• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Trump v. Bernie Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mattenth

Member
...

This thread has gotten me dangerously close to using the ignore function for the first time ever.

Talk about spiteful and shortsighted.

Sure, and maybe I'll wake up in November and remember the fucking Supreme Court seats.

But honestly, I hope you guys listen to your friends/family/coworkers when they raise these issues. Fucking acknowledge that this is more than "right wing propaganda" because it's not. Hillary's opponents are going to say "she consistently lies," and you need a better response than "lol whatever."

This email issue is a serious fucking issue.

On Sunday, I bought into the whole narrative of "honest mistake. Whoopsie." But this report obliterates that narrative. I highly encourage you to read it.

It paints the picture of someone who's knowingly and willingly disregarding the rules that are in place to guarantee both transparency and security to the American government. It shows that Hillary Clinton lacks a fundamental respect for the dangers of technology.

It's written by a Democrat, appointed by a Democrat, holding one of the highest ranking investigative offices in the country.

It's a report that condemns the conduct of the 2nd most powerful position in the executive branch of the United States government.

It's not a fucking joke. And that you guys are downplaying it to this degree is shameful. It alienates voters that want to be Democrats but are genuinely worried.

The whole "haha, whatever, we'll win without you" tone is the way you gamble a Donald Trump presidency.
 
So the state department report detailing serious issues is Republican propaganda?

I am not saying she will be arrested but it is a serious issue that will hurt her in the GE.

Compared to what? How is this going to sink her when far worse stuff has been thrown at her for decades, without anything sticking? Only Bernie bros and GOP really care about it.

And again, the other guy is far, far worse, both in statements and actions compared to her.
 

Neoweee

Member
The fact is that mostly everyone doesn't think it's serious or worth prosecuting. The only people who do care are diehard Republicans or Bernie supporters, and the latter should honestly know better than to fall for what is very clearly a smear campaign.

I agree. Hundreds used un-secured email during the Bush administration, and how many got charged, indicted, arrested? Zero? That was much bigger scandal, too. Five million emails. Five million! Lost!

If there's perjury charges at some point, sure, I guess, but that requires a deep dive into specific comments, along the lines of Trey Gowdy's deep dig into the exact Benghazi timeline. Some will see the smoking guns, but nothing will happen.

Others have floated RICO charges or things related to the Clinton Foundation, but, eh, that's usually mentioned by the same people suggesting Vince Foster and pals.
 

Godslay

Banned
Compared to what? How is this going to sink her when far worse stuff has been thrown at her for decades, without anything sticking? Only Bernie bros and GOP really care about it.

And again, the other guy is far, far worse, both in statements and actions compared to her.

So your best argument is that nobody cares about transparency in their government officials and it's a douche vs. turd sandwich so vote for our guy?
 

Davide

Member
Sure, and maybe I'll wake up in November and remember the fucking Supreme Court seats.

But honestly, I hope you guys listen to your friends/family/coworkers when they raise these issues. Fucking acknowledge that this is more than "right wing propaganda" because it's not. Hillary's opponents are going to say "she consistently lies," and you need a better response than "lol whatever."

This email issue is a serious fucking issue.

On Sunday, I bought into the whole narrative of "honest mistake. Whoopsie." But this report obliterates that narrative. I highly encourage you to read it.

It paints the picture of someone who's knowingly and willingly disregarding the rules that are in place to guarantee both transparency and security to the American government. It shows that Hillary Clinton lacks a fundamental respect for the dangers of technology.

It's written by a Democrat, appointed by a Democrat, holding one of the highest ranking investigative offices in the country.

It's a report that condemns the conduct of the 2nd most powerful position in the executive branch of the United States government.

It's not a fucking joke. And that you guys are downplaying it to this degree is shameful. It alienates voters that want to be Democrats but are genuinely worried.

The whole "haha, whatever, we'll win without you" tone is the way you gamble a Donald Trump presidency.
Someone who gets it.
 
