) and knowingly put classified documents on it, it's a pretty clear violation of section 2. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about it.

    We'll wait and see. I've already conceded she is unlikely to face charges for a variety of reasons (it was literally in my first post).

    Well yes but there's no proof that she knew it was vulnerable and no proof she knowingly put classified info on it. So your two "ifs" are ludicrously weak and do not constitute proof

    I ate an engineer
  • AssuranAssuran Is swinging on the Spiral Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    As a dude who held a clearance for most of his career, gov't standards for handling classified material are fucking horrible - generally ends up classifying WAY too much since everything that touches something classified tends to become classified by association.

    Also, when classified material ends up published in the public domain, now you have to treat the public domain sources as classified material in a weird sort of shadow dance.

    And fuck retroactive classification forever.

    Of course, classification is such a thicket with such harsh penalties, that no one ever wants to take it on, so it just metastasizes year after year, costing us billions of dollars and making government work and contracting more expensive, less productive and vastly more horrible every year.

    I actually agree with you. The system needs a complete overhaul.

  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    oh also the effective standard is "when in doubt, classify at the highest level" because if you overclassify, there are essentially no repercussions but if you underclassify you go to jail.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Assuran wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    As a dude who held a clearance for most of his career, gov't standards for handling classified material are fucking horrible - generally ends up classifying WAY too much since everything that touches something classified tends to become classified by association.

    Also, when classified material ends up published in the public domain, now you have to treat the public domain sources as classified material in a weird sort of shadow dance.

    And fuck retroactive classification forever.

    Of course, classification is such a thicket with such harsh penalties, that no one ever wants to take it on, so it just metastasizes year after year, costing us billions of dollars and making government work and contracting more expensive, less productive and vastly more horrible every year.

    I actually agree with you. The system needs a complete overhaul.

    Clinton's the only one talking about it. :p

    Admittedly, that's self-serving.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    Assuran wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    Assuran wrote: »
    I believe her handling of the server is actually in violation of the Classified Laws Act (18 US 798), specifically section A2. From everything I've seen, the Server did not have adequate security which was brought up to Sec. Clinton, who acknowledged the risks but continued to ignore the recommendations. If any documents on the server were classified, knowingly or unknowingly, that's a clear violation of the law.

    I can't prove it, because I don't have access to the documents, but I do work in Law Enforcement. The FBI, when we work with them, sends out 1-3 agents at a time. If they actually have dozens working on the case, my personal experience is that there is something there.

    Again, I can't prove it, but I firmly believe the law was violated.

    (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
    (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
    (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes;


    Uhh... Wut?

    If Sec. Clinton knew the server was vulnerable to attacks (as her staff warned) and knowingly put classified documents on it, it's a pretty clear violation of section 2. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about it.

    We'll wait and see. I've already conceded she is unlikely to face charges for a variety of reasons (it was literally in my first post).

    #2 describes the type of classified information, not the method by which it was accessed.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Assuran wrote: »
    I long ago accepted that Sanders could not win simply based on the math. With that said, I've always planned on voting for Hillary in the General, but as the election cycle wears on, I simply can't stomach it. I've never voted for her, and I don't plan on it any longer.

    The only way I'll vote for her is if Cruz is the nominee and Trump isn't running as 3rd party. Otherwise, I'll vote for the Green Party candidate. I voted for Nader in 2000, so it wouldn't be the first time I voted against a Southern Democrat.

    /looks at 8 years following that

    Uh....

  • AssuranAssuran Is swinging on the Spiral Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    So It Goes wrote: »
    And not to open a can of worms, but you need to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election. Your third party vote (or abstention from voting) will only help the Republicans.

    If we keep voting for the lesser evil, all that means is we're stuck with the lesser evil.

    Pass.
    PantsB wrote: »
    Assuran wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    Assuran wrote: »
    I believe her handling of the server is actually in violation of the Classified Laws Act (18 US 798), specifically section A2. From everything I've seen, the Server did not have adequate security which was brought up to Sec. Clinton, who acknowledged the risks but continued to ignore the recommendations. If any documents on the server were classified, knowingly or unknowingly, that's a clear violation of the law.

    I can't prove it, because I don't have access to the documents, but I do work in Law Enforcement. The FBI, when we work with them, sends out 1-3 agents at a time. If they actually have dozens working on the case, my personal experience is that there is something there.

    Again, I can't prove it, but I firmly believe the law was violated.

    (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
    (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
    (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes;


    Uhh... Wut?

    If Sec. Clinton knew the server was vulnerable to attacks (as her staff warned) and knowingly put classified documents on it, it's a pretty clear violation of section 2. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about it.

    We'll wait and see. I've already conceded she is unlikely to face charges for a variety of reasons (it was literally in my first post).

    #2 describes the type of classified information, not the method by which it was accessed.

    I will concede it's possible I misinterpreted section 2. My interpretation is that "otherwise makes available" portion of section A covers the use of an unauthorized device in subsection 2, but IANAL, and will concede it could be meant strictly as divulging how to use a device.

    Assuran on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    My point is that she's not a lesser evil, especially if you voted for Obama twice, which if I recall, you did. She's a slightly less good than Obama, because she'll probably have one major unforced error in the Middle East.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Assuran wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    And not to open a can of worms, but you need to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election. Your third party vote (or abstention from voting) will only help the Republicans.

    If we keep voting for the lesser evil, all that means is we're stuck with the lesser evil.
    So instead we should pick the greater evil?

