Support NeoGAF

[Macho Madness]

Learn you some politics, hicks

 

[nib95]

It also needs to be state that the US as a single entity has a population equivalent to basically all of Europe.

Erm, not even close. Europe's population is 740 million, whilst the US's is 320 million. The EU's is 510 million.

Conversely, the US's GDP is $18 trillion whilst the EU's is €16.3 trillion. In other words, it's not about not being able to afford it, but more about priorities, corporate sway and influence, as well as politics.

 

[border]

It's what TYT basically did last night. Ranting and raving about how people should lose their gov't services so they'd appreciate Sanders more. Like, this is the damn straw-man that the GOP has used for years to argue against gov't programs.

Is there a clip of this anywhere? I heard people talking about it in the Primary thread, but nothing's been posted on the TYT YouTube. Maybe there's a reason they don't want to post something like that though.

 

[Wafflecakes]

Learn you some politics, hicks

Fake AF tbh, though you are probably posting it ironically.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

Fake AF tbh, though you are probably posting it ironically.

?

 

[Orbis Tabula]

?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Is there a clip of this anywhere? I heard people talking about it in the Primary thread, but nothing's been posted on the TYT YouTube. Maybe there's a reason they don't want to post something like that though.

Not of that, just of Jimmy saying that since he's a white guy who won't be hurt by Trump he's fine with Trump winning in the name of accelerationism.

Anna's insane rambling rant about social programs and how she's tired of talking about social issues is nowhere to be seen, sadly, it was fucking gold.

 

[excelsiorlef]

To give just one example, a candidate who doesn't propose single payer healthcare in the US wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it in a country where it already exists. This is one of the huge problems with trying to map one country's political spectrum onto another's.

And hella vice versa too.

 

[Box of Kittens]

And hella vice versa too.

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if, say, a lot of Conservative politicians in Canada would, if in the US, fight an attempt to implement single payer tooth and nail. By and large the Republicans fought Social Security and Medicare when they were first implemented, then adapted to the reality that the programs were in place and popular, i.e., they ostensibly support the programs and attempt to weaken them indirectly.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if, say, a lot of Conservative politicians in Canada would, if in the US, fight an attempt to implement single payer tooth and nail. By and large the Republicans fought Social Security and Medicare when they were first implemented, then adapted to the reality that the programs were in place and popular, i.e., they ostensibly support the programs and attempt to weaken them indirectly.

Harper would fight health care, abortion, gay rights, etc... 100%

 

[B-Dubs]

Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if, say, a lot of Conservative politicians in Canada would, if in the US, fight an attempt to implement single payer tooth and nail. By and large the Republicans fought Social Security and Medicare when they were first implemented, then adapted to the reality that the programs were in place and popular, i.e., they ostensibly support the programs and attempt to weaken them indirectly.

Yea, no. I mean in the UK you've got the Conservatives, or whatever they're called, trying to dismantle the UHS. The only reason they haven't is the entire country threw a bitch fit.

 

[Suikoguy]

What makes the comparison even more difficult, is the multi-party style government of many european countries, versus the 2 party coalition government in the US. It basically necessitates a degree of compromise before the party is even formed.

 

[eBay Huckster]

What makes the comparison even more difficult, is the multi-party style government of many european countries, versus the 2 party coalition government in the US. It basically necessitates a degree of compromise before the party is even formed.

honestly i've only ever seen that distinction as "when the coalitions are formed"

with the multi-party governments, coalitions get formed after elections, and as a result seem to be more malleable (they can shift pretty drastically from election to election). with the 2-party government, coalitions are baked into each party before elections and the shifts are a lot slower.

 

[Suikoguy]

honestly i've only ever seen that distinction as "when the coalitions are formed"

with the multi-party governments, coalitions get formed after elections, and as a result seem to be more malleable (they can shift pretty drastically from election to election). with the 2-party government, coalitions are baked into each party before elections and the shifts are a lot slower.

True, that's a good way of looking at it.

 

[nib95]

What makes the comparison even more difficult, is the multi-party style government of many european countries, versus the 2 party coalition government in the US. It basically necessitates a degree of compromise before the party is even formed.

Whilst true, it doesn't necessarily negate political difference or variety. For example, even in the Democratic party, there are still political leaning differences between say, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who fall in to the more liberal almost socialist bracket, than Hillary Clinton who wavers left, centre and right depending on the issue, compared to Jim Webb who's a bit more moderate still. Even then, they're of course still starkly different comparative to some of the Republicans (who are often on the extreme right).

