Sid

that Hillary-bashers don't sound like Republicans is lost on you.

I mean, here's a guy pretending to be one of the "good" Hillary bashers, and yet he's a Rand Paul supporter.

he's a Bernie supporter now.

"Thus far, I've already "unfriended" two people from Facebook, I've succumb to endless Twitter debates, and I've done my best to convince (successfully, I might add) friends and family that Bernie is far better for Democrats and the country than Clinton."

Might lend credence to the idea that Bernie can draw I, L and occasionally R votes.

by the left to assault Hillary. Sickening.

... check the subthread I'm in down below.

Apparently Hillary can't be President because Bill got a BJ.

a Republican"?

Please, pretty please, can we then??

If anyone fails to see the connection between the Bengazhi GOP driven propaganda and the current EGazhi GOP driven propaganda.....then no one can help you get out of that tunnel of vision.

Hint: each had not one scintilla of evidence anything was done wrong.....not one scintilla...it is all about the goose chas, no one actually cares much about catching the bird, as long as it is kept on the run.....no thanks from me for Democrats willing to join in on the chase and ally with Republicans...no thanks at all.

You mean the emails never happened?...she did not have a private server?
Benghazi is now the straw man to protect her from responsibility...now that is acting like a Republican IMO.

Anyone refusing to see the connection between similar propaganda blitzes...no one can help the willfully blind.

I know, it's shocking that the SOS would have emails on... wait for it.... an email server!!!... ZOMG!!! I mean, come on what was she thinking!!! doing exactly what her predecessors did!!1!!1! It almost like she was following SOP!!1!!!!

And we haven't nearly investigated BenGAAAAHHHHHZIII!!!!1!!! enough yet. Only umpteen investigations have not found zilch to report. We obviously need to spend millions more on dozens of new media investigation.

When someone comes up with nothing other than GOP witch hunt talking points as a "critique", how is one supposed to distinguish said person from a GOP attack troll? If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, one is supposed to believe that it ISN"T a duck, because it happens to be on the left side of the road?

their house.

Its corrupt from the start.

As Democrats, that should bother ALL of us.

and had a server available for use, set up for a former POTUS, and secured by Secret Service presence.

What was your point again? Oh yeah, you prefer someone other than Clinton, and any GOP talking point is good enough for you.

Quack, quack.

I'm sure the Sanders Supporters will see me as a Clinton loyalist. And the Clinton supporters would see me as a Bernie Bot, (if there were any right wing attacks on Sanders). I'm not yet supporting a Dem candidate, but I'm very much AGAINST using right wing attacks to tear down Democratic candidates.

What illegalities exactly are you claiming have been committed? What charges should be used to prosecute SOS Clinton?

Or are you just parroting right wing talking points to "support" your choice of candidate?

/nt

that wasn't even a decent snarky comeback.

Questioning the parroting of RW talking points isn't "sounding like a Republucan."

There's a simple solution, stop parroting RW talking points and the accusations will stop.

Simple...

where they conduct government busniness?...well I did not know that so chock it up to ignorance on my part.
See I thought that would present a security problem...you know like a housekeeper could hack it and sell the information to China or something....but what do I know?

And I forgot the law that says if there is one phony scandal it means they are all phony.

of their household? You know like everyone entering the house being screened? I would guess that you know that you support a different candidate and believe that attacking another candidate with right wing bargle is a good thing,

Even though your candidate would not approve...

And must be right wing.
As long as we have a boogie man to blame it on nothing can be said that is not an attack. Triangulation is imposable without one.

A "critique" consisting of nothing other than right wing talking points is indistinguishable from a right wing attack. Why would any rational person be surprised at that. If all one has to offer is right wing attacks, they are, effectively, a right wing troll.

From what I have seen, Sanders and Clinton have avoided attacking one another. Why is it that their supporters, who claim to love their candidates standards, see fit to do exactly the opposite, and attack?

Silence allows people to get away with things they should not get away with.

I don't want or expect Sanders to do it...I expect him to talk about the important issues this country faces. And because he has not been lured into that trap of personalizing it the issues are front and center.

But I have no such constraints, and feel it is appropriate to do so.

How are we to know that you are not the Clown Car's attack dog?

Although I understand you see them as the same thing.

And I don't play that with us or against us game...made famous by Bush.
No need to point out the fallacies of a clown car...it is self evident.

I believe I have been clear on this point.

A "critique" that contains nothing but right wing points is exactly the same as a right wing attack.