This is really irresponsible. Sanders has lost any support I had for him - and I voted for the guy. The only person this will help is Trump, because it's giving him another stage to put on a spectacle.
 
I really haven't been paying attention to what the Republicans have been saying about it. The fact is, the state department report has shown how Hillary has lied about her e-mail situation, as I've pointed out earlier.

Maybe it won't bother the die-hard Clinton supporters here, but it will certainly bother many voters.

As someone who doesn't care who wins the Democratic primary, I can say that I really don't care.

I can, of course, only speak for myself.

What's the FBI part in this?

Considering that they've yet to find anything to indict her with, it's premature to include them in the discussion.
 

ApharmdX

Banned
Report is here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842429/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf

Page 33, Hillary knowingly and willfully breaking the rules:

LIzwZmV.png


Page 40... Hillary is clearly implicated in emails recovered by the investigator general that she knew there were hack attempts on her personal server. Also against the rules, which state that she has an obligation to report it even for personal accounts:

f4vEtOC.png



Also page 40...

RMkwcNS.png



Footnote, page 40...

s9TiptV.png

These revelations directly contradict the narrative that a) the server was approved and b) that under the policies at the time it was acceptable.
 

Neoweee

Member
So what are they investigating?

"Still, the FBI has not called its probe a formal investigation, while suggesting it is interested in broader questions about how classified materials were handled — and not necessarily launching a criminal inquiry."
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...ublicans-server-congress-215498#ixzz3qXQk8Ojx

Basically, a different side of the IG's investigation. Overall handling of classified materials within the State Department emails. They haven't said anything implying it is focused on criminal charges against Hillary, but it isn't entirely out of the question. It's just something that departments outside of the Intelligence community and military really get taken down over.
 
This is a really dumb decision made by Bernie.

If Bernie wins, he can make a more valid argument to his supporters that he should be nominated on the same night that Hillary will likely win the nomination through the California primary. Bernie would essentially weaken the party by not stepping down following the end of primary season and strengthening his supporters' argument of #NeverHillary.

If Trump wins, the Democratic Party looks weak, some Bernie supporters become Trump voters, and Hillary looks weak because 90% of her policies are identical to Sanders'. Trump would have already have a debate victory under his belt, with Hillary waiting until September to make her argument to the country/independent voters.

This is not a good move by Sanders. I understand and I can appreciate why he chose to participate in this debate, but this is not something you do when the party needs towards unification.
If Bernie wins: well sure. Will that change the outcome of the general? Not likely. Bernie will lose the democratic party, drop out, support Hillary.
Despite what everyone has said, the only thing that he wants to ensure is that a Republican doesn't get the white house.

Trump wins: I don't agree at all. Hillary and Sanders are seen very differently by people. Sanders is seen as a Socialist, yet that label doesn't get attached to Hillary at all. Most people practically see Hillary as the moderate candidate, whereas they see Sanders as a communist.
Republicans won't care. Democrats also won't care.

Everything will probably be forgotten in 2 weeks anyway.


It's not a fucking joke. And that you guys are downplaying it to this degree is shameful. It alienates voters that want to be Democrats but are genuinely worried.
Something to keep in mind here, is that no one will care.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
"22 million emails may have been lost"
Have you ever even heard of this?
It will be swept under the rug by most people and forgotten like this was.
 
But honestly, I hope you guys listen to your friends/family/coworkers when they raise these issues. Fucking acknowledge that this is more than "right wing propaganda" because it's not. Hillary's opponents are going to say "she consistently lies," and you need a better response than "lol whatever."

Well, I've never heard anyone I know talk about this or think it's a problem, even on Facebook. Even my Republican-voting dad (who did fall for the whole Benghazi thing) thinks it's a non-issue.
 

Mattenth

Member
"Still, the FBI has not called its probe a formal investigation, while suggesting it is interested in broader questions about how classified materials were handled — and not necessarily launching a criminal inquiry."
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...ublicans-server-congress-215498#ixzz3qXQk8Ojx

Basically, a different side of the IG's investigation. Overall handling of classified materials within the State Department emails.

