Hillary Clinton

How about some actual, on the floor of Congress stuff?

"
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, generated the response by asking McCullough if he could provide the committee, in a secure format, the classified emails transmitted over Clinton’s private email server.

“I cannot provide a certain segment of them because the agency that owns the information for those emails has limited the distribution on those,” McCullough explained. “They are characterizing them as OrCon, ‘originator control,’ so I can’t give them to even Congress without getting the agency’s permission to provide them.”

“Which agency?” Chaffetz interjected.

“I can’t say that in an open hearing sir,” McCullough replied.

“So you can’t even tell me which agency won’t allow us, as members of Congress, to see something that Hillary Clinton allowed somebody without a security clearance, in a non-protected format to see. That’s correct?” Chaffetz responded, in obvious disbelief.


http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/13-of-abedin-emails-100-redacted/

The stuff on Hillary's unsecured server was so sensitive, Congress isn't even allowed to know at which agency they originated?

Yeah, this is the woman I want to have the nuclear codes! =@[.]@=

=^[.]^= basic (happy/amused) cheetahmoticon: Whiskers/eye/tear-streak/nose/tear-streak/eye/
whiskers =@[.]@= boggled / =>[.]<= annoyed or angry / ='[.]'= concerned / =0[.]o= confuzzled /
=-[.]-= sad or sleepy / =*[.]*= dazzled / =^[.]~= wink / =~[.]^= naughty wink / =9[.]9= rolleyes #FourYearLie
Short reminder that Hillary started the whole birther bullshit around Obama in 2008.

Her campaign circulated this photo of Obama back then: https://i.sli.mg/EsrR4a.jpg
GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
"
Raycheetah wrote:
How about some actual, on the floor of Congress stuff?

"
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, generated the response by asking McCullough if he could provide the committee, in a secure format, the classified emails transmitted over Clinton’s private email server.

“I cannot provide a certain segment of them because the agency that owns the information for those emails has limited the distribution on those,” McCullough explained. “They are characterizing them as OrCon, ‘originator control,’ so I can’t give them to even Congress without getting the agency’s permission to provide them.”

“Which agency?” Chaffetz interjected.

“I can’t say that in an open hearing sir,” McCullough replied.

“So you can’t even tell me which agency won’t allow us, as members of Congress, to see something that Hillary Clinton allowed somebody without a security clearance, in a non-protected format to see. That’s correct?” Chaffetz responded, in obvious disbelief.


http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/13-of-abedin-emails-100-redacted/




How.... how can you give someone without a clearance access to stuff that classified without losing your clearance.

People with a TS lose their clearance for sneezing in the wrong direction
anything is everything
"
Raycheetah wrote:
How about some actual, on the floor of Congress stuff?

"
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, generated the response by asking McCullough if he could provide the committee, in a secure format, the classified emails transmitted over Clinton’s private email server.

“I cannot provide a certain segment of them because the agency that owns the information for those emails has limited the distribution on those,” McCullough explained. “They are characterizing them as OrCon, ‘originator control,’ so I can’t give them to even Congress without getting the agency’s permission to provide them.”

“Which agency?” Chaffetz interjected.

“I can’t say that in an open hearing sir,” McCullough replied.

“So you can’t even tell me which agency won’t allow us, as members of Congress, to see something that Hillary Clinton allowed somebody without a security clearance, in a non-protected format to see. That’s correct?” Chaffetz responded, in obvious disbelief.


http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/13-of-abedin-emails-100-redacted/

The stuff on Hillary's unsecured server was so sensitive, Congress isn't even allowed to know at which agency they originated?

Yeah, this is the woman I want to have the nuclear codes! =@[.]@=


No grandstanding there. Nope.

And yes, she *is* the one out of all the people running you want with the codes, with maybe the exception of Johnson. You can't possibly be fucking serious if you think thin-skinned, complete foreign-policy-ignoramus Trump is the safer choice in that matter.

You know, the guy who "won't say" whether or not he would use nukes in Europe.

Mishandling of classified info (which as it turns out, exposed nothing and endangered no one) is not even in the same sport as deciding to use nukes, let alone the same ballpark.

Next.

