# This is not good....



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

This is the type of thing that makes me absolutely question Hillary Clinton's fitness to be president.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I read the same thing this morning. 

The Clintons have always believed that normal protocols don't apply to them.

HRC's candidacy will not rise or fall based on this alone. Rather, this fits a 20+ year narrative of Clinton misdeeds which I assure you, will all be rehashed and revisited upon us soon enough.

And unlike her husband, she is neither charming or as verbally nimble. In short, she's a lousy candidate.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> I read the same thing this morning.
> 
> The Clintons have always believed that normal protocols don't apply to them.
> 
> ...


You would consider Bill Clinton as charming and verbally nimble?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> You would consider Bill Clinton as charming and verbally nimble?


He does have a way about him. Like him or not, he's a talented pol.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Private email, government email, I mean really.

At this point, what difference does it make??


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^Perhaps I have not studied him closely enough but he has always left me with the impression of a bumbling, faintly lovable yet ineffectual, oaf. 

This said, compared to other recent U.S. presidents.......


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> ^Perhaps I have not studied him closely enough but he has always left me with the impression of a bumbling, faintly lovable yet ineffectual, oaf.
> 
> This said, compared to other recent U.S. presidents.......


He's quite a talented politician. He's also very smart and shows up ready for work. One has to work pretty hard to get the advantage over him. Admittedly, I don't agree with him politically but I'll give him kudos for being talented.

That said, he is a bit thin skinned and it shows if he's every challenged on decisions that he made as POTUS, especially regarding OBL.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Everyone who believes that government business is always--always--conducted on official email/channels raise your hands.

Thought so.

Doesn't make it right. At all. But it is also an epidemic on all levels of government. And something should be done about it.

A few years ago, someone made a records request to the Illinois attorney general's office for the AG's cell phone records. No such record existed because the AG doesn't have a government cell phone, only a personal one, and so no records were turned over, which really isn't a problem here in Illinois, given that we have no significant history of government corruption. The governor before the one we have now also reportedly did business on his personal cell phone. I attend a fair share of government meetings, city council and the like, and you can sometimes see them up there, if you look carefully enough, texting to each other in the midst of what are supposed to be public meetings. This can be prevented by requiring all public officials to go through metal detectors before taking seats at the dais. I'm not joking about that. I think that it should be done, but I doubt that it ever will be done.

Given that this sort of thing is so hard to detect, so easy to do and so potentially damaging in terms of open government, which we should all support, the only way I can think of to address it is to make such conduct a felony. That might sound draconian, but given the stakes, I think that it is justified. It would certainly act as a deterrent, I think.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

I'm going to differ with many here in saying I think it's inappropriate for all private communication of high-ranking government officials to be made public in this manner. There's no excusing Ms. Clinton for her apparent flouting of the law, but that doesn't make the law a good one.

Our federal government has increasingly taken the position that nobody deserves any privacy whatever, and it's gotten much worse since 9-11. I hate the trend.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

MaxBuck said:


> I'm going to differ with many here in saying* I think it's inappropriate for all private communication of high-ranking government officials to be made public* in this manner. There's no excusing Ms. Clinton for her apparent flouting of the law, but that doesn't make the law a good one.
> 
> Our federal government has increasingly taken the position that nobody deserves any privacy whatever, and it's gotten much worse since 9-11. I hate the trend.


Article~


> WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively *used a personal email account to conduct government business *as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials' correspondence be retained as part of the agency's record.


No one cares about her personal emails.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> I'm going to differ with many here in saying I think it's inappropriate for all private communication of high-ranking government officials to be made public in this manner. There's no excusing Ms. Clinton for her apparent flouting of the law, but that doesn't make the law a good one.
> 
> Our federal government has increasingly taken the position that nobody deserves any privacy whatever, and it's gotten much worse since 9-11. I hate the trend.


If she's conducting official government business via email then it's a matter of public record. Unless there is a national security concern which then begs the question, why use email, and a personal email address at that!

Businesses do this all the time and it's spelled out in almost every corporate IT P&P. It's the reason I only use my work email for work related matters and nothing else, and conversely, I don't use my personal email for anything but personal use.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Perhaps the article mentioned this and I missed it, but I certainly hope that her personal email account was guarded with appropriate security measures.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Perhaps the article mentioned this and I missed it, but I certainly hope that her personal email account was guarded with appropriate security measures.


According to everything that I have seen, no they were not used.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Everyone who believes that government business is always--always--conducted on official email/channels raise your hands.
> 
> Thought so.


Whoa there Tex. Don't change the issue.

Do I think that there are off the record conversations face to face? Yep and there should be.

Do I think that official bidness over the phone is required to be logged and conducted in the office? Yep and it should be.

Do I think that official emails should be sent from official email addresses? Yep, and it should be.

