Trump: Why can't we just use nukes?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Murika, Aug 3, 2016.

  1. Well, saying it in all caps definitely makes the claim more credible.

    The email controversy is a legitimate criticism, but it's grossly exaggerated. Clinton used a personal (unclassified) server instead of a government (unclassified) server. It's impossible for Secret and Top Secret servers to communicate with outside private networks.

    Still it broke from established policy. And also there were a few instances where people brought things up via unclassified email to her that they should have been talking about on the classified side. This would have happened whether she used a personal or government email system.

    Given the infrequency that someone brought up classified information (about 0.17%, or 1 per 577 emails), I think it's clear there was no criminal intent. It's also important to note that often material is *over*classified. You'd be amazed how many seemingly benign things will end up being marked Secret. I'm willing to bet if you sift through tens of thousands of the unclassified emails of all the other Secretaries of State, you'll find some rare cases of people unwittingly bringing up classified information there as well.

    Incidentally, Colin Powell (R) also used a private server to conduct business when he was Secretary of State, with zero outrage. Just like under Bush there were 13 embassy attacks resulting in 66 deaths - with zero congressional investigations.
  2. Well hemi is clearly not an anti-nuke hippie but he seems to have no clue about nuclear weapons and strategy/doctrine related to their use. More worryingly, a US presidential candidate doesn't seem to know much more.
  3. Let's support Pakistan by sending some money to the Indian government hurr durr derpty derp
  4. Saying it in caps or not doesn't matter, it's still true
    You stating what others have done and gotten away with doesn't change the fact.

    The FBI found a total of 113 emails from Clinton’s private servers (110 from her disclosure to the FBI, 3 discovered in the FBI’s further investigation) were classified at the time they were sent or received. Of the original 110 emails in 52 email chains, 8 email chains contained Top Secret information, 36 Secret, and 8 Confidential.
    This is fact. Yet they didn't have enough to charge her? Seems fishy.
    Also, knowing someone else comitted a crime and got away with it doesn't excuse you from comitting the same crime.

    As for Trump being charged with fraud. You are embelishing. There is no mention of a racketeering charge in any article I can find.
    The judge hI'm self has also mentioned he doesn't think Trump knowingly participated in the allegations or not.
    That being said if he's found guilty I will call him a CRIMINAL too.
    Does that make you happy?
  5. And your comment about infrequency is ridiculous. That's like saying well yeah I deal cocaine. But only once a month. So I have no criminal intent.
  6. The existence of classified information alone is not the critical parameter here. The specific section of the law concerned, 18 U.S. Code § 793, reads:
    The critical words above are "through gross negligence": the existence of classified emails outside of the 'proper place of custody' (which is on government owned and controlled servers, in the case of emails) is not sufficient to have broken the law, regardless of how irresponsible it may have been. Clinton must have been conscious of the fact that the emails were classified, and subsequently voluntarily disregarded the proper safekeeping of them (ie: make prompt acts to rectify the problem). This leads to two questions: First, would the content of those emails make it immediately apparent to someone with Clinton's expertise that they concern classified information? And second, do such emails occur frequently enough that a reasonable person in Clinton's position would have noticed a pattern of inappropriate use? Without satisfying at least one of these conditions (and we do not have access to the email content to know the first), it is very difficult to determine negligence.
  7. By way of example: if an engineer were working on a defense project, and wrote some technically-important number on a post-it note for memory, he may inadvertently remove classified information from its 'proper place of custody' by accidentally taking that post-it note home (say, stuck to some other document), but that would not constitute gross negligence. However, taking his work home with him to continue over the weekend would be negligent, without changing the nature of the information, or the locations of either proper or improper custody.
    Murika and MooSquad like this.
  8. It's not fishy at all. With as much over classification that takes place is very likely people merely mentioned something in those emails that they didn't know was technically classified. For example, Bob sends an email through an unclassified server:

    "Mr. Smith will be arriving in Balad on Sunday"

    Whoops! Military flight manifests are classified Secret. Bob is now a CRIMINAL!

    If someone inadvertently talks about something they shouldn't on an un-class server (especially something seemingly benign), they should certainly be counseled but calling the person a "CRIMINAL!" is beyond hyperbole.

    Fifty of the nation’s most senior Republican national security officials, many of them former top aides or cabinet members for President George W. Bush, have signed a letter declaring that Donald J. Trump “lacks the character, values and experience” to be president and “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

    Mr. Trump, the officials warn, “would be the most reckless president in American history.”

