I work with 4-5 people in an engineering firm between the ages of 25-65 who have no clue how to properly use Word and justify hundreds of wasted overtime hours a year as their having a strong work ethic instead of being too lazy to learn how to use numbered lists properly, who can't make markups in PDFs, who can't figure out how to change page orientations for printing, forget how to scan every week, and couldn't add a hyperlink to an email if their life depended on it.
We also use a timesheet program from the last century because the person who does our timesheets couldn't figure out how to use a more recent and easier software even with 2 straight weeks of 3 hour training sessions, then proceeded to blame it on the software rather than her incompetence. She convinced the boss of this, who doesn't understand any of the software to begin with, and he then attempted to sue the company he bought the software from for false advertising.
These are all smart, accomplished, successful people. I'd believe anything.
I was the head of regulatory relations for two very big banks and people would use Gmail all the fucking time even though we had to retain emails because they could get it on their windows at home.
It was never malicious, it was a Luddite trying to use email
Funny how I'm never criticized for saying anything about Trump. Just Hillary. Oh well.
Anyway, another thing that I found disturbing about Hillary's practices was that she left it up to others to determine whether or not to email her, since her server was private:
She told investigators that everyone at State knew she had a private email address because it was displayed to anyone with whom she exchanged emails, according to a summary of the July 2 interview released Friday.
Clinton said that when top staff received an email, the recipient would evaluate whether the information should be forwarded to her, but that no one at the State Department raised concerns about her using a private email account or server and said no one on her staff ever expressed a concern regarding the sensitivity of the content of these emails.
That's pretty bizarre. Especially in light of the revelation that she sent out a department-wide email warning of the dangers of a private server. "Hey guys, don't use private email accounts. By the way, when you send email to my private email account, make sure it isn't classified"
I wonder how true it is that "everyone knew" that she had a private email account
Fake edit:
This brings us to the question of whether everyone knew Clinton was using a private e-mail system. As phrased, Clinton sidesteps the question of whether people knew she was exclusively using a private system. (Even President Obama has said he was unaware that Clinton did State Department business only from a private system.)
Still, everyone is a sweeping phrase. One would presume that people receiving her e-mails would recognize it was from a private account. But at least one e-mail released by the State Department suggests a senior official was out of the loop.
In a Feb. 27, 2010, e-mail exchange between Clinton and her aide Huma Abedin, it was revealed that a senior official named Judith (possibly Judith McHale, then the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy) had contacted the State Department IT help desk because an e-mail she had sent to Clinton had bounced back. Clinton was wondering why she received an e-mail from a State Department technician asking whether she had received a message.
What happened is Judith sent you an email. It bounced back. She called the email help desk (I guess assuming u had state email) and told them that, Huma wrote, using email abbreviations. They had no idea it was YOU, just some random address so they emailed.
[...]
Declaring that everyone she e-mailed understood she was using a private system appears undercut by the Abedin comment that Judith contacted the State Department help desk thinking Clinton was using a government e-mail account.
Clinton obviously received e-mails from hundreds of people who realized she was using a private e-mail address. But whether they understood it was her only means of electronic government communication is another question.
I love that not only do we know Bush deleted all those emails, here we have his SoS admitting he used his private email address as a way of hiding things he didn't want made public, but in the face of every bit of proof that Clinton basically hid nothing people are still like "I can't believe Hillary would be so irresponsible. What a lying bitch."
Can't wait for Hannity to drum up conspiracy malarkey. The most entertaining this about this election year has been Hannity evolving into Super Saiyan.
I am only about halfway through reading the report and found this which disturbs me. Either she played dumb to the FBI regarding her understanding of what constitutes sensitive information and how it should be handled in order to skirt legal ramifications OR she really did not know or care to learn the proper way to handle the type of information her job revolves around. The former would assume guilt and the latter assumes incompetence. I can't decide which is worse.
Forgive the formatting, I am posting from my phone. Bolder sections are mine.
