Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Mahourai]

I know reading is hard friend, but it was literally the very next sentence.

This doesn't do anything to address my post. Funding the rebels in Afghanistan wasn't a bad idea because they might lose their guns or be defeated on the field of battle. The problem was that their interests never aligned with the US in the first place, except insofar as they could be used as a proxy against the USSR, and once the short-term conflict was over we now had vast quantities of CIA money, American weapons, and training in the hands of the wrong people, people it should have been deadly obvious it was shortsighted to support.

You posit that the weapons might find their way into the hands of the wrong people. The problem is that we frequently put them in the hands of the wrong people to begin with.

[Wells]

WHOA her own staffers thought she was going above the law with her email server!

People have opinions that differ from their boss! Serious news!

but really man it's disgraceful to focus on the stupid shit like what people think of Chelsea when you've got rather frank admissions by these people about either their direct concerns about what was going on or those showing a high level of collusion, whether between the media or DoJ or SoS.

That's my god damn point. "Absolute transparency", especially hacker driven, only serves to obscure more interesting and relevant information behind gossip.

But some people get off on being unpaid damage control.

Not as many as get off on a false sense of moral superiority.

[Zomis]

FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...s-insider.html


I knew it!

[Kujako]

FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...s-insider.html


I knew it!

Someone is punking Fox hard with these "anonymous insider" claims.

[Wells]

FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...s-insider.html


I knew it!

Says anonymous tip to Fox News.

[I Push Buttons]

This doesn't do anything to address my post. Funding the rebels in Afghanistan wasn't a bad idea because they might lose their guns or be defeated on the field of battle. The problem was that their interests never aligned with the US in the first place, except insofar as they could be used as a proxy against the USSR, and once the short-term conflict was over we now had vast quantities of CIA money, American weapons, and training in the hands of the wrong people, people it should have been deadly obvious it was shortsighted to support.

You posit that the weapons might find their way into the hands of the wrong people. The problem is that we frequently put them in the hands of the wrong people to begin with.

My position was also that it is irrelevant that they get those weapons as even if they are rose up in defiance of us for no apparent reason those weapons do absolutely nothing to change their ability to affect our interests in the region (which is non-existent).

[Damajin]

People have opinions that differ from their boss! Serious news!


That's my god damn point. "Absolute transparency", especially hacker driven, only serves to obscure more interesting and relevant information behind gossip.



Not as many as get off on a false sense of moral superiority.

The email was written by Erika Rottenberg, an attorney with a rather extensive resume that makes her more than qualified to suggest the things she suggested. You're not dealing with some mid grade coffee hound.

https://investors.twilio.com/news/al...s/default.aspx

Twilio is pleased to welcome Erika Rottenberg as the newest member of the Twilio Board of Directors. Ms. Rottenberg brings extensive experience as a global operational technology executive and General Counsel at leading, fast-growing, disruptive technology companies with global scale. She brings over 15 years of experience in the boardroom and the executive suite, with additional expertise in privacy, cybersecurity, intellectual property, M&A and corporate governance.

"Erika has vast experience at the intersection of technology and policy. She helped LinkedIn scale during a period of high growth, and is one of the foremost technology executives and legal minds in the industry. She truly embodies our core Twilio values of empowering others and leaving teams as legacies," said Jeff Lawson, Twilio's Chairman, CEO and Co-Founder.

In her most recent executive role, Ms. Rottenberg served at LinkedIn, the world's largest online professional network, as its long-term general counsel, where she helped drive LinkedIn's growth from 18 million to over 300 million members; employee count from 250 to over 6000; and revenue from $80 million to over $2 billion annually.

Ms. Rottenberg also serves on the Boards of Directors of NASDAQ-listed Wix.com, a cloud-based web development platform, as well as the Girl Scouts of Northern California, the Silicon Valley Law Foundation, and the Center for Democracy and Technology. Erika holds a Bachelor's Degree in Special and Elementary Education from the State University of New York at Geneseo and a Juris Doctorate from the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law.

"Communications is at the core of all human interaction, and Twilio empowers businesses to communicate with their customers as humans, just as humans like to communicate with each other," said Rottenberg. "I love helping high growth, disruptive companies scale, and I look forward to being part of building the future of communications."

Erika joins Twilio's Board of Directors alongside Rick Dalzell, formerly of Amazon.com, Byron Deeter of Bessemer Venture Partners, Elena Donio of Concur, Jim McGeever of Netsuite, Scott Raney of Redpoint Ventures, and Twilio Chairman, CEO and co-founder Jeff Lawson.

Your point might have been valid but with no other qualifiers other than your sarcastic post it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that you're handwaving away real, legitimate concerns. As to the hacker bit, really could we have expected to ever see these any other way? Not a chance, and we both know it.

[Wells]

The email was written by Erika Rottenberg, an attorney with a rather extensive resume that makes her more than qualified to suggest the things she suggested. You're not dealing with some mid grade coffee hound.

Didn't say I was. What I said is someone disagreeing with their boss isn't news, even if they're qualified to disagree.

