2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

5,601 to 5,650 of 7,079 << first < prev | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just want to go back to this:

GreyWolfLord wrote:
It's not rocket science, it's simply, some are punished where she was not for the exact same thing.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Normally because if they worked for the military or had a clearance they know people who DID go to jail or were prosecuted for doing the exact thing that Clinton did.

These statements are simply false. One person in the past hundred years has been prosecuted for "gross negligence" in handling classified information.

The military folks who are up in arms about this apparently don't understand the difference between criminal intent and negligence, which is fine -- I don't understand how to field-strip an M16A4. But I hope that you have sense enough, if you need someone to repair your weapons, that you'll ignore me and go with someone with the relevant skills -- and I also hope that if you're going to judge Clinton's legal situation, you'll pay attention to with someone who understands the actual relevant law.

There's a reason why sailors get legal counsel at court-martials. If the sailor really did take those pictures by accident, that's something that will be brought up in defense and taken into account. But my understanding is that he's admitted that he deliberately took the pictures, which means it's not negligence, but willful misconduct. And while Private Snafu may not understand the difference, the head of the FBI certainly does.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I've taught you well, grasshopper.

Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.


Also, how are the two cases "the exact same thing"?

Did Hillary take photos of submarine propulsion systems and share them with people?


Irontruth wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:

I'm curious, GreyWolfLord, did you watch Comey testify before Congress after his press conference?

Video

I am actually NOT that interested in the Clinton scandal myself.

What I'm pointing out are those that are upset at her may have valid reasons for their anger.

Just because one hasn't had it happen to them or know other, does not necessarily invalidate the anger from the Armed forces or the military over the issue.

Even without the people I tried to help, going over the the military.com forums or other forums veterans frequent paint quite a picture in some of their thoughts regarding this and other issues in regards to both Trump and Clinton (as well, ironically Gary Johnson who, if you were to believe their forums, is doing far better among military than one would expect).

At my community college, the veterans group was pissed that they couldn't hold their school sponsored fund raiser at a strip club.

Just because people are pissed about something doesn't mean it's justified or legitimate.

That is pretty funny.

Depending on who they were catering to, that actually might not be a bad idea in some places.

Some people make a LOT of money at strip clubs. Personally, it is NOT my cup of tea and personally speaking, I'm not too favorable towards having strip clubs (I feel that they are exploitive, even though I know a LOT of those working in those same clubs would argue they are NOT exploited at all).

Still, depending on who they want funds from, that could be a highly successful fund raiser.

I can see how that probably wouldn't float with the community college sponsoring it though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just to be clear, we should ignore someone is demonstrably and factually wrong if that person has served in the military?


Orfamay Quest wrote:

I just want to go back to this:

GreyWolfLord wrote:
It's not rocket science, it's simply, some are punished where she was not for the exact same thing.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Normally because if they worked for the military or had a clearance they know people who DID go to jail or were prosecuted for doing the exact thing that Clinton did.

These statements are simply false. One person in the past hundred years has been prosecuted for "gross negligence" in handling classified information.

The military folks who are up in arms about this apparently don't understand the difference between criminal intent and negligence, which is fine -- I don't understand how to field-strip an M16A4. But I hope that you have sense enough, if you need someone to repair your weapons, that you'll ignore me and go with someone with the relevant skills -- and I also hope that if you're going to judge Clinton's legal situation, you'll pay attention to with someone who understands the actual relevant law.

There's a reason why sailors get legal counsel at court-martials. If the sailor really did take those pictures by accident, that's something that will be brought up in defense and taken into account. But my understanding is that he's admitted that he deliberately took the pictures, which means it's not negligence, but willful misconduct. And while Private Snafu may not understand the difference, the head of the FBI certainly does.

who are you choosing. What cases did you look at. Even high profile, are you talking about Petraeus, or the guy who tried to save his people from getting killed in Afghanistan?

Which one of the over several 100 cases over the past 5 years are you referencing as the "ONE" case?

How are you privy to such military matters so that you can actually make such a "definitive" statement.

I've seen at least (edited as there is confidentiality: a few) around 5 years ago...and that's just me.

Why do you keep saying only ONE...because the military records that I've been allowed to see (and even I didn't have THAT much access...the military members had FAR more than I did) indicate that FAR more occur than what you are saying.