That contradicts information from the FBI director earlier this month: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ly-conducting-security-inquiry-on-emails.html

Fox News asked "are you conducting a security inquiry?"

FBI Director said point-blank "I don't even know what that means. We do investigations here at the FBI."

The FBI also had to classify the investigation as criminal last week in order to delay a conservative watchdog group making FOIA requests.
 

DR2K

Banned
Sure, and maybe I'll wake up in November and remember the fucking Supreme Court seats.

But honestly, I hope you guys listen to your friends/family/coworkers when they raise these issues.

This email issue is a serious fucking issue.

On Sunday, I bought into the whole narrative of "honest mistake. Whoopsie." But this report obliterates that narrative. I highly encourage you to read it.

It paints the picture of someone who's knowingly and willingly disregarding the rules that are in place to guarantee both transparency and security to the American government. It shows that Hillary Clinton lacks a fundamental respect for the dangers of technology.

It's written by a Democrat, appointed by a Democrat.

It's a report that condemns the conduct of the 2nd most powerful position in the executive branch of the United States government.

It's not a fucking joke. And that you guys are downplaying it to this degree is shameful. It alienates voters that want to be Democrats but are genuinely worried.

The whole "haha, whatever, we'll win without you" tone is the way you gamble a Donald Trump presidency.

The email scandal isn't a serious issue. It's only an issue because certain people need this to be an issue, no different than Bengazhi. No law was broken, no findings so far indicate she has purposefully done anything intentionally.
 

Neoweee

Member
Sure, and maybe I'll wake up in November and remember the fucking Supreme Court seats.

But honestly, I hope you guys listen to your friends/family/coworkers when they raise these issues. Fucking acknowledge that this is more than "right wing propaganda" because it's not. Hillary's opponents are going to say "she consistently lies," and you need a better response than "lol whatever."

This email issue is a serious fucking issue.

On Sunday, I bought into the whole narrative of "honest mistake. Whoopsie." But this report obliterates that narrative. I highly encourage you to read it.

It paints the picture of someone who's knowingly and willingly disregarding the rules that are in place to guarantee both transparency and security to the American government. It shows that Hillary Clinton lacks a fundamental respect for the dangers of technology.

It's written by a Democrat, appointed by a Democrat, holding one of the highest ranking investigative offices in the country.

It's a report that condemns the conduct of the 2nd most powerful position in the executive branch of the United States government.

It's not a fucking joke. And that you guys are downplaying it to this degree is shameful. It alienates voters that want to be Democrats but are genuinely worried.

The whole "haha, whatever, we'll win without you" tone is the way you gamble a Donald Trump presidency.

When I was a graduate student at a National Lab, we got an email saying not to look at news articles about WIkiLeaks, or our computers would be regarded as having classified information on them, and would be subject to the higher standards regarding government computers that contain classified information.

Just let that sink in on what it means for something to be "classified".
 
So your best argument is that nobody cares about transparency in their government officials and it's a douche vs. turd sandwich so vote for our guy?

I'm saying this is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, and dwarfed by other more important things.

I mean heck, no one cared when bush stored and deleted millions of emails, but a few thousand here is worth all this fuss? Why is this the hill to die on when other more pressing matters are at hand?

But hey, whatever. Last party gets thousands killed and gets reelected based on their leadership. I'm sure Trump will lead just as well.
 

Godslay

Banned
When I was a graduate student at a National Lab, we got an email saying not to look at news articles about WIkiLeaks, or our computers would be regarded as having classified information on them, and would be subject to the higher standards regarding government computers that contain classified information.

Just let that sink in on what it means for something to be "classified".

What would have happened if you looked at that classified information?
 

Feep

Banned
Mattenth: I don't think most people are saying that Hillary did nothing *wrong*, per se, though whether she did anything actually illegal is still up for debate. The snippets you posted, frankly, are extremely weak. One says that they told her not to use Blackberries, and she basically said "okay". Did she continue to use them?