There is no way to tell them apart.

There are ways to contrast and compare candidates without just parroting talking points, but those have been relatively rare as of late.

pointing out that a right winger said it too.
That indeed is a powerful tool.

Yes, that is indeed a powerful tool to attack those that the right wing is also attacking.

I'll repeat one more time.

If a post contains nothing but Right Wing Talking Points, how is one to determine if it is a "Critique" or an "Attack"?

But a post of facts could contain "nothing but Right Wing Talking Points" if the right wing also used them...thus they have the power to nulify the facts just by using them...acording to you.

Example...HRC had a server in her home and conducted State Department business on it and it presented a security threat.
That is a fact, and just because a right winger said it does not change that fact or deminish it in any way.
If you want to argue that it is no big deal go ahead, but don't tell us it is bullshit because the right said it too.

You are seting up a false dichotomy...it is true only if the right does not use it...and they are alwasy wrong and we are always right...with us or against us.

The end result of of emailgate will likely be the same as Bengahzigate and the same as all the other right wing attacks on the Clintons. zip, zilch, nadah. At this point, they don't even care as long as they can grab headlines. Harold Watson Gowdy, III is failing to even be able to get on page B43.

Millions spent on try dig up some dirt, any dirt to inject in to the news cycle.

Your example contains some non-fact. Claiming that is was security threat requires some proof to make it a fact. That is, at best, conjecture at this point. We are going to spent millions to determine if it was or not, thanks to a GOP compulsion to try to damage the Clintons in any way possible.

The fact that you are repeating that conjecture, without a shred of documentation, is indistinguishable from a right wing attack. Facts don't matter to the right wing, and apparently to you.

What proof would satisfy you?...the words of experts? or are they in on that right wing smear too? But are you saying it is not a problem unless you can prove the information was stolen?

Sorry but for me as a non expert on security it seems obvious, Not to mention that if you are doing government business it should be on a government server not one in your home.

Oh wait, no one has. If you are going to make a claim, be prepared to back it up. Simply parroting nothing right wing talking points is basically doing the right wing's bidding. Is that such a hard concept to understand?



Seriously? Claiming that something you admit to not knowing anything about is obvious...

"Your honor, we call the next witness."

"What is you expertise in this matter?"

"I don't know tha first damn thing about it, but I knows I don't like tha defendant..."

If they are then you miss the point of risk.

And have tried to distract and divert.

I do not know if all the smoke arising from investigations by executive branch and law enforcement agencies are going to find any fie of actual wrongdoing or illegality on Clinton's part.

It can be -- and is -- totally debatable.

Maybe nothing maybe something in the legal sense.

But just dismissing all questions, criticisms, and even unfounded use of it as an attack by supporters her primary opponents and other critics is not merely "echoing Republican talking points" or engaging in GOP smears or "being right wing" or anything else of that nature.

That is just an all purpose "shut-down" tactic.

The fact that GOP criticism happens to coincide has nothing to do with the legitimate questions or criticism. Nothing.

What? If a Republican said "The sun rises in the East" and a Democrat repeated and agreed with with that, does that make the Democrat a "right winger" or GOP stooge. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I totally disagree with and disapprove of Ron Paul (and Randy boy) on many, many things. But I did totally agree with Ron Paul's outspoken opposition to the Iraq War. He spoke for me lot more than Democrats like Clinton, in that situation on that issue.

Does pointing that out, and saying Paul turned out to be correct and Clinton was wrong make me a riught wing stooge, or a secret Republican? Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Reasonable debate is one thing. Parroting nothing but talking points can not be differentiated from the words of a right wing troll.

And face it, much of what passes for debate is just rewarmed pablum that someone heard somewhere else and modified to better suit their biases.

Like I said, one that walks like a duck, looks like a duck and spreads nothing but duck shit should not be surprised or offended if they are mistaken for a duck.

Many Democrats and other liberals/progressives 2009 -- "We do not like Obama's proposed health care plan."

They were tarred with the same bullshit back then. "Oh you're just spouting GOP right wing talking points and hate Obama."

The fact that the left opponents of the ACA were opposed to it for completely different (and opposite) reasons than the GOP/right wing made no difference to some.

"The GOP is against it You're against it. Therefore you are spouting right wing GOP talking points."

Such uses of it is not "reasoned debate."

Read my lips? (keystokes...)

if ALL one is saying is right wing talking points, they can not be distinguished from a paid, right wing troll.


If one opposes the same thing, but for different reasons, but uses NOTHING but the other team's reasons, there is no way to tell they are not on the other team.

I am not "some". Please don't try to group me with with others chosen to bolster your view.

No "side" in a debate ought to just dismiss criticism as that. It's always context.

In some cases certain labeling is inevitable. For example, If I say Clinton's economic policies are too similar to Republican ones, that is a valid point, though I should be required to explain what I mean specifically if challenged.

However saying someone is only supporting Clinton because they are a right winger, is a different matter, That's just a blatant smear and the equivalent of "red baiting."

one is, for all intents and purposes, a right wing troll, based on that one post. The context is that one post.

That's a counter to the OP, which BTW, is quoting a right wing source.

I notice that you are trying to divert and talk about supporting rather than attacking. Changing the context does not change my argument.

Also, tell us again how secure it was despite leaving the default VPN keys installed.

Since you did not pick that up from the previous poster, I'm not sure you have a good grasp on the conversation. Feel free to jump in with some more ridiculous right wing talking points, but don't be surprised if that is seen as a right wing attack.

BTW, Bernie wouldn't approve of your actions...

Which includes both its physical security and its network security.

Then there's the beefs over the obvious reason for the server - control. Nothing gets out of it without Clinton's approval.

Then there's the TS/SCI information found on it. A government peon who sends classified via their personal email gets in deep shit, but why on Earth would Clinton be held to the same standard?

You claim that you have insight into Clinton's SOS organization? You were involved in the decisions? Or did you just pull that out of your ass/the right wing press?

Bottom line, so far in this thread, you are indistinguishable from a paid, right wing troll. I'd bet you aren't, but when all you have is right wing bargle, you sound like a duck.

Unlike BS like Benghazi or Obama being Kenyan...Now we have a front-runner who has just given them true crap to fling on a platter.

Facts & truth are supposed to be progressive points. Its something new to the rethugs. Ticks me off to no end the DNC has done this, making HRC the anointed one. Its better the worse facts come out now though, than after the primaries. If she goes down during the run-up to the GE, the country will be truly f*ked.

As it will be if the nominee, who ever it is, goes down. That's why I am opposed to Democrats attacking Democrats.

The GOP will invent a scandal that serves their purpose, just as they are currently doing.

Whatever your preference, the Clintons have been the subject of national Right Wing attack for going on 30 years, Sanders has been an Independent until recently. That's a negative for Sanders, he is virtually untested by GOP dirty tricks.

On the plus side, Sanders' policies appeal to me more than Clinton's.

See, there a contrast and compare does doesn't just parrot right wing talking points.

Whoever gets the nomination MUST win.

And plenty of sources looked into the network security of her email server, since it's trivial to do. You can go to it right now: http://clintonemail.com

(Tip to Clinton campaign - might be a good idea to put a web server there that points to your defense of the email issue.)

That only requires understanding the basics of network security. There's no need to understand anything about Clinton's SOS organization or decisions.

As for why it's obviously about control, there was no reason to set up her own server if it was only about convenience (convenience being her stated reason). It's a lot harder to set up her own server, and a lot harder to configure her client devices. Sign up for a gmail account instead. Easy, and all the clients are written to access it out-of-the-box.

You don't even have to worry about making a typo on your mail server. See, someone registered clintonmail.com (no "e" between the n and m). Accidentally make that typo, and you just sent your username and password to a random person on the Internet.

Lastly, I had a security clearance, so I am familiar with SECRET versus TS/SCI, what the rules are, and what sort of things land in each bucket. I'm also quite familiar with what happens to nameless government peons who send TS/SCI from their personal accounts, having gotten to watch someone lose their job over it.

Now, tell me again how reality is exactly like a right-wing troll. It really demonstrates just how much you actually understand what's going on, and how much you are shoving your fingers in your ears shouting "LALALALALALA".

Heck, maybe you could take a moment to explain why Obama is trying to hurt Clinton's campaign?

you aren't just spouting right wing agenda, you aren't a paid wing wing troll, you aren't ignoring facts inconvenient to your predetermined outcome.

But even random peons are trained in what classified information is and how to treat it.

How about that there is yet no proven material that would be a crime to have on the server? Kinda inconvenient, that. There a couple hundred emails, out of millions, that they want to review. But note that have not claimed that they do indeed contain material that was was classified at the time the email was sent. They even leaked some of the emails and made big black marks through them, as it would certainly be stupid to reveal anything classified. If they leaked stuff without redaction that would collapse their argument totally.