 

[Abinash117]

I'd say a few key differences that are huge in terms overall importance and political skew. So whilst they converge or correlate on most policies, there are major contrasts in certain key areas that actually still make a huge amount of difference, Eg healthcare, foreign policy, taxation, big business and economics, degree of support for Israel and so on.

I'd actually argue there were greater politically opposed campaign differences between Hillary and Bernie, than say Labour (left wing) and Conservative (right wing) campaigns during the last UK election.

No they weren't Hillary and Bernie basically agree on the same things, but differ on how they want to get things done. You didn't not state on what the exact differences there is between Hillary and other persons besides broad categories. Healthcare for example; Hillary wants to expanded upon Obamacare so eventually everyone can have it that really. Foreign policy for European countries is an entirely regional thing, while western Europe may not care about Russia, eastern Europe will be more hawkish. France is interventions in some countries in Africa and is at times wanting more things done in Syria. Pretty much most of the EU countries are involved in Iraq with their own forces.

I could go on like that Hillary wants to cut taxes and increase taxes on the wealthy, wants to make college more affordable, increase the minimum wage, etc . Most of this stances are shared by Democrats. I fail to see what exactly based on some of the categories you listed makes Democrats and Hillary more right wing unless you going to focus on select aspects, then that just becoming purity . Also Jill isn't a Democrat she is part of the Green Party and while Bernie is officially a democrat; he wasn't for most of his life until recently.

I don't get this notion that Hillary is center or even right-wing. It seems like it has something to do with people being specific with their priorities and if some don't line up to them then they are on the opposite end, despite other areas were they agree. Many self-describe liberals focus their attention on economics and if don't line up with their points 100% and/or don't follow the same strategy then you are right-wing to them, despite agreeing on various other issues that aren't really economic. It also could be that some don't really look into the policies that candidates run on. Regardless, Hillary really isn't that much of a centrist that people are making her out to be; she largely agrees with Sanders on many issues, but prioritizes different issues, or has a different strategy to accomplish that issue. In Europe's case, it seems more if the country has it or doesn't; that decides if ever the country/people/a person is more liberal or not. That is actually kind stupid and narrow-minded . Simplifying it, the political climate prevents the certain actions to be taken. That doesn't mean certain groups or people don't want certain programs. The Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton do support efforts to increase welfare or benefits to help the poorer group of people.

 

[BanGy.nz]

even in the Democratic party, there are still political leaning differences between say, Jill Stein, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who fall in to the more liberal almost socialist bracket

Jill Stein isn't a member a of the Democratic party.

 

[Fenderputty]

If not A then not A. Because I have a distaste for incremental legislation doesn't automatically mean I want Trump to win. How the hell did you get to that point?

Ironic being called the accelerationist, when the current pace of our climate curbing practices will get us to a point of ruin faster.

I apologize if you're not for accelerationism. Been in too many Bernie threads were incrementalism was attacked by someone that was

 

[uncelestial]

Go on. Elaborate on what you intend to revolt against in detail. And the alternative practical implementable solutions you propose.

This strikes me as a bit bad faith. No one is allowed to believe that a revolution would be a good thing unless they write you a new constitution, right here right now? Is there any post -- of any length, or detail -- that would satisfy the request you just made?

I'd actually argue there were greater politically opposed campaign differences between Hillary and Bernie, than say Labour (left wing) and Conservative (right wing) campaigns during the last UK election.

Of course there were, most people who follow UK and US politics would tell you that. The people who keep citing the "93%" aren't really grasping the situation, or maybe just refusing to have a meaningful engagement. It's always more satisfying to be smug and dismissive once you have a "gotcha" line firmly in place.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

This is something Europeans seem to struggle with, because they might not have a good grasp on the history of the Democratic party. Bernie is not special and he isn't something new - he is the obligatory populist candidate number_xx that appears every decade like clockwork to usurp the monstrous and misguided Democractic party. We have been here before. Bernie didn't break any new ground - in fact, he fell for the exact same traps the populist candidate always falls for.

There's been a stream of activity on PoliGAF of Europeans explaining how superior their democracy is compared to ours, without even recognizing that this is a primary and not a general election - people don't seem doing even the basic level of due diligence.

edit: To clarify, I have no problem with commentary and I think it's good to get foreign perspective, I just want to try and add some reason as to why the idea that the US missed some grand once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that it can never possibly have again is misguided. There will be another Bernie Sanders in 8-16 years, I promise. Maybe the US will be ready to welcome that candidate, maybe it won't - but the option will predictably be there.

