politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
2016 got me reading a lot about the Availability Heuristic and Availability Cascades. It looks like a novelty until you're watching the truth be rewritten in front of you by people who keep talking about Her Emails, who can't tell you what's wrong with them but who believe it's chock full of corruption because lots of other people keep talking about corruption when they talk about them.
It's astounding how many of the Bernie Sanders supporters at the time would bet their dominant arm that there was real evidence of corruption in her emails without ever being able to identify a single instance of it. Not to knock them but just to say I think a lot of them didn't realize that the manufactured availability cascade was straight up mind control and despite how paranoid a lot of them were at the time very few of them figured out that they were being puppeted.
Whoa... Strong disagree. This was not about Bernie supporters.
Bernie let her off the hook entirely with this as a primaries issue with his line "I'm tired of hearing about her damned emails."
He made it a non-issue in the debates, and the primaries were focused on POLICY.
...
AND let's just have one second to acknowledge that while Hillary didn't do very much wrong regarding the emails, she wasn't completely without fault. She was certainly NEGLIGENT in keeping sensitive government communications secured.
The problem was that she couldn't simply admit to that and move on with a slap on the wrist.
Why?
Because the law was VERY clear that conviction for NEGLIGENCE ALONE was enough to bar her from HOLDING OFFICE.
It was an overly broad law with no room for nuance.
Even when James Comey came out and "exonerated" her, the substance of his press conference was EXACTLY him describing how her behavior has all the elements of NEGLIGENCE. He even used a synonym for gross negligence, without ever saying the actual words. Then he muddied the waters by concluding this speech about negligence with a declaration that there would be no charges because she had no INTENT to commit a crime.
What he didn't mention was that a charge of NEGLIGENCE does not have ANYTHING TO DO WITH INTENT.
As an attorney watching that play out, I was utterly fascinated that he wasn't called out for such a naked dodge.
Anyway... I wanted Bernie, but voted for Hillary in the end, and I didn't really care about her emails. But I'm absolutely certain she was guilty of the overly broad law governing negligence. I also understand why it would have been insane to charge her for it. No one wanted to derail a political giant over a technicality.
Thanks for proving my point. None of the information on Hillary's email server was classified.
You can't be grossly negligent in handling something that was retroactively classified after you handled it. This is an absurd proposition.
This is exactly the kind of stuff people were saying in 2015. Hillary did nothing wrong. Even Bernie admitted it, but it didn't make a difference to folks like you, you took the bait, and it encouraged a lot of people to stay home or vote for the fascist.
I'm sorry. You're just flat wrong.
According to the FBI's investigation, a small number of the emails that were sent or received through Clinton's private server were classified at the time they were sent or received.
No, this is false. There was no classified information that was sent over that system. There were seven email threads in which aides discussed the existence of classified information, which they determined "should have been marked classified" as a result- but that's not the same as sending classified information over the system. Nothing marked classified was sent on the system, and that's a fact.
No. Direct from the FBI:
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
See, she was guilty. Lock her up! /s I enjoyed the discussion and explanations.
I was a bernie supporter and much like bernie himself I could give a fuck about the emails thing. I mean maybe a small fuck as it was a bs thing that should not have been but it was not a major scandal or something to effect my vote.
I appreciate this conversation. I have to add that no one is immune to that and I believe most d's use these techniques for good, but not all. The opposite is true for the r's.