And note that "they" is the GOP....

is the problem. It is unprecedented and negligent that she decided to use a home email server. Many people will jump and scream "Powell used one as SOS!!!" Half true, Powell used a personal email but not a personal SERVER. Servers, if not handled correctly can be easily compromised. I am a supporter of HRC (second to Bernie), but realize the fact that her using a personal server is negligent.

They can't possibly be set up by anyone ever!!! They are scary!!! There's like, more. and stuff... and IT"S A SERVER!!!1!!!1!!

The fact that you don't know what it takes to set up a server and your fear of them, does not impress me.

my boyfriend works in IT specializing in network security and cryptography. Also, my brother is a lawyer--please take your temper tantrum elsewhere.

So when your boyfriend joins up and has something to post, or you brother weighs in with a opinion, that will be discussed.

In the meantime, I'll point out your apparent lack of any substantial knowledge on the topic you are posting about, and your fears, uncertainties, and doubts. Take those elsewhere, or post something you DO know about.

Oh, and my dad is bigger than your dad, so there.

your tactics are sad.

If you had a viable response to negligence (and yes, criminal negligence is an enforceable law), I would take you and you responses seriously.

But, you just come off as ignorant and pathetic.

Griping about something you don't know about, claiming knowledge by virtue of of dating some guy and having a brother who is a lawyer.

Sorry, I don't have tactics other than to note your lack of anything substantive to say... You don't appear to have any tactics at all, as your posts are incoherent. I'm not even sure what you are try to say.

I'll give you a recap of what I have said. If one posts something that contains nothing but right wing talking points, one should not be surprised or offended to be mistaken for a right wing troll. If you bring something more to the table, then people can have a discussion.

All you have offered is your apparent fear of technology and that you know people that might have some unspecified knowledge of something...

oh my, I must not have noticed that you are screaming about your opinions instead of facts or viable rebuttals.

Go read some books & educate yourself because it doesn't seem like you can contain your emotions while debating a topic. All I interpret from your posts is whiny bullshit

Note: what I acknowledged is that her choice in using a private server puts cables at unnecessary risk which yes, is a negligent choice.

That's been the level of your discourse.

If you have a coherent point, please cite it because all you have spouted so far is Servers are scary and my boyfriend and brother are smarter than me.

I'll respond to any salient points, if you can find any.

I'll give you a freebie too, since you have been unable to interpret my meaning: I've been mocking your lack of, well, anything. Not angry, not whiny.

If you do anything, please attempt to refute my point that when a right wing hack says "Bernie Sanders is racist", and a DUer says "Bernie Sanders is racist", you can't tell one from the other.

I assume you can read the posts again, my points were clearly stated which you refuse to respond to.

You really need to grow up. Your posts are littered with condescending attacks. So yes, to me you are insanely whiny and your attacks are bullshit.

"Server, server, server
is the problem. It is unprecedented and negligent that she decided to use a home email server. Many people will jump and scream "Powell used one as SOS!!!" Half true, Powell used a personal email but not a personal SERVER. Servers, if not handled correctly can be easily compromised. I am a supporter of HRC (second to Bernie), but realize the fact that her using a personal server is negligent. "

1. Yes, it was unprecedented that a SOS was a spouse of a former POTUS, with Secret Service protection around the clock.
2. You have already admitted that you are ignorant of servers.
3. Please cite the make and model of the server that you choose to classify a "Home Server" as opposed to a Business Class Server.
4. I don't hear any people scream and shouting other than you.
5. Please provide proof that no other government using a private email account did not use a server under their control.
6. All computers connected to the outside world can be compromised. Easiiy? See point 2.
7. Negligent? That is yet to be determined, that is why the GOP is conducting yet another witch hunt. Get back to me when the investigation is done and there are any findings.

Actually, you can ignore all that as I am not wanting to argue your right wing talking points. For all I know, you are paid to disrupt. Which proves my point, that when all one has to say is right wing talking points, they are indistinguishable from a right wing troll. I doubt you are, since you had such a glowing endorsement of Sanders, but there is no way to be certain.

Yes, I have probably been a bit condescending to you, because you have nothing substantive to say.

Have a nice night. Maybe there will be some juicy new GOP "scandals" in the morning!!

not a paid person lmao.