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    Assuran wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    And not to open a can of worms, but you need to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election. Your third party vote (or abstention from voting) will only help the Republicans.

    If we keep voting for the lesser evil, all that means is we're stuck with the lesser evil.

    Pass.

    When the greater evil is directly going to impact your life as a woman, minority, soldier, person in poverty...yeah I don't think "pass" is responsible.

    You will need to change our two party, FPTP system if you want third party votes to be relevant. Right now a third party vote does nothing but help the Republican get into office. If you are against that, you gotta vote Dem.

    So It Goes on
  • AssuranAssuran Is swinging on the Spiral Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Assuran wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    And not to open a can of worms, but you need to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election. Your third party vote (or abstention from voting) will only help the Republicans.

    If we keep voting for the lesser evil, all that means is we're stuck with the lesser evil.
    So instead we should pick the greater evil?

    Only if you think that voting for a third party is equivalent to voting for a Republican. I don't buy that line of reasoning, but ymmv.

    My point is that she's not a lesser evil, especially if you voted for Obama twice, which if I recall, you did. She's a slightly less good than Obama, because she'll probably have one major unforced error in the Middle East.

    I don't think she's only slightly less good than Obama, however. I think she is significantly less good than him, most especially because of her foreign policy. Which isn't to say I don't think she has positions that are very admirable, for instance, her original position on universal health care.

    Assuran on
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    Assuran wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Assuran wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    And not to open a can of worms, but you need to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election. Your third party vote (or abstention from voting) will only help the Republicans.

    If we keep voting for the lesser evil, all that means is we're stuck with the lesser evil.
    So instead we should pick the greater evil?

    Only if you think that voting for a third party is equivalent to voting for a Republican. I don't buy that line of reasoning, but ymmv.

    My point is that she's not a lesser evil, especially if you voted for Obama twice, which if I recall, you did. She's a slightly less good than Obama, because she'll probably have one major unforced error in the Middle East.

    I don't think she's only slightly less good than Obama, however. I think she is significantly less good than him, most especially because of her foreign policy. Which isn't to say I don't think she has positions that are very admirable, for instance, her original position on universal health care.

    Yes, our mile has varied every single time people hand the greater evil the election because they don't feel a responsibility for splitting the vote for "the lesser evil".

    Death of Rats on
    No I don't.
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Vote for whomever you want; it's a free country.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Vote for whomever you want; it's a free country.

    Exactly, but don't complain when elections have consequences.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Vote for whomever you want; it's a free country.

    Wow, thanks for the reminder. I forgot! :P

  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    Assuran wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    And not to open a can of worms, but you need to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election. Your third party vote (or abstention from voting) will only help the Republicans.

    If we keep voting for the lesser evil, all that means is we're stuck with the lesser evil.

    Pass.

    This is specifically infuriating. You have the choice between a candidate who represents some of your views, not all of them, and won't burn things down. Then you have a candidate that is actively looking to burn things down, kick out your friends and neighbors, and foster an environment of hate and misery.

    This isn't some noble "I refuse to vote for any evil, look how pure and just I am!" situation, no matter how much that makes you feel better. Voting for a third party candidate in the US is specifically voting to harm the party that overlaps with that, specifically Democratic candidates in most cases. You claim to like Sanders's viewpoints? Then why the hell wouldn't you vote for Clinton over Trump or Cruz?! She actually shares many of them with Sanders, even if not to the extent you like.

    You cannot in good faith say by abstaining or voting third party that you are doing anything except for pushing for a GOP candidate. Because, in real functional terms, that is what you are doing. Check the self righteousness at the door and look at reality with how it actually is. You have a choice between someone who will do alright-to-ok, or a choice for someone who will seriously fuck over everyone. You've already made this mistake back in 2000. Doing it again in 2016 is no longer even excusable by ignorance. You are making a bad decision by your own political views and are supporting people who not only disagree with Sanders' positions, but would make serious inroads to undo all of the current policies and liberties that his goals are built upon.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Vote for whomever you want; it's a free country.

    Exactly, but don't complain when elections have consequences.

    Eh, you can complain too. Not like anybody's gonna know who you voted for.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Vote for whomever you want; it's a free country.

    Exactly, but don't complain when elections have consequences.

    Eh, you can complain too. Not like anybody's gonna know who you voted for.

    They will if you say you voted for Nader, leading to Bush.

    No I don't.
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Assuran wrote: »
    I will concede it's possible I misinterpreted section 2. My interpretation is that "otherwise makes available" portion of section A covers the use of an unauthorized device in subsection 2, but IANAL, and will concede it could be meant strictly as divulging how to use a device.

    to me it reads that it's specifically referring to revealing cryptographic data, devices and methods

    something i doubt came up in hillary's email chains

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • KanaKana Registered User regular
    I'm on my phone so I'm not going to hunt it down right now, but Kevin Drum made a pretty convincing case that hillary's "classified" emails are discussions about newspaper reports about drone strikes. Something that the CIA has a massive boner for classifying, despite out being fucking stupid and pointless.

    And it says a lot that for all the strategic leaks coming out of the investigation, no one has ever leaked exactly what those supposedly classified emails contain. If there was anything sexy in them, the press would be told all about it.

    A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    My point is that she's not a lesser evil, especially if you voted for Obama twice, which if I recall, you did. She's a slightly less good than Obama, because she'll probably have one major unforced error in the Middle East.

    I like how something that will likely lead to the deaths of thousands of people is 'slightly less good'.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
This discussion has been closed.