 

[nib95]

No they weren't Hillary and Bernie basically agree on the same things, but differ on how they want to get things done. You didn't not state on what the exact differences there is between Hillary and other persons besides broad categories. Healthcare for example; Hillary wants to expanded upon Obamacare so eventually everyone can have it that really. Foreign policy for European countries is an entirely regional thing, while western Europe may not care about Russia, eastern Europe will be more hawkish. France is interventions in some countries in Africa and is at times wanting more things done in Syria. Pretty much most of the EU countries are involved in Iraq with their own forces.

I could go on like that Hillary wants to cut taxes and increase taxes on the wealthy, wants to make college more affordable, increase the minimum wage, etc . Most of this stances are shared by Democrats. I fail to see what exactly based on some of the categories you listed makes Democrats and Hillary more right wing unless you going to focus on select aspects, then that just becoming purity . Also Jill isn't a Democrat she is part of the Green Party and while Bernie is officially a democrat; he wasn't for most of his life until recently.

I don't get this notion that Hillary is center or even right-wing. It seems like it has something to do with people being specific with their priorities and if some don't line up to them then they are on the opposite end, despite other areas were they agree. Many self-describe liberals focus their attention on economics and if don't line up with their points 100% and/or don't follow the same strategy then you are right-wing to them, despite agreeing on various other issues that aren't really economic. It also could be that some don't really look into the policies that candidates run on. Regardless, Hillary really isn't that much of a centrist that people are making her out to be; she largely agrees with Sanders on many issues, but prioritizes different issues, or has a different strategy to accomplish that issue. In Europe's case, it seems more if the country has it or doesn't; that decides if ever the country/people/a person is more liberal or not. That is actually kind stupid and narrow-minded . Simplifying it, the political climate prevents the certain actions to be taken. That doesn't mean certain groups or people don't want certain programs. The Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton do support efforts to increase welfare or benefits to help the poorer group of people.

I did state differences, but when you're willing to conflate two entirely different healthcare proposals together as somehow similar or the same, like Obamacare (even extended) with actual Universal Healthcare, it's obvious you're not really going to grasp the differences irrespective of how they're laid out. And I love how you skirted the foreign policy differences with some random EU babble.

I don't even….

 

[Abstrusity]

He's only getting rid of staff because he has this in the bag! Y-you'll see! You'll ALL see!

Really, I'm slightly upset that he's lost, but I suppose Hilldawg isn't going to break things any more than they still are -- it's not the President that needs to be changed.

 

[Abinash117]

I did state differences, but when you're willing to conflate two entirely different healthcare proposals together as somehow similar or the same, like Obamacare (even extended) with actual Universal Healthcare, it's obvious you're not really going to grasp the differences irrespective of how they're laid out. And I love how you skirted the foreign policy differences with some random EU babble.

I don't even….

Not exactly because I was asking specifically what makes her right wing or center, you just said economic, foreign policy, and a few other things. Here are the things that Hillary wants to do what exactly makes her right-wing in comparisons to others and how much of her ideas are similar? Those aren't specifics they are broad categories. No I'm not conflated because Bernie's proposal makes sure that everyone gets healthcare, but Hillary Clinton's proposal is still the same principle, but does it in a different way. They are both for UHC, because the end result is that everyone gets healthcare. So again how exactly are they different in that department? Again they are different in the process. About, foreign policy, Hillary or at least the US is seen as right wing when it comes to it because of the fact that they intervene, I guess that is what you meant by the differences, right? While I was stating that some of the European aren't that much different in the fact that they intervene in other countries as France shows that they do intervene in other countries and including other countries intervening in Iraq. I also was stating the countries can be hawkish to other by pointing out that many of the eastern European countries are that way to Russia to a point. Being liberal or not is irrelevant when it comes to perceived threats.

 

[digdug2k]

I did state differences, but when you're willing to conflate two entirely different healthcare proposals together as somehow similar or the same, like Obamacare (even extended) with actual Universal Healthcare, it's obvious you're not really going to grasp the differences irrespective of how they're laid out. And I love how you skirted the foreign policy differences with some random EU babble.

I don't even….

Just to be clear, Hillary is campaigning for Universal Healthcare. She wants that. Its written on her website (she also wants a public option! shocking!). Sanders is advocating Single Payer Healthcare (i.e. the state pays for everyone).

aka despite the rhetoric and pandering, they really aren't that far apart on this issue.