The first one is WAYYYYYY different than the latter two.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I think we might have an honest misunderstanding here. Of course the first is different than the second two--I agree with you. I also agree with you on the second points. My point was, government officials on all levels of government have done, are doing, the same thing that HC did, and it is just as wrong when the local mayor or the police chief or the state senator does it, although the effects might not be as far reaching. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I did not mean to say or imply that government officials are never entitled to privacy. I meant to say that they use technology to duck transparency in ways that were not possible not so long ago, and something should be done to address it.



vpkozel said:


> Whoa there Tex. Don't change the issue.
> 
> Do I think that there are off the record conversations face to face? Yep and there should be.
> 
> ...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> I think we might have an honest misunderstanding here. Of course the first is different than the second two--I agree with you. I also agree with you on the second points. My point was, government officials on all levels of government have done, are doing, the same thing that HC did, and it is just as wrong when the local mayor or the police chief or the state senator does it, although the effects might not be as far reaching. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I did not mean to say or imply that government officials are never entitled to privacy. I meant to say that they use technology to duck transparency in ways that were not possible not so long ago, and something should be done to address it.


Oh, in that case I totally agree with you. If this is accurate, this opens so many questions that I can't even think of how long it will take to unravel it.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Shaver said:


> You would consider Bill Clinton as charming and verbally nimble?


I have heard countless first person accounts of interactions with Bill Clinton, the common denominator being that when he looked you in the eyes and turned on the charm, you're all his. There aren't many like him. I also think he was a good president as well, but that's beside the point.

So by that measure, Hillary's nothing like him.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tocquers, old bean, if you say so then that is assuredly good enough for me.

I saw Lewinski once. In a chippy in Headingly, of all places.



tocqueville said:


> I have heard countless first person accounts of interactions with Bill Clinton, the common denominator being that when he looked you in the eyes and turned on the charm, you're all his. There aren't many like him. I also think he was a good president as well, but that's beside the point.
> 
> So by that measure, Hillary's nothing like him.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

One story I heard from a reporter friend involved a woman who had a brief private audience with Bill before he gave a speech in which he used her as an example (she was an immigrant who made good, or something like that). Anyway, after spending maybe three minutes with him, he walked out, and she cried basically because he had so moved her. Her words were, "He's so beautiful."

The Lewinsky thing was revealing. Bill I am sure could bag Helen of Troy if he wanted. But rather than seek a more sporting target...something challenging...he entertained himself in effect by stealing candy from babies. Why? I guess because there's something trashy about him, or he enjoyed too much his ability to make some young intern's nickers drop at will. 

Anyway, I voted for him. Twice. No regrets. His impeachment was an outrage. That said, I am 100% against Hillary not because I think ill of her but because I fear the damage done to our Republic by returning the direct relative of a previous president. And the thought of another Bush...it's all too Argentine for my liking. Or Roman.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> If she's conducting official government business via email then it's a matter of public record.


Right. Which is why I was explicit in discussing private communication.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Article~
> 
> No one cares about her personal emails.


Actually, that's not the case. As I understand it, current policy dictates that all personal emails are subject to disclosure as well as those that are related to one's position.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> His impeachment was an outrage.


I don't want to derail the thread, but since I started it, why not, lol.

His impeachment was not an outrage at all. The USSC compelled him to answer questions in a deposition. He lied. Under oath. That is called perjury.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Well, a little perspective. He lied about oral sex. That's impeachment worthy?

It seems that these days in our government and military, people get fired for scandals related to sex. But no one ever is fired for incompetence. Or doing serious harm to the US and/or its national security. Like the bumper sticker says, "No one died when Bill lied." Thus Petraeus was fired because he had an affair, but not because he did a terrible job as COMISAF in Afghanistan. I think that's messed up. (the allegations about Petreaus sharing classified stuff with his GF came later, I believe).

On another note, my absolute favorite protest sign was one I saw in a photograph in the Economist of anti-GMO protestors in the UK during the Blair days. I believe it said, referencing genetically modified corn, to be clear, "Tony doesn't swallow Bill's seed."


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Please, please, please, please, please, please: Can we not re-hash whether Clinton should have been impeached? If it is not the most talked-to-death political subject of our time, it is certainly close. It is almost unfathomable that anything new/revealing could be said about it, and there are strong feelings on both sides. Let's please just not go there.

This said, I would vote for Hillary in a heartbeat. I think that the country could benefit greatly from having both her and her husband in the White House. Plus, I think she's hot. Mrs. 32 feels differently. She loathes the woman and practically throws things at me whenever I say anything positive about HC.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Please, please, please, please, please, please: Can we not re-hash whether Clinton should have been impeached? If it is not the most talked-to-death political subject of our time, it is certainly close. It is almost unfathomable that anything new/revealing could be said about it, and there are strong feelings on both sides. Let's please just not go there.
> 
> This said, I would vote for Hillary in a heartbeat. I think that the country could benefit greatly from having both her and her husband in the White House. Plus, I think she's hot. Mrs. 32 feels differently. She loathes the woman and practically throws things at me whenever I say anything positive about HC.


She needs to get heavier stuff. Or better aim.....