From page: 26
Clinton's Statements Related to Classified E-mails Found on Her Personal Server Systems
On July 2, 2016, the FBI interviewed Clinton. Clinton was aware she was an Original Classification Authority (OCA) at State; however, she could not recall how often she used this authority nor could she recall any training or guidance provided by State. 496 Clinton could not give an example of how the classification of a document was determined; rather she stated there was a process in place at State before her tenure, and she relied on career foreign service professionals to appropriately mark and handle classified information. 497 Clinton believed information should be classified when it relates to the use of sensitive sources, or sensitive deliberations. 498 When asked whether she believed information should be classified if its unauthorized release would cause damage to national 499 security, Clinton responded "yes, that is the understanding."
Clinton did not recall receiving any e-mails she thought should not have been on an 500 unclassified system. She relied on State officials to use their judgment when e-mailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information 501 she received at her e-mail address. The FBI provided Clinton with copies of her classified e-mails ranging from CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET/SAP and Clinton said she did not believe the e-mails contained classified information. 502 Upon reviewing an e-mail classified SECRET//NOFORN dated December 27, 2011, Clinton stated no policy or practice existed related to communicating around holidays, and it was often necessary to communicate in code or do the best you could to convey the information considering the e-mail system you were using. 503 In reference to the same e-mail, Clinton believed if the foreign press was to obtain information from that e-mail, it would not cause damage to the US Government. 504 When asked, Clinton recalled being briefed on SAP information but could not recall any specific briefing on how to handle SAP information. 505 Clinton stated she knew SAP information was of great importance and needed to be handled carefully. 506
While this is surely true for some folks that do not want Hillary as president, this statement has been used far too much as a blanket defense of every dark/shady/questionable thing Hillary has done.
Questioning Hillary and her actions is not inherently sexist. It's part of any voting citizen's due diligence to ensure that we know who we're voting for.
I've said repeatedly that I don't like either option presented. I'm likely to vote for Hillary because, well, Trump, but that doesn't mean that I'm content with seeing her slide on being dishonest just because of the boogeyman on the other side.
Due to the ridiculousness of this election season, you almost had me. I was ready to point out that nobody on GAF believes Hillary to be an unassailable bastion of all things pure and good and we can, in fact, be critical of her within reason, but you already know this of course because of your (not so) obvious sarcasm. Good one.
Due to the ridiculousness of this election season, you almost had me. I was ready to point out that nobody on GAF believes Hillary to be an unassailable bastion of all things pure and good and we can, in fact, be critical of her within reason, but you already know this of course because of your (not so) obvious sarcasm. Good one.
Some people mentally block proportional criticism. If you're not calling for Clinton to drop out of the race or be arrested/deported, they aren't listening.
While this is surely true for some folks that do not want Hillary as president, this statement has been used far too much as a blanket defense of every dark/shady/questionable thing Hillary has done.
Questioning Hillary and her actions is not inherently sexist. It's part of any voting citizen's due diligence to ensure that we know who we're voting for.
I've said repeatedly that I don't like either option presented. I'm likely to vote for Hillary because, well, Trump, but that doesn't mean that I'm content with seeing her slide on being dishonest just because of the boogeyman on the other side.
I've never used it before in regards to Clinton, and I'm not calling anyone here out specifically, but the double standards at play in the media(and among his supporters, of course) are too immense to ignore. It's amazing the amount of shit he's allowed to get away with because of some bullshit 'tough-man' persona. He should be never be able to be taken seriously on any level whatsoever after all the shit he's said and done.
I mean, Trump gives a bullshit speech at a black church, and almost instantly after it's over, CNN goes back to treating Clinton like she's apart of some damn watergate-type scandal. It might as be propaganda for Trump, at a level Fox News would be proud of.
