Democrat Debate

[glhs837]

Of course she's not ticked off, she just plays that card to get past valid questions. And yes, leakages happen all the time. And as long as you were following proper protocols and made a honest mistake, most likely nothing will ever comes of it. A few emails? Really, how much email do you think Sec State gets over the course of 2-3 years? What level of classification does she hold? Your statement is like equating a kid who grabbed two lollipops instead of one with the person who got an extra 100K deposited in their bank account and didn't speak up.

She knowingly went around govt email security policy to ensure nobody else could access her email archives(except maybe foreign hackers) . This wasn't an oversight, a simple mistake, it was a deliberate choice to bypass existing systems for personal benefit.

 

[vraiblonde]

How about this.... lets talk about the real issues that are facing this country, issues that are affecting every man, woman and child v.s. about some god damn emails....

National security IS a real issue.

 

[This_person]

I have security clearance and work with classified information. If I had a Nickel for each time someone inadvertently released info or when there is some leakage (used unclassified equipment for classed work).

But of course when one party wants to attack another, we will make a BIG deal out of a few emails...... (esp to attack a candidate from a party that we don't like)....

Honestly, within the history of IT and the US gov, how many times do you think this happens? Also what percentage of it is caught? What percentage gets swept under the rug?

Well, we know that you're very likely not a cabinet member, which puts you on a different plane of expectation. Similarly, your coworkers e-mail mistakes are also probably not on the level of cabinet member, so that puts them on a different plane of expectation.

That said, how many of these inadvertent releases of which you're aware were due to you or your coworker establishing an e-mail server in your home vice using your government-cleared e-mail server? Knowing of course that the president established a policy that would not happen, and the documentation of your own department says that's not allowed to happen (regardless of what she says), would you be allowed to have that kind of server?

How about this.... lets talk about the real issues that are facing this country, issues that are affecting every man, woman and child v.s. about some god damn emails....

You're not thinking about the level of position Sec Clinton held, and the fact that when someone of that level makes major mistakes in handling of classified information it actually does affect every man, woman, and child in America.

However, a significant portion of this thread is talking about many of the other issues.

Also, you can't talk about one without talking about the other....

Actually, you can. Last I checked, Sec Clinton is not Mr. Trump. You can treat them as two entirely separate humans, and choose to judge each of them on their own merits and faults without the other being brought in until there is a choice between just the two.

For example, I am NOT a fan of Trump. That said, if the choice were Trump or Chaffee, I'd likely vote for Chaffee. If the choice were Trump or Clinton, I'd likely vote for Trump. If the vote were Bush or Clinton, I'd likely sit out the vote like LB because I couldn't choose a lesser of those two evils. THAT is the point when comparing faults is appropriate.

At this stage in the game, the comparison game is between Dems with Dems and GOP with GOP, because that is the choice at this point.

 

[steppinthrax]

You didn't listen to the entire context...

Bernie made his statement intended for headlines, and he succeeded. Cooper followed with (in essence), "yeah, that's all fine and dandy here in a Democrat primary audience, but it's not really true for most of the nation. Gov. Chaffee, you disagree with Sen Sanders, care to elaborate?" Gov Chaffee did elaborate with substance (weakly, but still some substance). Sec Clinton responded with, "#### you, America, I'm done with this."

That the crowd cheered that is sad.Why not talk about those in a Democrat Debate thread? Because it is outside the scope of the thread.

Also, the "they did it first" attitude is not acceptable. Are there character flaws with GOP candidates? Of course! And, they should be discussed. But, the point of discussing the faults of Democrats in a Democrat-Debate thread is to stick to that subject. If you'd like to list your faults of Trump, start a thread and I'll be glad to agree with many, probably disagree with some, and discuss others.

Why is there always a need from both sides to go to the, "yeah, but, let's not talk about our people's faults, let's talk about YOUR people's faults!"? GOP candidates have faults, and they're discussed. Let's now talk about DNC candidates' faults and strengths.

She responded with "No"

Not "F*uck you, America, I'm done with this"...

Yes, I have no problem with her response of "No". I don't think it's necessary for her to respond, neither did the crowd. If it were that much of an issue (as you purport), you would have heard boos....

Let's be honest with ourselves.

What's outside the scope of any thread in Somd Forums. You are trying to sit here and pick/pull apart the 1st Dem debate??? But don't want to bring in other elements (that will be bought in regardless).

You know why????

Because it's so easy to talk about the GOP, but much harder to talk about the DEMs.

 

[This_person]

She knowingly went around govt email security policy to ensure nobody else could access her email archives(except maybe foreign hackers) . This wasn't an oversight, a simple mistake, it was a deliberate choice to bypass existing systems for personal benefit.