Spoiler
I'll give you a head start:

"B..b..b..but, Benghazi!"
A comprehensive, easy on the eyes loot filter:
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1245785

Need a chill group exiles to hang with? Join us:
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1251403
Last edited by Antnee on Aug 26, 2016, 8:07:14 AM
isn't it hilarious that no one can defend hillary clinton without saying the word trump

and then repeating huffington post articles until their eyes fall out


anything is everything
Last edited by Manocean on Aug 26, 2016, 11:28:07 AM
"
Manocean wrote:
isn't it hilarious that no one can defend hillary clinton without saying the word trump

and then repeating huffington post articles until their eyes fall out

And the reverse is also true. Guess both parties nominated shitty candidates.

Trump legitimately scares me. Sorry, deal with it.
A comprehensive, easy on the eyes loot filter:
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1245785

Need a chill group exiles to hang with? Join us:
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1251403
Hillary might be corrupt but Trump is a textbook demagogue.

"What is a demagogue? He is a politician skilled in oratory, flattery and invective; evasive in discussing vital issues; promising everything to everybody; appealing to the passions rather than the reason of the public; and arousing racial, religious, and class prejudices—a man whose lust for power without recourse to principle leads him to seek to become a master of the masses. He has for centuries practiced his profession of 'man of the people'. He is a product of a political tradition nearly as old as western civilization itself.", R.H. Luthin
"
Antnee wrote:
"
Manocean wrote:
isn't it hilarious that no one can defend hillary clinton without saying the word trump

and then repeating huffington post articles until their eyes fall out

And the reverse is also true. Guess both parties nominated shitty candidates.

Trump legitimately scares me. Sorry, deal with it.


Trump is just one guy. The vast numbers of people who support him, that is scary...
"
Antnee wrote:
Guess both parties nominated shitty candidates.


Which of our presidential candidates would I trust with classified information? Neither.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Aug 26, 2016, 4:35:45 PM
"
Antnee wrote:

And yes, she *is* the one out of all the people running you want with the codes, with maybe the exception of Johnson.


Her refusal to follow procedures, refusal to obey the law, and disdain for anyone who questions her in any way, says otherwise.

"
Antnee wrote:
You can't possibly be fucking serious if you think thin-skinned, complete foreign-policy-ignoramus Trump is the safer choice in that matter.


As opposed to the foreign policy experience of the guy with almost zero legislation and community organizer background that has been president for two terms now?

Clinton actions and consequences while she was secretary of state are a black mark on her foreign policy "experience". It's like promoting Jack the Ripper's experiences in a bid for him to become chief surgeon of a hospital.

"
Antnee wrote:
You know, the guy who "won't say" whether or not he would use nukes in Europe.


Have you ever looked at US nuclear policy? Trump's knowledge of US Policy on nukes has the basics correct. That policy has undergone only minor shifts in a very long time. It is same policy Obama follows, Bush followed and very slightly changed since Reagan. The only real change over the last several decades has been the Start I and Start II treaties.

Here's the boil down of what Trump said and the actual conversation:

TRUMP: I'm not going to use nuclear, but I'm not taking any cards off the table.

The conversation:

Spoiler

MATTHEWS: OK. Your most controversial suggestion was don't take nuclear weapons -- I mean, you may have been hooked into this by (inaudible).

TRUMP: Don't take what?

MATTHEWS: Nuclear weapons off the table. I have been trying to think of how we could conceivably use a nuclear weapon in the Middle East or in Europe in fighting ISIS. Where can you -- and why put it on the table or leave it on the table if you can't imagine where to use it?

TRUMP: Well, I didn't say, "Don't take it." I said I would be very, very slow and hesitant to pull that trigger.

MATTHEWS: Well, why would you -- why wouldn't you just say, "I don't want to talk about it. I don't want to talk about nuclear weapons. Presidents don't talk about use of nuclear weapons"?

TRUMP: The question was asked -- we were talking about NATO -- which, by the way, I say is obsolete and we pay a dispropor...

MATTHEWS: But you got hooked into something you shouldn't've talked about.

TRUMP: I don't think I -- well, someday, maybe.

MATTHEWS: When? Maybe?

TRUMP: Of course. If somebody...

MATTHEWS: Where would we drop -- where would we drop a nuclear weapon in the Middle East?

TRUMP: Let me explain. Let me explain. Somebody hits us within ISIS, you wouldn't fight back with a nuke?

MATTHEWS: No. To drop a nuclear weapon on a community of people that are...

TRUMP: No, no, but you can't say -- first of all, you don't want to say, "Take everything off the table..."

MATTHEWS: No, just nuclear.

TRUMP: ... because you'd be a bad negotiator if you do that.

MATTHEWS: Just nuclear.

TRUMP: Look, nuclear should be off the table. But would there be a time when it could be used, possibly, possibly?

MATTHEWS: OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in '45, heard it. They're hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.

TRUMP: Then why are we making them? Why do we make them? We had (inaudible).

MATTHEWS: Because of the old mutual assured destruction, which Reagan hated and tried to get rid of.

TRUMP: (inaudible) I was against Iraq. I'd be the last one to use the nuclear weapon.

MATTHEWS: So can you take it off the table now?

TRUMP: Because that's sort of like the end of the ball game.

MATTHEWS: Can you tell the Middle East we're not using a nuclear weapon on anybody?

TRUMP: I would never say that. I would never take any of my cards off the table.

MATTHEWS: How about Europe? We won't use it in Europe?

TRUMP: I -- I'm not going to take it off the table.

MATTHEWS: You might use it in Europe?

(LAUGHTER)

TRUMP: No, I don't think so. But I'm not taking...

MATTHEWS: Well, just say it. "I will never use a nuclear weapon in Europe."

TRUMP: I am not -- I am not taking cards off the table.

MATTHEWS: OK.

TRUMP: I'm not going to use nuclear, but I'm not taking any cards off the table.

MATTHEWS: OK. The trouble is, the sane people hear you and the insane people are not affected by your threats. That's the trouble. The real fanatics say, "Good. Keep it up.

TRUMP: I think -- I think they're more affected than you might think.

MATTHEWS: OK. Your call.


Here is the official stated policy of NATO:

........................

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50068.htm#




NATO’s nuclear policy is based on NATO’s 2010 Strategic Concept and the 2012 Deterrence and Defence Posture Review.

The fundamental purpose of NATO’s nuclear forces is deterrence.

Deterrence, based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, remains a core element of NATO’s overall strategy.

Nuclear weapons are a core component of the Alliance’s overall capabilities for deterrence and defence alongside conventional and missile defence forces.

NATO is committed to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation, but as long as nuclear weapons exist, it will remain a nuclear alliance.

The Nuclear Planning Group provides the forum for consultation on NATO’s nuclear deterrence.


...................


Most people don't have to worry or think about nuclear policy, hence little interest in learning much about it.

The Big Bada Boom Bad! interview makes for great soundbites, but is an inane and uneducated line of questioning. Matthews would get an "F" in Nuclear Foreign Policy 101.


Everyone (including Chris Matthews) think the only purpose for nukes is MAD

Spoiler
MATTHEWS: Because of the old mutual assured destruction, which Reagan hated and tried to get rid of.




From the same NATO page:

NATO is prepared to consider further reducing its requirement for non-strategic nuclear weapons assigned to the Alliance in the context of reciprocal steps by Russia, taking into account the greater Russian stockpiles of non-strategic nuclear weapons stationed in the Euro-Atlantic area.”




Non-Strategic nuclear weapons aren't used for strategic defense - aka MAD. They are tactical nuclear weapons, and the US has and has had a policy on them since their inception.

Again from NATO's site:

“We continue to aspire to a cooperative, constructive relationship with Russia, including reciprocal confidence building and transparency measures and increased mutual understanding of NATO's and Russia's non-strategic nuclear force postures in Europe, based on our common security concerns and interests, in a Europe where each country freely chooses its future. We regret that the conditions for that relationship do not currently exist.

So, do you want a president who is willing to try and establish better relations with Russia and thus make it possible to reduce our nuclear arsenal (Trump) or do you want the president who is vehemently against Russia, has a demonstrated proclivity for establish and supporting foreign wars and unrest and will NOT result in any reduction of nuclear weapons (Clinton)?

You and I both know that talk is cheap.

Hillary's past actions while in office say mostly bad things about what she will do if elected president.

She is the more dangerous candidate BY FAR.

Any other thinking is delusional.

You can detest and ridicule Trump to you heart's content. That he spoke to the basics of existing US nuclear policy is a point in his favor, and a point against media critics that are utterly clueless.

People who like war will probably want to vote for the proven warmonger - H.

People who are tired of the US spending so much effort trying to manipulate the world through military interventions will probably want to vote for someone other than H.

Your choice - War is H, or something different?

"
Antnee wrote:
Mishandling of classified info


To say that Hillary's determined effort to dodge, obfuscate, scrub, miscategorize, lie under oath, deny responsibility, etc is "mishandling" is like saying that this guy used a garden tool inappropriately:



PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910
Last edited by DalaiLama on Aug 26, 2016, 6:49:09 PM

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info