The second one is about failed hack attempts, and people just being cautious about it? So what?

The issue is, I DON'T CARE. I don't care if the leader of the free world is bad at cybersecurity. It's almost completely irrelevant to the policies she enacts and the actions she takes. The only theoretical issue is if you think she did this, not out of confusion or misunderstanding or even apathy, but out of *actual malevolent intent*, and that makes no sense. What could Hillary Clinton possibly have to gain by intentionally not adhering to protocol? Do you think she was trying to secretly leak shit to Russia, or something? Some grand conspiracy, maybe?

She fucked up. Who cares? No one is perfect. When the alternative is Donald Trump, it's not a difficult choice. Her *actions* and *policies* align with mine reasonably closely.
 

Mattenth

Member
The email scandal isn't a serious issue. It's only an issue because certain people need this to be an issue, no different than Bengazhi. No law was broken, no findings so far indicate she has purposefully done anything intentionally.

Have you read the report?

Hillary Clinton has said "I followed all the rules. I got approval."

From the report: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842429/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf

(and for those who saw my last post, these are all different images...)

Page 33... Hillary Clinton's own fucking department, using NON-STATE EMAIL, sends out a cable saying "don't use personal email for state business."

If this isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is. And don't you dare bring up Trump or Sanders as a defense for Hillary's actions.

yiP29KB.png


Page 38, footnote: Hillary Clinton has said multiple times that she and her team would cooperate with any investigation and would be happy to be a part of any interview.

Turns out that she and her team have declined to be interviewed multiple times.

7oD20Ba.png


Page 36 and 37. No highlighting because you should just read it all. Hillary has said multiple times that she got approval and followed the rules.

GLQ82JC.png







This report is giving Trump ammo. It says, very clearly, that Hillary Clinton has been lying to the American people about her use of email over the last year. It also says that she has no respect for the dangers of digital communication.
 

2MF

Member
For all the Clinton diehard fans here, try to read the following points made by politico, based on the State IG report and think about what your reaction would be if this was about Trump instead. What would you be thinking or saying?

1. Clinton's email setup was never approved by State security agencies
2. Clinton never sought assistance to set up her email system to transmit certain sensitive information
3. The arrangement made staffers nervous — and management told them to keep quiet
4. Clinton's chief of staff suggested setting up a separate computer
5. Clinton worried about 'the personal being accessible'
6. Abedin rejected the idea for Clinton to use two devices
7. Clinton's email system needed troubleshooting
8. The server was briefly shut down over hacking concerns
9. Clinton and her staffers worried about being hacked but didn't report to security personnel
 
Mattenth: I don't think most people are saying that Hillary did nothing *wrong*, per se, though whether she did anything actually illegal is still up for debate. The snippets you posted, frankly, are extremely weak. One says that they told her not to use Blackberries, and she basically said "okay". Did she continue to use them?

The second one is about failed hack attempts, and people just being cautious about it? So what?

The issue is, I DON'T CARE. I don't care if the leader of the free world is bad at cybersecurity. It's almost completely irrelevant to the policies she enacts and the actions she takes. The only theoretical issue is if you think she did this, not out of confusion or misunderstanding or even apathy, but out of *actual malevolent intent*, and that makes no sense. What could Hillary Clinton possibly have to gain by intentionally not adhering to protocol? Do you think she was trying to secretly leak shit to Russia, or something? Some grand conspiracy, maybe?

She fucked up. Who cares? No one is perfect. When the alternative is Donald Trump, it's not a difficult choice. Her *actions* and *policies* align with mine reasonably closely.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go along with this. Even if Hillary really did mess up, my reaction is "so what?". People make mistakes, and she's old and not technologically proficient.

That people are making as big a deal as it is just seems mind-boggling to me. It's not even close to being important. I really hate saying this, but even the whole Benghazi thing had at least some merit in trying to figure out how some people died. This is just a whole bunch of nothing.
 
...

This thread has gotten me dangerously close to using the ignore function for the first time ever.

Talk about spiteful and shortsighted.