The fact of the matter is, these emails are fucking nothing in the grand scheme of things, and yet so many refuse to properly focus on the other person with shit polices who's actually dangerous in the now, and could put people in positions that negatively effects millions of lives for decades more. I've never seen so many messed up priorities, and sometimes among supposedly progressive people, who's endgame is particularly baffleing. If Trump was to win because of that bullshit, they literally get nothing, for a long, long time.
This is some absolute, utter BS. I have not once ever said or suggested that Hillary was criminally liable. In fact, I have defended her against the assertion that she was criminally liable.
They aren't interested in arguing against what you actually say. It's all straw(wo)men, dog whistling, projection, character attacks based on nothing, etc. Etc. I'm not the least bit surprised considering. A shame since honest discussion should be embraced.
pretty sure the entire preceding post argued against half of what he was "actually saying" while conceding the other half (and that my larger point was proven by MIMIC getting offended by a hypothetical), but it's nice to hear about bad-faith argumentation coming from OT's other resident disproportionate-outrage machine
pretty sure the entire preceding post argued against half of what he was "actually saying" while conceding the other half (and that my larger point was proven by MIMIC getting offended by a hypothetical), but it's nice to hear about strawmen coming from OT's resident outrage machine
So you can make baseless claims that argue against the reality of a posters character just because? Because of what? Because if you want to play drama games I could talk about real nonsense that some have said. It adds nothing of substance tho. Just as your rant against a strawman adds nothing. Yet you feel that adds anything to the discussion? Gotcha.
so you can pretend i didn't actually make a case that his argument was bunk because he (and you, apparently) took disproportionate offense to a single part of the next post (which literally starts with conceding part of the argument)? typical.
When you make a whole ranting post that are claims about a person's character that are blatantly false how else is it to be read? You're disproportionately outraged at a ghost. I ask you again: what does that add to the discussion? I sincerely hope you reflect on that.
first of all, i'm gonna guess it's not a "blatant falsehood" given what spoiled milk's subsequent post spelled out: "you post about X, we post that X isn't the case because Y, you switch to Z without addressing Y" wasn't even the linchpin of either of those posts. between pointing out the national archives memo, admitting the private server violated policy, defending poligaf's credibility, and then criticizing his behavior as being disingenuous, those first three things are 1) pretty vital to the post making any sense and 2) are, taken alone, greater contributions to this thread than anything you have posted as yet. and yet the hypothetical within that critique was the only thing he bothered responding to at first.
ditto going off about the "classified markings" thing after there was a DoD employee (and military attorney) in-thread commenting about it who would clearly know what the hell they're talking about. gonna have to say, that's making my critique almost look too mild, because now we're talking about intentionally bad reading comprehension.
second of all, i'm about as outraged as i should be - i'm mildly annoyed that these email threads keep going nowhere because certain posters keep arguing in circles with no apparent end goal short of "she needs to resign", and devoted a single post to that fact. (plus, like, it's pretty ironic that you're talking about projection and then disproportionate outrage, given what your entire moderation history consists of)
so you can pretend i didn't actually make a case that his argument was bunk because he took disproportionate offense to a single part of the next post (which literally starts with conceding part of the argument)? typical.
When you make a whole ranting post that are claims about a person's character that are blatantly false how else is it to be read? You're disproportionately outraged at a ghost. I ask you again: what does that add to the discussion? I sincerely hope you reflect on that.
I am only about halfway through reading the report and found this which disturbs me. Either she played dumb to the FBI regarding her understanding of what constitutes sensitive information and how it should be handled in order to skirt legal ramifications OR she really did not know or care to learn the proper way to handle the type of information her job revolves around. The former would assume guilt and the latter assumes incompetence. I can't decide which is worse.
Forgive the formatting, I am posting from my phone. Bolder sections are mine.
