Hillary Clinton is Far More Honest Than the Propagandists are Telling You

[Shadow Wolf]

you have no idea how hard it is keeping up with server technology. Now, if you're not a server professional it gets even harder.

I was originally going to go into IT right out of high school, but I felt it beginning to assimilate me into the electronic collective that becomes your life if you want to be any good at it.

When it comes to the servers, that's what Clinton is really guilty of. She had no clue what was or was not "OK". She simply trusted someone else to run her servers for her... like they were an appliance or something.

Given that many people have gotten in trouble over various government electronic use policies, I suspect the laws may be inadequately written, or just inadequate. Realistically, these laws were made by people who didn't have a computer for most--even the majority--of their lives and they just were not relevant then like they are today, like many probably didn't see how far how quickly technology would take us, and had no real idea that electronic communication would nearly entirely replace paper-communication, or portable phones people bring everywhere, let alone having a camera on them.
And of course it may also have something to do with outsourcing to private firms, because even with that as a reason Hillary isn't the only one to have failed trust placed in an outsider firm/group. Compared to the CIA and what one of their outside contractors leaked, Hillary's emails don't seem to be much of anything. But, people are so desperate that even a case that revolves around Anthony Weiner (*snicker*) that is bringing up her emails has many on the Right thinking it's again way more than it is, even though it's already been stated their are likely to be no charges brought up against Hillary. But to them, they are so sure they're gonna get her and she's gonna go to prison and they're gonna throw away the key.
I want to believe we can have a breather after the election, but regardless of who wins I think things may get at least interesting. Really, seeing how Trump is and knowing what Pence has done, the only thing making me breathe easy is the fact Hispanics are registering in record numbers and the majority do not support Trump, more women than men vote and they as a group do not support Trump, and Liberals and Democrats show up in larger numbers when the President is being voted for, and they sure's as hell don't support Trump, and of course he has a needle-thin sliver of support from the black community. It's been known for a while know that white men can't carry someone to the White House anymore, and Trump doesn't even have a solid claim over that demograph either. Nor does he have the support of the Religious Right like the Republican candidate can count on, he doesn't even have it in Texas.
But, either way, what I see happening is the party that gets in the White House will be the minority party in congress. If Hillary wins, I'll be surprised if the polls predicting Democrats becoming the majority happening, because I think ultimately what will happen is people will vote on Hillary just because she is more stable and send in a Republican to "check" her. I can see such thinking easily costing Evan Bayh his election, who running a race he is expected to win and give the Democrats and easy seat out of the few they need.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I suspect the laws may be inadequately written, or just inadequate.

The biggest problem is that they change, often without enough notice. I used to have a stable of 13 servers running ScubaBoard. I simplified my life when I moved everything into the cloud. I no longer build or maintain my servers and I've engaged a dedicated security company to keep me from being hacked.

 

[Lighthouse]

That's what I worry about, especially since Pence will be his VP, and Pence already tried to make it legal that my civil liberties are beneath religious-based hatred (under the guise of "freedom of religions"), and because the Supreme Court as it was with Scalia shot him down more than once, I don't see him passing the chance to make sure it won't happen again.
And with the Oregon terrorists being acquitted, Canada has never looked better.

I wouldn't worry about that too much, there isn't much they can do at this point in my opinion. States are sovereign and have their own rulings. If anything, I think they are trying to pass religious rights stuff regarding it, such as it's not okay to discriminate against those that believe marriage is between a man or a woman. I don't think that many hate gays, they just have a strong belief in their marriage definition.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think they are trying to pass religious rights stuff regarding it, such as it's not okay to discriminate against those that believe marriage is between a man or a woman. I don't think that many hate gays, they just have a strong belief in their marriage definition.