 

[eBay Huckster]

i'm not sure how these discussions pertaining to comparative politics always wind up with "Clinton would be center-right in the other English-speaking countries!"

as if we didn't just have the UK's Labour and Canada's Liberals pulling the exact same Third Way triangulation shit as the Democrats, followed by ten-odd years of Conservatives trying to tear down social programs

 

[ugaboga232]

Just to be clear, Hillary is campaigning for Universal Healthcare. She wants that. Its written on her website (she also wants a public option! shocking!). Sanders is advocating Single Payer Healthcare (i.e. the state pays for everyone).

aka despite the rhetoric and pandering, they really aren't that far apart on this issue.

To be fair, writing on the website and actually giving policy to get there is two different things that both candidates are failing at in slightly different ways (bernie's proposal while not perfect is no where near as bad as Thorpe paints it though theres 0% chance it would ever pass congress whereas hillary has a few ideas that would work using obamacare but would not get anywhere close to universal healthcare or change the attitude toward healthcare as a commodity vs healthcare as a utility).

 

[Arnie7]

Considering you're advocating for anarchy, I can confidently say people like you should be suppressed - yes. You are openly admitting that you want things to get very bad for many people for no reason whatsoever, and even if you had a reason, you'd still be arguing for the detriment of civilization.

There is no defending that. Even people voting for Trump or Cruz believe that there is a benefit to their presidency, one that helps them. But you? You just don't give a shit about anything and advocate for destruction. You should not vote.

People like you are dangerous. You think you know better than others and are more privileged to vote. My right to vote for anyone should be fiercely defended by all. Its irrevevalant how I come to my decision or why I am doing it.

 

[Xe4]

Yeah, it could be downsizing, but I don't think so. Nearly every time a campaign makes huge layoffs, it signals that they're in the death throws.

The question is if Sanders makes it to June 7th or not. My guess is no. May is a long month for a shoestring budget.

Or maybe he still has money but is switching to a more message/down ticket candidate. We'll see I guess.

 

[Htown]

People like you are dangerous. You think you know better than others and are more privileged to vote. My right to vote for anyone should be fiercely defended by all. Its irrevevalant how I come to my decision or why I am doing it.

you should absolutely have the right to vote

you shouldn't vote, though

 

[excelsiorlef]

People like you are dangerous. You think you know better than others and are more privileged to vote. My right to vote for anyone should be fiercely defended by all. Its irrevevalant how I come to my decision or why I am doing it.

You're talking about being an anarchist amd voting Trump to watch it burn.


You have no grounds to call anyone else dangerous.

Next time don't share your plans in the thread if you can't handle criticism.

 

[HylianTom]

This pearl-clutching from someone who supposedly doesn't care is rich.

 

[Arnie7]

Nvm

 

[Thatoneguy64]

I can vote for whoever I want. I vote on my gut.

My gut tells me Hillary would be the worst choice for me personally. Get off your smugness. It is not against the law to switch over and vote for the other side. Ideology and policies do not matter to me. Switching from Bernie to Trump is what I want just for the hell of it and fun.

Who are you to say otherwise? Don't like Democarcy? Tough shit. I have as much right to vote as you.

This legitimately reads like a parody.

The "think with your gut" sentiment is straight out of the Colbert Report. And the Colbert Report was a fucking satire.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

Ideology and policies do not matter to me.

Then why are you even voting at all?

 

[ugaboga232]

Looks like people in this thread forgot how to debate/change minds and how to empathy again even if people hold beliefs they find repugnant...

At least tell the guy why accelerationism is bad/hillary is the decent alternative even if you believe the system is fatally flawed instead of beating over his head that emotional decisions (which are very relevant when it comes to voting...) at least the ones he makes are bad)

 

[televator]

reminder that corporations have been allowed to sue nations since 1966

True, but the TPP expands this to corporations that are incorporated in foreign countries that have domestic operations here.

Feel free to address the point rather than going for a painfully obvious and incorrect deflection.

I pointed out the Clintons were there doing *real work* 10 years ago, that it is a significant and central part of her presidency platform, and you deflected to bullshit.

You know what Sanders' presidential policy differs from Clinton on? An ever-so-slightly stronger stance on fracking. By, as usual, ignoring the nuance of our energy situation and assuming that we can transition to renewable sources without even using Nuclear power -- a complete fantasy.

What the Clinton Foundation has actually done, rather than engage in cheap talk?