From page: 26
Clinton's Statements Related to Classified E-mails Found on Her Personal Server Systems
On July 2, 2016, the FBI interviewed Clinton. Clinton was aware she was an Original Classification Authority (OCA) at State; however, she could not recall how often she used this authority nor could she recall any training or guidance provided by State. 496 Clinton could not give an example of how the classification of a document was determined; rather she stated there was a process in place at State before her tenure, and she relied on career foreign service professionals to appropriately mark and handle classified information. 497 Clinton believed information should be classified when it relates to the use of sensitive sources, or sensitive deliberations. 498 When asked whether she believed information should be classified if its unauthorized release would cause damage to national 499 security, Clinton responded "yes, that is the understanding."
Clinton did not recall receiving any e-mails she thought should not have been on an 500 unclassified system. She relied on State officials to use their judgment when e-mailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information 501 she received at her e-mail address. The FBI provided Clinton with copies of her classified e-mails ranging from CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET/SAP and Clinton said she did not believe the e-mails contained classified information. 502 Upon reviewing an e-mail classified SECRET//NOFORN dated December 27, 2011, Clinton stated no policy or practice existed related to communicating around holidays, and it was often necessary to communicate in code or do the best you could to convey the information considering the e-mail system you were using. 503 In reference to the same e-mail, Clinton believed if the foreign press was to obtain information from that e-mail, it would not cause damage to the US Government. 504 When asked, Clinton recalled being briefed on SAP information but could not recall any specific briefing on how to handle SAP information. 505 Clinton stated she knew SAP information was of great importance and needed to be handled carefully. 506
Re: the bolded, seems to me that she thought those particular emails, despite being classified, shouldn't have been classified (i.e. they contained no particular sensitive information)? Not sure how having that opinion indicates guilt or incompetence, really. That is, without having seen the contents of the emails in question, but if she thinks it wouldn't damage the US government if released, then she'd know better than us, I think.
MIMIC: what are you exactly are you trying to get at here? You've admitted that nothing she did constitutes a criminal offense, so what are you actually arguing here? That she shouldn't go to prison but she should be ineligible for running for president?
While this is surely true for some folks that do not want Hillary as president, this statement has been used far too much as a blanket defense of every dark/shady/questionable thing Hillary has done.
Questioning Hillary and her actions is not inherently sexist. It's part of any voting citizen's due diligence to ensure that we know who we're voting for.
I've said repeatedly that I don't like either option presented. I'm likely to vote for Hillary because, well, Trump, but that doesn't mean that I'm content with seeing her slide on being dishonest just because of the boogeyman on the other side.
People saying sexism are not saying anyone who would dare criticize her is a sexist. What we're saying is that throughout her career, Hillary has gotten more criticism and scrutiny than any other person for things that a lot of politicians do. Not everyone criticizing her is sexist, but the fact that she gets disproportionately criticized, even though she's not worse than many other people who don't get nearly as much criticism, can likely partly be explained to be due to sexism
MIMIC: what are you exactly are you trying to get at here? You've admitted that nothing she did constitutes a criminal offense, so what are you actually arguing here? That she shouldn't go to prison but she should be ineligible for running for president?
oh, that's what he's arguing? i couldn't tell from the last 50 threads about the same thing where he made it abundantly obvious in multiple posts, while we're still vaguely on the subject of "adding things" to a "discussion" that's been rehashed harder than the musou series
Nobody is perfect. Name me a single political leader and I will name you a lapse of judgment at some point. But if I can name just one or two, instead of 300 (e.g. Trump), then really, who cares?
first of all, i'm gonna guess it's not a "blatant falsehood" given what spoiled milk's subsequent post spelled out: "you post about X, we post that X isn't the case because Y, you switch to Z without addressing Y" wasn't even the linchpin of either of those posts. between pointing out the national archives memo, admitting the private server violated policy, defending poligaf's credibility, and then criticizing his behavior as being disingenuous, those first three things are 1) pretty vital to the post making any sense and 2) are, taken alone, greater contributions to this thread than anything you have posted as yet. and yet the hypothetical within that critique was the only thing he bothered responding to at first.