Your point might have been valid but with no other qualifiers other than your sarcastic post it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that you're handwaving away real, legitimate concerns.

No, don't put your failure on other people's tone.

[Damajin]

Didn't say I was. What I said is someone disagreeing with their boss isn't news, even if they're qualified to disagree.

No, don't put your failure on other people's tone.

Someone with that level of qualifications is doing just a bit more than 'disagreeing with their boss' especially when the boss is facing down ethics concerns and other legal problems. Chalking up what she said as just disagreeing is pretty disingenuous.

Yes, I will. When you post like a sarcastic retard and have a longstanding history of handwaving any Hillary criticism away don't expect people to look for nuance when you frankly suggest none.


[Infracted]

[Mahourai]

My position was also that it is irrelevant that they get those weapons as even if they are rose up in defiance of us for no apparent reason those weapons do absolutely nothing to change their ability to affect our interests in the region (which is non-existent).

So the mujahideen in Afghanistan didn't "affect our interests" in the area? Really? Aside from the fact that they obviously did so in a material way, just the optics issue of funding and arming violent religious extremists affects our interests in the region. Anti-American and anti-Western sentiment is widespread in the Middle East because of meddling like this.

It's also strange that you paint the picture of Syrian rebels rising up "in defiance of us for no apparent reason". Just like Afghanistan, this is a marriage of convenience. They have no aligned interests with the US outside of the financial and material support they can siphon from us. There is no Syrian rebel force ready to create a secular Western democracy.

[I Push Buttons]

The email was written by Erika Rottenberg, an attorney with a rather extensive resume that makes her more than qualified to suggest the things she suggested. You're not dealing with some mid grade coffee hound.

https://investors.twilio.com/news/al...s/default.aspx



Your point might have been valid but with no other qualifiers other than your sarcastic post it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that you're handwaving away real, legitimate concerns. As to the hacker bit, really could we have expected to ever see these any other way? Not a chance, and we both know it.

The email was also written three months before Clinton released the email (released in August), even longer before the hearings occurred, and were based on nothing other than Clinton's statements up to that point (aka based on the right's sensationalizing nothing since nothing had occurred by the point). And were more fact-finding than accusatory (especially given the woman was an attorney representing Clinton/DNC interests at the time, but not Clinton's general counsel, thus out of the loop), since the question was to be raised behind closed doors at a DNC insider get together.

- - - Updated - - -

So the mujahideen in Afghanistan didn't "affect our interests" in the area? Really? Aside from the fact that they obviously did so in a material way, just the optics issue of funding and arming violent religious extremists affects our interests in the region. Anti-American and anti-Western sentiment is widespread in the Middle East because of meddling like this.

It's also strange that you paint the picture of Syrian rebels rising up "in defiance of us for no apparent reason". Just like Afghanistan, this is a marriage of convenience. They have no aligned interests with the US outside of the financial and material support they can siphon from us. There is no Syrian rebel force ready to create a secular Western democracy.

Only Afghanistan didn't rise up in defiance of us for no reason. Religious extremists who couldn't give a fuck about us provided refuge to militant religious extremists from Saudi Arabia who attacked us and refused to give them up, thus our intervention there.

As was evidenced by the entire 1990s and the Taliban's reign of religious terror there, we didn't give two shits about them and they didn't give two shits about us and we were happy to let them rot.

The country was of literally no relevance until AQ was given refuge there.

[Wells]

Only Afghanistan didn't rise up in defiance of us for no reason. Religious extremists who couldn't give a fuck about us provided refuge to militant religious extremists from Saudi Arabia who attacked us and refused to give them up, thus our intervention there.

As was evidenced by the entire 1990s and the Taliban's reign of religious terror there, we didn't give two shits about them and they didn't give two shits about us and we were happy to let them rot.

The country was of literally no relevance until AQ was given refuge there.

You're leaving out the big ol' proxy war we had with the USSR.

[I Push Buttons]

You're leaving out the big ol' proxy war we had with the USSR.

That was discussed earlier.

[Mahourai]

Only Afghanistan didn't rise up in defiance of us for no reason. Religious extremists who couldn't give a fuck about us provided refuge to militant religious extremists from Saudi Arabia who attacked us and refused to give them up, thus our intervention there.

As was evidenced by the entire 1990s and the Taliban's reign of religious terror there, we didn't give two shits about them and they didn't give two shits about us and we were happy to let them rot.

The country was of literally no relevance until AQ was given refuge there.

I honestly don't even know where to begin. How can you posit that there was no problem with the Islamic fundamentalist regime rising up in the country until they 'gave refuge" to Al-Qaeda? Jihadi camps in Afghanistan birthed Al-Qaeda in the 80s. Do you thing our turning Afghanistan into a haven for Islamic guerrilla terrorists in order to combat the USSR had nothing to do with AQ operating from the country?

