2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Hang on, are we backing down from the assertion that it wasn't an anti-semitic image?

Is any use of a 6-sided star at all an anti-semitic image?

Suryavarman

Suryavarman wrote: »

Most people don't work for a presidential candidate. There's a bit more vetting required to propose social media material to a US Presidential candidate for one of the major parties than there is to work in your local McDonald's. Considering his image one would think that Trump would encourage employees not to source material from racist or anti-semitic websites. That clearly hasn't been done.

So what, get their social media passwords, email passwords, check through every one of the people they're connected to, get their entire internet history. Anything else I left out?
There were police officers and teachers on the BNP membership list ffs.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Is any use of a 6-sided star at all an anti-semitic image?

No, but the use of a six-sided star in an image found on an anti-semitic website hints strongly at anti-semitism.

Unless you honestly think it's more likely that it was intended to signify a sheriff's badge or a special offer, in which case I'd be curious why you think so.

PopePalpatine

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, but the use of a six-sided star in an image found on an anti-semitic website hints strongly at anti-semitism.

Unless you honestly think it's more likely that it was intended to signify a sheriff's badge or a special offer, in which case I'd be curious why you think so.

Not to mention that the guy claiming credit for the edited image has a history of racist image editing.

Suryavarman

Deleted User wrote: »

Suryavarman wrote: »

Most people don't work for a presidential candidate. There's a bit more vetting required to propose social media material to a US Presidential candidate for one of the major parties than there is to work in your local McDonald's. Considering his image one would think that Trump would encourage employees not to source material from racist or anti-semitic websites. That clearly hasn't been done.

So what, get their social media passwords, email passwords, check through every one of the people they're connected to, get their entire internet history. Anything else I left out?
There were police officers and teachers on the BNP membership list ffs.

Doing the emboldened would be a start at least. Looking through their social media history would be another good step. Firing whoever sourced material from an anti-semitic website would be another good step.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, but the use of a six-sided star in an image found on an anti-semitic website hints strongly at anti-semitism.

Unless you honestly think it's more likely that it was intended to signify a sheriff's badge or a special offer, in which case I'd be curious why you think so.

I think it was meant to be a star, no more, no less. Certainly from The Trump's pov.

RobertKK

FBI say Hillary Clinton was "extremely careless" but they don't think she intended to violate law.
Looks like she broke the law but will get away with it.

RobertKK

Hillary Clinton also lied as she argued about having no classified information in her emails. 110 email had classified information, 8 emails had top secret information.

RobertKK

FBI also say possible "hostile actors" could have gained access to her emails. She is incompetent in my opinion, had that view since her disastrous stint as Secretary of State.

Billy86

The main parts of the FBI statement in articles online...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/05/james-comey-fbi-hillary-clinton/86702072/

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information," Comey said in a 15-minute statement explaining the investigation, "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

...

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling of removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts," Comey said.

...

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," he said.

AbusesToilets

Absolutely disgrace, if ever you needed a clearer picture of the preferential treatment afforded to the ruling class, this is it. Any regular worker in the US Government who willfully mishandled classified materials would likely be facing significant fines and/ or jail time.

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Absolutely disgrace, if ever you needed a clearer picture of the preferential treatment afforded to the ruling class, this is it. Any regular worker in the US Government who willfully mishandled classified materials would likely be facing significant fines and/ or jail time.

Does that include include all the Department of the State workers that did the same thing as Clinton and aren't facing such consequences?

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Absolutely disgrace, if ever you needed a clearer picture of the preferential treatment afforded to the ruling class, this is it. Any regular worker in the US Government who willfully mishandled classified materials would likely be facing significant fines and/ or jail time.

I think it's fairly obvious plenty of "regular workers" are involved here.

I think Clinton was incredibly careless here, but no actual crime was committed. Until today James Comey has been acknowledged by all sides as impartial. I'm interested to see if the Trump camp try to smear him. Maybe his granny was Mexican rapist infected with TB.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

I think it's fairly obvious plenty of "regular workers" are involved here.

I think Clinton was incredibly careless here, but no actual crime was committed. Until today James Comey has been acknowledged by all sides as impartial. I'm interested to see if the Trump camp try to smear him. Maybe his granny was Mexican rapist infected with TB.

He directly acknowledges that actions were taken, that should constitute a crime. Putting classified materials on an unclassified network is a crime, end of. They stated that there were 25 emails found to have Top Secret information in them. That requires somebody purposely transcribing the information, you can't just forward that in an email from the classified network to the unclassified.

All of that should be enough to warrant prosecution, that's not even getting into allegations of perjury etc. The double standards afforded to US politicians is sickening. They are all allowed to compromise state secrets at a whim, with no consequences.

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

Does that include include all the Department of the State workers that did the same thing as Clinton and aren't facing such consequences?

Absolutely, there should be zero tolerance for that level of willful mishandling of classified material. As the Secretary of State, Clinton should be held accountable for the culture she inoculated in her Department.

Suryavarman

Trump has been airing his views on charges not being brought against Hillary:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/750352884106223616

For those that don't know Petraeus gave classified information to his biographer, whom he also happened to be having an affair with at the time and who obviously didn't have clearance to see such information. Clearly quite a bit worse than Clinton sending emails, from a private server, to individuals that had clearance to receive those emails.

This kind of hyper partisanship really is disgusting. I'm not much of a fan of Clinton but I really hope she wins a landslide in November and takes the Senate and House with her. Hopefully then the Republicans might cop on and get rid of the extremist, hyper-partisan ideologues that have nothing constructive to offer.

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Absolutely, there should be zero tolerance for that level of willful mishandling of classified material. As the Secretary of State, Clinton should be held accountable for the culture she inoculated in her Department.

From your first line, are therefore admitting that you were incorrect when you said "Any regular worker in the US Government who willfully mishandled classified materials would likely be facing significant fines and/ or jail time."? And therefore Clinton is held to the same standard as anyone else?

I haven't followed this whole affair in excruciating detail as I knew it was an overblown Republican witch hunt from the start. But I believe some of those emails were sent when a reply was needed sooner than Clinton could have got to a secure server. In the cases where emails need to be sent before an employee can get to a secure server what process should be followed?

This culture has existed in the department before Clinton was there and it will continue far into the future. It's been shown that similar things were done while Powell and Rice were Secretaries of State.

You know the stupid rules you have to follow in work but you break them occasionally because they impact on your ability to do your job properly? This is the Department of State's version of those rules.

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

From your first line, are therefore admitting that you were incorrect when you said "Any regular worker in the US Government who willfully mishandled classified materials would likely be facing significant fines and/ or jail time."? And therefore Clinton is held to the same standard as anyone else?

I haven't followed this whole affair in excruciating detail as I knew it was an overblown Republican witch hunt from the start. But I believe some of those emails were sent when a reply was needed sooner than Clinton could have got to a secure server. In the cases where emails need to be sent before an employee can get to a secure server what process should be followed?

This culture has existed in the department before Clinton was there and it will continue far into the future. It's been shown that similar things were done while Powell and Rice were Secretaries of State.

You know the stupid rules you have to follow in work but you break them occasionally because they impact on your ability to do your job properly? This is the Department of State's version of those rules.

No, they are not. That information was classified for a reason, mandated to be maintained on classified networks. You don't seem to appreciate the nature of how the US Government handles classified information.

The fact that the DoS has a shoddy culture with regards to its use of classified materials is nothing new, nor is that an acceptable excuse. As Secretary of State, Clinton has the duty and responsibility of ensuring compliance with those rules. Are they unwieldy at times? Most certainly. They are the law of the land and she and her staff have to abide by them.

What sort of confidence is a voter to have in the prospect of a President Clinton, who would choose to and allow others to willfully disregard some of the most important regulations in place?

I haven't followed this whole affair in excruciating detail as I knew it was an overblown Republican witch hunt from the start. But I believe some of those emails were sent when a reply was needed sooner than Clinton could have got to a secure server. In the cases where emails need to be sent before an employee can get to a secure server what process should be followed?

They should wait until they can send them using the proper network and following the rules. This isn't some moral quandary, it's the law. Clinton's apparent fostering of that culture within the DoS is a serious black mark against her.

Billy86

Here is another image made by the person who tweeted the picture of Clinton with a Star of David while linking her with money and corruption, that Trump's campaign retweeted. Clearly this is not a Swastika, and instead is just a Japanese throwing star, right?



It's open and shut that the Star of David was a racist image.

PopePalpatine

[TrumpApologist]Nuh-uh, the Nazis had the swastika the other way around![/TrumpApologist]

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No, they are not. That information was classified for a reason, mandated to be maintained on classified networks. You don't seem to appreciate the nature of how the US Government handles classified information.

The fact that the DoS has a shoddy culture with regards to its use of classified materials is nothing new, nor is that an acceptable excuse. As Secretary of State, Clinton has the duty and responsibility of ensuring compliance with those rules. Are they unwieldy at times? Most certainly. They are the law of the land and she and her staff have to abide by them.

What sort of confidence is a voter to have in the prospect of a President Clinton, who would choose to and allow others to willfully disregard some of the most important regulations in place?

I think you're significantly overestimating how sensitive some of the stuff that is considered to be classified information actually is.

What is she supposed to do when she can't abide by the rules? Is she supposed to completely ignore her responsibilities?

They should wait until they can send them using the proper network and following the rules. This isn't some moral quandary, it's the law. Clinton's apparently fostering of that culture within the DoS is a serious black mark against her.

What about when they can't wait to send them? That was the question I asked after all. What happens then? Should the Department be disabled by inaction thereby jeopardising the security of the nation because it's impossible for the Secretary to reach a secure server in time? And please don't try to wave these questions away this time.


You also haven't referred to the start of my post. Do you accept that Clinton is held to the same standard as everyone else is in the Department?

Billy86

Well this could get interesting... if the media that 'hate' Trump so much ever get around to reporting on it in depth.

Donald Trump Accused of Repeated Child Rape in 1990s on 13 Year Old Girl.

While the Republican frontrunner has been making headlines for comparing a proposed free trade agreement to rape, a woman aged in her thirties has alleged that he “initiated sexual contact” with her on four occasions in 1994, when she was just 13-years-old.
Trump has categorically denied the allegations, which centre around parties held at the home of his friend, notorious paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

The alleged victim, who is not named in the documents, claims that during one “savage sexual attack” Trump tied her to a bed, exposed himself and “proceeded to forcibly rape” her while she “loudly pleaded” for him to stop — but that the billionaire responded by striking her in the face with his open hand and “screaming that he would do whatever he wanted”.

It goes on to allege that Trump threatened the girl that, “were she ever to reveal any of the details of the sexual and physical abuse”, she and her family “would be physically harmed if not killed”.

...

“I personally witnessed the Plaintiff being forced to perform various sexual acts with Donald J Trump and Mr Epstein,” Tiffany Doe said in the statement. “Both Mr Trump and Mr Epstein were advised that she was 13-years-old ... I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the Plaintiff was forced to have with Mr Trump during this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas to stop.”

Both the alleged victim and Tiffany Doe spoke of a 12-year-old girl named Maria who had “disappeared” after one of Epstein’s parties, and that Trump told the alleged victim she would meet the same fate if she ever revealed the alleged crime.

“I am coming forward to swear to the truthfulness of the physical and sexual abuse that I personally witnessed of minor females at the hands of Mr Trump and Mr Epstein,” Tiffany Doe’s statement said.

“I swear to these facts under the penalty for perjury even though I fully understand that the life of myself and my family is now in grave danger.”

That name, Jeffrey Epstein, might ring a bell to some. He was a billionaire financier based in Trump's home city of New York who was involved in a lot of dodgy stuff and spent time in jail for soliciting underage prostitutes. Here is a little bit about Trump and Epstein's connections, and they are more than a little concerning...

First, before anyone tries to claim that Trump didn't know the truth about Epstein, except... "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump once said about the convicted sex offender. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life.

The two have both been named in an allegation of child rape... Radar Online reports that a woman in California, “identified” as Katie Johnson, filed a $100 million lawsuit against Trump on April 26, accusing the real estate mogul of raping her when she was just 13 years old.

Johnson “claims Trump raped her when she was 13-years-old and forced her to engage in sex acts by threatening to harm her and her family,” notes The Independent UK. “She claims the alleged abuse took place over a four-month period at underage sex parties held in New York City in 1994.” Epstein was also named for alleged sexual misconduct and threats.

Now this part is extremely curious, to put it very, very mildly. Epstein was happy to say he has socialised with Trump but immediately plead the fifth when asked if he had “ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18”...
Q: Have you ever had a personal relationship with Donald Trump?
A. What do you mean by "personal relationship," sir?
Q. Have you socialized with him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Yes?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?
A: Though I'd like to answer that question, at least today I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights, sir.

And not only that, but some of Epstein's alleged victims literally came from Trump's own Mar-A-Lago Club... Virginia Roberts, an alleged victim of Epstein’s, "was recruited to perform a massage for Epstein while working as a $9-per-hour locker room attendant at Mar-A-Lago.”

Roberts claims that “Epstein turned her into a ‘sex slave’ and pimped her out to various friends, including England's Prince Andrew. Over the years, the passengers on Epstein's jet, she said, included ‘a whole bunch of other girls, sometimes famous people, sometimes some politicians.'"

So not only did Trump know him well, but he also publicly stated that he knew Epstein liked them young. Not only that, but Trump's own club is allegedly where Epstein did recruiting for underage girls, which might be why Donald Trump was subpoenaed alongside for his connections to Epstein's underage sex rings.


Given Trump's attitude towards women, his sexually perverse comments about the likes his own daughter, and all of the above, this certainly isn't a good look for him.

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

I think you're significantly overestimating how sensitive some of the stuff that is considered to be classified information actually is.

What is she supposed to do when she can't abide by the rules? Is she supposed to completely ignore her responsibilities?



What about when they can't wait to send them? That was the question I asked after all. What happens then? Should the Department be disabled by inaction thereby jeopardising the security of the nation because it's impossible for the Secretary to reach a secure server in time? And please don't try to wave these questions away this time.


You also haven't referred to the start of my post. Do you accept that Clinton is held to the same standard as everyone else is in the Department?

She clearly hasn't been held to the same standard as other Federal employees with regards handling of classified info. A couple of articles with details about other cases involving such actions.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-01-30/a-look-at-federal-cases-on-handling-classified-information

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/14/if-hillary-clinton-mishandled-classified-information-heres-what-it-could-mean/

I think you're significantly overestimating how sensitive some of the stuff that is considered to be classified information actually is.

What is she supposed to do when she can't abide by the rules? Is she supposed to completely ignore her responsibilities?

What about when they can't wait to send them? That was the question I asked after all. What happens then? Should the Department be disabled by inaction thereby jeopardising the security of the nation because it's impossible for the Secretary to reach a secure server in time? And please don't try to wave these questions away this time.

What circumstances are preventing her from following the rules? This isn't a scenario from an action movie, where lives are on the line. This was a regular, everyday occurrence on the part of Clinton and her staff. This is her willfully ignoring rules she finds inconvenient. You realise that as Secretary of State, she would travel with the means to conduct secure communications where ever she was located?

Should prosecutors get to ignore due process because it's too much of a hassle and sure they know the defendant is guilty? Should I be able to drive without a license or insurance because I couldn't be arsed taking the test and spending money? Staggering thought process on your part. That line of reasoning is pathetic and shameful.

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

She clearly hasn't been held to the same standard as other Federal employees with regards handling of classified info. A couple of articles with details about other cases involving such actions.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-01-30/a-look-at-federal-cases-on-handling-classified-information

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/14/if-hillary-clinton-mishandled-classified-information-heres-what-it-could-mean/

From the first article:

It's not uncommon for workers with access to classified material to mishandle it, and by far the bulk of those cases don't attract the attention of federal prosecutors.

So apparently she's held to a higher standard than everyone else.

The second article gives examples of people that did worse things than Hillary.

What circumstances are preventing her from following the rules? This isn't a scenario from an action movie, where lives are on the line. This was a regular, everyday occurrence on the part of Clinton and her staff. This is her willfully ignoring rules she finds inconvenient. You realise that as Secretary of State, she would travel with the means to conduct secure communications where ever she was located?

A timely response being required when it was impossible to do so.

She was actually denied a secure phone to communicate with. Or do you believe she had a desktop computer with her at all times?

Should prosecutors get to ignore due process because it's too much of a hassle and sure they know the defendant is guilty? Should I be able to drive without a license or insurance because I couldn't be arsed taking the test and spending money? Staggering thought process on your part. That line of reasoning is pathetic and shameful.

Should we leave a fully licensed driver away with speeding if their passenger is dying?

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

From the first article:



So apparently she's held to a higher standard than everyone else.

The second article gives examples of people that did worse things than Hillary.



A timely response being required when it was impossible to do so.

She was actually denied a secure phone to communicate with. Or do you believe she had a desktop computer with her at all times?



Should we leave a fully licensed driver away with speeding if their passenger is dying?

Your equivocating does nothing to distract from Clinton and her staff's repeated, deliberate disregard for the rules. A worker accidentally mishandling material in an isolated incident, is still likely to face censure and consequences. That is a world away from the carry on by Clinton, as has been laid bare by this investigation.

Your analogy is weak and tenuous at best. You're still laboring to present some type of life or death scenario that justifies these actions, when in reality they were born from a lazy and entitled attitude.

The examples in those links show that a hard line is held for those found to be in violation of said rules, or at least it is when that person isn't a highly ranked politician or her staff.

Do you have a source for your assertion she was denied communications? In her capacity as SoS, she would travel with the relevant communications package to enable her to remain in touch with the White House etc.

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Your equivocating does nothing to distract from Clinton and her staff's repeated, deliberate disregard for the rules. A worker accidentally mishandling material in an isolated incident, is still likely to face censure and consequences. That is a world away from the carry on by Clinton, as has been laid bare by this investigation.

Your analogy is weak and tenuous at best. You're still laboring to present some type of life or death scenario that justifies these actions, when in reality they were born from a lazy and entitled attitude.

The examples in those links show that a hard line is held for those found to be in violation of said rules, or at least it is when that person isn't a highly ranked politician or her staff.

Do you have a source for your assertion she was denied communications? In her capacity as SoS, she would travel with the relevant communications package to enable her to remain in touch with the White House etc.

This is pretty basic stuff. This is how this whole saga started after all:

Newly released emails show a 2009 request to issue a secure government smartphone to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was denied by the National Security Agency.

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

This is pretty basic stuff. This is how this whole saga started after all:

Did you even read the article?

Resolving the issue was given such priority as to result in a face-to-face meeting between Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills, seven senior State Department staffers with five NSA security experts. According to a summary of the meeting, the request was driven by Clinton's reliance on her BlackBerry for email and keeping track of her calendar. Clinton chose not to use a laptop or desktop computer that could have provided her access to email in her office, according to the summary.

Standard smartphones are not allowed into areas designated as approved for the handling of classified information, such as the block of offices used by senior State Department officials, known by the nickname "Mahogany Row" for the quality of their paneling. Mills said that was inconvenient, because they had to leave their offices and retrieve their phones to check messages.

Mills also asked about waivers provided during the Bush administration to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for her staff to use BlackBerrys in their secure offices. But the NSA had phased out such waivers due to security concerns.

Clinton and her staff clearly have little concern for security practices, valuing convenience over keeping classified information secure. No wonder the NSA denied her request.

I should also note that her request for a secure Blackberry, as stated in the article, was predicated on her wanting to access her emails. It was nothing to do with being able to remain in communications with the White House or other governmental agency. That capability is easily handled, and widely available utilising secure sleeves for satellite phones for example.

Are you going to give up the argument that there was some crisis like event that justifies their actions and just admit that it was born from laziness and an attitude of entitlement that placed them above the rules they found inconvenient?

Fr Tod Umptious

Billy86 wrote: »

Well this could get interesting... if the media that 'hate' Trump so much ever get around to reporting on it in depth.

Donald Trump Accused of Repeated Child Rape in 1990s on 13 Year Old Girl.



That name, Jeffrey Epstein, might ring a bell to some. He was a billionaire financier based in Trump's home city of New York who was involved in a lot of dodgy stuff and spent time in jail for soliciting underage prostitutes. Here is a little bit about Trump and Epstein's connections, and they are more than a little concerning... ......

Won't quote it all because it's very detailed but hasn't Bill Clinton also had links to Epstein ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3589628/Report-Bill-Clinton-jumped-aboard-disgraced-sex-offender-Jeffrey-Epstein-s-Lolita-Express-plane-junkets-26-TIMES-just-three-years.html

Billy86

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Won't quote it all because it's very detailed but hasn't Bill Clinton also had links to Epstein ?

I believe so, yes.

But Bill Clinton is not the one running for president, or the one accused of repeatedly raping a 13 year old girl. Makes you wonder what else Trump has been getting up to behind the scenes if this is only getting out now...

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Did you even read the article?



Clinton and her staff clearly have little concern for security practices, valuing convenience over keeping classified information secure. No wonder the NSA denied her request.

I should also note that her request for a secure Blackberry, as stated in the article, was predicated on her wanting to access her emails. It was nothing to do with being able to remain in communications with the White House or other governmental agency. That capability is easily handled, and widely available utilising secure sleeves for satellite phones for example.

Are you going to give up the argument that there was some crisis like event that justifies their actions and just admit that it was born from laziness and an attitude of entitlement that placed them above the rules they found inconvenient?

The emboldened clearly contradicts what you stated though. Her request was denied 1 month into her tenure as secretary so her actions with regard to security had nothing to do with her request being turned down.

It has been reported that she often used her private server when an urgent reply was needed so I won't be dropping that argument.

At the end of the day she was following standard practice. And at the end of the day it's clear that your problem isn't with what Clinton did but with the fact that Clinton did it. Any unbiased observer realises that this is nothing more than an overblown Republican witch-hunt which is why the FBI recommended that no charges be brought against Clinton.