ditto going off about the "classified markings" thing after there was a DoD employee (and military attorney) in-thread commenting about it who would clearly know what the hell they're talking about. gonna have to say, that's making my critique almost look too mild, because now we're talking about intentionally bad reading comprehension.
second of all, i'm about as outraged as i should be - i'm mildly annoyed that these email threads keep going nowhere because certain posters keep arguing in circles with no apparent end goal short of "she needs to resign", and devoted a single post to that fact. (plus, like, it's pretty ironic that you're talking about projection and then disproportionate outrage, given what your entire moderation history consists of)
So you stand by blatant character assassination posts that have nothing to do with the topic and aren't even exactly true? Just want to make sure as that seems to be the case. You standing by that, I mean.
If we want to talk about projection and outrage I could endlessly discuss the accusations of sexism laid against those critcizing Hillary. especially considering the treatment women who were Bernie surrogates got. Or really anything during the primaries. Like racist Melanin questions. Denial of LGBT history, harassment of xyz while reflecting other characteristics in question. Etc etc. Again, I could, but what does that add to the here and now outside of observing continued behaviors that some but not all exhibit? Nothing so what's the point. There are real and slighted wounds and your arguments do nothing to help either move along.
If you want to discuss my moderation history which consisted of 1) ban for being disgusted with the harassment I got from one specific poster and 2) an extremely long ban for a harmless joke I knew was dumb (especially in comparison to the slaps on the wrist others have gotten for numerous outright insulting arguments) by all means I again must implore you. What does any of it have to do with any form of honest discussion?
You continually avoid the question and instead rely on insulting the other in your conversations. All you've shown me is that that is your crux. If you can't reflect and instead want to cause only drama then what is the point of talking with you? As far as I can see there is none. And it will remain that way til you consider a person for who they are rather than what you want them to be. I ask you to do simply that.
oh, that's what he's arguing? i couldn't tell from the last 50 threads about the same thing where he made it abundantly obvious in multiple posts, while we're still vaguely on the subject of "adding things" to a "discussion" that's been rehashed harder than the musou series
Ok but what makes you think you can make baseless claims that argue against the reality of a posters character just because? Because of what? Because if you want to play drama games I could talk about real nonsense that some have said. It adds nothing of substance tho. Just as your rant against a strawman adds nothing. Yet you feel that adds anything to the discussion? Gotcha.
Nobody is perfect. Name me a single political leader and I will name you a lapse of judgment at some point. But if I can name just one or two, instead of 300 (e.g. Trump), then really, who cares?
[10:36 AM] passengerpigeon: in other news
[10:36 AM] passengerpigeon: SOME STATE EMPLOYEES EVEN WORSE AT EMAIL THAN CLINTON
[10:36 AM] Sea Manky: oh dear god
[10:36 AM] Sea Manky: I'm dying
[10:37 AM] Sea Manky: WE'VE RECIEVED A COMMUNICATION FROM THE MYSTERIOUS, "H" AGAIN
oh, that's what he's arguing? i couldn't tell from the last 50 threads about the same thing where he made it abundantly obvious in multiple posts, while we're still vaguely on the subject of "adding things" to a "discussion" that's been rehashed harder than the musou series
If you don't care (which is the vibe I get from this post), why are you here? Hillary's fuck ups are a huge public interest, which is they the FBI released the info (twice). It's always going to be a discussion, despite how "rehashed" you feel it is.
well, mainly the fact that she did "do something about it" (in that she delegated the responsibility for server encryption to someone trusting them to actually do that, after which that someone proceeded to not actually do anything) has already been discussed ad nauseam alongside the fact that she's repeatedly taken full responsibility for everything that transpired
The National Archives did not issue their recommendation, and State did not implement a regulation, against using personal email for conducting official business until several months after Clinton left office.
Now, bear in mind that the other half of the argument is valid: the private email server was what violated State policy, and that's definitely not an ex post facto argument. (But it is disingenuous if you want to claim there was any wrongdoing by a standard outside of the department - because, well, there wasn't.)
