Hillary: I Will Be The Nominee, It’s Done

[Guest]

5 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

Rihported 

????

[Guest]

5 hours ago, SychosSoChic said:

Do you smell that?
It smells like a strong competent leader who'll send a good message to developing countries.

It smells like stability.

Talent Always Wins

 

[PartySick 172,533]

7 minutes ago, BoysBoysBoys652 said:

Lesbian Warhawk?!? Lol

Stay woke

[Sid 6,755]

2 minutes ago, BoysBoysBoys652 said:

Don't even try to argue with people who are Trump supporters or Sanders supporters, they've already convinced themselves that she is a tyrant bent on world destruction, and her charity work and and life as First Lady proves it apparently. 

2

 

errrmm what? I wasn't talking about supporting either one of them though, I was simply pointing out literal facts from the article about the circumstances surrounding her email server. I said nothing about her charity work, her time as FLOTUS, or anything else about her at all in fact. 

 

1 minute ago, BoysBoysBoys652 said:

They're investigating because it's protocol to when a government email is hacked/leaks emails. They have to investigate for her protection, not just because she's hiding something or there was scandal hidden somewhere. Of course Fox News and the conservative media will tell you different 

 

 

Obviously you didn't even read the article or what I posted. I'm not talking about a "scandal" or anything of the sort. I was talking about the Top Secret emails that were indeed found on her server that could have been intercepted by any number of people. I don't really care what else she's done or hasn't done for that matter, I was simply pointing out facts. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

6 hours ago, IWantTheFame said:

What are you talking about? Have you read these emails? Let's take a look at the article you posted. 

 

So, the real focus is likely to be a narrower set of messages: 65 deemed “Secret” and 22 deemed “Top Secret.” Because of the nature of email, the actual amount of highly sensitive information is more limited than those numbers suggest. The 22 “Top Secret” messages consist of seven “threads,” presumably with the same classified subject matter discussed in each email in the thread.
 

So there were definitely Top Secret emails on her server.

 

Next, you're saying no information was breached. Let's look at the article again.

In his interview with POLITICO, Giuliani contended that Clinton’s server was a more serious breach than the one Petraeus committed because her actions continued over years and made the records vulnerable to being obtained by spies or terrorists. “This woman was displaying it for the world,” he said.
 

It’s also unclear whether the information was less secure on Clinton’s home server than on the State Department’s unclassified email system used to send most of the now-classified messages to her in the first place. State’s system was an obvious target and has been repeatedly broken into by the Russian government, U.S. officials have said.

“We know for a fact there was a compromise of State’s unclassified server,” said Aftergood. “Did [Clinton] exacerbate that threat by her use of a private server? Possibly, but we really don’t know.”

 

 

 

In any case, this is who we want representing us? Someone that's going to skirt our nation's security policies whenever she feels like it? I can't believe anybody is still defending her. What she did was wrong, period. And it wasn't a one time thing, she sent these unsecured emails repeatedly, showing a blatant disregard for the laws in place and the security of those identities involved.

Hey sorry for late response. Went out with friends and woosh time flew by. 

Anyway...

You linked that paragraph entirely out of context. Read the preceding paragraphs:

Lawyers say the broad circulation of the information State now says is classified points to another potential problem with prosecuting Clinton: the question of how many others would or should be charged in such a case. Almost all of the now-classified messages on her account were sent by other State officials. Should they be prosecuted? What about those who didn’t send her such information but wound up with that information in their work accounts and even personal ones investigators are now combing through?

“On the theory people are putting forward for making this criminal, every single one of those people [who sent a classified message on an unclassified system] is equally guilty, probably more guilty” than Clinton, the ex-prosecutor said. “People three or four levels down, closer to the information, presumably had greater reason to know if it contained classified information … It would make no sense to aim your fire at the person at the end of the chain, instead of at the beginning of the chain.”

----

So not only were these files retroactively classified after the issue came up, they were also not hers to begin with. She was not handling the classified information. It was being sent to her through unclassified channels.

So that puts a dent in your argument. 

-----

Next you link quotes from the main prosecutor. From the get go those are highly unreliable for factual information, because his entire case rests on the fact that he wants to get a conviction. He's not going to say that "there is nothing there" otherwise he has no case.

Now to look at his actual statements, he merely says that there may have been security breaches we don't know about. 

Giuliani contended that Clinton’s server was a more serious breach than the one Petraeus committed because her actions continued over years and made the records vulnerable to being obtained by spies or terrorists. “This woman was displaying it for the world,” he said.

That's farfetched. Duration is not proportional to failure rate. Anyone who has studied computer security knows this. You can have a server for 20 years or for 1 day. If you have a security weak point it can be accessed.

-----

It’s also unclear whether the information was less secure on Clinton’s home server than on the State Department’s unclassified email system used to send most of the now-classified messages to her in the first place. State’s system was an obvious target and has been repeatedly broken into by the Russian government, U.S. officials have said.

“We know for a fact there was a compromise of State’s unclassified server,” said Aftergood. “Did [Clinton] exacerbate that threat by her use of a private server? Possibly, but we really don’t know.”

