1. Join App Invasion Developers today and help support indie game developers!

    For more details click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Want reasonable (non partisan) discussion on politics

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Space, Feb 22, 2016.

  1. SumiXam

    SumiXam Level 51

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,864
    Likes Received:
    5,332
    Location:
    Beggar's Canyon
    I'm not going to do your 5 seconds of research for you. Both candidates are horrible. I didn't say anything partisan and you're the one who is twisting what I said into something it wasn't. Par for course on this topic though, which is why I was hesitant in responding.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2016
  2. fredthebadger

    fredthebadger Level 44

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,510
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    This thread is supposed to be reasonable and non-partisan. If you are going to make any claim like you did in the post I quoted, you need to give some form of evidence.

    I literally quoted two posts and asked you to give a citation. How on earth do you see that as 'twisting what you said'?
     
  3. Space

    Space Level 33

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    962
    Likes Received:
    1,100
    Location:
    Canada
    General Petraeus, using only Wikipedia to refresh my memory, was one step away from committing treason. He gave secure information knowingly to some without security clearance. He was the director of the CIA....... In the cold war she could have been a Russian operative....

    Clinton on the other hand used a less secure server for emails then was the norm
    " a practice that was discouraged but not forbidden."

    This puts it in a Gray zone. Where in general not technically against any law but the details may be. It comes down to individual emails and how they were treated.

    "Hundreds of such emails were sent to Clinton. Looking back long afterwards, although they were not marked classified, and were not put in State’s system for classified information, these have been deemed, retroactively, to have classified information. And that is much of the case against her."

    So this means the email setup retroactively broke the law.... See gray.... Not exactly clear.

    Furthermore the government knew about what was occurring
    "Her usage was widely known to the over 100 State Department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed, consistent with the practice of prior Secretaries of State and permitted at the time."

    In my opinion it shows she is lacking of judgement or understanding of technology but in no way does it seem criminal.

    All info taken from Washington post and
    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/.

    The donor stuff I have only heard on right wing media. It is also not part of the current FBI investigation into the emails....
     
  4. SumiXam

    SumiXam Level 51

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,864
    Likes Received:
    5,332
    Location:
    Beggar's Canyon
    No, you alluded to me and didn't say anything until I responded directly to you. At least tag me or quote me if you're going to call me out instead of playing the passive aggressive white knight.

    I stand by my statement that the American population should be ashamed at the inability of the political process to produce a viable candidate for either party. I'm sorry that we've stooped to justifying the behavior of career liars and those who prefer to dance in the gray area to maintain "plausible disability".
     
  5. fredthebadger

    fredthebadger Level 44

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,510
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    ?

    My post asking for citations was a response to the general discussion as a whole. You asked what kind of posts would need a cite, so I went and found one you made that needed a cite.
     
  6. SumiXam

    SumiXam Level 51

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,864
    Likes Received:
    5,332
    Location:
    Beggar's Canyon
    I asked because you clearly alluded to me without referencing me.

    I highly recommend that you lookup and read the following and form your own opinion based on statute. I'll post links tomorrow when I'm on a computer.
    • The Federal Records Act
    • Freedom of Information Act
    • NARA regulations
    • Section 1924 of Title 18 -- the most squishy since many of Clinton's emails with sensitive information were designated classified after the fact.
    All of those should be official enough sources. Like I said, I'll try and post links tomorrow.

    General Petraeus was hit with a misdemeanor and a fine. I think that's a fair bit away from one step away from treason. That's beside the point though. I was only illustrating how Clinton has subverted the law where someone else was hung out to dry for much less than what is being swept under the rug in her circumstance.
     
  7. Space

    Space Level 33

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    962
    Likes Received:
    1,100
    Location:
    Canada
    I thought he pled guilty in essentially a plea deal but yes there was no enemy so i guess treason is far fetched. He was however compromised which is a big deal given the circumstances and his position. Forced retirement and a misdemeanor is fitting punishment.

    Clinton unfortunately doesn't belong to an organization where stupidity forces retirement. I don't see them as equal but the overall result of retirement should have been the same. The problem is: now what? Does the FBI have the political will to prosecute a presidential candidate over something that would likely not stick due to the amount of grey?
    Probably not.

    Look at what happened here in Canada with Mike Duffy .... There was someone who deserved to have a criminal record for breach of trust but off the hook due to too much grey.

    Better off just tuning out until the debate. That should be at least entertaining
     

Share This Page