[Damajin]

The email was also written three months before Clinton released the email (released in August), even longer before the hearings occurred, and were based on nothing other than Clinton's statements up to that point (aka based on the right's sensationalizing nothing since nothing had occurred by the point). And were more fact-finding than accusatory (especially given the woman was an attorney representing Clinton/DNC interests at the time, but not Clinton's general counsel, thus out of the loop), since the question was to be raised behind closed doors at a DNC insider get together.

There's no aka there, since everyone was reporting on it though CNN and the like were already in denial/dismissal mode about the entire fiasco.

Hahaha out of the loop, that's rich. You don't have to be front and center of a thing to see exactly what's going on especially when you have almost 20 years experience in the field. As I said to Wells above you weren't dealing with a coffee hound you had someone who knew the ins and outs of the legal side of communications to a T.

It was a fact finding question, but also largely caveated with her own and her associates understanding of the legal issues at play, it's plain as day in the exact words she used. She's asking because of the red flags going off in her brain otherwise there'd be no mention of it being above the law.

[I Push Buttons]

I honestly don't even know where to begin. How can you posit that there was no problem with the Islamic fundamentalist regime rising up in the country until they 'gave refuge" to Al-Qaeda? Jihadi camps in Afghanistan birthed Al-Qaeda in the 80s. Do you thing our turning Afghanistan into a haven for Islamic guerrilla terrorists in order to combat the USSR had nothing to do with AQ operating from the country?

No doubt it did, but it was our nonintervention that allowed it to flourish. Tolerating a failed state (after the USSR left and the communist government of Afghanistan collapsed) where that sort of thing could occur was the cause, not our arming anti-communist forces in the 1980s. Unless you are saying we should have let the USSR exterminate everyone opposed to them in Afghanistan and move on to potentially invade Iran and back Iraq against Saudi Arabia?

We have since learned from the mistake of tolerating a failed state, hence our continued propping up of Iraq and Afghanistan today. Obviously we haven't learned to simply not involve ourselves in the first place yet, but that isn't really an option when the stability of the global economy is at stake.

[Mahourai]

No doubt it did, but it was our nonintervention that allowed it to flourish.

I guess you can always argue the reason is we didn't do even more foreign meddling - it's an unfalsifiable principle. This is one of the many reasons it was bad to have a Democratic president handle the Afghanistan draw-down, it led to liberals stupidly taking ownership of the Bush-era Afghani neocolonialism as a "necessary evil".

We have since learned from the mistake of tolerating a failed state, hence our continued propping up of Iraq and Afghanistan today.

Modern Iraq is practically the definition of a failed state, a loose coalition of ethno-religious entities brought together by Western imperial meddling that were only held together by the reigns of a dictator, a "country" with little to no national identity or unity.

[I Push Buttons]

I guess you can always argue the reason is we didn't do even more foreign meddling - it's an unfalsifiable principle. This is one of the many reasons it was bad to have a Democratic president handle the Afghanistan draw-down, it led to liberals stupidly taking ownership of the Bush-era Afghani neocolonialism as a "necessary evil".



Modern Iraq is practically the definition of a failed state, a loose coalition of ethno-religious entities brought together by Western imperial meddling that were only held together by the reigns of a dictator, a "country" with little to no national identity or unity.

So we should just let it completely fail and go "whoops, better not do that again!"?

[Ghostpanther]

Someone is punking Fox hard with these "anonymous insider" claims.

You do not even have to watch Fox news to know it is clearly true.

[Orlong]

That it's a better measure of economic health is just false. You're cherry-picking. Labor force participation is decreasing because the Baby Boomer demographic is retiring, and more youths are attending post-secondary school and not working. Neither of those are economic failures.



40%? You're joking. That's not defensible on any level unless you're including retirees and infants in your metric, which is blatantly dishonest. It isn't even defensible when considering the labor force participation rate, which is right around 63%. Which is admittedly down slightly, but its all-time high was around 67%, so let's not pretend this is somehow catastrophic; it's comparable to where it was in the '80s, right now.



Because you're dishonestly trying to compare numbers that DO include them to numbers that DON'T, to pretend things are getting much worse, which is flat-out untrue.

The U6 includes people who've stopped looking for work. I really don't see the point in complaining that students are focusing on their studies rather than working part-time, or that there's more 65+ retirees in the current demographics because of the Baby Boomer demographic bubble.

My problem with the unemployment number is it only shows whether someone is employed or not. People who were making big money as marketing executives are now working part time at Waffle House and Applebees and are counted as employed. People who used to manufacture automobiles making good money are now working in gas stations

It would be nice to see the numbers for full employment versus underemployment since 2008 so we can see if people are actually better off or if someone simply having a job is being used to pad the unemployment numbers. I dont feel that someone who was laid off from a $50k/year job before the recession, and is now employed making $18k/year should be counted as employed. They are just doing what they have to until they get an actual job again.

I know a lot of jobs have been created since 2008 but from what Ive been reading a large majority of them have been in retail, food service, and convenience stores. This is why the number of food stamp recipients has increased by over 70%% since 2008 (28% to 48% of households receiving food stamps) I dont consider that a sign of good economic health