    The letter says Mr. Trump would weaken the United States’ moral authority and questions his knowledge of and belief in the Constitution. It says he has “demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding” of the nation’s “vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances and the democratic values” on which American policy should be based. And it laments that “Mr. Trump has shown no interest in educating himself.”

    “None of us will vote for Donald Trump,” the letter states, though it notes later that many Americans “have doubts about Hillary Clinton, as do many of us.”

    While foreign policy elites in both parties often argue among themselves — behind closed doors, or politely in the pages of Foreign Affairs magazine — it is extraordinarily rare for them to step into the political arena so publicly and aggressively. Several former midlevel officials issued a similar if milder letter in March, during the primaries. But Monday’s letter included many senior former officials who until now have remained silent in public, even while denouncing Mr. Trump’s policies over dinners or in small Republican conclaves.
  10. Well the State Department doesn't necessarily agree. They have re-opened the case and are doing more investigations. So I guess we will see.
  11. I'm Canadian. I don't know what all these stupid fuckin America agencies do. I'd still imagine that if they have a negative result to their investigation it could open up a can of worms.
  12. I thought it was some kind of criminal negligence
  13. Just because you're ignorant on a subject is no reason to get all derogatory. Admittedly I only have a rudimentary understanding of the Canadian political system and agencies. But that doesn't make them "stupid fucking agencies."

    The investigation may amount to something that is already been beaten to death. I have said all along that Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server, coupled with the few cases when people inadvertently caused spillage, is absolutely a legitimate criticism. It's just been grossly exaggerated and for me it's not a dealbreaker.

    All of the other "controversies", including Benghazi are complete and utter horseshit controversies.
  14. There are many "stupid fucking agencies".
    The American people are notoriously over-governed.
    If you think it's legitimate criticism, then why do you defend it?
    You try so hard to force your opinion down people's throats it really makes you dislikeable.
    I respect your passion and how well read you are on a lot of this. But you don't handle yourself well IMO
    Your opinion is that Clintons activities aren't a big deal. My opinion is that they are. I think they are a deal breaker.
    Unfortunately for America, it's a lose lose situation right now. Trump or Clinton. Either way the country is looking at the worst presidency they could hope for IMO.
  15. And trust me. Canada has many "stupid fucking agencies" as well.
  16. Ugh. This time limit on editing on this site is a pain.
    Ignore everything I said Murika. I don't have energy to read another 1000 word novel from you. Nobody here is going to change your mind even if they slapped you in the face with 100% proof of something.
    I'm opting out.
  17. Actually for me it's a "medium deal" (not that those things can be quantified). But all else considered after doing all of my research and sifting through all of the garbage, I'm perfectly happy with Hillary Clinton as President.

    And trust me, there's a lot of garbage to sift through. For example, some knucklehead who was a *uniformed* security officer at the White House wrote a "tell all" book full of fanciful stories to make the Clintons look bad (really to make some money) - full lies, contradictions, and a wildly inflated description of his own access.

    On the flipside, here's an endorsement from somebody who really did have access and actually worked with Secretary Clinton, with 33 years experience in the CIA, who actually ran the CIA for a time, who served under multiple presidents and was not a political appointee. In addition, he has voted for both Democrats and Republicans in various times, and has never before endorsed any other candidate. Take a look at what he has to say.
  18. I like pie.
  19. #97 Vanilla Ice, Aug 10, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2016
    Considering how important Canada's relationship with the United States is, I wouldn't be so quick to brag about not knowing about the agency charged with liaising with foreign countries. Also a very odd selection disparage as unimportant and superfluous.
  20. im not going to start defending Hillary because shes running against trump.

    I think she is the archetype of american political corruption. It bothers me that it is so common and entrenched that people just roll their eyes and say 'politicians are crooks' and let it go at that. We shouldnt accept that, and its a fucking tragedy that Clinton is seen as the lesser of 2 evils. Our horrific system has been rigged in such a way that we are given 2 shit choices, and the citizens have to swallow it.

    I really hope this is rock bottom and we finally get people excited enough to get some reform going.
    But I really have no confidence that this is rock bottom, and thats scary
    MooSquad likes this.
  21. This, 100%
    But that's also what I've been saying every 4 years, sadly, for as long as I can remember. Which would be around the Bush - Gore elections of 2000. Of Clinton-Dole I only remember Dole tripping off the stage.
  22. i just remembered that I was happy when bush won. I was in 8th grade and in christian school and went to church with my parents so I was in the conservative bubble.
    I was rooting for Bush Cheney and Rove

Share This Page