Pretty much. Posts like that just make me realize I'm talking to crazy people.

I'll repeat:



The fact is that mostly everyone doesn't think it's serious or worth prosecuting. The only people who do care are diehard Republicans or Bernie supporters, and the latter should honestly know better than to fall for what is very clearly a smear campaign.

Pretty much, but anyone who can read knows that. Most people just don't care.
 

Godslay

Banned
I'm saying this is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, and dwarfed by other more important things.

I mean heck, no one cared when bush stored and deleted millions of emails, but a few thousand here is worth all this fuss? Why is this the hill to die on when other more pressing matters are at hand?

But hey, whatever. Last party gets thousands killed and gets reelected based on their leadership. I'm sure Trump will lead just as well.

"Hey, Bush did it who cares if our candidate follows in his footsteps?" Who honestly thinks that way? It wasn't right then, and it isn't right now, they aren't exactly equivalent if you read into it.

Furthermore, as the Head Diplomat looking to further her career and run the country as President, that State Department should have been ran in an above ground manner and if the policies needed fixing Hillary should have done it as the Head of that department. None of this lack of leadership and perpetuating errors of prior leaders. You can't honestly look the American public in the eye and say, "Well, Powell did it and the Department I ran was a piece of shit, I didn't fix it, so elect me..."

If people want accountability and transparency in government, it starts with the smallest errors up to the biggest ones. If they can play by their own rules and get away with it then what's the point anyways?

It's an issue of leadership, accountability, transparency, national security, and just being honest all rolled into one big nothing burger.

But I guess it's just emails?

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go along with this. Even if Hillary really did mess up, my reaction is "so what?". People make mistakes, and she's old and not technologically proficient.

That people are making as big a deal as it is just seems mind-boggling to me. It's not even close to being important. I really hate saying this, but even the whole Benghazi thing had at least some merit in trying to figure out how some people died. This is just a whole bunch of nothing.

If it's found that she was grossly negligent, that's punishable by law. You can't claim mistakes and being a technical idiot, it doesn't work that way with these things.

When I was a graduate student at a National Lab, we got an email saying not to look at news articles about WIkiLeaks, or our computers would be regarded as having classified information on them, and would be subject to the higher standards regarding government computers that contain classified information.

Just let that sink in on what it means for something to be "classified".

What would have happened if you looked at that classified information?

Can we get an answer for this?
 

Neoweee

Member
What would have happened if you looked at that classified information?

Can we get an answer for this?

I'd be about as guilty as Hillary is of whatever people are claiming she's guilty of?

In practice, my computer would have to be treated differently in vague, probably non-meaningful ways.

For all the Clinton diehard fans here, try to read the following points made by politico, based on the State IG report and think about what your reaction would be if this was about Trump instead. What would you be thinking or saying?

I'd be saying "This is really inconsequential compared to most of the bigger things in this election." Most of Trump's shit bounces off of me compared to his wanting to re-invade Iraq to take their oil, or to ban Muslims, etc.
 

davepoobond

you can't put a price on sparks
For all the Clinton diehard fans here, try to read the following points made by politico, based on the State IG report and think about what your reaction would be if this was about Trump instead. What would you be thinking or saying?

that his policy for banning Muslims and deporting 12 million illegal immigrants is a lot more damning?


im not even a diehard fan of hers. i just dont let politicians define what i think. all of this is a big witch hunt by the GOP to distract from their awful candidate and the far left are lapping it up. just another line of a long treacherous campaign against Hillary.
 

boiled goose

good with gravy
If this Trump v Bernie Debate actually happens... it could be really good for the democrats.

Bernie just has to draw a sharp contrast between democrats and Trump and focus on those issues. The more Trump is exposed the better.
 

Godslay

Banned
I'd be about as guilty as Hillary is of whatever people are claiming she's guilty of?

In practice, my computer would have to be treated differently in vague, probably non-meaningful ways.


I'd be saying "This is really inconsequential compared to most of the bigger things in this election."