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> Well, a little perspective. He lied about oral sex. That's impeachment worthy?
> 
> It seems that these days in our government and military, people get fired for scandals related to sex. But no one ever is fired for incompetence. Or doing serious harm to the US and/or its national security. Like the bumper sticker says, "No one died when Bill lied." Thus Petraeus was fired because he had an affair, but not because he did a terrible job as COMISAF in Afghanistan. I think that's messed up. (the allegations about Petreaus sharing classified stuff with his GF came later, I believe).
> 
> On another note, my absolute favorite protest sign was one I saw in a photograph in the Economist of anti-GMO protestors in the UK during the Blair days. I believe it said, referencing genetically modified corn, to be clear, "Tony doesn't swallow Bill's seed."


Nixon was going to win anyway, so Watergate shouldn't really have mattered, right?

And I think lying about sex is stupid. But if you lie, you deserve whatever comes your way.

Either that or would someone pleas come up with a list of acceptable lies?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> Right. Which is why I was explicit in discussing private communication.


I agree, private email communications between a public official that are outside the public sphere and not related to his/her job functions should be private. Unless there's a crime being alleged I don't have a problem with it.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Please, please, please, please, please, please: Can we not re-hash whether Clinton should have been impeached? If it is not the most talked-to-death political subject of our time, it is certainly close. It is almost unfathomable that anything new/revealing could be said about it, and there are strong feelings on both sides. Let's please just not go there.


In a perfect world this would be the case, but you and I both know this stuff is going to come up as will other allegations of wrong doing, fund raising improprieties, questionable presidential pardons, Whitewater, people around the Clinton's who have gone to prison, and a host of other issues and scandals.

This is what I mean; her candidacy will be dogged by such things whether we like it or not. Her husband's charm will only go so far. She will inevitably say or do something ridiculous or silly, and she already has, and she'll spend most of her time putting out fires of her own making.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

vpkozel said:


> He lied. Under oath. That is called perjury.


I don't think you have a complete understanding of what perjury actually is.



> Elements of PerjuryIn order for a defendant to be found guilty of perjury, the prosecutor must prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
> Although the elements of perjury vary between individual states and federal law, the elements of perjury are similar. In order for a person to be charged with perjury, he or she generally must have 1) been sworn in or made a solemn legal promise to tell the truth; and 2) made a false statement or told a lie on purpose. Prosecutors can sometimes prove that a defendant lied by showing inconsistency in prior statements made by the defendant.
> Most states and the federal government have an additional requirement, that *the misstatement was material or important to the proceedings in which it was made.*


And herein lies the difficulty. Does getting a blowjob negatively affect one's performance as Commander-in-Chief?

I might argue that getting a blowjob *enhances* one's performance in that role. It certainly seems desirable to me, but then I've been married a while.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> I don't think you have a complete understanding of what perjury actually is.
> 
> And herein lies the difficulty. Does getting a blowjob negatively affect one's performance as Commander-in-Chief?
> 
> I might argue that getting a blowjob *enhances* one's performance in that role. It certainly seems desirable to me, but then I've been married a while.[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]


He was asked a question about having sex with an intern in a deposition that stemmed from a sexual harassment case. Establishing a pattern of sexual activity with subordinates would be quite important in that type of case, would it not?

No where in the questions were his skills or qualifications to be Commander in Chief asked. The method for determining that is already quite explicitly spelled out.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

vpkozel said:


> He was asked a question about having sex with an intern in a deposition that stemmed from a sexual harassment case. Establishing a pattern of sexual activity with subordinates would be quite important in that type of case, would it not?


Not really. One's consensual sex history has nothing whatever to do with sexual harassment.

In the same way, asking someone about his average scores at the gun range would have no bearing on an accusation of firearm-related battery.

Look, we all know the inquiry had nothing to do with juridical issues and everything to do with prurience. Suggesting otherwise betrays a prejudice toward Bill Clinton and a desire to Make Him Pay for Whatever We Can Stick on Him. I never voted for the guy, but the witchhunts the GOP engaged in to try to derail him were unseemly and silly.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I think we should establish a Clinton thread. In my opinion, the only reason Republicans hate him, and his wife, so much is that he, with his wife at his side, was an extremely good president, regardless of his personal predilections, and they just can't stand it. They hate, hate, hate that he was able to stand up at his final state of the union address and point to how much better he left the country than he found it. Here's the beginning:

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, honored guests, my fellow Americans:
We are fortunate to be alive at this moment in history. (Applause.) Never before has our nation enjoyed, at once, so much prosperity and social progress with so little internal crisis and so few external threats. Never before have we had such a blessed opportunity -- and, therefore, such a profound obligation -- to build the more perfect union of our founders' dreams.
We begin the new century with over 20 million new jobs; the fastest economic growth in more than 30 years; the lowest unemployment rates in 30 years; the lowest poverty rates in 20 years; the lowest African American and Hispanic unemployment rates on record; the first back-to-back budget surpluses in 42 years. And next month, America will achieve the longest period of economic growth in our entire history. (Applause.)

It just went on and on, and it was all true. Here's the whole thing:

As Taylor Swift and Aaron Schock said, haters gonna hate. At least Democrats will acknowledge that Reagan (of whom I have a low opinion) wasn't all bad. But they can't bring themselves to say anything good at all about Clinton. All they can do is hate, which says much more, I think, about them than it does about Clinton.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> Not really. One's consensual sex history has nothing whatever to do with sexual harassment. .


