Hillary Clinton

[Phi for All]

Clinton has her trademark goofy, wide-mouth, wide-eyed look as she jerks her head around in a strange manner.

 

Strange manner?! Maybe if she was standing still and not talking.

 

I don't care if this treatment was done to Trump, Mussolini, or Mother Theresa. It's the height of intellectual dishonesty to make any kind of judgement along these lines without hearing what was being said for context. I can't believe thinking people wouldn't require such a fundamental piece of evidence.

[John Cuthber]

Either she lied, or she is so incompetent that after being FLOTUS, a Senator, and Sec State, she didn't know what classification markings are. I'm not sure which is the better option.

I have been a civil servant for nigh 30 years and I'm not sure what the classification markings are.

Here's the guidance

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251480/Government-Security-Classifications-April-2014.pdf

And it tells you that "HMG information assets may be classified into three types:"

And then it tells you that these THREE classifications are (among others)

1. Unclassified
2. Protect
3. Official
4. Official sensitive,
5. Secret
6. UK secret
7. Top Secret
8. TOP SECRET – UK / US EYES ONLY

 

I presume that the US equivalent is comparable.

A document that falls within this sort of classification may also be classified under the EU's requirements

• TRÈS SECRET UE/EU TOP SECRET
• SECRET UE/EU SECRET
• CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL:
• RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED:

and also those of NATO.

1. COSMIC TOP SECRET (CTS),
2. NATO SECRET (NS),
3. NATO CONFIDENTIAL (NC), and
4. NATO RESTRICTED

where the distinctions between the categories do not align between the various organisations (the words are the same, but the definitions aren't quite).

And, of course, from time to time, they change.

So can you blame anyone for not knowing what security classification a document might be?

Edited September 4, 2016 by John Cuthber

[DrmDoc]

Either she lied, or she is so incompetent that after being FLOTUS, a Senator, and Sec State, she didn't know what classification markings are. I'm not sure which is the better option.

Did she lie, if I may? Maybe, but what politician doesn't? Is she incompetent? Well, did the former Secretary's email handling harmed our people and our nation's world standing? I think not. The most apt example of that would be George Bush's foray into war with Iraq and I don't think the FBI's investigation uncovered that measure of incompetency. Did she commit such heinous acts of transgression that she should be vilified and prosecuted? Well, her Republican back FBI investigators didn't think so or they would have surely recommended some measure of prosecution if she had--which they did not. This was and remains a political non-issue from the start, not one of competency, and everyone of fair and objective reasoning should understand that.

[MigL]

I don't have a real problem with H. Clinton's e-mail habits.

 

I do have a problem with the Democrats doing everything they could to de-rail B. Sanders candidacy in favor of H. Clinton.

Even though most people favor B. Sanders ( or dislike H. Clinton more ).

 

In contrast, most sensible Republicans did their best to distance themselves from a disastrous D. Trump candidacy. Although none of his rivals were much better.

[waitforufo]

We all know all politicians, as the average human does, lie. In the whole of human history, what politician hasn't lied? That really isn't much of a revelation about a class of individuals who would say anything to advance their political ambitions and goals. It's negligently naïve to receive every politico's utterance as truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Our primary interest should be whether their lies have violated our laws and harmed our nation--according to our nation's investigative branch, Hillary's alleged prevarications haven't.

A great description of Hillary Clinton. I think our primary interest is whether or not we can believe what they say. Based on Hillary's political ambitions, actions, and lifetime performance, the answer is no.

 

By the way defending lair's doesn't do a lot for your own personal credibility either.

 

Her biggest weakness is the goofy look she gets on her face, wide eyes and ginning.

You mean this one.

 

 

 

All I had to do was google image "hillary clinton goofy faces." It's her signature look.

 

 

I don't recall the date of most paperwork that I've done, so not recalling the date she got her clearance doesn't seem all that surprising.

 

But here, in this thread, that's not enough. We're a science site, and have a higher standard.

How many of those documents that you signed said you would be criminally prosecuted if you violated them?

 

You mention that that this is a science site that should have a higher standard. What about Hillary Clinton? Isn't she a Yale educated lawyer? Don't you think she should be able to recall at least the legal documents she signed that could land her in prison? Too much to expect? Really?

 

Maybe you should go to this site, read the pdf and then see who signed it.

 

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-classified-NDA1.pdf

 

Here is her signature.

 

 

 

Either she lied, or she is so incompetent that after being FLOTUS, a Senator, and Sec State, she didn't know what classification markings are. I'm not sure which is the better option.

