World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Sarge]

I think most people's ability to dismiss corruption directly coincides with their political allegiances. Not saying that's what you're doing, but I believe the e-mail thing is far more serious and egregious than those on the left are representing it to be. Which may have something to do with my political affiliation, too, I don't know. I try to be as fair-minded as possible, and I'm disturbed by stuff on Trump and Clinton. To say I'm not enamored with this election would be a gigantic, massive understatement.

But hey, we can still agree on platformers!

[dsheinem]

I think most people's ability to dismiss corruption directly coincides with their political allegiances. Not saying that's what you're doing, but I believe the e-mail thing is far more serious and egregious than those on the left are representing it to be. Which may have something to do with my political affiliation, too, I don't know. I try to be as fair-minded as possible, and I'm disturbed by stuff on Trump and Clinton. To say I'm not enamored with this election would be a gigantic, massive understatement.

But hey, we can still agree on platformers!

What is so egregious about the "email thing"? I'm trying to understand what people know to have actually happened that had actual consequences that they are so upset about...I have followed the email stories, but can't seem to understand the outrage over Clinton's behavior/actions as anything other than partisan rhetoric at best ("others did this and no biggie...but Hillary did it and OMG prison!") or uninformed hate at worse.

[J T]

Philippines Duterte calls Obama "*****"


The U.S. in some countries has been considered the bully and dictating policy, interesting on some of the latest events. In Laos, a stairway was not even brought out for Air Force One, President Obama had to come down in the airplane service ladder; geez some welcome!

In watching the video you can see Duterte getting more and more angry. I side with the Philippines President, who states he answers only to the Filipino people. Good for him, but could have been maybe a little more tactful to his U.S. ally!
Love the guy just like Trump, entertaining and pulls no punches!

PULLS NO PUNCHES!?!?!? He has people fucking killed! He has admitted to killing 3 people himself. When that woman in Australia was raped, his only concern was that the mayor didn't get to have her first. He wants journalists murdered who go against him. This is your fucking hero?!?!?! JESUS! Just because he hates Obama like you do?!? Please tell me your opinion is based on limited information. He is a real life monster.

[Sarge]

If I'd done what she did, I would be in jail. Just because the FBI chose not to recommend prosecution doesn't mean her behavior wasn't egregiously and astoundingly negligent, and Director Comey said as much.

Even if the server wasn't hacked by foreign governments, is that really the sort of negligence that we want to see from the leader of the free world? If she didn't get hacked, she was astoundingly, ridiculously lucky; it wasn't because of her attention to detail, protocol, or national security.

I know we're not going to agree on this, so I don't know if anything productive will come of discussing it. I have a feeling we'll all make the same warmed-over arguments we always do before metaphorically walking off in a huff to talk about games again.

[prfsnl_gmr]

She violated State Department policies and procedures and either exercised poor judgment regarding information security issues or (more likely) relied completely on people who exercised poor judgment regarding information security issues. Her attempts to downplay the issue were also ham-fisted, and IMO, she would have been better off just apologizing and admitting that she screwed up and really had no idea what she was doing with regard to the e-mail server.

It is the sort of thing that might get you fired, but absent some sort of criminal intent, it is not the sort of thing that results in a criminal prosecution.

If I'd done what she did, I would be in jail.

I don't think so. There is an intent element missing here that likely precludes prosecution.

Even if the server wasn't hacked by foreign governments, is that really the sort of negligence that we want to see from the leader of the free world? If she didn't get hacked, she was astoundingly, ridiculously lucky; it wasn't because of her attention to detail, protocol, or national security.

That's the heart of the issue. (See! We can agree on more than just platformers! ) The incident certainly displays poor judgment, but I am not sure it is deserving of the amount of attention it has received. IMO, allegations of impropriety relating to the Trump University are much graver, but I have not located a news outlet waiting with baited breath for Donald Trump's emails related to the incident.

[jp1]

EDIT: Image link fail.

[Sarge]

Gross negligence doesn't require criminal intent, though. That's why it's gross negligence. I think someone gave the example of having a briefcase stuffed with papers and leaving it on a busy New York subway or something. Which in my mind is exactly what she was doing with that server. There are reasons those protocols were in place, and it required either her or her subordinates to bypass quite a few very stringent procedures to get her emails in unmarked form. Even if Hillary doesn't take the heat, someone is responsible for things getting the way they were.