A federal judge disagreed, which is why she compelled his deposition. And later held him in contempt for lying in it.

But, I guess she was just prejudiced. Oh, and so was the USSC because they allowed the whole Jones case to go forward while he was still Pres.

I couldn't care less whether you like the outcome, hate it, or are indifferent to it, but at least get the facts straight. And I might also suggest that you don't accuse the only person bringing actual facts to the discussion of being prejudiced.



> In the same way, asking someone about his average scores at the gun range would have no bearing on an accusation of firearm-related battery.


Are you sure about that?

First of all, it establishes a familiarity with firearms. Second, it establishes the ability or inability to be proficient at shooting said firearm.

And finally, it allows the jury or judge to understand whether it had been calibrated by both the state and federal bureau of weights and measures to be dead on balls accurate...


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

vpkozel said:


> A federal judge disagreed, which is why she compelled his deposition. And later held him in contempt for lying in it.
> 
> I couldn't care less whether you like the outcome, hate it, or are indifferent to it, but at least get the facts straight.


Was Clinton convicted of perjury? No. "At least get the facts straight."

I rest my case.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Hey guys, we've started a Clinton thread. Let's take it over there.



MaxBuck said:


> Was Clinton convicted of perjury? No. "At least get the facts straight."
> 
> I rest my case.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I agree.

I mean, at this point what difference does it make?? 

Heh, heh.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I agree.
> 
> I mean, *at this point what difference does it make?? *
> 
> Heh, heh.


Something tells me that if she becomes the nominee, that phrase will be splattered across the airwaves in commercial after commercial. It will haunt her and dog her and she'll end up having to answer for it again and again and it will eventually define her.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Let's hope so.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Let's hope so.


It will be right up there with "I was for it before I was against it" and "you're doin' a helluva job Brownie".


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

The thought of a Hillary presidency leaves me cold. But not, perhaps, as cold as the thought of a Cruz, Huckabee or Perry presidency. And Santorum? I'd flee the country if that loon were elected.

I'm a Republican, by the way. Or was, before it became predominantly the province of right-wing populists.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> The thought of a Hillary presidency leaves me cold. But not, perhaps, as cold as the thought of a Cruz, Huckabee or Perry presidency. And Santorum? I'd flee the country if that loon were elected.
> 
> I'm a Republican, by the way. Or was, before it became predominantly the province of right-wing populists.


I don't think any of them stand much of a chance. They're part of the noise of a presidential campaign.


----------



## Woofa (Dec 23, 2014)

I don't usually like to jump in on some of these political interchange threads as I know my knowledge level is pretty low compared to many and I also think that there comes a point where nothing is gained by a back in forth. But, having read through this one I just wanted to add two things:

1. I work for the government, albeit in a level so far below HC that it would be like comparing apples to oranges. The amount of hurdles in place against me possibly using my personal email even for a little of what I do is excessive and the amount of training that I have to do on a regular basis regarding the safekeeping of private information and computer awareness can be staggering. It is just inconceivable for me as a government employee to think that another government employee could do this for all of their work over a period of years. Having said that, things like this come out all of the time and I no longer am shocked at what I hear.

2. Without putting forth any opinions on the abilities or accomplishments of politicians both past and present, it always saddens me that our country, the greatest country this world has ever seen in my opinion (not perfect by any means), cannot consistently get two or more great candidates for the highest offices in the land. I understand that everyone will have strengths and weaknesses but I am hard pressed to imagine that there are not at least a few dozen, intelligent, successful, articulate people out there with few if any major flaws. Politics has so degraded our governmental system in the past few decades and I am hesitant to believe that it will get better anytime soon.

Just my two cents.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> In a perfect world this would be the case, but you and I both know this stuff is going to come up as will other allegations of wrong doing, fund raising improprieties, questionable presidential pardons, Whitewater, people around the Clinton's who have gone to prison, and a host of other issues and scandals.
> 
> This is what I mean; her candidacy will be dogged by such things whether we like it or not. Her husband's charm will only go so far. She will inevitably say or do something ridiculous or silly, and she already has, and she'll spend most of her time putting out fires of her own making.


Sadly, I agree with you. I dread having to rehash all this stuff all over again. And I dread the fact that, frankly, once again there will be little substantive debate about anything that matters.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

MaxBuck said:


> The thought of a Hillary presidency leaves me cold. But not, perhaps, as cold as the thought of a Cruz, Huckabee or Perry presidency. And Santorum? I'd flee the country if that loon were elected.


Agreed.

Much of what worries me is that the best choice all around for a GOP candidate will be Jeb Bush, whom I oppose on the same grounds that I oppose Hillary, i.e. it's a really bad deal for our democracy to elect direct relations of past presidents. Surely we can find good alternatives from different families, no?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Walker, Christie, Rubio.

Pick any two.

No Bush

No Clinton!!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Walker, Christie, Rubio.
> 
> Pick any two.


I guess I'd pick them over Cruz, Huckabee, Perry, or Santorum, but unhappily. Christie's my favorite of the three.

