Hillary Clinton - the next president of America?

Message boards : Politics : Hillary Clinton - the next president of America?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 . . . 48 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile JumpinJohnny
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Mar 13
Posts: 678
Credit: 962,093
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1825100 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 2:06:25 UTC - in response to Message 1825096.  

Off=topic, but did you SERIOUSLY just denigrate the hand with which I write? I've seen no sign of you as a Christian fundamentalist, so where's this sinister view coming from about lefties being sinister???


Off topic response. You should not let your sinister, dominating, Authoritarian Left hand slap your sinister, fundamentalist Authoritarian Right hand.
Liberate your self from the fracus of slapping hands.
Let Freedom and Liberty be your guide.
ID: 1825100 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1825104 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 2:43:31 UTC - in response to Message 1825100.  

Off=topic, but did you SERIOUSLY just denigrate the hand with which I write? I've seen no sign of you as a Christian fundamentalist, so where's this sinister view coming from about lefties being sinister???


Off topic response. You should not let your sinister, dominating, Authoritarian Left hand slap your sinister, fundamentalist Authoritarian Right hand.
Liberate your self from the fracus of slapping hands.
Let Freedom and Liberty be your guide.


My nearly balanced hemispheres would not allow me to do so.
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1825104 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1825110 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 3:21:23 UTC

Isn't this 'Confidential emails' thing getting a bit out of hand.
I presume it is because the majority of the population don't know or understand security ratings. But in all honesty on a broad scale of five ratings 'Confidential' is the fourth highest and doesn't even merit a different colour of paper when formally printed.
ID: 1825110 · Report as offensive
Profile JaundicedEye
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 12
Posts: 5375
Credit: 30,870,693
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1825111 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 3:26:36 UTC

The 'Sound of one hand slapping.......'

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>
ID: 1825111 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1825114 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 3:38:35 UTC - in response to Message 1825110.  

Isn't this 'Confidential emails' thing getting a bit out of hand.
I presume it is because the majority of the population don't know or understand security ratings. But in all honesty on a broad scale of five ratings 'Confidential' is the fourth highest and doesn't even merit a different colour of paper when formally printed.

It also doesn't exist in the USA. The US only has three levels, not counting none.
1) Classified
2) Secret
3) Top Secret

It no longer has confidential or restricted.

Confidential would be something like a patent application before the Patent Office grants the patent, or your tax return. Something that shouldn't be handed out like candy, but there is no special duty to handle it with extra care, ordinary care is sufficient.
ID: 1825114 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1825125 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 4:39:37 UTC - in response to Message 1825114.  

Isn't this 'Confidential emails' thing getting a bit out of hand.
I presume it is because the majority of the population don't know or understand security ratings. But in all honesty on a broad scale of five ratings 'Confidential' is the fourth highest and doesn't even merit a different colour of paper when formally printed.

It also doesn't exist in the USA. The US only has three levels, not counting none.
1) Classified
2) Secret
3) Top Secret

It no longer has confidential or restricted.

Confidential would be something like a patent application before the Patent Office grants the patent, or your tax return. Something that shouldn't be handed out like candy, but there is no special duty to handle it with extra care, ordinary care is sufficient.

So you are only allocating three levels and those emails were at the lowest level. And therefore the claim that some of these so called classified documents were over classified by some minor functionary, made by Clinton, Powell et al, if true means that there is effectively no crime in these cases.

But at top secret level, there are differing levels, in that some of these will depend on your need to know about them and your need to have access to them.

And also don't forget there will also be a length of time element to all classification. i.e. something might be classified "now" but will public knowledge at 09:00 UTC today. And yet other top secret documents, say about equipment, might remain top secret long after that equipment is obsolete, because its replacement is built on similar technology.
ID: 1825125 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1825167 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 7:17:43 UTC - in response to Message 1825125.  

Isn't this 'Confidential emails' thing getting a bit out of hand.
I presume it is because the majority of the population don't know or understand security ratings. But in all honesty on a broad scale of five ratings 'Confidential' is the fourth highest and doesn't even merit a different colour of paper when formally printed.

It also doesn't exist in the USA. The US only has three levels, not counting none.
1) Classified
2) Secret
3) Top Secret

It no longer has confidential or restricted.

Confidential would be something like a patent application before the Patent Office grants the patent, or your tax return. Something that shouldn't be handed out like candy, but there is no special duty to handle it with extra care, ordinary care is sufficient.

So you are only allocating three levels and those emails were at the lowest level. And therefore the claim that some of these so called classified documents were over classified by some minor functionary, made by Clinton, Powell et al, if true means that there is effectively no crime in these cases.

Not quite. It still is a "paper" crime. However one no rational prosecutor would bring.

However there is the other crime. Anyone who sent her a classified document to her home server violated the law. As it appears she did leave instructions that no classified material be sent to that server, she could well legitimately disclaim knowledge that anything was classified. It might have still carried marks but that would have been left over as it would have had to be declassified before someone transmitted it. Remember she didn't type these things in herself! Someone else prepared them and sent them to her. That person would need to be brought to justice or a claim of selective prosecution would apply. You also would need their testimony to incriminate her by saying that in this case she gave orders to send classified material. Again no rational prosecutor would bring charges.

She isn't dumb. She set it up in such a way they no matter what she would be legally able to disclaim knowledge. After all she is a lawyer!

But at top secret level, there are differing levels, in that some of these will depend on your need to know about them and your need to have access to them.

And also don't forget there will also be a length of time element to all classification. i.e. something might be classified "now" but will public knowledge at 09:00 UTC today.