They are NOT handled in civilian courts typically (though with civilians I think they lose the clearance and they lose their job, and if it goes beyond that it is prosecuted under a different attachment typically), as it is a court martial offense held in the Military court system.


GreyWolfLord wrote:


Which one of the 200 cases over the past 5 years are you referencing as the "ONE" case?

None of them. I'm referring to the testimony of the head of the FBI that there has been one prosecution under the law applicable to civilians (18 USC 793(f)) who show "gross negligence" in handling classified information.

Quote:
Why do you keep saying only ONE?

Because there has only been one prosecution under that section since 1917, as per the congressional testimony. And anything else is not "the exact same thing," as you keep, incorrectly, trying to say.


Irontruth wrote:

Also, how are the two cases "the exact same thing"?

Did Hillary take photos of submarine propulsion systems and share them with people?

I actually didn't post the article for comparison between Clinton's crime and the kids. I think they are actually different.

What I posted them for was as an example of what military and veterans were thinking. That's why I directed them towards the comment section where one could find examples of what people thought of Clinton's email relapses.

However, in answer to your question...supposedly...yes...yes she did in some of her classified email things.

But I don't think that was actually what I was referring to or bringing up. I was just trying to show that many in the military felt she had done something that if they themselves did, or knew others that did, would have been handled differently. I was showing that this is actually a valid reason why they may feel the way they do, whether we agree that it is the correct course of action or not.

I was simply saying I can understand WHY they may feel the way they do, even if it is not something I personally feel as strongly about.

It was in response to someone asking how anyone could feel that way, and I can understand the feelings of some towards that.

I might not agree with a LOT of the opinions of veterans and military in many instances, but I can understand at least some of where some of them are coming from (or at least try to understand it).

I just did it due to the comments and it was an easy thing for search to bring up really quickly on military.com, if I was trying to actually find an article that compared like situations, it probably would have dealt with a different case. I posted the ones I did for ease and simply for the comments below the article itself.


Well, at least I tried


Orfamay Quest wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:


Which one of the 200 cases over the past 5 years are you referencing as the "ONE" case?

None of them. I'm referring to the testimony of the head of the FBI that there has been one prosecution under the law applicable to civilians (18 USC 793(f)) who show "gross negligence" in handling classified information.

Quote:
Why do you keep saying only ONE?
Because there has only been one prosecution under that section since 1917, as per the congressional testimony. And anything else is not "the exact same thing," as you keep, incorrectly, trying to say.

Are you trying to convince me of something...if so I think you may have missed the ENTIRE POINT. I'm not the one you would want to convince if that is your purpose. Mine is simply one of being empathetic and understanding WHY they may feel the way they do.

If you are countering me, then you would be saying they do NOT feel that way (despite all the comments I've shown). If you are trying to say THEY are wrong, why are you talking to me?

If that's what you want to do, instead of trying to understand why they feel that way, go elaborate that to the military. I'm certain you'll be able to convince them...or not.

AS far as the number of cases, there ARE very similar instances in the cases I've seen. If you had access to military records dealing with this stuff, you probably would ALSO be able to see that. As I said, there are literally hundreds of these cases...which one are you referring to (edit: actually, don't answer that if you do, that would be violating several regulations, though there are two that are public knowledge right now that most bring up as similar, that with the guy from Afghanistan and Petraeus's).

Or you cannot because you do not have access?

Maybe that's one reason I'm more empathetic to what they are saying...I have seen records dealing with this type of stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh, hold on guys, we're moving over here now.


Moving Goalposts wrote:
Oh, hold on guys, we're moving over here now.

This is what I posted...

Quote:


I personally, am more threatened by other things...but I can understand those who are very angry about how Clinton's clearance and emails were handled.

Which goalpost was moved?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe since nobody seems swayed on either side of this issue, maybe we should just collectively drop it before it gets even more heated?


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Snowblind, Snarkwyrm wrote:
I thought the Bernie bros complained about the top one tenth of the one percent?

You seem to have confused "Bernie bros" for "Bernie supporters". That's not only inaccurate, it's pretty hard to see how you could have made the mistake when a woman supporting Bernie made the post. I have no idea what goes through the minds of Bernie bros. What comes out of their mouths is pretty ugly.

If you actually meant 'Bernie supporters', then you seemed to have also missed the "We are the 99%" Occupy slogan that was used a lot by such supporters.