Whatever happened to the Bob Doles of the GOP? Sensible, moderate, decent...I disagreed with him on policy grounds, but I never thought he was unreasonable, a nut job, etc.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ You're taking into account the big noise makers in the party and overlooking the many governors who are actually getting things done. There's a ton of talent out there and I have a feeling after playing footsy with an ideological amateur for the past 8 years, the American public is going to want someone in office who actually knows how to get things done.

I always liked Mitch Daniels actually. He had some marital issues though and I think that's why he's kept out of the limelight since retiring. But I believe that speaks to the larger issue; who really wants to enter the arena and end up getting gutted by the press with their entrails laid out for public scrutiny.

People like Cruz, Huckabee and Santorum don't really have a realistic chance so the overall scrutiny will be rather limited. They instead use their candidacy as a platform to increase their political exposure, raise money and in the case of Mike Huckabee, land a TV gig. No one is going to go back to any of their days in prep school when one of them gave a classmate a wedgy.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ You're taking into account the big noise makers in the party and overlooking the many governors who are actually getting things done.


Kasich also comes to mind.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ You're taking into account the big noise makers in the party and overlooking the many governors who are actually getting things done. There's a ton of talent out there and I have a feeling after playing footsy with an ideological amateur for the past 8 years, the American public is going to want someone in office who actually knows how to get things done.
> 
> I always liked Mitch Daniels actually. He had some marital issues though and I think that's why he's kept out of the limelight since retiring. But I believe that speaks to the larger issue; who really wants to enter the arena and end up getting gutted by the press with their entrails laid out for public scrutiny.
> 
> People like Cruz, Huckabee and Santorum don't really have a realistic chance so the overall scrutiny will be rather limited. They instead use their candidacy as a platform to increase their political exposure, raise money and in the case of Mike Huckabee, land a TV gig. No one is going to go back to any of their days in prep school when one of them gave a classmate a wedgy.


I like what I've heard about Daniels. And I agree about governors. I think being a governor is solid prep for being President given that governors often have to learn how to get things done with legislatures in the hands of the opposition; they have to manage. Much of what makes Clinton a better pres than Obama--in my opinion--is that Clinton knew how to play the game required to accomplish things, a skill I'm sure he honed as governor. Obama's a terrible pol in that regard.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Well said.



Woofa said:


> I don't usually like to jump in on some of these political interchange threads as I know my knowledge level is pretty low compared to many and I also think that there comes a point where nothing is gained by a back in forth. But, having read through this one I just wanted to add two things:
> 
> 1. I work for the government, albeit in a level so far below HC that it would be like comparing apples to oranges. The amount of hurdles in place against me possibly using my personal email even for a little of what I do is excessive and the amount of training that I have to do on a regular basis regarding the safekeeping of private information and computer awareness can be staggering. It is just inconceivable for me as a government employee to think that another government employee could do this for all of their work over a period of years. Having said that, things like this come out all of the time and I no longer am shocked at what I hear.
> 
> ...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ In the end Clinton knew how to get things done. He was, and still is, a pretty nimble politician. I think it's OK to disagree with someone politically and still appreciate their skill. Clinton knew how to get things done and knew how to compromise to get what he wanted in the end. 

Obama is a great campaigner. And it pretty much ends right there.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ In the end Clinton knew how to get things done. He was, and still is, a pretty nimble politician. I think it's OK to disagree with someone politically and still appreciate their skill. Clinton knew how to get things done and knew how to compromise to get what he wanted in the end.
> 
> Obama is a great campaigner. And it pretty much ends right there.


I respect Reagan for the same reason. He was effective.

Obama's better than just a great campaigner. I consider many of his policies quite sound, and at times I've really appreciated his steady hand at the rudder. I value his conservatism (small c). But no, he has not been effective. That's clear. Not that the opposition has been particularly reasonable...yet still a guy like Clinton or Reagan would have managed to get more out of Congress.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> The thought of a Hillary presidency leaves me cold. But not, perhaps, as cold as the thought of a Cruz, Huckabee or Perry presidency. And Santorum? I'd flee the country if that loon were elected.
> 
> I'm a Republican, by the way. Or was, before it became predominantly the province of right-wing populists.


If any of those got elected, I would be:

A) Stunned
B) Leave the country with you, lol

I used to consider myself a liberal, middle of the road, or whatever label you want to put on it Republican. But in truth I am a libertarian.

I voted for the elder Bush once, the younger Bush once, and McCain. The other elections I voted 3rd party.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> I respect Reagan for the same reason. He was effective.
> 
> Obama's better than just a great campaigner. I consider many of his policies quite sound, and at times I've really appreciated his steady hand at the rudder. I value his conservatism (small c). But no, he has not been effective. That's clear.* Not that the opposition has been particularly reasonable*...yet still a guy like Clinton or Reagan would have managed to get more out of Congress.


The opposition is the opposition. Congress could say the same of the POTUS and that he's unreasonable. This is the problem; we see things through the lens of the way we want things to work and with whom we agree. Keep in mind, for both Presidential elections nearly 50% of those who voted, voted against our current president.