You're absolutely right that she should have just come out and say, "Hey, y'all, I screwed up."

We'll see how all this plays out, because it seems like we learn more and more every day. Even then, I don't see anything happening to her over it. I think there are enough people in the bureaucracy that believe she's going to be the next President (a pretty good bet) that they're not going to force the issue.

I recognize that National Review is a right-leaning publication, but this article pretty succinctly characterizes my thinking on the matter. I've also read the cases elsewhere for why Mrs. Clinton's behavior didn't rise to a level of prosecution.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/43 ... llary-hook

[dsheinem]

She violated State Department policies and procedures

Did she? I thought she did the same thing that all previous Secys of State have done in terms of email management, and it was only after her tenure that the policy was changed. Granted, there were previous non-security agency guidelines that were much less clear and explicit regarding email management for top officials, but as far as I can tell she just did what others such as Colin Powell before her had done.

Either exercised poor judgment regarding information security issues or (more likely) relied completely on people who exercised poor judgment regarding information security issues.

Perhaps, but I don't even know that I agree with this. Given that there were no charges filed and that there were no "negative consequences" of any of this (aside from political posturing), I am inclined to think that the advice she was given and the approach she took was actually quite good on the very issue of security.

I know we're not going to agree on this, so I don't know if anything productive will come of discussing it. I have a feeling we'll all make the same warmed-over arguments we always do before metaphorically walking off in a huff to talk about games again.

Sorry, but that's an immensely lazy and dismissive perspective to assume, in my view. I like having political discussions here because we often bring a respectfulness to them that is absent in many other online contexts and avoids the echo-chamber phenomenon of only watching/listening/following people who you agree with.


As an aside: I'll be honest, I also don't understand the brouhaha over Benghazi after all this time, either. Horrible things happen under every Secy of State's watch, saying that a film was a contributing cause to the incident was not a lie, and "spinning" any global incident as being caused by this/that or influencing future policy in this way/that way is not "lying" per se, it is politics as usual. In any case, I truly believe that what Hillary said about Benghazi before, during, and after the incident was all well above board in any objective view.

If anything, the fact that all the resources devoted by all her political enemies over so much time to uncover some kind of scandal has led to no dismissal from a position, no charges, etc. should point to a her strengths as a candidate, not her weakness as one.

[Sarge]

If you want to characterize it as lazy, so be it. I think beyond a certain point, it is counterproductive. Everywhere I've ever been has devolved into what I describe, and while we're more mature about it here, even RB hasn't been immune.

That being said, there is a broader mix of political persuasions here. There is another board that shall remain unnamed that is almost impossible for someone of my ideology to feel even close to welcome or willing to go out on a limb because of how much of an echo chamber it is. Perhaps that also influences my posting on political matters in other places as well. Most of the time I just roll my eyes a bit and move on when there's something I disagree with, because it's not worth my time or health. The latter because I invest more emotionally into the discussion than I should.

[Ack]

As an aside: I'll be honest, I also don't understand the brouhaha over Benghazi after all this time, either.

Well, only eight US ambassadors have ever been killed in the line of duty; two of those were by plane crashes. Of the remaining six, five were killed by terrorist, guerrilla, or communist organizations primarily allied with the Soviet Union or Palestine, or during uprisings in a period between 1968-1979. Seeking a full investigation over the death of an ambassador killed in the line of duty should be something that is standard practice in the rare event it happens. I also feel that generally accepting the results of that investigation should be the norm for the general public.

Second, the invasion of Libya forms a contrast to the foreign policy campaign promises proposed by President Obama while he was running for office, in which he declared we would be avoiding military interventionism. Counter to that promise, we participated in an intervention(which was largely instigated at the behest of the French and British governments but completed with the deployment of over 8,000 US personnel as the primary makeup of NATO's force) against Muammar Gaddafi's government in the wake of the Libyan Civil War, which led to the toppling of his regime and the country collapsing in chaos, much as we saw in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently Libya is divided among at least six different factions, including a branch of ISIS active in North Africa.

I also believe much of the criticism leveled against both President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a reprisal for what was considered as the malicious nature of the criticisms against President Bush over the invasion of Iraq. Both sides appear to bemoan, criticize, and vehemently oppose the actions of the other simply because they are the actions of the other, and the tit-for-tat campaign continues to flourish as usual.

The one thing I do appreciate about all this is that at least it is a foreign policy issue where the US population seems to actually care.