Pence did pass a law that didn't make it illegal to discriminate against those that believe in a Conservative approach to marriage, it made it legal to discriminate against people (mostly LBGT) if you have a "sincerely held" religious belief. Even news sources in other continents covered this story. Pence wanted to amend the state constitution to define marriage as "one-man/one-woman." Pence is also an evolution denier, and even tried to disprove evolution before Congress.
And, honestly, when it comes to legality, they religious beliefs, no matter how strong, have no place guiding state legislation. Various groups tend to have their rights and liberties violated and denied when it happens, and we've already said religious beliefs are not above the equality of blacks, women, veterans, non-veterans, young, old, other religious beliefs, and a few other groups. In a handful of states these protections are extended to those of the non-heterosexual and/or cis-gendered population. This is something that should already, by default, be granted to that part of the population, but people like Pence fight to put religious bigotry above the rights and liberties of minorities they don't like. This was a common theme among Republicans and Southern Democrats opposing racial integration, used against the rights of women, even used to support slavery.
Honestly, religion is not something that should be tolerated to the extend of "prohibiting the free practice thereof." Body modifications on children should not be performed unless medically necessary, discrimination should not have any legally tolerated shields to hide under, parents should take their children to a doctor, and, of course, religious suicide (including bombings) is the ultimate "free practice thereof." If you want to be bitten by deadly snakes go right ahead, but I'll damned if some religious nut demands any kids I may have be made dumb and not know the difference between a hypothesis and theory, not know the difference between a "layman's theory" and a scientific theory, or being unable to understand why philosophical and metaphysical speculations are not science. I don't care what your religion says, the science class my taxes pay for will teach my children scientific facts, including evolution. The not wanting evolution taught can tell their kids about god in church, and I promise not to interfere or interject when obvious fallacies are spoken. I won't even care enough to do so or even consider it.

 

[Lighthouse]

Pence did pass a law that didn't make it illegal to discriminate against those that believe in a Conservative approach to marriage, it made it legal to discriminate against people (mostly LBGT) if you have a "sincerely held" religious belief. Even news sources in other continents covered this story. Pence wanted to amend the state constitution to define marriage as "one-man/one-woman." Pence is also an evolution denier, and even tried to disprove evolution before Congress.
And, honestly, when it comes to legality, they religious beliefs, no matter how strong, have no place guiding state legislation. Various groups tend to have their rights and liberties violated and denied when it happens, and we've already said religious beliefs are not above the equality of blacks, women, veterans, non-veterans, young, old, other religious beliefs, and a few other groups. In a handful of states these protections are extended to those of the non-heterosexual and/or cis-gendered population. This is something that should already, by default, be granted to that part of the population, but people like Pence fight to put religious bigotry above the rights and liberties of minorities they don't like. This was a common theme among Republicans and Southern Democrats opposing racial integration, used against the rights of women, even used to support slavery.
Honestly, religion is not something that should be tolerated to the extend of "prohibiting the free practice thereof." Body modifications on children should not be performed unless medically necessary, discrimination should not have any legally tolerated shields to hide under, parents should take their children to a doctor, and, of course, religious suicide (including bombings) is the ultimate "free practice thereof." If you want to be bitten by deadly snakes go right ahead, but I'll damned if some religious nut demands any kids I may have be made dumb and not know the difference between a hypothesis and theory, not know the difference between a "layman's theory" and a scientific theory, or being unable to understand why philosophical and metaphysical speculations are not science. I don't care what your religion says, the science class my taxes pay for will teach my children scientific facts, including evolution. The not wanting evolution taught can tell their kids about god in church, and I promise not to interfere or interject when obvious fallacies are spoken. I won't even care enough to do so or even consider it.

I don't mind what Pence believes, those are his own rights. I'm not going to discriminate or hate the guy. I'm not him, and it's his freedom to believe whatever he wants.

What he passed I don't even find as discrimination if it's what I think it is.
No religious rights should be "above" the equal rights to any human. Definitely agree. I guess I don't get offended if an employee's beliefs are protected by not wedding a couple as long as there is someone else there to wed them. I don't find that as discriminating or hate. I respect someone's religious beliefs as I respect someone's equal rights with none above the other. People, in my opinion, love to get worked up rather than accept others and meet in the middle. It's really harmless.

As for school, I think religion should be kept out also. I'm sure that will remain in public schools. There are "Christian" schools, private schools, charter schools, home schools, etc. also.

You have to remember that you and your child are not another and their child. Neither is superior over the other. If they are, under what absolute and objective authority? I have to imagine that the more people disagree, the more segregation there will be in schools. I personally don't get bent out of shape, I teach my children at home what is important outside of school. I teach an open mind, show them both sides and its potential middle and allow them to think for themselves with allowing no one not even their parents to control or indoctrinate their minds. Teach them to respect everyone else regardless if they believe in evolution or whatever God or gods, and to put no one down or feel superior to any other because of what another believes. I think people lead miserable lives fretting about little irrelevant things. See illusional hate and discrimination when it's not even there.

