|
46166. Trillium - 2/8/2016 6:09:11 PM As someone who was held back by gender in the 1960s-70s-80s, I can sympathize with some of HRC's obstacles -- especially when haters crack on her physical appearance (which is just fine, even excellent). If you are part of the diehard HRC support network, someone should tell you about issues that probably aren't crossing *your* news feed, but that show up for more independent viewers.
A powerful person's private email server used for proprietary business secrets/HIPAA materials etc. could easily result in that person being fired. Most low-level employees are made aware of this (and citizens born after 1990 are more likely to hold females in high positions of power to the same standards as males).
It is not clear what happened to someone in government, male or female, who sent out a "reply to all" memo in 2000 -- but according to this article from Wired, a deadly mistake occurred:
Wired on "Pizza" "...the CIA...has an unfortunate streak of self-pwnage...New York Times national security reporter Jim Risen reported that in 2000, the CIA accidently exposed its entire network of Iranian contacts thanks to a boneheaded reply-all mishap..."
Now fast forward a decade later to to 2011. Some dreadful mistake took down the entire U.S. intelligence network around Iran. Reply-all mistake? Or a private server could have been hacked? ABC on Middle East network disaster " Hezbollah's leader...announced in June of this year that two high-ranking members of Hezbollah had been exposed as CIA spies, leading U.S. officials to conclude that the entire network inside Hezbollah had been compromised...Some former U.S. intelligence officials say the developments are the result of a lack of professionalism in the U.S. intelligence community. "We've lost the tradition of espionage," said one former official who still consults for the U.S. intelligence community. "Officers take short cuts and no one is held accountable," he said."
Does the example of "shortcuts" come from the top? This transgression would get most people fired. They understand why they would get fired. If HRC is an exception to this rule, she is going to have to explain how and why. Maybe you can explain this to her? Many people are insulted that she is running, given the transgression.
46167. arkymalarky - 2/8/2016 7:42:11 PM For a minute there I thought you Were referring to Condoleezza Rice, and I thought is she running for president? 46168. arkymalarky - 2/8/2016 7:44:40 PM Of course, probably my news feed is clogged up with left Wing socialist propaganda, as opposed to News feeds of independent viewers such as yourself. 46169. judithathome - 2/8/2016 10:06:51 PM Mine is, too...isn't that odd?
We, the great "uninformed"...just how DO we manage to maneuver through this muddled world unassisted by those more "in the know"?
Tsk, tsk.... 46170. Trillium - 2/9/2016 12:39:35 AM "Tsk tsk" won't satisfy people in the U.S. and overseas who are bereaved and damaged because their interests and well-being were of no concern to the powerful. American power has diminished greatly in the last decades. After a certain point of weakness, that government won't be able to look out for you, either, even if you expect them to [because of the circumstances earlier in your life].
"Tsk tsk" does not address the issues that a great many people are concerned about, silently or not-so-silently. Talk with your conscience -- this isn't about me 46171. arkymalarky - 2/9/2016 1:27:37 AM This might not be about you, but you're incredibly transparent. 46172. arkymalarky - 2/9/2016 1:36:07 AM And this false narrative that America is getting weaker is growing very tiresome. Again, totally transparent and kind of sad. 46173. arkymalarky - 2/9/2016 1:38:46 AM Sad that the right-wingers had to start dissing their country in order to advance their argument when they found that not only was it possible to not get their way once in the presidential election, was possible to do it twice in a row. 46174. judithathome - 2/9/2016 3:27:40 AM "Tsk tsk" does not address the issues that a great many people are concerned about, silently or not-so-silently. Talk with your conscience -- this isn't about me
Oh, but it WAS...wholly.
You come in here and insult those whom you accuse of not being smart enough to know as much as YOU do and you can bet your ass you're going be called out on it. 46175. Trillium - 2/9/2016 5:52:21 AM I don't give a damn about your "offended" "insulted" act -- even HRC acknowledged recently that acting "offended" has gone beyond reason.
HRC needs to explain, perhaps not to you but to plenty of other interested citizens, why she was not obliged to abide by the same rules as everyone else (especially when so much has been at stake, and the losses have been so enormous.) The need for an explanation about the server security lapses is not a bit "sexist" and serving up that lame excuse, betrays feminism 46176. iiibbb - 2/9/2016 3:19:22 PM I pretty much just figure that if there were more to Clinton's email scandal the 8-ish investigations by a rabid conservative machhine would've dug it up by now. Also in the realm of screw ups this is maybe a 3 on the Richter scale (for me) in the grand scheme of things.
I'm not registered with a party so I am not permitted to vote in primaries in my state... I'll vote for either one of them because the primary thing I care about is the Supreme Court and not giving current Republicans a free hand by having a majority Senate and House coupled with a R president.... that scares me more than the email scandel flat out.
So nominate either... I like Sanders fine.... I like Clinton (and I haven't always liked Clinton). Either of them brings pluses and minuses to the table, but they're 100 times better than any "Republican" on the table. 46177. Trillium - 2/9/2016 7:48:15 PM Don't know if you already heard of "Honest Gil" Fulbright, iiibbb.... but some have him poised for a 2016 presidential run! (Fulbright was a 2014 Kentucky candidate against McConnell/the guy who ran against McConnell, IIRC)
"Honest Gil" Fulbright
TIME on Gil Fulbright 46178. judithathome - 2/9/2016 9:33:25 PM The thing I want to know about the "email scandal" is why no one SENDING or RECEIVING emails that might have been and/or were later were deemed to be confidential never spoke up when this was going on? No one from the State Department thought it odd that emails addressed to "SuperGran@ AOL.com" or some such was an odd place for a Secretary of State to be RECEIVING emails concerning the fate of the world? 46179. judithathome - 2/9/2016 9:43:32 PM I just might vote for Gary Johnson this time around...don't agree with him on everything but with enough to take him more seriously than any of the Republicans!
(only HALF seriously....please note.) 46180. iiibbb - 2/9/2016 10:04:56 PM Nominate Gil if you like... I don't care. Clinton's email scandal even if true pales in comparison to lying about WMD's, Torture, the stock market crash, Interfering with the Bush/Gore vote, Disenfranchising voters today, Iran/Contra, . . .
Just to name a few...
When members of the Bush administration get indited on war crimes I'll worry about Clinton's emails
Again... nominate whoever... I'm voting purely to ensure the SCOTUS is aligned properly. 46181. judithathome - 2/9/2016 10:13:11 PM That's an important factor...though anyone that isn't "rabidly right" will be blocked by the Republican Congress...they have that in their sights and won't care WHO they put in the WH as long as it's a Republican....
I guess you and I are saying the same thing, though...anyone BUT a Republican. 46182. judithathome - 2/10/2016 4:07:05 AM Bernie and Trump take New Hampshire.....(eyeroll)
46183. judithathome - 2/10/2016 4:08:20 AM Oh wow...Kasich beat out Cruz for second on the Republican side!! You go, guy! 46184. iiibbb - 2/10/2016 4:42:50 AM I like Kasich... unfortunately I can't vote for him the balance of powers the way they are. 46185. arkymalarky - 2/10/2016 6:23:40 AM Yeah, I really like kasich a lot. I love what Bernie has to say, even though I'm going to vote for Hillary.
|