She also, as Senator, sat on the Armed Services Committee where she handled classified documents regularly. Somehow however she can claim to be ignorant of classified document markings. More amazing than that is that people believe her. I think those so called believers actually just believe in a cause, so they encourage and believe her lies.

 

Forgetful, easily confused, extremely careless, and ignorant. What a candidate.

 

Good thing Hillary had a material wittiness in her FBI investigation also acting as her personal lawyer. Yet there was not a peep from the Obama justice department. Move along, nothing to see here.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2004156/

[DrmDoc]

A great description of Hillary Clinton. I think our primary interest is whether or not we can believe what they say. Based on Hillary's political ambitions, actions, and lifetime performance, the answer is no.

 

By the way defending lair's doesn't do a lot for your own personal credibility either.

 

So...which specific politicians do you support? If there's evidence that they've ever lied, would you continue to believe and support them? As I also said, it is negligently naïve to receive the utterances of any politician as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Are you negligently naïve?

Edited September 4, 2016 by DrmDoc

[John Cuthber]

 

 

She also, as Senator, sat on the Armed Services Committee where she handled classified documents regularly. Somehow however she can claim to be ignorant of classified document markings. More amazing than that is that people believe her. I think those so called believers actually just believe in a cause, so they encourage and believe her lies.

 

Did you see my post?

[swansont]

How many of those documents that you signed said you would be criminally prosecuted if you violated them?

 

 

I don't recall - it's not something I keep track of. But it's not zero.

 

You mention that that this is a science site that should have a higher standard. What about Hillary Clinton? Isn't she a Yale educated lawyer? Don't you think she should be able to recall at least the legal documents she signed that could land her in prison? Too much to expect? Really?

 

 

Given the sheer number of documents a top-level bureaucrat signs, no. I don't recall when I signed my security documents. Why would I? The date is one of the least significant bits of information involved.

 

Standards are relative here. If you are going to hold the scale up to Hillary, then hold the same scale up to Donald.

 

The big problem here is that Trump has no track record of government service, or of security. But for recollection? Consider the number of times Trump has said something and then claimed he didn't say it. His recollection is abysmal. Other comparisons are also possible. Compare the alleged "pay for play" involving charitable contributions. One of them has been sanctioned by the government for illegal activity (hint: it's not the Clinton foundation); while Clinton was fighting segregation, Trump was denying housing to minorities. The list goes on and on.

 

So you can manufacture dissatisfaction with Hillary, much like the way the GOP has decided that Obama has done nothing right for the last 7.5 years. But just saying it doesn't make it true.

 

 

Edit: we can compare recollections further. Trump's had quite a few depositions (he's been sued/investigated a LOT)

"I don't remember," Trump told lawyers 35 times during his December testimony, which was released on Wednesday.

...

The lawsuits documents released Thursday also included a 2012 deposition in which Trump said, "I don't remember" another 24 times. Between the two depositions, he also said, "I don't recall" seven times and "can't remember" three times"

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-u-lawsuit-deposition-trump-can-t-remember-world-s-n597986

[ydoaPs]

The Attorney General said that she would accept the FBI's recommendations. She did and, to-date, there are no prosecutorial efforts announced or currently pursued by her office against Mrs. Clinton--that is unless you know something everyone else doesn't?

Now, that's not the same claim.

 

 

So can you blame anyone for not knowing what security classification a document might be?

As someone who worked with classified material everyday in the US and absolutely would not have gotten off with zero consequences having done what Clinton did, yeah, I can.

[DrmDoc]

Now, that's not the same claim.

 

My claim was, "An FBI investigation, led by a Republican appointed and endorsed agent, has found no prosecutorial criminality in any of Hillary's email related actions." If there was prosecutorial criminality, I'm certain the Republican led FBI would have recommended that action, which they didn't. Therefore, there is no prosecutorial action to pursue against Mrs. Clinton by the Attorney General as the absence of a recommendation by the investigative arm of our government affirms. How is that not the same?

Edited September 4, 2016 by DrmDoc

[ydoaPs]

My claim was, "An FBI investigation, led by a Republican appointed and endorsed agent, has found no prosecutorial criminality in any of Hillary's email related actions." If there was prosecutorial criminality, I'm certain the Republican led FBI would have recommended that action, which they didn't. How is that not the same?

The second to last sentence. Again, read what the FBI actually announced. A great deal of it was pointing out that she in fact did things that would get anyone else reamed.

[DrmDoc]

The second to last sentence. Again, read what the FBI actually announced. A great deal of it was pointing out that she in fact did things that would get anyone else reamed.

