Octopus Overlords

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 17, 2018 1:13 pm Thanks.

Winning is all I ever wanted.

Ah crap, I’ll have to cancel the medal I ordered for you. Also sorry for the overreaction.

gbasden wrote: ↑Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:34 pm [quote=Fitzy post_id=2577094 time=<a href="tel:1529241611">1529241611</a> user_id=171]
Lost in the nonsense about classified information and should she be locked up or given a medal, is that she did intentionally violate the requirements to keep the emails for the public record. I am pretty certain this is an administrative violation as opposed to a criminal one, which is probably why the Republicans ignored it, but I still think it shows Hillary Clinton's priorities in regards to her own importance.

Had she been running against anyone except Donald Trump, her choice to ignore the right of the public to have access to that information should have disqualified her. Or, at a minimum, been an important factor in the voters decision.

However, she was running against Donald Trump and the whole thing should have been tossed out the window in order to keep Trump from becoming president. Or, I suppose, the Democrats could have chosen a less controversial candidate.

I agree. Her baggage should have disqualified her from running, even though at least she is very competant. I still really, really wish Biden had run.
[/quote]

I suspect she could have been a damn good president if given the chance. I think underneath the reputation she was more qualified than all but a handful of our past presidents. I think she was open to compromise, while being tough enough to stand up to bullies. But I also suspect there was no chance the GOP would have allowed that.

And I still have no idea how corrupt she may have been and how much was overstated and how much was poor choices in reaction to what the GOP did to smear with the reputation of corruption. That’s all I think her email scandle was. A mistaken attempt to avoid having her words twisted and used against her. It was a bad choice given our open records laws. But I empathize with her feeling the need to make that choice.While at the same time the Clintons make it hard to trust them with some of what they’ve done. I have no idea if they are guilty of crap or just look guilty.

Fitzy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:41 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 17, 2018 1:13 pm Thanks.

Winning is all I ever wanted.

Ah crap, I’ll have to cancel the medal I ordered for you. Also sorry for the overreaction.

gbasden wrote: ↑Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:34 pm [quote=Fitzy post_id=2577094 time=<a href="tel:1529241611">1529241611</a> user_id=171]
Lost in the nonsense about classified information and should she be locked up or given a medal, is that she did intentionally violate the requirements to keep the emails for the public record. I am pretty certain this is an administrative violation as opposed to a criminal one, which is probably why the Republicans ignored it, but I still think it shows Hillary Clinton's priorities in regards to her own importance.

Had she been running against anyone except Donald Trump, her choice to ignore the right of the public to have access to that information should have disqualified her. Or, at a minimum, been an important factor in the voters decision.

However, she was running against Donald Trump and the whole thing should have been tossed out the window in order to keep Trump from becoming president. Or, I suppose, the Democrats could have chosen a less controversial candidate.

I agree. Her baggage should have disqualified her from running, even though at least she is very competant. I still really, really wish Biden had run.


I suspect she could have been a damn good president if given the chance. I think underneath the reputation she was more qualified than all but a handful of our past presidents. I think she was open to compromise, while being tough enough to stand up to bullies. But I also suspect there was no chance the GOP would have allowed that.

And I still have no idea how corrupt she may have been and how much was overstated and how much was poor choices in reaction to what the GOP did to smear with the reputation of corruption. That’s all I think her email scandle was. A mistaken attempt to avoid having her words twisted and used against her. It was a bad choice given our open records laws. But I empathize with her feeling the need to make that choice.While at the same time the Clintons make it hard to trust them with some of what they’ve done. I have no idea if they are guilty of crap or just look guilty.

I don't know. I've already said that I think more highly of Hillary after reading Robert Gates book. She took a lot more positions I would have agreed with than I expected, not to mention in opposition to many others. Biden though took a hit more than Hillary gained. Talk about wrong on just about everything, I would even take Obama over Biden now. That wasn't true before the book.

Fitzy wrote: I suspect she could have been a damn good president if given the chance. I think underneath the reputation she was more qualified than all but a handful of our past presidents. I think she was open to compromise, while being tough enough to stand up to bullies. But I also suspect there was no chance the GOP would have allowed that.

And I still have no idea how corrupt she may have been and how much was overstated and how much was poor choices in reaction to what the GOP did to smear with the reputation of corruption. That’s all I think her email scandle was. A mistaken attempt to avoid having her words twisted and used against her. It was a bad choice given our open records laws. But I empathize with her feeling the need to make that choice.While at the same time the Clintons make it hard to trust them with some of what they’ve done. I have no idea if they are guilty of crap or just look guilty.

The GOP literally spent years investigating her and never found anything to charge her with. they made a battle cry out of Benghazi and Emails because the stink of investigation was enough for their base. I don't know that she is squeaky clean but I'd be willing to bet she was the cleanest lifelong politician in a very very very long time.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/22/fbi-i ... -messages/

According to the recently released inspector general report, on September 28 and 29, 2016 the New York office of the FBI immediately reported to the Washington headquarters its discovery of, first, 141,000 and then 350,000 emails on the laptop of Anthony Weiner — also known as “Carlos Danger,” a now-convicted sex offender. Mr. Weiner is the husband of Hillary Clinton’s inseparable aide Huma Abedin.

Now we know by October 4, the New York office had found 700,000 emails. The New York agents had seen and reported to FBI leadership they had seen email headers, all domain names, Mrs. Clinton’s initials on one sensitive but not classified document, and the missing BlackBerry backups.

The New York agents described it as the “entire file” of all Hillary Clinton emails from 2006 until 2016, including the BlackBerry messages that Comey himself had referred to as “the golden emails.”

This could get ugly.

You mean it could sink HRC's candidacy??

BENGHAZI!

Rip wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:23 pm This could get ugly.

If Trump can get away with selling out our country to Russia, I doubt this will result in anything beyond a couple of angry tweet at 3am.

26 years they've been after her. Twenty. Six. Years. That's basically my entire adult life that the wingnut faction has been obsessed with HRC. I just don't get it.

Just when she thought she was out, they pull her back in.

Let her go, GOP. It's long past embarrassing. Creepy doesn't begin to describe it.

Edit:. Wait, what's new here? This is exactly what was going on 2 weeks before the election. What brings this up now, 2 years later?

geezer wrote: I just don't get it.

Anyone want to take bets as to if they'd be after a man that long? The fact she's a liberal angers them. The fact that she's a liberal woman *infuriates* them.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 5:42 pm

geezer wrote: I just don't get it.

Anyone want to take bets as to if they'd be after a man that long? The fact she's a liberal angers them. The fact that she's a liberal woman *infuriates* them.

That... Woman....

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 5:15 pm Just when she thought she was out, they pull her back in.

Let her go, GOP. It's long past embarrassing. Creepy doesn't begin to describe it.

Edit:. Wait, what's new here? This is exactly what was going on 2 weeks before the election. What brings this up now, 2 years later?

This was discussed in the IG's report. What's weird is that this makes the FBI look bad in an anti-Clinton way. Basically they found the Weiner e-mail cash in late September. The Comey letter, which was about said discovery, was sent in late October (and cost Clinton the election). There's really no good reason why the FBI couldn't have sufficiently analyzed those e-mails before sending the Comey letter - they had more than a month to work with.

You would need a scorecard to keep up with Trump's GOP and their ever shifting narrative as to who did what to whom. One minute the FBI are heroes for investigating Hillary, the next they're the bad guys for investigating Hillary, tomorrow they'll be the good guys again. It's impossible to track any narrative with that many liars involved. Trump being the biggest of the bunch.

geezer wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 5:10 pm 26 years they've been after her. Twenty. Six. Years. That's basically my entire adult life that the wingnut faction has been obsessed with HRC. I just don't get it.

Her super power is that only true conservatives can see her crimes.

I think I said this elsewhere but I should say it in her thread I guess. I am actually less anti-hillary at this moment than I have ever been. Pretty much solely based on Robert Gates book. See how easy that was.


I would totally vote for her over Biden now. Or Obama for that matter.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but who gives a shit what you think about the boogeyman.

Rip wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:25 pm I think I said this elsewhere but I should say it in her thread I guess. I am actually less anti-hillary at this moment than I have ever been. Pretty much solely based on Robert Gates book. See how easy that was.


I would totally vote for her over Biden now. Or Obama for that matter.

Who the hell cares what you think?

Seriously.

Glad you read something.

Sorry y’all. I can’t get on that train. If someone admits in good faith that new information has caused them to change a previously held view I think that deserves more than just an angry dismissal.

geezer wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:25 am Sorry y’all. I can’t get on that train. If someone admits in good faith that new information has caused them to change a previously held view I think that deserves more than just an angry dismissal.

+1

Rip wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:25 pm I think I said this elsewhere but I should say it in her thread I guess. I am actually less anti-hillary at this moment than I have ever been. Pretty much solely based on Robert Gates book. See how easy that was.


I would totally vote for her over Biden now. Or Obama for that matter.

Would you vote her over Trump?

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:32 am

geezer wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:25 am Sorry y’all. I can’t get on that train. If someone admits in good faith that new information has caused them to change a previously held view I think that deserves more than just an angry dismissal.

+1

I'd normally hold the same feelings... but I'm pretty sure you guys missed his set-up. This isn't a positive Clinton statement, it's a precursor to some future anti-Biden stance he plans to take in the next year or two.

So, yeah - I am happy if this was Rip saying Clinton actually wasn't any of those things he has said for years a billion times about Clinton... I highly doubt it's really what you two are saying it is.

Unagi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:52 am

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:32 am

geezer wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:25 am Sorry y’all. I can’t get on that train. If someone admits in good faith that new information has caused them to change a previously held view I think that deserves more than just an angry dismissal.

+1

I'd normally hold the same feelings... but I'm pretty sure you guys missed his set-up. This isn't a positive Clinton statement, it's a precursor to some future anti-Biden stance he plans to take in the next year or two.

So, yeah - I am happy if this was Rip saying Clinton actually wasn't any of those things he has said for years a billion times about Clinton... I highly doubt it's really what you two are saying it is.

I’m not saying it is or it isn’t. I’m just saying that dismissing it out of hand seems rude.

geezer wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:25 am Sorry y’all. I can’t get on that train. If someone admits in good faith that new information has caused them to change a previously held view I think that deserves more than just an angry dismissal.

Oh come on. If you think anything rip says is in good faith or you enjoy trying to figure out what is insane stances versus pure trolling, have at it.

We've provided so many opportunities based on facts for him to adjust his stances even slightly on literally anything without a single sign that facts have any impact on his outlook.

We're supposed to believe that a book did what we couldn't? My response to that is fuck you (to rip) for never engaging us honestly before, or fuck you for pretending you've changed stances now.

Rip will often swing between extreme trolling and semi-reasonable posts just to keep people engaged. I like to think of it as him fishing, reeling in his fish and them letting them have some slack to run with so they don't realize they're hooked.

I'm through with Rip. After more than a decade of steadily worsening comments and little to no engagement past what will get him the greatest responses, no more benefit of the doubt.

Just like with Drumpf, it'll take more than a single instance of seemingly sincere and reasonable positions before I am willing to be open-minded about his opinions. I STARTED open-minded, his insanity is what pushed my mind closed about what he had to say.

So feel free to give him credit on this topic if you want, geezer. Just remember this conversation the next time he trolls you with some seemingly insane position in the future.

Remus West wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:42 am

Rip wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:25 pm I think I said this elsewhere but I should say it in her thread I guess. I am actually less anti-hillary at this moment than I have ever been. Pretty much solely based on Robert Gates book. See how easy that was.


I would totally vote for her over Biden now. Or Obama for that matter.

Would you vote her over Trump?

I doubt it but I would have to see that situation to know for sure. The fact that I would consider it is a long road of travel.

Doubt it matters, I can't see them being matched up again.

Unagi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:52 am

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:32 am

geezer wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:25 am Sorry y’all. I can’t get on that train. If someone admits in good faith that new information has caused them to change a previously held view I think that deserves more than just an angry dismissal.

+1

I'd normally hold the same feelings... but I'm pretty sure you guys missed his set-up. This isn't a positive Clinton statement, it's a precursor to some future anti-Biden stance he plans to take in the next year or two.

So, yeah - I am happy if this was Rip saying Clinton actually wasn't any of those things he has said for years a billion times about Clinton... I highly doubt it's really what you two are saying it is.

That certainly is a portion of it, but it isn't just that. Read the book and you will understand my viewpoint.

I can say one thing. I would vote for Robert Gates over Trump in a heartbeat.

geezer wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:25 am Sorry y’all. I can’t get on that train. If someone admits in good faith that new information has caused them to change a previously held view I think that deserves more than just an angry dismissal.