I find that hard to believe considering people get fired for less.

I also find it hard to believe that being accountable and transparent in our government dealings is inconsequential as it relates to an interview for the most powerful position in this country.

Operate on the government designated channels for this information, comply with government policy and everything is hunky dory. That didn't happen.
 

Jobbs

Banned
This is not a good move by Sanders. I understand and I can appreciate why he chose to participate in this debate, but this is not something you do when the party needs towards unification.

Yeah, just get in line! Stop caring about things or talking about real issues or doing anything real.

This idea that being challenged in the primary will affect the general is a fallacy. It's still a lifetime away in political news cycle terms.

I'd also argue that it's good for democrats since it gets their ideas on a massive national stage and shows them in contrast to what Trump will be saying
 

Feep

Banned
For all the Clinton diehard fans here, try to read the following points made by politico, based on the State IG report and think about what your reaction would be if this was about Trump instead. What would you be thinking or saying?
I would say that not a single one of these things is illegal, and probably just shows relatively poor judgment regarding cybersecurity.

And then I would shrug.
 

PBY

Banned
If this Trump v Bernie Debate actually happens... it could be really good for the democrats.

Bernie just has to draw a sharp contrast between democrats and Trump and focus on those issues. The more Trump is exposed the better.

You do realize... that there will be debates once the parties have their nominees right?
 

IrishNinja

Member
good post, Feep

that his policy for banning Muslims and deporting 12 million illegal immigrants is a lot more damning?.

seriously
i remember being asked about obama's pastor, fast & furious and such, would i be okay with it if it was mccian/etc? yes, if it's a non-issue, another variable doesn't change that

Even MSNBC realizes this is bad for Clinton. People on here on GAF downplay it like nowhere else I've seen on the internet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkJE0U8Qby4

we literally just established there's a thread for this garbage

You do realize... that there will be debates once the parties have their nominees right?

it's like people think we only debate in primaries now
 
I would say that not a single one of these things is illegal, and probably just shows relatively poor judgment regarding cybersecurity.

And then I would shrug.

Well, I wouldn't use the words "poor judgement' - those are fatal words for someone running for president.
 

Davide

Member
If this Trump v Bernie Debate actually happens... it could be really good for the democrats.

Bernie just has to draw a sharp contrast between democrats and Trump and focus on those issues. The more Trump is exposed the better.
Exactly. If Bernie doesn't come out directly against Trump in a debate like this, it makes it easiest for Trump to use Bernie's words against Hillary and to get his people on his side.
 

PBY

Banned
Exactly. If Bernie doesn't come out directly against Trump in a debate like this, it makes it easiest for Trump to use Bernie's words against Hillary.

Wait what? I don't follow, Trump's already using Bernie's words against Hillary
 

boiled goose

good with gravy
Exactly. If Bernie doesn't come out directly against Trump in a debate like this, it makes it easiest for Trump to use Bernie's words against Hillary and to get his people on his side.

Yes. Exactly! Bernie has to prevent Trump from ever wrapping himself in a Bernie shield when attacking Hillary.

He has to draw a sharp contrast of in no way in hell am I or any democrats like you.

Wait what? I don't follow, Trump's already using Bernie's words against Hillary

Hillary's weakness is one of Trump's (perceived.. ) strengths. The idea that he is not corrupt because he is rich and 'self funded'.
He has been saying this from the beginning of the campaign before Bernie said anything substantial about campaign finance.

If Hillary's answers regarding unreleased transcripts or "money doesn't influence me!" have not yet been considered adequate enough for Trump to continue to use is well because her answer to this questions suck and very few people buy them as honest.
 

PBY

Banned
Yes. Exactly! Bernie has to prevent Trump from ever wrapping himself in a Bernie shield when attacking Hillary.

He has to draw a sharp contrast of in no way in hell am I or any democrats like you.

Bernie needs to take Trump head on so it doesn't look like Trump's on his side. I really don't think this will be about trashing Hillary.

But... he can do this right now? Without doing a debate?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom