# Stupid liberal idea of the day **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 20, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086 "2011-04-20T15:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 159
**Author:** ![buddy431](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@buddy431](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddy431)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3161 "2015-03-03T16:38:27Z")
There was a hoopla a couple years ago about officials using “[secret e-mail addresses](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/04/us-officials-secret-email-accounts)” that weren’t publicly known. I understand why they would do it: they want to be sure that e-mails coming from the president aren’t drowned in a sea of rants from Joe the conspiracy theorist, but at the end of the day, e-mails related to official government business should be subject to open record keeping. Presidential records are by law requestable under the Freedom of Information Act 5 years after the president leaves office (provided they aren’t classified). I don’t know how it shakes down for other positions in the executive, but it seems like similar rules ought to hold. I don’t necessarily think Clinton was trying to be nefarious, she probably really did do it because she thought it would be easier and didn’t consider the implications. But it definitely wasn’t OK, and yeah, at this point the Archives and Records Administration should get her whole account to go through. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3162 "2015-03-03T16:51:12Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > A few other thoughts, > > One possibility is that some of her emails chains may have included state department work with campaign work, and using her state department e-mail would have violated the Hatch act. > > She also probably realizes that at whether or not she’s done anything wrong, the Repblicans will subpoena her accounts, and go over every email with a fine tooth comb looking for something to take out of context and nail her with. For example if she says that in terms of the global perception of America’s strength abroad the death of an Ambassador in Bengazi was no big deal. The day after the subpoena Fox headlines would read “Clinton sees the death of an Ambassador in Bengazi as **no big dea** l” > > Overall I agree it’s a bad idea, but the desire is understandable even if she isn’t up to something nefarious. No. No one is claiming she couldn’t have a personal email in addition to a business one. And she could use her personal one to do campaign-related communications. In fact, not having a business email makes her personal account all the more vulnerable to being rummaged through by people she doesn’t want to have access. If she did normal business though normal channels, the chances of forcing disclosure of her personal accounts are much lower. Presumably there would have to be some specific evidence that she was communicating business outside of normal channels. But as it is now, that fact is indisputable. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3163 "2015-03-03T16:59:32Z")
Where were the State Department career employees? Where were the lawyers? Unbelievably stupid. Unfortunately now we going to have to listen to all of the right wing conspiracy theories. I’m sure there will be endless congressional hearings. :smack: BTW, isn’t the NYT part of that horrible liberal media we’re always hearing about.? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3164 "2015-03-03T17:07:11Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > She also probably realizes that at whether or not she’s done anything wrong, the Repblicans will subpoena her accounts, and go over every email with a fine tooth comb looking for something to take out of context and nail her with. For example if she says that in terms of the global perception of America’s strength abroad the death of an Ambassador in Bengazi was no big deal. The day after the subpoena Fox headlines would read “Clinton sees the death of an Ambassador in Bengazi as **no big dea** l” If the possibility of misrepresentation by Republicans and Fox News is considered a reasonable excuse for violating transparency requirements, we might as well eliminate all open records and freedom of information laws right now. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3165 "2015-03-03T17:08:17Z")
The email address thing seems like a typical old-fogie response: “It took me years to figure out how to use email… now I have to switch to another email system and learn all over again? No thank YOU. And since I’m the boss, we’ll be sticking with this one, thank you very much…” ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3166 "2015-03-03T17:44:39Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > If Clinton is as retarded as this, she’s not qualified to be Secretary of State, and nor is she qualified to be President. Ludicrous overstatement. > [@](#): > > These are documents of federal government business, and are also documents of historical importance. Potentially true, part of why it’s a bad idea. > [@](#): > > She knew exactly what she was doing. Sure, but that doesn’t logically lead to an inevitable conclusion that it was for nefarious reasons. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3167 "2015-03-03T17:56:31Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I believe most supporters are pointing to the State Department EIS which concludes that somewhere around 10,000 temporary workers are needed to build the pipeline, and maybe another 30,000 indirect jobs would be supported. Stating that 35 of those jobs would be permanent doesn’t detract from those substantial numbers, which apparently is why some labor organizations support the pipeline. While 40,000 jobs aren’t nothing, the fact is that that many jobs, even if they appeared _all at once,_ are the difference between a kinda disappointing month with respect to job creation (say 210,000 new jobs) and a decent, respectable month (250K new jobs). So while I regard that as a factor on the plus side of the ledger, it’s not a huge factor. One thing I’ve wondered in all this is, why is the U.S. involved at all? Why don’t the Canadians run a pipeline to Lake Superior and transfer it to tankers there? I’m sure there must be a reason, but damned if I’ve ever heard an explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3168 "2015-03-03T17:59:06Z")
Because at best that just lets them ship the oil to Lake Erie, where it will need to be transshipped again. US refineries are mostly in the South. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3169 "2015-03-03T18:06:57Z")