 

I don't see where the FBI said that lesser employees would be prosecuted if their actions equal those of Mrs. Clinton. If she committed prosecutorial acts, the FBI apparently didn't perceive them as such.

[waitforufo]

I don't recall - it's not something I keep track of. But it's not zero.

Are you a Yale educated lawyer?

[swansont]

Are you a Yale educated lawyer?

No. I have a different advanced, professional degree (Ph.D. In physics). Same ballpark in terms of standards to which one might be held, I expect.

[MigL]

Not really, Swansont.

You're not slimy and dishonest.

And I don't think you could get away with 'massaging' the truth or outright lies.

 

That's a skill set most lawyers are trained in.

Edited September 5, 2016 by MigL

[DrmDoc]

Not really, Swansont.

You're not slimy and dishonest.

And I don't think you could get away with 'massaging' the truth or outright lies.

 

That's a skill set most lawyers are trained in.

Wow, I had no idea Mr. Trump was a lawyer.

[Airbrush]

Whomever wins this election, there will be a spectacular market for a punching-bag, cartoon-likeness of our next president. You know those life-size punching bags weighted at the bottom so they keep popping up for more punching.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Airbrush

[swansont]

Not really, Swansont.

You're not slimy and dishonest.

And I don't think you could get away with 'massaging' the truth or outright lies.

 

That's a skill set most lawyers are trained in.

 

 

I was speaking of recalling documents I've signed. I don;t see why a Yale-educated lawyer who's signed thousands of critical documents should have better recall than me, who has signed dozens of them.

[Raider5678]

If Hillary wins, there will be a war. At least from my perspective.

From a nations perspective massive civil unrest doesn't constitute a war. From a bystander, watching armed people shooting at police and the army, it is a war. And believe me, people will die in my town if she gets elected. Maybe only the truly insane ones, but I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of "sane" people did.

Yep. My town is not the place you want to be if Hillary gets elected.

 

Anyways, I don't support Hillary, for reasons I won't share because I'm sure you don't care to hear them. But what I was wondering, is there any truth to this:

http://www.inquisitr.com/3225440/hillary-clinton-means-war-says-vladimir-putin-to-frightened-russian-people-american-militarism-has-a-female-face/

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2039.htm

http://observer.com/2016/06/she-isnt-president-yet-but-russia-already-hates-hillary-clinton/

 

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2016/05/putin-if-its-hillary-ill-nuke-america-he-was-not-joking-2806144.html

http://feelthesmashysmashy.newsvine.com/_news/2016/05/16/35548878-breaking-president-putin-warns-america-if-its-hillary-clinton-its-war-endingfed-news-network

http://endingthefed.com/breaking-president-putin-warns-america-if-its-hillary-clinton-its-war.html

 

Whether you deny it or not, Valadmir Putin did say this, but do you actually think he would follow through on this?

[iNow]

^So, you support Trump because you want peace?

[Arete]

Whether you deny it or not, Valadmir Putin did say this, but do you actually think he would follow through on this?

 

Russia hacked and leaked the DNC server in order to swing the election towards the GOP. It's not really a secret that Russia would like to see Trump win the US election. I highly doubt Putin thinks Clinton would start a war with Russia.

 

What I think Putin is really opposed to, is the fact that Clinton would actively work towards a strong EU and a strong NATO, thus weakening Russia's regional economic and military dominance. The annexation of Crimea, for example and similar actions would be far more difficult in the face of strong opposition from an economically strong and militarily well supported Western Europe, which Clinton would actively pursue.

 

Trump, on the other hand proposes the US engage in isolationist economic policy, and withdrawal from NATO. This would lead to considerably reduced ability of NATO and the Euro zone to oppose any aggressive regional military or economic moves by Russia.

 

TL;DR Putin's motives for supporting Trump have to do with what he sees as good for Russia and its regional interests.

[Tampitump]

I don't know how it is so difficult to realize how much both candidates suck eggs. I recoil at the thought of having either of them as my president. Though, I have to say that a Clinton presidency would likely be a better four years for science than the other. I'm not sure if Trump accepts evolution or has an opinion either way (as he seems to behave on most issues because he's an idiot who doesn't know shit), but I know his vice presidential pick is a staunch enemy of science and his administration will more than likely resemble a typical "one nation under God", evolution is an unproven "theory", "family values" kind of republican administration in one way or another.