BINGO! And that choice lead to:

National security IS a real issue.

That's why it really does matter, just like Anderson Cooper said after the applause line from Bernie Sanders.

 

[steppinthrax]

National security IS a real issue.

And has been since 9/11 (even before).....

Many GOP said when Obama got elected, he would be weak on Nat Sec... (another dem we can talk about, she we only want to talk about dems...)

 

[vraiblonde]

We have to remember that Hill, Bern, et al, were not talking to conservatives last night - they were talking to Democrat voters, because that's all that counts for them right now. They have a primary to win and they will only win it by having Democrat voters like them better than the other guy.

Whoever makes it through, we will be hearing something different from them when they have to win over conservatives - or even "conservatives" - as well.

If Dems are smart, that "whoever" won't be Bernie Sanders. Unless Uncle Joe jumps in, Hillary is the only one of them who has a chance in the general. O'Malley looks good, but he's JV - not ready for prime time. Of course, I thought that about Barack Obama as well, and we can see how that turned out...

 

[This_person]

She responded with "No"

Not "F*uck you, America, I'm done with this"...

Yes, I have no problem with her response of "No". I don't think it's necessary for her to respond, neither did the crowd. If it were that much of an issue (as you purport), you would have heard boos....

You have the same mindset as the crowd, which is why you have no problem with it. Had a GOP member said, "No, I don't want to address a concern raised about me from someone within my part about what even the president (in my party) said is a valid concern" you would likely say that person is being tone-deaf, arrogant, and evasive (at kindest). You would likely believe that GOP member was saying, "#### you, America, I don't care what you think."

What's outside the scope of any thread in Somd Forums. You are trying to sit here and pick/pull apart the 1st Dem debate??? But don't want to bring in other elements (that will be bought in regardless).

You know why????

Because it's so easy to talk about the GOP, but much harder to talk about the DEMs.

There are a lot of faults with the GOP. Let's talk about them. But, not to the exclusion of the faults with the Dems.

 

[This_person]

And has been since 9/11 (even before).....

Many GOP said when Obama got elected, he would be weak on Nat Sec... (another dem we can talk about, she we only want to talk about dems...)

And, he has been. And, Clinton was a part of the administration that essentially established the "lead from behind" strategy for America that Clinton espoused very positively last night. A policy that has failed in terms of America's standing in the world and in terms of overall world safety.

 

[vraiblonde]

And has been since 9/11 (even before).....

Many GOP said when Obama got elected, he would be weak on Nat Sec... (another dem we can talk about, she we only want to talk about dems...)

This is the Dem thread, which is why we only want to talk about Dems. Start a thread picking apart the Republicans, or you can just add on to one of the existing threads discussing them.

:shrug:

Anyway, Obama IS weak on national security. But his voting base isn't interested in stuff like that; they're interested in who will be paying their cellphone bill. But he's not a topic in this thread, either, unless we want to talk about how Hillary is suddenly glomming onto his coat tails ("The president and I..." "I worked with President Obama...") to pick up his fans.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

You didn't listen to the entire context...

When questioned about emails she responded. Bernie defended her and made a statement that I feel reverberated with everyone!!! "Enough with the emails". The Americans don't want to hear about this (something about that effect). When someone tried to attack her further on the emails she responded by saying "No"...

People laughed because it was quite obvious that any further response regarding this "email" issue would be foolish.

Esp... There are plenty of character as well as judgement faults with the whole slew of GOP candidates we have now.... Why don't we talk about those. Lets start with Trump????

It sure didn't reverberate with me. It may have reverberated with those that like Hillary (for whatever reason) and cheer at the fact that someone thinks like them, but surely not everyone.

The FBI is investigating her based on a tiny, tiny portion of her tens of thousands of e-mails is valid. The folks you work with (that are using govt. computers and not some hodge-podge private server set up at their home) probably aren't being investigated by the FBI are they? Asking a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE to discuss their situation while their being investigated by the top law enforcement agency in the country isn't a bad thing, and the fact that you think it is, or that it's some conspiracy or stupid tangent to make her look bad is preposterous.

If, on one hand, the dems want to jump up and down screaming "it's the law of the land" when it comes to Obamacare, they should stay on course and demand the law of the land be applied to the elites that break the law as well. Instead, we have a system where Deflategate gets through a federal court system faster than a Presidential candidate suspected sending/receiving classified e-mails (regardless of what you constitute as a big deal) on a private server (or 2) outside of govt. networks.

I agree on foreign entanglements. But none of them (at least of the little I watched; I had to get to bed) really articulated when they would see a valid use of military force. But I realize it’s easy to talk about it (a la Obama) when campaigning; then realize reality is far different inside that Whitehouse than inside.