Because Keystone Phases I, II and III already supply +500,000 barrels of oil to mid-west and gulf refineries. XL is simply a new link with a bigger pipe that will also link oil from Montana and other US states to the gulf. In Canada there is currently talk of moving the oil east to refineries in the Maritimes using more or less refitted, existing pipelines. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3170 "2015-03-03T18:22:50Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Sure, but that doesn’t logically lead to an inevitable conclusion that it was for nefarious reasons. _ **Hillary '16: Incompetent, But Not Corrupt!** _ Has a nice ring to it, don’t you think? I am a California State employee. I have an official university email account. I knew, when I started, that I was supposed to use this account for my official business. And I knew that, from the point of view of accountability and professionalism, even before i knew that there are actual laws and regulations requiring that my official business be conducted using my official email address. Hundreds of thousands of government employees at every level understand this. The idea that the Secretary of State—a woman who has also spent eight years in the White House and also eight years as a United States Senator—doesn’t know how this works, and/or doesn’t have people who know how this works, in fucking laughable, and tends to the conclusion that her motivations were nefarious, whether for reasons of selfishness (they’re MY emails, and I want them for my memoirs!) or lack of transparency. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3171 "2015-03-03T18:39:20Z")
I find it a little difficult to believe that the Secretary of State would legitimately be communicating directly with foreign leaders by e-mail without going through an underling. More importantly, if the other party retained such mail, they could possibly reveal embarrassing content in order to undermine the former Secretary’s credibility, meaning that Clinton has placed herself in a dangerous position. Headers can be faked, and if she had admin control of the mail server (including its logs), they could just say that she must have deleted that mail from it. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3172 "2015-03-03T18:44:09Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Ludicrous overstatement. > Potentially true, part of why it’s a bad idea. > Sure, but that doesn’t logically lead to an inevitable conclusion that it was for nefarious reasons. If she knew what she was doing, she knew she was hiding email from government archives. IMO that in and of itself is a nefarious reason. It is a dereliction of duty. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3173 "2015-03-03T18:56:20Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Because at best that just lets them ship the oil to Lake Erie, where it will need to be transshipped again. Really? Per [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Lawrence_Seaway): > [@](#): > > The Saint Lawrence Seaway…is the common name for a system of locks, canals and channels that permit ocean-going vessels to travel from the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes, as far inland as the western end of Lake Superior. And specifically, Lake Erie is connected to Lake Ontario for shipping by the [Welland Canal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welland_Canal). > [@](#): > > US refineries are mostly in the South. To what extent does this matter? It sounds as if once the oil gets to the other end of the pipeline, it could go pretty much anywhere to be refined. Might go to U.S. to be refined, or it might go to South America, and there’s no reason to think we’d get the bulk of it. Am I wrong about that? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3174 "2015-03-03T19:11:31Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I think the point is simply avoidance of accountability and transparency. There are plenty of ways for her to keep records of what she writes and receives while still using a State Department email address. I fucking hate it when public officials do this shit. I hated it when it was Sarah Palin, and i hate it when it’s Hillary Clinton. The hubris and arrogance of these people is incredible. I fully agree. I hate it when it turns out that the rules are just for the ‘little people.’ Fuck that shit with a backhoe. This is why we need a genuine primary contest on the Dem side. Because the GOP is so far off the deep end, Hillary can get away with stuff like this without having to worry about criticism from the left; all she has to do is say, “Suck it up - do you want President Scott Walker?” And she’s right: barring a credible primary challenge, we’re stuck with her. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3175 "2015-03-03T19:38:29Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Really? Per [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Lawrence_Seaway): > And specifically, Lake Erie is connected to Lake Ontario for shipping by the [Welland Canal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welland_Canal). … I don’t know the answer, but it raises the question of how big a ship can fit through these locks? At a wild guess, and oceangoing supertanker wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3176 "2015-03-03T20:04:15Z")
Looking at satellite views, I would guess it has traditional Panamax capacity. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3177 "2015-03-03T21:09:09Z")
From Wikipedia, per the earlier link: " The maximum permissible length of a ship in this canal is 225.5 metres (740 feet)." (Damn, that’s big, but I guess that’s how big they make oceangoing vessels these days.) Also says the locks are 766 feet long, 80 feet wide, and 25 feet deep, but it didn’t say what the maximum ship width and depth were; I assume that they include some buffer space, just like the length does. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3178 "2015-03-03T21:18:04Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Looking at satellite views, I would guess it has traditional Panamax capacity. If Wiki is right, the Panama Canal locks are 30’ wider at 110’. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3179 "2015-03-03T21:23:29Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > From Wikipedia, per the earlier link: " The maximum permissible length of a ship in this canal is 225.5 metres (740 feet)." (Damn, that’s big, but I guess that’s how big they make oceangoing vessels these days.) Also says the locks are 766 feet long, 80 feet wide, and 25 feet deep, but it didn’t say what the maximum ship width and depth were; I assume that they include some buffer space, just like the length does. [Another Wiki cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker): “… While a typical T2 tanker of the World War II era was 532 feet (162 m) long and had a capacity of 16,500 DWT, the ultra-large crude carriers (ULCC) built in the 1970s were over 1,300 feet (400 m) long and had a capacity of 500,000 DWT. …” There’s some more comments suggesting they’ve been getting bigger since. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2015, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/3180 "2015-03-03T22:00:57Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > If Clinton is as retarded as this, she’s not qualified to be Secretary of State, and nor is she qualified to be President. These are documents of federal government business, and are also documents of historical importance. She knew exactly what she was doing. Yeah, I think we finally have a really stupid idea from a very prominent liberal. No way to polish this turd. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=158) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=160)