- Planted millions of trees
- Helped transition developing economies from Diesel to Solar
- Retrofitted thousands of homes to renewable energy in Arkansas in a pilot program
- Developed carbon credit programs in Indonesia
- Funded millions in additional research in climate-positive policies


It's all in their public, easily accessed anual reports.

The evidence you have? Shitty controversies on the impact of the TPP -- something that is only supported by Greenpeace (who, by the way, is anti-GMO: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/) and a few other environmental activist groups, based on their own understanding that the TPP *may* help corporations sue countries for environment-positive policies.


I'll stick to the evidence and the people that have put their money and time into studying and impacting climate change.

You mean the foundation that filled erroneous tax returns and accepted foreign donations while Hillary was SoS?

It's not a deflection. It's completely on topic. Allowing corporations to litigate on their own terms completely undermines environmental laws and protections enacted by a sovereign country, amongst many other forms of protections. This is laid out by public citizen - an organization lead by Robert Weissman. I'm not sourcing green peace. The word "may" in legal terms is very sketchy and it's not the first time I've argued about its meaning. People also argued that Arizona bill SB1070 *may* allow officers to do racial profiling.

I apologize if you're not for accelerationism. Been in too many Bernie threads were incrementalism was attacked by someone that was

Thank you. Sucks you got banned. Hope you're back soon.

 

[Maledict]

This strikes me as a bit bad faith. No one is allowed to believe that a revolution would be a good thing unless they write you a new constitution, right here right now? Is there any post -- of any length, or detail -- that would satisfy the request you just made?


Of course there were, most people who follow UK and US politics would tell you that. The people who keep citing the "93%" aren't really grasping the situation, or maybe just refusing to have a meaningful engagement. It's always more satisfying to be smug and dismissive once you have a "gotcha" line firmly in place.

Um, there were still significant differences between labour and the conservatives at the last election in the UK - far more than between Bernie and Hillary. I don't see how anyone who was involved in the election could say otherwise. Just because labour (foolishly) agreed with the need to cut the deficit doesn't remove the differences both parties had on practically every other issue and even how to cut the deficit.

As someone who had to go through each manifesto in detail, whilst labour absolutely failed to get their message out and failed to differentiate themselves on the deficit / austerity issue, there's no realistic way to claim the two parties were closer than Hillary and Bernie. Two candidates who agree on practically everything and are arguing the fine details of how to get it done and the level you do it at.

I do think this is another case of smug Europeanism again- we haven't done ourselves many favours in this election.

 

[hawk2025]

I put up the receipts, and you've deflected to the TPP, tax returns, a third party's opinion with no direct explanation as to why and how, and foreign donations.

I don't think you want to talk about climate change policy at all. My money's on the people actually doing something about it for over a decade.

 

[Bel Marduk]

It also needs to be state that the US as a single entity has a population equivalent to basically all of Europe.

No it doesn't

The US has half the population of Europe

 

[uncelestial]

Um, there were still significant differences between labour and the conservatives at the last election in the UK - far more than between Bernie and Hillary. I don't see how anyone who was involved in the election could say otherwise. Just because labour (foolishly) agreed with the need to cut the deficit doesn't remove the differences both parties had on practically every other issue and even how to cut the deficit.

As someone who had to go through each manifesto in detail, whilst labour absolutely failed to get their message out and failed to differentiate themselves on the deficit / austerity issue, there's no realistic way to claim the two parties were closer than Hillary and Bernie. Two candidates who agree on practically everything and are arguing the fine details of how to get it done and the level you do it at.

I do think this is another case of smug Europeanism again- we haven't done ourselves many favours in this election.

I dunno, from here in America, just reading a bit of British press and having some UK friends, it seems like Labour started losing elections and had to make huge concessions on austerity and social justice issues, out of the perception that the British voting public was shifting. So now you have Labor and Conservative agreeing on austerity somehow being the path to prosperity (*makes gagging motion*), a Labour party having anti-antisemitism scandals, etc vs a Conservative party that isn't vowing to overthrow the universal health care system that's already in place, It'll be a cold day in hell when American Republicans support UHC. Hell, can you imagine how huge it would be if Hillary adopted support for UHC like Bernie did? She calls it "unrealistic."

I mean, of course I defer to you, actually living in Europe, to know if the impression I have is all that correct, but I know plenty of liberal young Brits who were angry as fuck at Labour for a long time (though they are hopeful about Jeremy Corbyn). The comparison didn't seem totally ridiculous -- there are many differences between Bernie and Hillary that were very substantial. They don't matter now -- it's time to unite behind Hillary -- but they were there.