This election is a victory for crony capitalism at the federal level. But the 99% have not gone away, and they aren't all Trump supporters.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
As I said, there are literally hundreds of these cases...which one are you referring to?

The one that was brought under 18 USC § 793(f), not under any of the other clauses under 18 USC § 793, and most emphatically not under the USMJ (which is 10 USC § 801–946).

Petraeus' case is instructive, although not in the way you think. Petraeus acknowledged deliberately and willfully mishandling classified information. Specifically, he took several binders (that he knew contained classified information) outside of a secure storage facility, thereby violating 18 U.S.C. § 1924 (and note, not § 793).

This law specifies that "Whoever, ... knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both." Petraeus, of course, got probation, not jail time -- but Clinton could not be prosecuted under this act at all since, as the FBI acknowledged, she didn't "knowingly" do any such thing.

Completely different act, most notably in the entire absence of mens rea on Clinton's part.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Maybe since nobody seems swayed on either side of this issue, maybe we should just collectively drop it before it gets even more heated?

As you wish. (no, that isn't a Princess bride reference though, I'm not in love with you, even if you are wearing what appears to be a veil :P).

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Flame wars < Phone Banking! Make calls for Clinton instead!

Trust me, you'll all feel so much better. I was cranky yesterday so I make a bunch of calls into Florida. Gotta run up that score! 538 gave Ds a 27% chance to flip the House last time I checked, still plenty of time to crank that up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Moving Goalposts wrote:
Oh, hold on guys, we're moving over here now.

This is what I posted...

Quote:


I personally, am more threatened by other things...but I can understand those who are very angry about how Clinton's clearance and emails were handled.
Which goalpost was moved?

This one.

GreyWolfLord wrote:

I don't recall other politicians (Democrat or Republican, or even Libertarian) simply just using normal email to pass classified information.

In fact, I believe there are laws against that (to which Clinton was immune apparently because...intent...of course...which doesn't apply to anyone else apparently).


Jaçinto wrote:
Right here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY even if you don't accept the source, listen to what members of the campaign actually say and ask yourself if that is actually an okay thing to do, or a reprehensible act.

It's a bloody staged and fake video. I've seen this kind of hatchet job before, and I'm not falling for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:

What? No, no, haven't you been paying attention to Candidate Trump? He was born into life with a golden spoon in his mouth (not just silver - pure gold!), got his wealth basically handed to him (and squandered a lot of it, going by his sub-par business performance), and as he's been very clearly telling us, the system is rigged against him. Otherwise he'd be winning. He definitely hasn't gotten the treatment he deserves.

Although with those trials set for the next few weeks, maybe we'll get lucky...

If he couldn't win a debate when the moderator was bending over backwards to throw softballs at him and hardballs at Clinton....


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Also, how are the two cases "the exact same thing"?

Did Hillary take photos of submarine propulsion systems and share them with people?

I actually didn't post the article for comparison between Clinton's crime and the kids. I think they are actually different.

What I posted them for was as an example of what military and veterans were thinking. That's why I directed them towards the comment section where one could find examples of what people thought of Clinton's email relapses.

However, in answer to your question...supposedly...yes...yes she did in some of her classified email things.

But I don't think that was actually what I was referring to or bringing up. I was just trying to show that many in the military felt she had done something that if they themselves did, or knew others that did, would have been handled differently. I was showing that this is actually a valid reason why they may feel the way they do, whether we agree that it is the correct course of action or not.

I was simply saying I can understand WHY they may feel the way they do, even if it is not something I personally feel as strongly about.

It was in response to someone asking how anyone could feel that way, and I can understand the feelings of some towards that.

I might not agree with a LOT of the opinions of veterans and military in many instances, but I can understand at least some of where some of them are coming from (or at least try to understand it).

I just did it due to the comments and it was an easy thing for search to bring up really quickly on military.com, if I was trying to actually find an article that compared like situations, it probably would have dealt with a different case. I posted the ones I did for ease and simply for the comments below the article itself.

I don't give a s&+# what their opinion is. If you keep bringing up the topic, I'm going to keep responding with facts about why this is a s&$&ty topic and most opinions seemed to be based on lies and innuendo.