2) So aside from this thing that this adds to a discussion of the here and now, namely one poster continually seeming to not actually want to discuss anything in good faith in the here and now given that his posting style consists of "repeat the same things to people like they haven't already seen it and discussed every known aspect of it dozens of times", there's nothing?
2b) So now it's "not exactly true" when before it was "blatantly false". Neat!
3) Sure you could endlessly discuss those things - especially the melanin post, which was made upwards of half a year ago, which was "racist" against white people (because shock, horror, my personal experience from the third-party voters I know, from my majority-black hometown, and from my life as a mixed person led me to believe it was only white people who could flat-out not give a shit if Trump was elected), which I apologized for within an hour on the grounds that I was a dick and couldn't possibly know Sneakers' background, and along which lines I've made a total of zero posts since. And everyone will tune you out. At least with MIMIC we get a deflection to something that's still on topic.
If you can't reflect and instead want to cause only drama then what is the point of talking with you?
On one hand: While repeatedly directly addressing some of MIMIC's arguments in an attempt to figure out what the hell his endgame is, exactly, I conduct myself as a bit of a dick, have probably mastered too well the art of insulting people on here without flirting with a ban, and have too low of a link-to-word-count ratio.
On the other hand: You're tone policing and have literally contributed nothing else to the thread.
If you don't care (which is the vibe I get from this post), why are you here? Hillary's fuck ups are a huge public interest, which is they the FBI released the info (twice). It's always going to be a discussion, despite how "rehashed" you feel it is.
I care, insofar as I want perspectives on display that aren't "we should keep talking about this thing Clinton apologized for repeatedly as if she personally killed the Pope yesterday and doubled down on justifying it". Like, she fucked up. She apologized. HillGAF, writ large, gets it, and increasingly so does OT. So do you want her to resign or not? If not, what is actually gained by continuing to harp on as if the preceding three sentences aren't the case?
And it's always going to be a discussion in the same sense that Hello Games' numerous fuckups will always be one: we get it, it happened, we've Diablosed to hell and back that her answer to press questions about it doesn't come off as contrite because we get the very real trust issues she has as a candidate. Christ almighty we don't need to get reminded that it happened.
And you can't even say that I'm shifting the argument when the entire thing is about her violating State Department policy....while you move the argument to some other policy that Hillary tried to get away with on a technicality (and even they wouldn't let her get away with it on that).
You said "But it is disingenuous if you want to claim there was any wrongdoing by a standard outside of the department - because, well, there wasn't."
I'm glad you did! I'm just saying, that wasn't some irrelevant shitshow memo I threw in for funsies, it was meant to directly address part of your argument.
Though while we're responding to each other on that point: I didn't mean to bring across that I thought there was nothing ethically wrong, just that there was nothing else functionally stopping her. (Also that info sec in the federal government is [still] comically bad.)
It was definitely an ethical violation - just one that I don't weigh particularly high when I consider everyone else in Washington. Like I said - HillGAF ain't excusing her, we just think the good things outweigh the bad.
And you can't even say that I'm shifting the argument when the entire thing is about her violating State Department policy....while you move the argument to some other policy that Hillary tried to get away with on a technicality (and even they wouldn't let her get away with it on that).
Fair point, but even her violation of State policy (which you may note I've already conceded was the case twice now) is explicitly something that wouldn't have gotten her (or anyone else, apparently) fired.
Would we need to discuss X government official getting a stern reprimand to nearly this degree? Would we need to only in the event that it was a department head? Or do we need to do that only if they're running for President?
I mean, aside from everyone implying it who wanted some kind of repercussions beyond what has already happened before/after the Comey report...
If there wasn't a non-State standard being violated, respectfully, why the hell should I care?