Like a press release that is distributed but "embargoed" to a set time.

And yet other top secret documents, say about equipment, might remain top secret long after that equipment is obsolete, because its replacement is built on similar technology.

Time also works in another way, a document may be so new that it has not yet been marked with a classification. The people handling it may well suspect it will be marked in the future but at the moment it isn't.
ID: 1825167 · Report as offensive
Profile Wiggo
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 34744
Credit: 261,360,520
RAC: 489
Australia
Message 1825172 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 8:00:14 UTC

I wonder if the Russians can also recover all of Guy's deleted posts.

Cheers.
ID: 1825172 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1825175 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 8:23:16 UTC - in response to Message 1825167.  

However there is the other crime. Anyone who sent her a classified document to her home server violated the law.

I mentioned that in a previous part of the discussion on this subject.

The people handling it may well suspect it will be marked in the future but at the moment it isn't.

If you are in this position, you handle it in a way appropriate to the expected classification. Quite often that person would probably know more about the subject than the clerk filing the document.

_____
The other thing about reducing the classification ratings, by getting rid of Restricted and Confidential. Would mean that documents on the borderline could get a much higher rating than in the past, which in my opinion, based on personal experience, leads me further to the question.

Is this a mountain made out of a molehill.

I suspect it is.
ID: 1825175 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1825215 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 14:22:31 UTC

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/10/17/cop-moons-clinton-sign-spurs-free-speech-debate/92310066/

Free Speech...
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1825215 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1825224 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 15:20:09 UTC - in response to Message 1825215.  

ID: 1825224 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1825262 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 23:46:03 UTC - in response to Message 1825259.  

Of course Democrats ignore it, because it happens so rarely. If it does happen how come there have not been thousands of cases discovered by Republican run counties since 2000.

Just have a search to see how many cases there have been since 2000. I found thirteen (13).
ID: 1825262 · Report as offensive
Profile JumpinJohnny
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Mar 13
Posts: 678
Credit: 962,093
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1825267 - Posted: 18 Oct 2016, 23:56:44 UTC

The bigger "fraud" is the endless re-districting or gerrymandering performed by democrats and republicans.
It's a sham and a misrepresentation of the voter.

That IS voter fraud and gleefully accepted by th D's & R's against all logic or pretense of fairness.
ID: 1825267 · Report as offensive
Profile j mercer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Jun 99
Posts: 2422
Credit: 12,323,733
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1825271 - Posted: 19 Oct 2016, 0:40:18 UTC - in response to Message 1825267.  

The bigger "fraud" is the endless re-districting or gerrymandering performed by democrats and republicans.
It's a sham and a misrepresentation of the voter.

That IS voter fraud and gleefully accepted by th D's & R's against all logic or pretense of fairness.

The elephant in the room.

This is actually what America would look like without gerrymandering

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/13/this-is-actually-what-america-would-look-like-without-gerrymandering
...
ID: 1825271 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1825273 - Posted: 19 Oct 2016, 0:47:58 UTC - in response to Message 1825172.  

I wonder if the Russians can also recover all of Guy's deleted posts.

Cheers.


Google cache?
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1825273 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1825274 - Posted: 19 Oct 2016, 0:50:58 UTC - in response to Message 1825262.  
Last modified: 19 Oct 2016, 0:59:20 UTC

Of course Democrats ignore it, because it happens so rarely. If it does happen how come there have not been thousands of cases discovered by Republican run counties since 2000.

Just have a search to see how many cases there have been since 2000. I found thirteen (13).

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/

Just the cases listing numbers (about half) add to almost 45,000 cases over the last 10 years.
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1825274 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1825295 - Posted: 19 Oct 2016, 2:28:03 UTC - in response to Message 1825274.  
Last modified: 19 Oct 2016, 2:30:28 UTC

Of course Democrats ignore it, because it happens so rarely. If it does happen how come there have not been thousands of cases discovered by Republican run counties since 2000.

Just have a search to see how many cases there have been since 2000. I found thirteen (13).

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/

Just the cases listing numbers (about half) add to almost 45,000 cases over the last 10 years.

I'm not convinced that the source of that story is reliable.

Maybe I should have qualified my numbers to convictions in Presidential elections.

I can find cases of voter fraud convictions for all elections right down to city officials since 2000 but it only accounts for 276 cases, some of which involve more than one person, but that probably doesn't total above 500 persons. That is still a very small number considering the number of elections and the number of eligible voters.

edit] even if your number of 45,000 over 10 years is correct, what percentage is that of all the people who have voted in all the elections.
ID: 1825295 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1825308 - Posted: 19 Oct 2016, 3:24:29 UTC - in response to Message 1825295.  

Of course Democrats ignore it, because it happens so rarely. If it does happen how come there have not been thousands of cases discovered by Republican run counties since 2000.

Just have a search to see how many cases there have been since 2000. I found thirteen (13).

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/

Just the cases listing numbers (about half) add to almost 45,000 cases over the last 10 years.

I'm not convinced that the source of that story is reliable.

Maybe I should have qualified my numbers to convictions in Presidential elections.

I can find cases of voter fraud convictions for all elections right down to city officials since 2000 but it only accounts for 276 cases, some of which involve more than one person, but that probably doesn't total above 500 persons. That is still a very small number considering the number of elections and the number of eligible voters.

edit] even if your number of 45,000 over 10 years is correct, what percentage is that of all the people who have voted in all the elections.


One case is one too many.
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1825308 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 . . . 48 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Hillary Clinton - the next president of America?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.