By the way, I don't just talk to vets. I AM a vet.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

While I am not a vet, I have personally seen an e-spill happen with a civilian. There was no congressional investigation, nor were any civil or criminal penalties arranged for. They had to take the infosec computer course again.


The New Yorker has (perhaps unsurprisingly) endorsed Clinton, with an in-depth explanation of why.

Meanwhile, equally unsurprisingly, Trump denies that his numbers are falling.

Sovereign Court

I'm not a vet either, mostly because I don't like animals.


Guy Humual wrote:
I'm not a vet either, mostly because I don't like animals.

That joke was beastly.


Scythia wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
I'm not a vet either, mostly because I don't like animals.
That joke was beastly.

Don't mind him. His bark is worse than his bite.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Love of animals isn't sufficient anyhow.

We need extreme vetting.


Steve Geddes wrote:

Love of animals isn't sufficient anyhow.

We need extreme vetting.

We need stronger investigations into those who will provide medical care to former military dogs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We're gonna build a fence to keep the mailmen out.

And we're gonna make them pay for it!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

another article where the comments show a lot of anger towards Clinton

sailer who uses mishandled classified cites Clinton's leniency...wants same treatment because of...intent

He seems to have deliberately copied classified military technology to share with civilians. That's nothing like what Clinton actually did.

Not so much share, but to sell those photos to "interested parties", He didn't just take a couple of selfies, he made a through photo coverage of critical submarine equipment.His attempt to sell them, is probably how he was found out. He then deliberately destroyed his home computer in an attempt to cover up evidence.

When you have evidence of Clinton DELIBERATELY trying to sell critical American secrets to a foreign power, THEN the case can be made for equivalency.


Almost two weeks now. Thank Thor!


"Two weeks!"

or?

"Two weeks!"


I'll let you know on Tuesday, Pill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Running Subtheme: Standing Rock

141 WATER PROTECTORS ARRESTED AS POLICE ESCALATE VIOLENT MILITARIZED RESPONSE


Sheesh. It's crap like this that makes me wonder if the energy industry didn't some how have a hand in this election process...


Thomas Seitz wrote:
Sheesh. It's crap like this that makes me wonder if the energy industry didn't some how have a hand in this election process...

The website reporting this is not exactly a neutral observer.


Speaking of biased observers, I was reading a Fox News article about the election, explaining what oversampling is, what it means for elections... and no, it's not a nefarious Democrat plot to steal elections, it's a completely normal thing that both political parties do, and you shouldn't take any of Trump's complaints about it seriously. XD


Trump wants to sue press for saying something that's not true, un-ironically.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Wil Wheaton appearing at my FLGS on Wednesday to talk up Hillary Clinton.

What a nice surprise


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump wants to sue press for saying something that's not true, un-ironically.

Did they call him a viable candidate again?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know anything about this candidate's history, policies, or positions, but I love his re-election campaign ad.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump wants to sue press for saying something that's not true, un-ironically.
Did they call him a viable candidate again?

Technically if he keeps the traditional Red States, and gets Florida, New Hampshire, Texas, and Ohio, he can squeak into victory with 278 Electoral Votes even if he loses the Popular vote the way Bush 1.0 got in.

Since the last election, Florida has doubled down on denying ex-felons, a largely Democratic population the vote, and New Hampshire is still New Hampshire, as well as Texas. Ohio may be too swingy to call yet.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump wants to sue press for saying something that's not true, un-ironically.
Did they call him a viable candidate again?

Technically if he keeps the traditional Red States, and gets Florida, New Hampshire, Texas, and Ohio, he can squeak into victory with 278 Electoral Votes even if he loses the Popular vote the way Bush 1.0 got in.

Since the last election, Florida has doubled down on denying ex-felons, a largely Democratic population the vote, and New Hampshire is still New Hampshire, as well as Texas. Ohio may be too swingy to call yet.

If Texas is even in question, he's lost. It's certainly considered one of the traditional Red States, so I'm not sure what you're calling "Traditional red".

Romney got 206 electoral votes, including Texas. Adding Florida, NH & Ohio to that gets him 257, not enough to win. His chances of winning all three of them and whatever else you think is traditional are slim.

According to 538's wonderful little snake diagram, he'd have to take Iowa, Arizona, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania, all of which are currently at least leaning towards Clinton. (Or some other, even less likely states. Those are his best chances.)