 

[KuroNeeko]

Yes, please. Get the off the race already. United front against Trump the sooner the better.

Yeah, but that means uniting behind four years of Hilldawg. If I vote for her, I don't want it to be because she's not republican, I want it to be because I think she's the best person for the job and the United States.

Jill Stein isn't a member a of the Democratic party.

I did my part four years ago. Wish we had a viable, third choice instead of being forced to choose the "lesser of two evils."

 

[shinra-bansho]

This strikes me as a bit bad faith. No one is allowed to believe that a revolution would be a good thing unless they write you a new constitution, right here right now? Is there any post -- of any length, or detail -- that would satisfy the request you just

As noted in the follow on post, I probably would have settled for at least some indication of a rudimentary understanding of any of the systems he called for overthrow. Given the complete lack of that displayed in past posting.

As a generality though if you can't even elaborate on a few specific problems you'd like to see addressed and suggest at least some basic and potentially workable solutions that you'd like to see and/or you've seen in other models... then any call for "revolution" is just fatuous nonsense that I don't really have the time of day for.

 

[danm999]

Hell, can you imagine how huge it would be if Hillary adopted support for UHC like Bernie did? She calls it "unrealistic."

No she didn't. She called Bernie's plan of implementing single payer unrealistic. She supports UHC.

I mean, a single payer healthcare system isn't the only way to UHC. Ask Australia, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Switzerland, Israel, South Korea, etc.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Yeah, but that means uniting behind four years of Hilldawg. If I vote for her, I don't want it to be because she's not republican, I want it to be because I think she's the best person for the job and the United States.

Not being a Republican by default makes her this.

 

[kmag]

No she didn't. She called Bernie's plan of implementing single payer unrealistic. She supports UHC.

I mean, a single payer healthcare system isn't the only way to UHC. Ask Australia, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Switzerland, Israel, South Korea, etc.

It's questionable whether single payer is the most efficient method of paying for UHC especially when the majority of providers are not commissioned by said single payer.

 

[gutter_trash]

Then why are you even voting at all?

win win win

winning is more important than contemplating losing to the opposing party out of ideological identity crisis

 

[Machina]

The donations must be drying up, because of course they are. The establishment won again

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I've never seen an anarchist that was so concerned about their own franchise.

I think when you've reached the point that you're advocating stripping literally every protected right away from literally every American, then you don't have a lot of ground to stand on when it comes to the sanctity of voting. If the only right you care about is your specific, individual right to advocate for the destruction of the entire state, it makes your entire position seem pretty hypocritical.

 

[Htown]

Not being a Republican by default makes her this.

In general, no.

This election, absolutely.

 

[ApharmdX]

What Sanders and Trump say are irrelevant to me. I've worked in the DoD, and can say that plenty of people do dumb shit for convenience. And it's not a line of attack any other candidate can really use since "poor judgement" can get levied much more easily at her opponents.

And anyone running with Trump quotes as a serious argument should consider their position. Far too many people on the left posting shit from Breitbart and Glenn Beck this season.

Edit: That last part is a general comment, not aimed at you! It just went under my last quoted reply.

I'm sure the DoD does plenty of dumb shit. Private industry does a lot of stupid shit too. One thing though with this scandal that makes it particularly egregious is the ownership of the private email server. When you do stupid shit inside your organization, you should be held responsible, but ideally some of your controls are still in place. But when you do stupid shit through your own server, on behalf of your organization, you've taken all liability upon yourself. It's very likely that we will never be able to know if there was even a breach on Hillary's email server.

None of them, including Hillary used email --private or otherwise-- to conduct business as SoS. I believe there was one (1) official correspondence with another diplomat in Hillary's email

What they all used personal email for (to the extent that Rice used email at all) was their internal office communications. In fact, the entire senior GWB administration did to the tune of millions of (Deleted) emails

So yes, they did the same thing. If you ask Powell now he says well he didn't use it to discuss classified matters because he used the classified terminal for that -- the exact same answer you get from Hillary. and just like Hillary they found some should-have-been-but-werent classified emails were sent to him and Rice's staffers

Um, what? Internal office communications aren't part of the official duties of Secretary of State? I don't even... wha... in any case, there were discussions with other diplomats among the emails turned over.

There were classified emails among the 30,000 that were turned over. And we don't even know that the emails from the privately-owned, privately-administered server were turned over in their entirety. We do know that the server was insecurely managed, for a certainty.