If the FBI and any other investigative agency have deemed that there are no disqualifying acts for the office of President let alone any behavior of a more strongly negative tenor than "old person did a handful of unethical things that ultimately don't seem to have had any material impact on national security or defense because old person doesn't understand email", then I'mma just go through the following thought process:
1. She's at least somewhat unethical.
2. The third party candidates are either less competent than 2000 Jose Lima or they're fundamentally opposed to everything I stand for except for legal weed.
3. The Republican candidate is neo-Hitler.
4. Plus, like, one of the fundamental aspects of American politics is hiding (or not hiding) unethical behavior and hoping no one finds it among all the other people's shit - Sierra Blanca, anyone?
5. Welp, fuck it, voting for her.
1) I have addressed plenty of questions relevant to the thread (and particularly MIMIC's ever-shifting argument), actually:
2) So aside from this thing that this adds to a discussion of the here and now, namely one poster continually seeming to not actually want to discuss anything in good faith in the here and now given that his posting style consists of "repeat the same things to people like they haven't already seen it and discussed every known aspect of it dozens of times", there's nothing?
2b) So now it's "not exactly true" when before it was "blatantly false". Neat!
3) Sure you could endlessly discuss those things - especially the melanin post, which was made upwards of half a year ago, which was "racist" against white people (because shock, horror, my personal experience from the third-party voters I know, from my majority-black hometown, and from my life as a mixed person led me to believe it was only white people who could flat-out not give a shit if Drumpf was elected), which I apologized for within an hour on the grounds that I was a dick and couldn't possibly know Sneakers' background, and along which lines I've made a total of zero posts since. And everyone will tune you out. At least with MIMIC we get a deflection to something that's still on topic.
On one hand: While repeatedly directly addressing some of MIMIC's arguments in an attempt to figure out what the hell his endgame is, exactly, I conduct myself as a bit of a dick, have probably mastered too well the art of insulting people on here without flirting with a ban, and have too low of a link-to-word-count ratio.
On the other hand: You're tone policing and have literally contributed nothing else to the thread.
Given you've devoted whole posts to more or less blatantly false character assassination, I have to question how on-topic you are truly being here. You aren't arguing anywhere close to good-faith here.
From my casual observation I'm not really noticing what you claim to be the case here. If you can demonstrate otherwise I would still disagree with your conduct but I would understand it at the very least. My observation comes from your perception that seems to stem from a disdain for anyone criticizing Hillary. I agree, the e-mail thing is more than a bit out played at this point. It's really rather beaten to death at this point to discuss. If one wants to discuss it though I'm not going to hold it against them myself.
I'm using different terms to say the same thing. Whether you want to pick at tiny differences in word usage or not is none of my concern. I just don't want to have to hammer such a simple point home but you seem adamant to keep on riding it.
I already said I could but I wouldn't. Precisely because that was the past. All I can use in reference to that is to infer that you haven't really changed all that much in your general conduct given what I have seen. I'm not going to hold that past to you. Though you most definitely are to me since you're the one who first brought the past up. However we certainly have a different view of my past. But of that I am not the least bit surprised, I digress. Suffice it to say, I am going to take note of continued behaviors. You're the one who has been continually trying to bring up the past to slight me (again, it has nothing to do with the discussion) when all I'm doing is proposing that your argumentation style in the here and now contributes absolutely nothing outside of creating more toxicity. You aren't actually thinking about a person's character when you respond to them but rather what you want their character to be. It's a strawman. Plain and simple. I implore you yet again to think of a person as who they are rather than what you want them to be.
I'm not tone-policing. I'm addressing problematic argumentation styles that do nothing in regards to being related to discussion and rather continue to propagate pointless arguments. If you're going to take the rails off-topic then I'm going to address how 1) you are being off-topic and 2) how it doesn't help relations between individuals in the least. I'm not necessarily pointing out you in particular as though it's some grand issue only you have in regards to the behaviors of which I am discussing but you are most certainly demonstrating such behaviors right now.