It's certainly possible. Even now, something could happen to shake up the race. The polling could be massively overstating Clinton's lead across the board.

But you've been predicting a Clinton disaster all along and it keeps not happening. Forgive me for thinking you're off now as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Sheesh. It's crap like this that makes me wonder if the energy industry didn't some how have a hand in this election process...
The website reporting this is not exactly a neutral observer.

You can't be neutral on a moving train, as Comrade Zinn said, once upon a time.

Daily Kos article on the same subject, but it's written by a guy going by the name of "Navajo,"so I doubt s/he's completely detached and disinterested.

Cops jail 141 in ND: Even more 'water protectors' step up to the frontline, citing 1851 treaty


thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump wants to sue press for saying something that's not true, un-ironically.
Did they call him a viable candidate again?

Technically if he keeps the traditional Red States, and gets Florida, New Hampshire, Texas, and Ohio, he can squeak into victory with 278 Electoral Votes even if he loses the Popular vote the way Bush 1.0 got in.

Since the last election, Florida has doubled down on denying ex-felons, a largely Democratic population the vote, and New Hampshire is still New Hampshire, as well as Texas. Ohio may be too swingy to call yet.

If Texas is even in question, he's lost. It's certainly considered one of the traditional Red States, so I'm not sure what you're calling "Traditional red".

Romney got 206 electoral votes, including Texas. Adding Florida, NH & Ohio to that gets him 257, not enough to win. His chances of winning all three of them and whatever else you think is traditional are slim.

According to 538's wonderful little snake diagram, he'd have to take Iowa, Arizona, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania, all of which are currently at least leaning towards Clinton. (Or some other, even less likely states. Those are his best chances.)

It's certainly possible. Even now, something could happen to shake up the race. The polling could be massively overstating Clinton's lead across the board.

But you've been predicting a Clinton disaster all along and it keeps not happening. Forgive me for thinking you're off now as well.

We're looking at a major dropoff in millennial participation and estimated 50 percent vs. 55 percent last cycle. That's always bad news for Democrats. I do think that Clinton is going to pull the Popular vote by a narrow victory, but the Electoral College is where it all goes down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

New Hampshire hasn't gone Republican since Al Gore. I'll take bets that it goes to Clinton. To make the chances more even, know that I am working against myself and will be campaigning for Jill Stein.

If you want, we can even do the whole "if-I'm-wrong-I-will-vacate-Paizo-for-four-years" thing I did last time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

New Hampshire hasn't gone Republican since Al Gore. I'll take bets that it goes to Clinton. To make the chances more even, know that I am working against myself and will be campaigning for Jill Stein.

If you want, we can even do the whole "if-I'm-wrong-I-will-vacate-Paizo-for-four-years" thing I did last time.

And what would life be without our token Red Radical?


Irontruth wrote:
By the way, I don't just talk to vets. I AM a vet.

And that was the word of our sponsor, President of Vet Club for Men!


thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump wants to sue press for saying something that's not true, un-ironically.
Did they call him a viable candidate again?

Technically if he keeps the traditional Red States, and gets Florida, New Hampshire, Texas, and Ohio, he can squeak into victory with 278 Electoral Votes even if he loses the Popular vote the way Bush 1.0 got in.

Since the last election, Florida has doubled down on denying ex-felons, a largely Democratic population the vote, and New Hampshire is still New Hampshire, as well as Texas. Ohio may be too swingy to call yet.

If Texas is even in question, he's lost. It's certainly considered one of the traditional Red States, so I'm not sure what you're calling "Traditional red".

Romney got 206 electoral votes, including Texas. Adding Florida, NH & Ohio to that gets him 257, not enough to win. His chances of winning all three of them and whatever else you think is traditional are slim.

According to 538's wonderful little snake diagram, he'd have to take Iowa, Arizona, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania, all of which are currently at least leaning towards Clinton. (Or some other, even less likely states. Those are his best chances.)

It's certainly possible. Even now, something could happen to shake up the race. The polling could be massively overstating Clinton's lead across the board.

But you've been predicting a Clinton disaster all along and it keeps not happening. Forgive me for thinking you're off now as well.

I don't know what she meant but I thought of the old Solid South, which had a strong blue tradition between Reconstruction and the 1960s-70s.

5,601 to 5,650 of 7,079 << first < prev | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards