I am obviously a depraved drooling pervert or something. Every time I see this thread listed, I manage to read the thread title as “Hillary supporters or facesitters”.
You’re not the only one. Porn has polluted my mind. 
Hillary, for my preferences in picking a president, is in an early top chunk of the field when considering potential and declared candidates from either party. Many of my party’s candidates… even make me think I’d volunteer in her campaign. :smack: She still is one of the top. This is pretty minor IMO. If the decision gets so close this has an impact on my vote I’d be surprised.
Ballghazi was already a thing. 
If Hillary does get elected it screws up my favorite term for responding to scandal - Bill Clinton it.
Voodoo? I wish it was as solid and down to earth as voodoo. No, the teapartiers are up there with anal-probing alien abduction believers. Obama? Birthers, Secret Muslim, sworn into office on the Quran, endorsed by the KKK, the Antichrist, a Black panther, and so forth:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp
Honestly, how could anyone with more IQ than a Planerian flatworm support that party, I dont know. Not that all of the GOPs polices are crazy, but they actively support, aid and abet the crazy to stir up mindless hate.
Dear Lord, there really is Hillary porn, isn’t there?
No links, please, I don’t really want to see the proof.
If it keeps Hillary from being elected POTUS, or even on the ticket, it’s a good thing.
Ahh, as I thought. Still, you could’ve just said you’re not delighted. Of course, then you would’ve missed out on the opportunity to use all those "Mrs. Clinton"s…
Speaking of which - Since your gentle chastisement (heh), I’ve given up my evil presumptuous ways. Otherwise I might’ve presumed your repetitive use of “Mrs.” is intended to mock her previously stated preference for “Hillary Rodham Clinton.” Well, that and her years-ago “I guess I could’ve stayed home and baked cookies” comment, which many a conservative Mrs. and Mr. found most unpleasant. Such a presumption would obviously have been an embarrassing reach on my part, I now realize.
By way of thanks for steering me away from such errancy, I hope you’ll accept this mundane forum reply, in lieu of fresh-baked cookies.
It confirms what I think about her, although it does surprise me that at this point in her career she would show such bad judgement. If she’s nominated I’ll vote for her, but I don’t think she’s made any major contributions that would justify becoming president, and she has made some decisions I strongly disagree with, like invading Iraq.
Fence sitter here. I think it is much to do about nothing.
I wish the Dems had a better candidate but this does not lessen my opinion of her at all. It is a really minor issue.
Between Benghazi and Emailghazi, I just may vote for Romney. Not. I hope her opponents keep pushing on these issues until they finally get traction.
Having complete control is certainly, in my mind, the reason for using her private email - that and the fact that she was aware of the option. I disagree that this is poor judgment or rampant paranoia; there is no such thing as paranoia when it comes to Republicans and Clinton.
Have you all forgotten how epically fucked over she and her husband got by a Republican fishing expedition into her finances? Every “scandal” with nothing at its center confirms her opinion of the opposition and the press. I suspect it would take a court order to get her to give them the time of day - she’s certainly not going to give any of them a watch.
Well, then maybe she shouldn’t be president. Because if she thinks the scrutiny is going to go down, she’s not incredibly smart.
I don’t blame her for assuming the Republicans are out to get her. They’re out to get anyone with a D and her more than most. But that doesn’t mean she should get to do whatever she wants to protect herself. Her desire not to be the subject of the outrage du jour shouldn’t give her a pass.
This is a non-issue for a number of reasons. Assuming the facts are correct, she was running her own server at home for e-mail. For those of you non-technical, this does not mean she was using gmail or yahoo mail, she was running her own domain and server. Doing so is not going to be a secret to anyone. There is nothing concealed about this. I run a server at home, and if you got e-mail from me you’d easily know it was from my server and not from someplace else. For those who pay a little attention, you should display the e-mail header for e-mail you get and see the source it came from. It’s how people can figure out if it’s phishing e-mail or just spam made to look like it came from some place else. In other words, if this was a terrible thing to do since 2009, it would have been discovered within a short period of time after e-mail was sent from this server. Why it’s being discussed now in the media and by who is far more interesting than if this was against any rules to do this.
There are a number of very good technical reasons for doing this. If the government or corporation isn’t providing great support for e-mail such as limiting the size of attachments, the number of messages which can be sent out at a time, limiting mailbox sizes, etc. this looks like a good way to make life easy to get away from their system and run your own.
Now before anyone thinks that Clinton is so savvy to request a server at home for her to use, I can well imagine what occurred. She could have complained about the e-mail service to someone on her staff such as perhaps not being able to send e-mail while working from home using the government system. And someone on her staff talked to an IT person who wanted to impress everyone by saying they could set-up cheaply her own server to use at home for e-mail. So they set it up for her, and she is using it. As for it must go through a government system or not, I highly suspect when using it she didn’t know the difference between which was which because once it’s set-up it is highly transparent to the user. She might not be aware of the rules of communications exactly and likely would be surprised to find out she was doing this wrong.
As for e-mail being secure. I have to tell you, e-mail is not secure. It was never designed to be secure. Unless you are sending encrypted attached files with very long cryptic passwords, e-mail is not secure regardless of the server being used. This is why companies tell you to never e-mail your credit card numbers to them, or your social security number, because e-mail is not secure. Some might have better protection for SPAM, but that doesn’t mean they are more secure in regards to the privacy of what is being sent or received. Even for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that .gov mail servers are 100% secure, well, if you have an account on a .gov e-mail system and you are getting e-mail from someone outside of your e-mail system then the e-mail isn’t secured. If you are sitting in the whitehouse and e-mail from their system someone who has a gmail, yahoo, aol or whatever in another country then that e-mail exchange is no longer under any concept of protection from the .gov’s mail server. Again, this is assuming the .gov mail server is any more secure than anyone else’s server on the internet.