Unreasonableness and conflict is built into the system. It forces compromise and denies the executive the power to dictate. The GOP really hasn't helped itself though by being itself divided and out to lunch. The grown ups need to start reigning in some of these yahoos.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The opposition is the opposition. Congress could say the same of the POTUS and that he's unreasonable. This is the problem; we see things through the lens of the way we want things to work and with whom we agree. Keep in mind, for both Presidential elections nearly 50% of those who voted, voted against our current president.
> 
> Unreasonableness and conflict is built into the system. It forces compromise and denies the executive the power to dictate. The GOP really hasn't helped itself though by being itself divided and out to lunch. The grown ups need to start reigning in some of these yahoos.


I disagree. I think the opposition to Obama is extreme and tied to the presence of yahoos in the GOP's present ranks, as you put it.

Seems like you and I disagree on many things but the distance between our views is quite small.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Here:<https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/03/1368297/-The-New-York-Times-Blows-It-With-Misleading-Hit-Job-on-Clinton-Emails?detail=email>, is a link to a report in the Daily Kos (fair warning as to source) that makes the case that the NY Times article was either a hatchet job or terrible journalism. IMHO it doesn't matter which, if the story is wrong (that is if using private email when Secretary of State was not illegal when Ms Clinton did so, then to suggest that it was is misleading) and arguing about it is pointless. Moreover, if, as the linked essay asserts, previous secretaries of state did the same thing, then to raise the issue is just political propaganda.

I do not particularly like Ms Clinton as a candidate. Nor do I anticipate enjoying her as president if she runs and wins. I know of no living Republican politicians for whom I'd vote.

Given my politics and beliefs, I am used to compromising between the way I think things should be, and what is actually attainable. That is what I grew up understanding politics to be.

The recent vote on funding the Department of Homeland Security is an example of this. Perhaps some traditional Republicans have fugured out that caving in to the teabaggers might be as likely to cost them re-election as standing up to the teabaggers.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Gurdon said:


> The recent vote on funding the Department of Homeland Security is an example of this.


Exactly.

Why would the President compromise funding for DHS over an immigration policy he is prohibited to inflict??

House Republicans have a serious messaging issue and the Senate is spineless.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Gurdon said:


> Here:<https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/03/1368297/-The-New-York-Times-Blows-It-With-Misleading-Hit-Job-on-Clinton-Emails?detail=email>, is a link to a report in the Daily Kos (fair warning as to source) that makes the case that the NY Times article was either a hatchet job or terrible journalism. IMHO it doesn't matter which, if the story is wrong (that is if using private email when Secretary of State was not illegal when Ms Clinton did so, then to suggest that it was is misleading) and arguing about it is pointless. Moreover, if, as the linked essay asserts, previous secretaries of state did the same thing, then to raise the issue is just political propaganda.


Presuming everything was legal and above board; how did the State Departments review of the events leading to and following the attacks on our embassy post in Libya overlook the fact that her emails were kept on a private server??

How can they be in the position to have concluded anything without having uncovered that fact or looked at the emails at the time of their "investigation??"


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Presuming everything was legal and above board; how did the State Departments review of the events leading to and following the attacks on our embassy post in Libya overlook the fact that her emails were kept on a private server??
> 
> How can they be in the position to have concluded anything without having uncovered that fact or looked at the emails at the time of their "investigation??"


Given that Secretary Clinton's email usage was SOP at the time and not illegal, the phony issue of the enbassy attacks in Lybia doesn't have anything to do with the equally phony issue of Secretary Clinton's email use.

Gurdon


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Gurdon said:


> Given that Secretary Clinton's email usage was SOP at the time
> Gurdon


You should probably tell the National Archives Guy who was quoted in the NYT article that salient point.....

"I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business," said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013."


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Gurdon said:


> Given that Secretary Clinton's email usage was SOP at the time and not illegal, the phony issue of the enbassy attacks in Lybia doesn't have anything to do with the equally phony issue of Secretary Clinton's email use.
> 
> Gurdon


I think at issue is that the personal email address was via a personal server kept by the Clintons in their home. I believe this may be a departure from the past.

If everything was on the up and up, I don't think the administration would be playing it by trying to distance themselves from her.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Gurdon said:


> Given that Secretary Clinton's email usage was SOP at the time and not illegal, the phony issue of the enbassy attacks in Lybia doesn't have anything to do with the equally phony issue of Secretary Clinton's email use.
> 
> Gurdon


The State Department investigated itself over a phony issue??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I trust her. 



> In 2011, when Clinton was secretary, a cable from her office sent to all employees advised them to avoid conducting any official business on their private email accounts because of targeting by unspecified "online adversaries."


https://www.mercurynews.com/nation-...ry-clinton-emails-fact-checking-her-statement


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ this is going to keep piling up and piling up with little facts and contradictions coming public. 

Like I said, HRC is not her husband. She's not a natural politician and a terrible and even awkward public speaker. At least Bill could BS his way out of a situation.