 

[Notanumber]

Just in case this hasn’t already been mentioned in this thread, the server was the crime!


This alone would have been enough to convict anyone else.

 

[Scuba Pete]

This alone would have been enough to convict anyone else.

Can you show us anyone convicted of having a server then? If it's such a slam dunk, I'm sure you have numerous examples, but give us at least one.

 

[Notanumber]

We will see who is right.


Hillary could fool some of the people some of the time.

 

[Scuba Pete]

We will see who is right.

So "NO", you can't show anyone ever being convicted of having a server, yet you're certain that they get convicted where Clinton has not. You do see how desperate and silly you sound saying crap like this, right?

 

[Notanumber]

We will see who is right.


Hillary could fool some of the people some of the time.

Has anyone in Hillary Clinton’s official position (of trust) ever been so reckless with the security of the USA?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Has anyone in Hillary Clinton’s official position (of trust) ever been so reckless with the security of the USA?

If you mean by having their own server, then count Condaleeza Rice and Colin Powel.

However, unlike the CIA, the Department of Defense, and the FBI, her server wasn't hacked.

EDIT=> Notice how I respected you enough to directly answer your question. Why won't you do the same for me? I've asked you some direct questions that you just dodge like a politician. Sad that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you show us anyone convicted of having a server then? If it's such a slam dunk, I'm sure you have numerous examples, but give us at least one.

Your challenge doesn't provide the context which makes her actions illegal.
But let's see what some legal experts have to say about the totality of her
misfeasance.....
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/we-...e-legal-expert-say-clinton-committed-a-crime/
As with all matters of law, there is never a clear answer.

 

[Tumah]

I wonder who Obama is voting for this year?

 

[Revoltingest]

For those who like Hillary's record of helping people, this could be interesting.....
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-forgotten-career-corporate-lawyer-1477674562
An excerpt....
LITTLE ROCK, Ark.—One of Hillary Clinton’s first assignments as a corporate lawyer landed her far from her roots. She helped overturn a ballot measure that increased electric rates for businesses and lowered them for the poor.

“Instead of defending poor people and righting wrongs, we found ourselves squarely on the side of corporate greed against the little people,” her colleague, Webb Hubbell, later wrote.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Your challenge doesn't provide the context which makes her actions illegal.

So, you can't come up with a single person being charged for such a thing as well. Why not conceded the point? You can't say "anyone else would have been charged" when no one else has ever been charged. Well, at least not sincerely or with a straight face.

She helped overturn a ballot measure that increased electric rates for businesses and lowered them for the poor.

She did her job. What a horrible person for doing her job.

 

[idav]

For those who like Hillary's record of helping people, this could be interesting.....
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-forgotten-career-corporate-lawyer-1477674562
An excerpt....
LITTLE ROCK, Ark.—One of Hillary Clinton’s first assignments as a corporate lawyer landed her far from her roots. She helped overturn a ballot measure that increased electric rates for businesses and lowered them for the poor.

“Instead of defending poor people and righting wrongs, we found ourselves squarely on the side of corporate greed against the little people,” her colleague, Webb Hubbell, later wrote.

Interesting, sounds exactly like how she preaches.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, you can't come up with a single person being charged for such a thing as well.

Well, of course.
To merely have a server is not inherently a crime.
But that's not what Hillary is accused of.
Don't take my word for it.....read the link I posted, then you'll learn.
These legal experts will know more than a scuba diver or cartoon school janitor.

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting, sounds exactly like how she preaches.

It all depends upon whom she preaches to, eh.

 

[idav]

It all depends upon whom she preaches to, eh.

Not with her robotic responses, her record covers the fact that their robotic, just in case anyone wonders.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hillary's honesty is in the news.....
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...rmer-fbi-official-clintons-are-a-crime-family
An excerpt....
“The Clintons, that’s a crime family, basically,” Kallstrom said. “It’s like organized crime. I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool.”

Kallstrom, best known for leading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800 in the late '90s, said that Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, was a “pathological liar.”

He also blasted Attorney General Loretta Lynch, claiming that she impeded the investigation into Clinton’s private server.

“The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation,” he said. “That’s the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I’m sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that.”