I read there are some rules about archiving of government e-mail, and that by having your own e-mail server those messages might not get archived. That remains to be seen, because she could have also archived all those messages on her home server. But we really have to know what the mail server was used for, if it was official government business or was the home server used to communicate to those for her own personal business or to run for another office. Which in that case, that could have been the whole reason the server was set-up in her home to begin with because it wasn’t real government business.
Working in IT, if you wanted your own e-mail server, I can tell you, it isn’t needed to have your own sever at home. You could get them cheap from many online hosting services, which is easier to do and you don’t have to buy any hardware. So why have your own at home? Because with running your own hardware you can have it configured however you like and be able to store as much archived e-mail, attachments, mailing lists, etc. as you have disk space for where on a commercial server it would cost you more money and it could have limitations in what they are willing to provide in terms of service.
Anyone who thinks that Clinton sat down and masterminded all this to decide to have a server at home is kidding themselves. She likely complained about the service or had another need as I described and some IT person on the staff or associated with the staff came up with the home server as a solution. As an IT person and if I really wanted to get more face time with Clinton in hopes to joining her staff or getting a position to do something else in the future, being able to go to her actual home with hardware to set it up and show her how to use is much better than if I had got it connected with a commercial service and just set up her work station in the office when she wasn’t there. Plus I could justify follow-up visits to the home to do backups and upgrades, and of course she would have my cell number for support issues.
Obama polarized people AFTER he was elected. Before he was elected, the biggest criticism I heard voiced was that he lacked experience and was too vague on his proposed solutions.
Compared to HRC, I’d rate his polarity BEFORE 2008 as neutral or even non-polarizing. NOW, I agree that he became polarizing during his Presidency, especially when ObamaCare was rolled out, but not enough to overcome the incumbency edge that all politicians enjoy.
By contrast, HRC has been polarizing people since her husband’s first campaign trail. She made some “Stand by Your Man” comment and people wanted to string her up. There’s just something about her that rankles people.
While I don’t necessarily agree with her positions, she strikes me as being extremely astute and knowledgeable. She’s made some mistakes in judgment (Chris Stevens’ family would surely agree), but nothing that IMO merits the violent hatred people feel toward her. But there it is, whether it’s fair or unfair.
First, unless you are suggesting that she just never did any government business via email, if she wasn’t using this server for “real government business” and wasn’t using government email for real government business, how did the real government business happen?
And second, that it “remains to be seen” whether she archived all of the messages is the problem. We don’t say, “Hey, US Army soldier, if you want to take tanks home and keep them in your yard because that’s less hassle for you, you go right ahead and do that.” Why don’t we do that? Because tanks don’t belong to the individual soldiers and don’t belong in the control of one.
Similarly, the information that Hillary Clinton sent and received as SoS also does not belong to her. Those weren’t her emails, they were our emails. Yes, if she was just sharing LOLcats and arguing with Bill about dinner that’s not my information. But that’s why mixing up the public and private spheres is a bad idea, because the official emails? Those belong to the country, not to her. She isn’t the person who gets to decide what we should see.
Again, is this a big deal? I don’t think so. Does it play very well into the accepted wisdom about her that she is secretive and paranoid? Absolutely. Just like Mitt Romney’s 47% played very well.
We’re not talking about “getting to do whatever she wants” or “giving her a pass.” It’s well established that she’s broken no laws. What we’re talking about is her judgment - partly composed of what is in my opinion, and apparently yours too, an absolutely accurate perception that the Republicans are out to get her.
The part of her judgment I was addressing, and which your post ignores, is whether - politically speaking - the cost of secrecy outweighs the benefits. Bill Clinton made a political decision - against his wife’s advice - to appoint a special prosecutor in the Whitewater affair, judging that the appearance of a coverup was worse than anything they might find. Hillary disagreed, arguing that the appointment would be a blank check in the hands of the Republicans, that the media would sensationalize every accusation and ignore every exoneration, and that once started, there would be no limit to the investigation. She was absolutely right.
The logic behind Hillary’s use of the Clintons’ private mail server while at the State Department is simple: don’t give them anything. If they want to get her, they’ll have to use the law, and she’ll use every defense that the law allows. Doing otherwise because “it’ll look bad” (or “Caesar’s wife,” as said above) is the same game that put her and her family through hell for no damn reason, and it’s not going to happen again if she has anything to say about it.
So, she’ll just torpedo herself out of fear. Smart.
I find it strange that you think I’m not talking about her judgment. I’m talking ONLY about her judgment. I’m not talking about what the law is. I’m talking about what’s okay and not okay for people in the government to do, and why.
It doesn’t matter to me because none of this shit ever matters. No one who wants to vote Democrat will vote Republican over it. And either Clinton is a strong enough candidate to win the nomination, or we don’t want her on the ticket.
It’s not as if I’m an active supporter–she’s just a Democratic hopeful to me. Unfortunately, the Republicans have turned me into a party voter instead of a person voter.
I’m stealing this!
Hillary has been kind of quite since the email exposures. This might be the reason:
https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-emails-congress-reaction-145729663.html