 

But Clinton, gosh, what a heartless woman. At least she seems that way. Power hungry, dishonest, and corrupt. She is smart, and knows how things work in gov't, so I'm sure she'd do the job just fine, but I cannot buy into her phoniness. She does not seem like a person who is in politics because she has a vision to make our country better, she gives off this impression that she's in it for the power and control. I don't think she's everything people say she is, but I still don't like her much at all.

 

I voted for Sanders in the primary because that man seemed like he meant every word of what he said, and had a deep passion for the vision and values he expressed. He also seemed very reasonable, and like he could have his mind changed by reasoned argument and conversation on any given issue. It didn't matter so much to me that he was a "socialist", as I understood that the type of socialism he was advocating was essentially just "Socialism for America". Good socialism wherein one actually has to work and pay into the system in order to benefit from it, rather than the bad type of socialism we currently have in the form of handouts (welfare, food stamps, etc.) wherein people can mooch off of taxpayers without having to work at all. Bernie just seemed like an honest guy who, at the end of the day, would choose to do what was best for the country, even if the right decision wasn't exactly conducive with his worldview. Perhaps I judged him wrong, but he definitely seemed to fit this description more than the other candidates.

[Delta1212]

I don't know how it is so difficult to realize how much both candidates suck eggs. I recoil at the thought of having either of them as my president. Though, I have to say that a Clinton presidency would likely be a better four years for science than the other. I'm not sure if Trump accepts evolution or has an opinion either way (as he seems to behave on most issues because he's an idiot who doesn't know shit), but I know his vice presidential pick is a staunch enemy of science and his administration will more than likely resemble a typical "one nation under God", evolution is an unproven "theory", "family values" kind of republican administration in one way or another.

 

But Clinton, gosh, what a heartless woman. At least she seems that way. Power hungry, dishonest, and corrupt. She is smart, and knows how things work in gov't, so I'm sure she'd do the job just fine, but I cannot buy into her phoniness. She does not seem like a person who is in politics because she has a vision to make our country better, she gives off this impression that she's in it for the power and control. I don't think she's everything people say she is, but I still don't like her much at all.

 

I voted for Sanders in the primary because that man seemed like he meant every word of what he said, and had a deep passion for the vision and values he expressed. He also seemed very reasonable, and like he could have his mind changed by reasoned argument and conversation on any given issue. It didn't matter so much to me that he was a "socialist", as I understood that the type of socialism he was advocating was essentially just "Socialism for America". Good socialism wherein one actually has to work and pay into the system in order to benefit from it, rather than the bad type of socialism we currently have in the form of handouts (welfare, food stamps, etc.) wherein people can mooch off of taxpayers without having to work at all. Bernie just seemed like an honest guy who, at the end of the day, would choose to do what was best for the country, even if the right decision wasn't exactly conducive with his worldview. Perhaps I judged him wrong, but he definitely seemed to fit this description more than the other candidates.

 

 

You realize that you need to pay into unemployment insurance in order to qualify for "welfare" and that how much you get paid is based entirely on how much you were making over the preceding couple of years before losing your job, right? And that you are capped on how long you can draw on that unemployment without going back to work at some point? That's the system that we have now. The whole "welfare queen" stereotype is a complete fiction that does not actually exist and is a fairly silly notion to anyone who has ever had any direct contact with how this system operates.

[Tampitump]

 

 

You realize that you need to pay into unemployment insurance in order to qualify for "welfare" and that how much you get paid is based entirely on how much you were making over the preceding couple of years before losing your job, right? And that you are capped on how long you can draw on that unemployment without going back to work at some point? That's the system that we have now. The whole "welfare queen" stereotype is a complete fiction that does not actually exist and is a fairly silly notion to anyone who has ever had any direct contact with how this system operates.

Maybe I shouldn't have said welfare, but disability. My uncle is the perfect example of a "welfare queen" (or king if you will). Hasn't had a real job (or a job at all) in at least 20 years. You'd be appalled at how many people, like my uncle, carry a power chair to the disability office when its time to collect their check. I invite you to the south my friend if you think the "welfare queen" stereotype is a myth. "Complete fiction" is not on point at all.

 

Besides, this was a minute portion of my post and not one I care to debate. My political stances have changed quite substantially since the primaries. I was merely sympathizing with Sander's views as at least understandable. I consider myself more conservative now than liberal.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Tampitump

[iNow]

While they certainly exist, they're very much the minority. The narrative doesn't match the reality.

 

http://mashable.com/2015/07/27/welfare-myths-debunked/#XoW_2Leo2EqD

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/this-chart-blows-up-the-myth-of-the-welfare-queen/282452/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html