You can either take things to heart or not. I'm not forcing anything on you. That said I'm not going to just sit by and watch said behaviors play out either. That's all.
If you read the entire report, you'll find bits and pieces that might show poor judgment on Hillary's part. The initial decision to use one email device is the obvious one, something that Hillary has acknowledged repeatedly. Anothermaybeis her staff's view of what was safe to send over unclassified email. But this is very fuzzy. It could be that her staff knew exactly what it was doing, and it's the subsequent classification authorities who are wrong. This is something that it's impossible to judge since none of us will ever see the emails in question.
That said, this report is pretty much an almost complete exoneration of Hillary Clinton. She wasn't prohibited from using a personal device or a personal email account, and others at state did it routinely. She's told the truth all along about why she did it. Colin Powell did indeed advise her about using personal email shortly after she took office, but she chose to follow the rules rather than skirt them, as Powell did. She didn't take her BlackBerry into her office. She communicated with only a very select group of 13 people. She took no part in deciding which emails were personal before handing them over to State. She had nothing to do with erasing information on the PRN server. That was a screw-up on PRN's end. She and her staff all believed at the time that they were careful not to conduct sensitive conversations over unclassified email systems. And there's no evidence that her server was ever hacked.
There's remarkably little here. If you nonetheless believe that it's enough to disqualify Hillary from the presidency, that's fine. I have no quarrel with you. But if the FBI is to be believed, it's all pretty small beer.
How's this for self-reflection: we're in an argument about how toxic my argumentation style appears to be (in a thread that itself follows several months of bad-faith posting in general about the emails from most comers, with zero real pushback except for a couple thread closures), in a thread that basically outlines that the only "there" in any relevant argument has to do with optics. Per the MJ article Raiden just posted:
That said, this report is pretty much an almost complete exoneration of Hillary Clinton. She wasn't prohibited from using a personal device or a personal email account, and others at state did it routinely. She's told the truth all along about why she did it. Colin Powell did indeed advise her about using personal email shortly after she took office, but she chose to follow the rules rather than skirt them, as Powell did. She didn't take her BlackBerry into her office. She communicated with only a very select group of 13 people. She took no part in deciding which emails were personal before handing them over to State. She had nothing to do with erasing information on the PRN server. That was a screw-up on PRN's end. She and her staff all believed at the time that they were careful not to conduct sensitive conversations over unclassified email systems. And there's no evidence that her server was ever hacked.
We're arguing about optics in a thread that basically lays down that its subject material is about optics!
I'll admit I conduct myself like a jackass on a regular basis and tend to bring up character concerns more often than I probably should, but that's in large part because I'm sick of seeing the exact same discussion playing out in every thread that so much as mentions the Democratic nominee ad infinitum. I'm annoyed by Team Alucard's drive-bys, I'm annoyed by MIMIC's decision that "I distrust Clinton" is apparently what everyone wants to read in every thread, I'm annoyed by the non-capitalized Diablos arguing in bad faith.
(Mostly I'm annoyed that this election cycle still hasn't fucking ended.)
But, like, none of this is germane to the fact that there is nothing new left to discuss about the emails.
At some point, Clinton's emails reached the NMS thread level of saturation with regards to new and exciting one-line developments-but-not-really having entire threads devoted to them. (Or maybe NMS reached Clinton email levels of saturation.) Either way, it's getting obnoxious to continue to see discussion of the emails when all of the pertinent facts and spin cycles are right there, and particularly when no one's going to change their goddamn mind.
My observation comes from your perception that seems to stem from a disdain for anyone criticizing Hillary
I mean, I objectively don't feel any disdain for most of the people on this site who have criticized Clinton (though that's mainly because most of them haven't arbitrarily decided that PoliGAF must never again suffer them). Where that's not the case, they're either Trump supporters or I've already otherwise mentioned them by name.
I hope that in a few years even the people thinking Clinton is untrustworthy come around and think : wtf was that shit all about emails? Twas fucking nothing.