1. I haven't seen a law anywhere that would make a SOS or FLOTUS exempt from SOP's while working for the government outside of her husbands presidency
2. Again, I'm a nurse. Of course, when I want accurate info I ask people who work within the field I am asking about.
3. It's the fact that she used an outside server, made by a private company where government officials cannot verify if it was used proper methods and had safe guards in place--does amount to being negligent.
4. You should read over your posts if you don't understand why I used "screaming" if you need a hint, it's your first reply to me.
5. Maybe you missed this in all of the corresponding posts--but I will type it out for you again: the private server is the problem not the email address.
6. You're right, and often high level officials are the target of the types of attacks
7. Maybe you need to read the definition of negligence; a failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act

Your lack of attention to detail makes me worry for your patients.

Again have a nice night, you can pick tangential, miscellaneous arguments with someone else tomorrow.

takes an enormous amount of attention to detail.

Your inane rhetoric does nothing for your argument. Also, I responded to every part of your "talking points".

Buh-bye!

Hope you don't have any dreams about scary servers.

how did you know I do all of my work for free?

I knew what you meant, but that was what you said. Good thing you don't make mistakes like that at work.

Happy hunting to all Republicans and Democrats so inclined to join the hunting party.

Too bad there actually is nothing to catch, but what can you do but make shit up when the target is an accomplished and respected political leader with such vast experience and name recognition that threatens to turn the anticipated 2016 election cornucopia of CU promised media CASH, in a close race....into a potential bust?

Like Trump had a call with Bill Clinton? I mean .. just to get advice, strategy pointers, shoot the breeze, set a date for a beer etc.?

There seem to be an awful lot of republicans wishing Bernie well lately .... just saying

you just made yourself look ridiculous while throwing your candidate of choice under the bus.

Bernie never took that phone call
Whereas, Bill Clinton did take the call with Trump.

When someone is going after Hillary for the email "scandal" without understanding what is actually going on, then I think it's fair (though probably not helpful). Same goes with defending NAFTA and other right wing free trade agreements, repeal of banking regulations, conservative corporate donations, defense of Trump's idiotic immigration policy, and numerous other right wing Republican policies I've seen defended on this site recently.

"I do not understand what is going on, not a clue.....but there must be something going on because my TV says so....so I am outraged!"

And if the criticism is an old, conservative, disproven lie then, well, what a you gonna do?

on her shirt. And she has way too much baggage that her opponents can use to take her down

That way people can see what they're actually voting for.

with nothing on 'em, and people will find him very attractive handsome man.

I wasn't above voting for Clinton, but integrity and record overshadow "evolving" and nuanced answers to me. People who blindly support their candidate are akin to talking to a brick wall (like Republicans).

great national shame and humiliation she was forced to endure while her husband was President. It's more that politics, it's a cause!

Ironic given the OP topic.

.... "sound like Republicans".

I agree.

Let's all just pretend it's a brand new day and start all over!

Maybe we should make Hillary wear a scarlet A because Bill got a BJ.

You could not sound more like a Republican if you were trying.

The issue was that it happened in the White House while Hillary was living there as Bill's wife. Now she wants to return to the place of her great national shame. It's just a fact. I don't think human's compartmentalize and forget that easily. Becoming President is a big way for her to overcome the shame, I imagine it's a factor that drives her to be President. Bush Jr. had a similar situation with his father's "wimp" factor over Iraq. It's one of the reasons that drove Bush to get Saddam.

I don't know why you keep saying "you sound like a Republican". Do you want to pretend the past never happened?

That's EXACTLY how Republicans talk about Bill's infidelity.

The GOP is very big on "shame". And apparently you think Hillary is supposed to feel personal shame for a sex act she wasn't even a part of.

Truly amazing line of thinking you have there.

I think it's amazing that you live in a bubble like you do. What do you think Hillary felt for her and her daughter? Oh, BJs happen, let's move on. You are too funny.

She felt anger and disgust towards Bill.

Bill would feel shame. He got the BJ.

But I get it ... you actually think Hillary see this as "her great shame".

That's you projecting emotions on to her.

You think she should feel shame because her husband committed adultery. And not just soem shame ... it should be "her great shame".

Republicans sound like that.

So anger then? Ok, and now she and Bill want to come back to the exact place of this great national scandal/shame/anger? Why do you think she wants to do this? It is a bit odd, no?

And as for folks sounding like Republicans, that's the topic of the OP.

And "great national scandal" ???

It's amazing that she's the best the Democratic Party has to offer. Oh well, she's better than the Republicans! That's what we always say. Rah! Rah! Go team!

Not at all surprised by anything else in your post.

And yea ... she's much better than any Republican ... even with her "great shame" and all.