Originally posted by Tzeentch
The general public never really gave a shit about "emailgate" to begin with. Now that she's been cleared in the various investigations on the matter, the chances of it ever becoming front-line news again strikes me as being fairly low.
Lulz, she hasn't been cleared. Also ALOT of people were concerned about it just not her supporters.
Bernie is benefiting immensely from her deception.
As I see it, anyone who's been doing a job long enough, especially if it's routine in some way, sooner or later "streamlines" what they're doing. Corners are cut; the letter of the job, so to speak, settles into the spirit of the job. I've seen this happen time and again in various professions (including my own). And now, given the informal Big-Brother prevalence of recording tech + the big cultural push for *transparency*, we as a society are being forced to face this common, all-too-human practice.
People not yet under the gun can still afford to sit back in hypocritical judgment of those who are, but I'd bet dollars to donuts they're quietly hoping that they/their occupation, at some point, won't be next in the spotlight. It doesn't have to be public service or be newsworthy. All it takes is a single, overseeing/micromanaging administrator, and the way you personally used to do your job is over, whether it hurt anyone or not, whether it was even a better way of doing the job or not.
Originally posted by snowdragon
Lulz, she hasn't been cleared. Also ALOT of people were concerned about it just not her supporters.
No investigations so far have come up with jack that's actually illegal, though. There's a lot of people who really, really want her to be guilty, and are thus making the most out of broadcasting everything... but you can't want something into being retroactively illegal.
You're putting the cart before the horse, to say the least.
Bernie is benefiting immensely from her deception.
He's benefiting from the negative coverage, but note how he thinks it's bunk and is not spending any effort on it, even though he'd benefit more.
This latest bit revealing, hey, this way of handling e-mails and the whole retro-classification being a thing that catches multiple people as it is common, being another nail in the coffin to the odds of anything going on.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, like I said, the consensus seems to be that Sanders is hurting his campaign by not using this, I can see your POV, it just doesn't seem to be what most pundits think is the case.
I think he'd hurt himself either way then. I think the best thing he can do is not seem like every other politician out there.
Originally posted by Q99
No investigations so far have come up with jack that's actually illegal, though. There's a lot of people who really, really want her to be guilty, and are thus making the most out of broadcasting everything... but you can't want something into being retroactively illegal.
The FBI doesn't discuss ongoing investigations and more emails are yet to be released. Congratulations you can use the newest media bites on the retroactively classifying information. There's alot of people that want to see a rule maker actually have to follow the rules, the same as the rest of us.
He's benefiting from the negative coverage, but note how he thinks it's bunk and is not spending any effort on it, even though he'd benefit more.
I've watched all his debates and I've NEVER heard him say that, not once. That's called a false narrative aka a lie you seem to perpetrate. Bernie has said he wants to focus on policy discussions.
This latest bit revealing, hey, this way of handling e-mails and the whole retro-classification being a thing that catches multiple people as it is common, being another nail in the coffin to the odds of anything going on.
Yeah of course if you end up with over a thousand emails being retro-classified from your private server that doesn't raise any flags.
"Did anything bad happen? Was anything bad *likely* to happen? If no, then friend or foe, I don't care that much."
That statement sums you up perfectly, except you forgot to add that in this particular incident you do really care about the outcome for Hillary. Thats your narrative, it is what it is.
I'm also pretty positive with that kind of an attitude its going to be hard to be in any position of authority.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, like I said, the consensus seems to be that Sanders is hurting his campaign by not using this, I can see your POV, it just doesn't seem to be what most pundits think is the case.
Sanders needs to worry about his supporters hurting his campaign.
Young supporters of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders question Clinton supporters on a spectrum that ranges from simply tone-deaf to outright misogynistic.
He is the smug-seeming young Sanders supporter who asked Clinton at a CNN town hall why young voters aren’t enthusiastic about her candidacy, then suggested it was because she’s dishonest.
He is the guy who floods Internet comment boards accusing Clinton supporters of voting with their “vaginas.”
He is the idealistic young liberal who replies to any critique of Sanders on social media with a flood of crass terms and vitriol.
The over-the-top behavior has become enough of a problem that the campaign asked supporters last week to “follow the Senator’s lead and be respectful when people disagree with you.”
The candidate himself told Ebony magazine that “people should not be attacking people,” and apologized for some of the rhetoric of his supporters, especially those who were tearing down thoughtful critiques of his record on race.
Because of the intensity of youthful support for Sanders, many young Clinton supporters say their peers are shocked to hear they’re for her, and that reaction can quickly turn sour. “They will talk at you for hours about how she’s a horrible person and you’re a horrible person for voting for her,” says Diaz.
“There is often the assumption that we support her because she’s a woman and we can’t possibly think outside of that paradigm,’” says Lindow, president of Wellesley Students for Hillary. “I can’t tell you how frustrating that is. Everyone in our organization has thought very deeply about this, but there’s an assumption that we are hopping on a bandwagon.”
O’Hea also noted that Sanders supporters tended to think her decision to support Clinton was uninformed, and often tried to mansplain things to her about the campaign that she already knew. “There’s a lot of, ‘If you knew this, you wouldn’t vote for Hillary,’” she said. “Thinking that might sway a vote, if you just knew this one fact about Hillary.”
Several young Clinton supporters also noticed a double standard in the way young people view both candidates, especially when both are making such calculated efforts to gain millennial support. O’Hea noted that 74-year-old Sanders sending Killer Mike out to stump for him or hosting a 4/20 party on caucus day isn’t much more authentic than Clinton doing the whip/nae nae on Ellen. “Sanders and Hillary aren’t so different,” she said. “But we’re quick to call Clinton a phony, yet love the things that Sanders does.”
Other supporters see a double standard in how much credit Sanders gets for policies Clinton has supported all along. “When you have a male candidate who is fired up about reproductive rights, it’s a huge deal,” says Elena Saltzman, a senior at Brown and co-founder of Brown Students for Hillary. “When you have a woman, it’s like ‘Oh, of course.'”
“All Bernie supporters have ever done to me here is talk at me for hours about how Bernie is the right guy, and if you don’t believe that, you’re scum,” says Diaz. “It’s exhausting.”
Not to mention, the recent streak of misrepresentation and outright cheating that has come out of the Sanders campaign over the past six weeks in general, and in the past week in particular.
His campaign ran a television ad falsely claiming a New Hampshire newspaper had endorsed him, and his staffers disguised themselves as Nevada Culinary Union members in order to gain access to members and influence them.
The AARP and the League of Conservation Voters have also recently accused his campaign of faking endorsements, and that his campaign ran a similar television ad falsely claiming an endorsement from an Iowa newspaper.
That is five documented instances of cheating by his campaign staff in the past week alone. This in the context of him having to fire his national data director for stealing Clinton campaign data from the DNC.
All of this goes directly against the integrity that Sanders himself had made a point of demonstrating for the first six months of his campaign.
It raises a fair question when if he has lost control of things to craven advisors and zealous supporters who will sink to any depths to try to win.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I'm going to laugh my ass off when she gets indicted. I hope Q9 never comes back to the forum after that in shame.
There's still the issue that there's no sign of that happening. If it did happen, then it'd be due to information as-yet-released, so there's no shame in that (and the same, btw, can be said of any candidate- to my knowledge, none of them have done anything illegal that'd get them indicted). You're merely 'sure' she's guilty because you dislike her... and you were wrong all the prior times you said that on this and other topics, so your opinion is not much of a prediction.
And hey, you stick around even after you've been caught outright lying a bunch of times. It doesn't seem to bother you. If I was wrong, then it'd simply be being wrong. Much less embarrassing.
snowdragonThe FBI doesn't discuss ongoing investigations and more emails are yet to be released.
Well, exactly. You're insisting she's guilty, when really, the FBI isn't saying jack, the departments that have already investigated have given an all clear, and what's left is just speculation.
Do you have an inside source with the FBI? If not, then you've got no more information than I, and the released information does not lend itself to your conclusions.
Congratulations you can use the newest media bites on the retroactively classifying information. There's alot of people that want to see a rule maker actually have to follow the rules, the same as the rest of us.
The retroactive thing has been known for months, and I'd hope it'd apply to everyone- I wouldn't want to see some lowly staffer get in trouble for sending something that gets classified a couple years later any more than I would a high ranking person.
Seems like Sanders is on top of it, telling misbehaving supporters to follow his lead and not go over the line, people who do these things should be called out and not tolerated. On the other hand the media narrative that Sanders supporters are mainly young white men is just not true. In fact Sanders has more support among young women than Clinton, and the majority of his millennial support being women.
http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-bro-is-a-myth/
At any rate, I do agree with you that Clinton gets viewed much more negatively than her policies and track record deserves, and I also agree that this is likely in large part down to her being a woman (and to some degree with her being in the Republican crosshairs for decades for fighting them).
Originally posted by Bardock42
Seems like Sanders is on top of it, telling misbehaving supporters to follow his lead and not go over the line, people who do these things should be called out and not tolerated. On the other hand the media narrative that Sanders supporters are mainly young white men is just not true. In fact Sanders has more support among young women than Clinton, and the majority of his millennial support being women.
Agreed, Sanders himself has been handling it well. Having young supporters can be a problem, but he's keeping on top of it.
At any rate, I do agree with you that Clinton gets viewed much more negatively than her policies and track record deserves, and I also agree that this is likely in large part down to her being a woman (and to some degree with her being in the Republican crosshairs for decades for fighting them).
The last name is certainly no small part of it 🙂
Originally posted by Q99
There's still the issue that there's no sign of that happening. If it did happen, then it'd be due to information as-yet-released, so there's no shame in that (and the same, btw, can be said of any candidate- to my knowledge, none of them have done anything illegal that'd get them indicted). You're merely 'sure' she's guilty because you dislike her... and you were wrong all the prior times you said that on this and other topics, so your opinion is not much of a prediction.And hey, you stick around even after you've been caught outright lying a bunch of times. It doesn't seem to bother you. If I was wrong, then it'd simply be being wrong. Much less embarrassing.
Well, exactly. You're insisting she's guilty, when really, the FBI isn't saying jack, the departments that have already investigated have given an all clear, and what's left is just speculation.
Do you have an inside source with the FBI? If not, then you've got no more information than I, and the released information does not lend itself to your conclusions.
The retroactive thing has been known for months, and I'd hope it'd apply to everyone- I wouldn't want to see some lowly staffer get in trouble for sending something that gets classified a couple years later any more than I would a high ranking person.
It won't just mean that you been wrong, it will mean you been downplaying and slanting everything.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It won't just mean that you been wrong, it will mean you been downplaying and slanting everything.
I don't think that's what it means. If she were to be found guilty of something it would means that Q99 was wrong, either because new information surfaced or they misinterpreted or missed information that is already evident, but you couldn't claim that they have been downplaying or slanting really, not that that would stop you, of course.
Oh yea, Time, snow- what do I get if she doesn't get indicted?
You two are rather insistent, and Time wants me to leave. Would one or both of you be willing to put up or shut up, and agree to similar consequences if she's still in the clear past a certain deadline? Especially Time.
snowdragon
That statement sums you up perfectly, except you forgot to add that in this particular incident you do really care about the outcome for Hillary. Thats your narrative, it is what it is.
But note- I support Hillary because I think she's done nothing all that bad. I don't think that because I support her she should get a blank check if she actually did anything bad.
If she actually did something that caused a major breach, that'd throw qualifications into question, but I am not going to assume she did so without evidence. Got it? I'm judging her as my current understanding of the facts are, just as I am for the other candidates.
In no cases is this unlimited leeway to act as they want, that's just the conclusion you've come to, and "only goes by what she's actually shown to have done," is not exactly strong evidence that I would provide unlimited leeway.
I'm also pretty positive with that kind of an attitude its going to be hard to be in any position of authority.
Yet it's turning out a lot of our people in positions of authority had the exact same issue, and it didn't involve databreach.
Colin Powell didn't do a bad job at all, and this doesn't give me a sign that his performance was retroactively worse. Condoleezza Rice is someone I'm not fan of, and yet, I again don't think this affects my opinion of her performance.
I'm for holding everyone to the same standard and all, but 'retroactive classification' seems to be hitting people pretty broadly, and never sounded all that suspicious to start with.