No we do know. The State Department's server has been compromised repeatedly. Clinton's has not. There is no record of a breach. You know when you're attacked. People can't just walk in and tamper with your packets or intercept messages without being detected, especially when these messages are inherently encrypted with MACs, cryptographic hash functions, and salts. Perhaps man in the middle attacks but those are highly unlikely given the nature of communications. 

-----

Look, I'm not arguing whether what she did was illegal or not. It's just simply very unlikely that she'll be prosecuted for this. There are too many unknowns and too little facts that can stick. Furthermore, there was no malevolent intent as she did not share this information with anyone, and there were no breaches as far as we know. 

Frankly I find it disturbing that people want her to go to jail really badly. I continue to wonder why people think she's a criminal despite having never been indicted, charged, or sentenced. Please exercise your own judgement independent of the GOP-infused media lies over a 30 year period. If she was indeed guilty, she would have been in prison long ago. Certainly not still in politics. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

4 hours ago, PartySick said:

Sis wait  did you actually report me for that?

No 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

4 hours ago, PaperIz said:

I've changed my mind. I refuse to vote for someone I don't trust.

*snort*

What made you change your mind all of a sudden? It's not like she has done anything sketchy.

Do what you want, but your flipflopping is ironic.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 hour ago, BoysBoysBoys652 said:

????

What? 

[nickziza 228]

7 hours ago, NickARTPOP said:

No matter what you believe I think it is obvious that Bernie would stand a better chance against Trump, with things like Bernie or bust, if she wins the vote will be split which means Trump will probably win. Hopefully people realize that Bernie can't win as an independent and Hillary is the lesser of two evils.

The Democratic Party almost ALWAYS starts out with Colorado (9), California (55), New York (29), Florida (29), Oregon (12),  Pennsylvania (20), and Illinois (20). That alone is 145 Electoral Votes. Plus the New England states. 

The GOP starts out with Texas (38), Georgia (16), Arizona (11), Tennessee (11), Missouri (10), South Carolina (9), Alabama (9). That starts the GOP off with 104 Electoral Votes. That's a major head off the bat. And with a steady campaign, there should be no problem for Secretary Clinton. Plus, polls in both Mississippi and Utah have came back with Clinton above Trump, which would be the first time in YEARS that these states have voted Democrat. That says a lot!

[Spyro 8,438]

28 minutes ago, nickziza said:

 

Here's a cool site that shows you a electoral map of who's ahead in what state + you can create your own!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

 

[Spyro 8,438]

7 hours ago, NickARTPOP said:

No matter what you believe I think it is obvious that Bernie would stand a better chance against Trump, with things like Bernie or bust, if she wins the vote will be split which means Trump will probably win. Hopefully people realize that Bernie can't win as an independent and Hillary is the lesser of two evils.

Here's a website that has an electoral map with whose polling who ahead in what state (plus, you can create your own).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/create_your_own_president_map.html

 

Clinton currently has 227 vs. Trump's 143 (270 is needed to win)

If you also add in the remaining New England states which have been historically blue (Pennsylvania & New Hampshire), she comes out at a total with 251 electoral votes.  She's basically 19 votes shy of presidency.  Add in Florida and she's up to 280.  But, say she doesn't win Florida, then she needs to win Ohio AND Virginia (which are swing states) and she wins.  She basically just either needs to focus on 1 or 2 states.  But, right now, Florida is basically her ticket to presidency (2000 election teas).

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 hour ago, Spyro said:

Here's a website that has an electoral map with whose polling who ahead in what state (plus, you can create your own).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/create_your_own_president_map.html

 

Clinton currently has 227 vs. Trump's 143 (270 is needed to win)

If you also add in the remaining New England states which have been historically blue (Pennsylvania & New Hampshire), she comes out at a total with 251 electoral votes.  She's basically 19 votes shy of presidency.  Add in Florida and she's up to 280.  But, say she doesn't win Florida, then she needs to win Ohio AND Virginia (which are swing states) and she wins.  She basically just either needs to focus on 1 or 2 states.  But, right now, Florida is basically her ticket to presidency (2000 election teas).

Yeah I've heard this for a while. All she needs is Florida.

[Spyro 8,438]

24 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Yeah I've heard this for a while. All she needs is Florida.

Just a caution - Pennsylvania has a possibility of becoming red this election! 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/31/can_the_gop_win_pennsylvania_129159.html

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, Spyro said:

Just a caution - Pennsylvania has a possibility of becoming red this election! 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/31/can_the_gop_win_pennsylvania_129159.html

 My head hurts now.

[Spyro 8,438]

6 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

 My head hurts now.

Tl;dr: Even though Penn voted democrat in the last six contests, it has been shifting to the right.  Democrats win the urban areas in Penn while Republicans win the rural areas of Penn.  The GOP could cut the young voters while targeting the older, white votes.  Basically, it's possible with enough effort and time, Trump could turn Pennsylvania red.  Also "there is no historical precedent for a party winning a third term while its incumbent president holds low job approval ratings."  but there's a first for everything lel. 

 

edit: I just realized this was published at the end of december 2015.