“Corporate media and wall street that are running the country”? What Sanders is proposing is government ‘running the country’; which is a far more uncomfortable prospect. Sanders talks about taking down the fat cats while spouting the lie that this will translate into propping up the middle and lower class. Given the greed that exists in government, and Sanders want government to control this so-called transition of fiscal power, it will only result in the government benefiting from it. While the wealthy will be taken down, the middle class will only suffer more under these conditions.

No, they didn't. Bernie started to, essentially saying we need other countries to step up. Siting his votes on the genocide in Kosovo and holding those that directly affect the USA accountable.

I get what you're saying and I agree 100%, which is why I said I agree with him, in principal. I don't agree with his way of fixing anything wrong with this country.

 

[vraiblonde]

One thing I thought was interesting: where was good ol' Willie Jeff? All the candidates had a spouse in the audience...except Hillary. If I were her I'd beat his ass in public for that. "Bitch, I ate #### for 8 years and stood by your raggedy ass every time you embarrassed me and made a fool of me. Now you get your ass in that audience and show me some support. "

She really needs him to step up.

 

[steppinthrax]

You have the same mindset as the crowd, which is why you have no problem with it. Had a GOP member said, "No, I don't want to address a concern raised about me from someone within my part about what even the president (in my party) said is a valid concern" you would likely say that person is being tone-deaf, arrogant, and evasive (at kindest). You would likely believe that GOP member was saying, "#### you, America, I don't care what you think."There are a lot of faults with the GOP. Let's talk about them. But, not to the exclusion of the faults with the Dems.

I can also say...

You have the mindset of the GOP crowd....

Which is why you had a problem with Hillary saying No.... Thus converting it to she said "#### you, America"

As you demonstrated initially and easily.

If you're going to personally attack me for my stance. I can pretty much take what you said can be reverse it back onto you!!!

So what's the point?

I agree, there are lots of GOP faults, but you can't confine the topic to just DEMs. There will always be cases where you are going to refer to the other side. At the end of the day it will be 1 v.s. 1...

 

[Gilligan]

Which is why you had a problem with Hillary saying No.... Thus converting it to she said "#### you, America"

..

But what else has Hillary been doing for the last 6 months or more if not exactly that? The damning information concerning her use of a private server keeps coming out very much in spite of Hillary...she is blocking it every step of the way.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I agree, there are lots of GOP faults, but you can't confine the topic to just DEMs. There will always be cases where you are going to refer to the other side. At the end of the day it will be 1 v.s. 1...

In a thread about the Democratic debate, it's not a far-fetched idea to bring up the faults of "Dems".

This is where we are, I guess. Asking her to discuss her biggest blunder so far during the race during a presidential debate, and her refusing to, is just the GOP twisting her words.

 

[vraiblonde]

I thought her "No" was funny. It's not often Miss Frozen Lemon Custard shows humor or irreverence. Honestly, what's she going to say about it that she hasn't already said?

 

[This_person]

I can also say...

You have the mindset of the GOP crowd....

Well, the GOP crowd, the moderator, other Dem presidential candidates, and the Dem President of the United States.

It's a little bigger deal than you accept.

 

[This_person]

II agree, there are lots of GOP faults, but you can't confine the topic to just DEMs. There will always be cases where you are going to refer to the other side. At the end of the day it will be 1 v.s. 1...

When the vote is Dem vs. GOP, I would agree that's a great time to discuss Dem vs. GOP.

Last night was a Dem debate, and time to discuss Dem vs. Dem. After the next GOP debate, it will be time to discuss GOP vs. GOP.

 

[Hodr]

He can't just answer a yes or no question! He was making my ears bleed on that trip around the mulberry bush.

I missed the debate, but knowing the kind of questions they ask I could understand not sticking to a yes or no answer. Unless they lobbed some softballs.

Here's an example:

"Bann, have you shared with your parents the full extent of your drug abuse issues?"

Remember, yes or no answer only. Or do you think the question is unfair and you need to explain why?

 

[This_person]

I thought her "No" was funny. It's not often Miss Frozen Lemon Custard shows humor or irreverence. Honestly, what's she going to say about it that she hasn't already said?

If she said, "I agree with the president that this is a valid question, and I made a huge mistake. I apologize to the country for my blunder, and I will work in private with Congress to go over the results of the spill of classified information I have caused by my mistake. As the president has said, looking into this is not a partisan issue, but a valid issue, and I rescind all my claims of partisan attacks. I will fully cooperate to fix the consequences."

THAT would end all discussion on the issue. EVERYONE ####s up at some point or another. NO ONE will fault her for making a mistake (albeit HUGE). Take actual responsibility without turning around and dismissing her responsibility by claiming partisan attack, and the issue is done and over and forgotten.