That press conference yesterday only made the press salivate more. It was the PR equivalent of a dish full of salty snacks at a bar.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ this is going to keep piling up and piling up with little facts and contradictions coming public.
> 
> Like I said, HRC is not her husband. She's not a natural politician and a terrible and even awkward public speaker. At least Bill could BS his way out of a situation.
> 
> That press conference yesterday only made the press salivate more. *It was the PR equivalent of a dish full of salty snacks at a bar.*


Exactly. There's no way out of this for her, methinks, unless she opens up everything--the official, the unofficial, the sweet-nothings, the damning candid assessments of others in public life--and if it turns out that stuff was deleted in such a way that it can never be retrieved, she's going to have a rough go of it. And if she does open up everything, she might have an even rougher go of it, depending on what's there. New York Post had the best headline, I think: Deleter Of The Free World.

Amazing, really, that someone who is supposedly so smart could shoot herself in the foot this way. The Democratic equivalent of Aaron Schock, only not quite as stupid. And if she's out, who else is there who could both win the nomination and have a chance in the general?

I


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

The Democrat bench in looking pekid!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I disagree. It was more stupid than Aaron Schock. She has presidential aspirations and is the presumed standard bearer of the party. Schock is a back bencher. His mistakes are a blip on the radar. Her's shake the party at its foundations.

I don't think she's all that smart really, at least politically. She couldn't even get it right during a lousy book tour. She's made gaff after gaff. She's awkward, can't tell a joke and comes off as completely phony. And lest you think I'm saying this because I don't agree with her politics, her husband is the exact opposite and comes off as sincere, whether it's phony or not. There's something about her that is incredibly annoying when I hear her speak, in the same way as there's something annoying about Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin. 

She kept an email server in her home. It was never given over to inspection for security measures. No one except she knows what is on the server. And to think that no one presumably noticed and our commander in chief only found out about it when the rest of us did?.....suckah pleaz! 

Wait until they go sifting through and large gaps in days and times start to appear. Wait until leaks connecting the Clinton foundation, it's donors and business those governments may have had with the state dept.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

^^

Agreed that AS is a back bencher, but disagree that this should be a factor in determining who made the dumber move. Dumb is dumb. This might seriously impede her chances of becoming president, sure. Much of the remainder of your remarks--whether she's awkward or a phony, etc.,--are a matter of opinion.

While HC may lose her chance to become president. Schock may well lose his job. And it's not impossible that he could land in prison. Recall that Jesse Jackson Jr. ended up in jail for misusing campaign funds. AS stands accused of misusing both campaign funds and taxpayer dollars, accusations bolstered by photographs he took and posted on the Internet. That, I submit, is much dumber than what Hillary Clinton has done.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Until we see massive civil disobedience collectively voting to end our system of legalized bribery we're going to continue to get what special interest money pays for in politicians and legislation.

One of Bill Moyers recent segments featured Zepher Teachout. 
https://billmoyers.com/episode/bare-knuckle-fight-money-politics/

I can't think of a more politically polarizing figure than Ms. Clinton.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ You're a student of Illinois politics. You know what Jesse Jr. did was completely different from what Aaron Schock has been reported to do. 

Schock abused tax payer money. He expensed things that were questionable and I'm not trying to make excuses for him, simply drawing a distinction. Schock could reasonably make the argument that these were legit campaign and legislative expenses. 

Jesse Jr. spent money from his campaign on sports memorabilia, expensive watches and a host of other personal goods that had nothing to do with the legislative duties. He even used money to deck out his home, and even went on a HGTV show to discuss the renovations (although he certainly didn't disclose where the money was coming from). 

Schock exercised poor judgement but I'm not sure it rises to the level of criminal fraud and corruption. But as I always say, let the issue be investigated fairly and impartially and disposed of as the law sees fit. 

Dumb is dumb. But there's dumb and then there's dumber. HRC is dumber. The fact that she could keep a server in her private home and then use that server for the purpose of State Dept. emails. The Clinton's blind spot has always been their sense of vanity, hubris and avarice. This is no exception.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I really want a news organization to file a FOIA or for a committee to subpoena every email message that anyone at any level of government ever received from Clinton. 

In fact, I am surprised that has not already happened...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ The AP is suing the state department.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

This thread has now gone 3 pages and I still don't know what the fuss is about. She said "here ya go, have a look at whatever you want" 

Storm in a teacup cooked up by the media....perhaps


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ That's part of the story. She has basically said, "here you go, have a look at whatever you want", however she has carefully curated what she has given over, deleted other items and is still in possession of the email server. 

She's basically telling people and the press to trust her and that what she has given over is all we need to see.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> This thread has no gone 3 pages and I still don't know what the fuss is about. She siad "here ya go, have a look at whatever you want"
> 
> Storm in a teacup cooked up by the media....perhaps


Because she has done nothing of the sort.

Add in to that the fact that she has a history of not exactly fully complying with requests (or even subpoenas) for documents and it starts to become a little worrisome.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Because she has done nothing of the sort.
> 
> Add in to that the fact that she has a history of not exactly fully complying with requests (or even subpoenas) for documents and it starts to become a little worrisome.


Easily fixed, vote her out of office.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Funny you mention that because I really think HRC sees herself as the rightful heir to the throne. She she's herself as the queen in exile. 

Regardless of what people say or how much the Dems proclaim it, she's not going to get elected. Those saying such things basically have so much invested in her that to back off now would be a disaster. There's really no one else in the wings right now anyway. They had a good run with 8 years of BHO. They got their long standing fetish of socialized medicine partially through and I'm sure by some twisted logic, they feel as though they've left a world far better than the one they inherited. 

The press will not be kind to HRC. They love her husband but I don't think that same love extends to her. She is excessively secretive and she has every right to be so. But when running for office, it's a liability. The press, be they conservative or liberal, hates secretive politicians and as time goes on this, dealings with the Clinton Foundation and past Clinton sins will remerge and will become the story, instead of any agenda which she may have.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Schock has absolutely been accused of mis-using campaign money for personal use. He's already had to pay some money back after CREW, the same outfit that latched onto Jackson before the feds did, blew the whistle a few years ago:

He is also accused of mis-using campaign money this time around:

https://www.politico.com/story/2015...tainly-hope-i-didnt-break-the-law-115967.html

I agree with you: Let's let the issue be investigated fairly and impartially and disposed of as the law sees fit. In short, we don't know, yet, whether what Schock did rose to the level of criminal conduct. Heck, even he says that he doesn't know. At this point, however, he does stand accused--not by prosecutors, I get that--of doing the exact same thing that landed Jackson in prison: Diverting campaign money for personal use. We may quibble on the degree of outrageousness--Michael Jackson memorabilia et al versus luxury hotels and travel--but the principle remains the same.

And I still say that putting it all on the Internet to draw attention to it--essentially blowing the whistle on himself--and getting to the point where he might get indicted is dumber than what Clinton did. Tell you what: If Schock is forced to resign, will you agree that he was dumber? How about indicted?



SG_67 said:


> ^ You're a student of Illinois politics. You know what Jesse Jr. did was completely different from what Aaron Schock has been reported to do.
> 
> Schock abused tax payer money. He expensed things that were questionable and I'm not trying to make excuses for him, simply drawing a distinction. Schock could reasonably make the argument that these were legit campaign and legislative expenses.
> 
> ...


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

To bolster my case that Schock is dumber, there is this excerpt from a news story in which his newly hired PR team brought in to improve Schock's image disputes the accuracy of a news report:

*While declining to comment on some of the reports, Schock's PR team has taken issue with the accuracy of others, like a Politico story on Monday that said Schock had reported on federal campaign finance documents that he spent more than $3,000 on software when in fact the money was part of the cost of a flight in a software executive's private plane to a Chicago Bears game and his district.*

Oh,. It wasn't for computer stuff, it was for a junket. THAT certainly sounds better. Regardless of the details--perhaps there really was important business in his district--that doesn't matter, the gist/spin is what matters now. His PR team is supposed to make the congressman look better, and they throw gasoline on the fire. Here's the story in its entirety:

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/11/politics/aaron-schock-ethics-top-chef/index.html


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Easily fixed, vote her out of office.


She is not in office. And I don't live in New York.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Democrats See No Choice but Hillary Clinton in 2016
They shrug off questions about Hillary Rodham Clinton's email habits. They roll with the attacks on her family's foundation, the big checks from foreign governments, the torpid response of her not-yet-campaign.

They have little choice: As Mrs. Clinton prepares to begin her second presidential campaign amid a froth of criticism and outrage, Democrats are not just Ready for Hillary - as supporters named one pro-Clinton "super PAC" - they are desperate for her.
Congressional Democrats are counting on a strong Clinton campaign to help lift them back into the majority. Party leaders at all levels want her fund-raising help and demographic appeal. And from the top of the party to its grass roots, Mrs. Clinton's pseudo-incumbency is papering over significant disadvantages: a weak bench, a long-term House minority and a white middle class defecting to the Republican Party faster than the Democrats' hoped-for demographic future is expected to arrive.

Mrs. Clinton, many Democrats say, is simply too big to fail.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/...-see-a-field-of-one-heading-to-2016.html?_r=0

I'd rather belong to the party a 24 member clown parade of a primary proceedure than participate in this outrageous coronation of Queen Hillary.

Surely, one Democrat will object.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> *She is not in office*. And I don't live in New York.


Yes she is, she works for the State Dept. "in office" obviously means something else in the US.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

She used to work for the state department. She's now a private citizen but she is still bound by legal obligations relating to her time in office. 

Also, if she signed anything or took an oath in anyway which obligated her to make available all communications having to do with her office and then it turns out that she did not, that could be an issue.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

As I reflect on the litany of nondisclosure documents and post employment restrictions I was required to agree to and sign off on when I retired from federal service for (apparently) the final time, I can only marvel at and fume over the apparent liberties those political hacks who were appointed by the White House to lord over virtually every major federal agency are allowed to enjoy during their terms of service and to flaunt before us after they have departed service. Gentlemen, historically there is much honor in the ranks, but frequently little at the top! Not only is Hillary not a worthy candidate for the Presidency, but she should also go to jail.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

And the leaks just keep coming:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...sages-hillary-clinton-email-account.html?_r=0


----------