Like a furious or raging dismissal?

geezer wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 9:38 am

Unagi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:52 am

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:32 am

geezer wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:25 am Sorry y’all. I can’t get on that train. If someone admits in good faith that new information has caused them to change a previously held view I think that deserves more than just an angry dismissal.

+1

I'd normally hold the same feelings... but I'm pretty sure you guys missed his set-up. This isn't a positive Clinton statement, it's a precursor to some future anti-Biden stance he plans to take in the next year or two.

So, yeah - I am happy if this was Rip saying Clinton actually wasn't any of those things he has said for years a billion times about Clinton... I highly doubt it's really what you two are saying it is.

I’m not saying it is or it isn’t. I’m just saying that dismissing it out of hand seems rude.

Don't fall for Rip's head games.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 1:31 pm

geezer wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 9:38 am

Unagi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:52 am

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:32 am

geezer wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:25 am Sorry y’all. I can’t get on that train. If someone admits in good faith that new information has caused them to change a previously held view I think that deserves more than just an angry dismissal.

+1

I'd normally hold the same feelings... but I'm pretty sure you guys missed his set-up. This isn't a positive Clinton statement, it's a precursor to some future anti-Biden stance he plans to take in the next year or two.

So, yeah - I am happy if this was Rip saying Clinton actually wasn't any of those things he has said for years a billion times about Clinton... I highly doubt it's really what you two are saying it is.

I’m not saying it is or it isn’t. I’m just saying that dismissing it out of hand seems rude.

Don't fall for Rip's head games.

Please don’t mistake tolerance for naïveté

Make no mistake I still have issues with Clinton. BUT on the most important thing which is/was supporting our troops and win giving them any support they need to win the missions we have sent them into, she I have to admit was more supportive than anyone else in the White House during the Gates period.

Gates made it quite clear that she was his closest ally in the cabinet and the one with the most closely aligned priorities.

Sounds like someone has a crush.

Rip and Hillary, sittin’ In a tree...

If Rip can realize something plain as day (that Hilary was a pragmatic moderate) and that he was misled by the Republican propaganda machine, then maybe there's hope. But only if Gates writes more books. Because all evidence otherwise says he'll continue his willful blindness.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Sun Jun 24, 2018 1:19 pm If Rip can realize something plain as day (that Hilary was a pragmatic moderate) and that he was misled by the Republican propaganda machine, then maybe there's hope. But only if Gates writes more books. Because all evidence otherwise says he'll continue his willful blindness.

It's only because Clinton (out of office and campaigns) is now a second-tier boogeyman. If Clinton were president or senator, she would cease to be ok in Ripworld.

geezer wrote:in good faith

Do you see where you went wrong? Trolls gonna troll. Don’t fall for it.

link

Clinton's email server more secure the Dept of State?

The State Department recently suffered a breach of its unclassified email system, and the compromise exposed the personal information of a small number of employees, according to a notice sent to the agency’s workforce.

State described the incident as “activity of concern … affecting less than 1% of employee inboxes” in a Sept. 7 alert that was shared with POLITICO and confirmed by two U.S. officials.

“We have determined that certain employees’ personally identifiable information (PII) may have been exposed,” the alert said. “We have notified those employees.”

The classified email system was not affected, according to the alert, which was marked “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

They notified the employees. Problem solved.

What more do you want from them?!

Since this thread popped up, Clinton published a piece in the Atlantic yesterday on American democracy in crisis.

I still can't wrap my head around us electing Trump over her.

Years of propaganda.

You see how lost the GOP is without her? 2 years later they're still trying to scapegoat her.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:45 pm Since this thread popped up, Clinton published a piece in the Atlantic yesterday on American democracy in crisis.

I still can't wrap my head around us electing Trump over her.

That article depresses me so thoroughly and I know people that would see the byline, laugh and say she is a sore loser.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:20 pm Years of propaganda.

You see how lost the GOP is without her? 2 years later they're still trying to scapegoat her.

Yeah, I think the real folly in nominating Clinton was that it gave the GOP a multi-year head start in smearing her.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:26 pm

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:20 pm Years of propaganda.

You see how lost the GOP is without her? 2 years later they're still trying to scapegoat her.

Yeah, I think the real folly in nominating Clinton was that it gave the GOP a multi-year head start in smearing her.

Not to worry; Obama is back on the campaign trail.