momadance wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Gimpy wrote:she's profoundly unqualified to hold public office.

we'll assume the last bit was just a lame joke, but what you meant to assert here is Clinton's DISqualified by her actions from holding office. That's your opinion; but if she is UNqualified, no political actor has EVER been qualified. That's fact.

That's a steamy take.

Gimpy wrote:No, I'm saying that someone who cannot adequately handle sensitive information is not qualified to be in a position where they will handle such information.

And I wasn't being sarcastic calling Trump worse. He is somehow worse than someone who should not hold the office.

pacino wrote:There sure are hot takes here, like implying someone will end up dead. Whatever man, you have your personal shit. That's fine. You think she should be prosecuted. Whatever.

Tell me to suck a bag of dicks is pretty out of bounds.

momadance wrote:

pacino wrote:There sure are hot takes here, like implying someone will end up dead. Whatever man, you have your personal #$!&@. That's fine. You think she should be prosecuted. Whatever.

Tell me to suck a bag of dicks is pretty out of bounds.

Not really.

Gimpy wrote:No, I'm saying that someone who cannot adequately handle sensitive information is not qualified to be in a position where they will handle such information.

And I wasn't being sarcastic calling Trump worse. He is somehow worse than someone who should not hold the office.

momadance wrote:

pacino wrote:There sure are hot takes here, like implying someone will end up dead. Whatever man, you have your personal shit. That's fine. You think she should be prosecuted. Whatever.

Tell me to suck a bag of dicks is pretty out of bounds.

Not really. It's not just you. And no one implied anyone would end up dead.

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:This is a cry for help. He wants it taken from him. Utterly insane rambling.

Huh?

Donald J. Trump on Wednesday offered a defiant defense of his campaign’s decision to publish an image widely viewed as anti-Semitic — saying he regretted deleting it — and vigorously reaffirmed his praise of Saddam Hussein, the murderous Iraqi dictator.

Donald J. TrumpVerified account
‏@realDonaldTrump
Where is the outrage for this Disney book? Is this the 'Star of David' also?
Dishonest media! #Frozen

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:This is a cry for help. He wants it taken from him. Utterly insane rambling.

Huh?

Donald J. Trump on Wednesday offered a defiant defense of his campaign’s decision to publish an image widely viewed as anti-Semitic — saying he regretted deleting it — and vigorously reaffirmed his praise of Saddam Hussein, the murderous Iraqi dictator.

The lede from the NYT story about tonight's speech

To paraphrase Pitt from Inglorious Basterds, the gigantic orange manbaby realizes he is going to lose in November and would rather be the victim of having the nomination 'stolen' from him than lose to Hillary...Oblige him.

pacino wrote:

momadance wrote:

pacino wrote:There sure are hot takes here, like implying someone will end up dead. Whatever man, you have your personal #$!&@. That's fine. You think she should be prosecuted. Whatever.

Tell me to suck a bag of dicks is pretty out of bounds.

Not really.

Ok, whatever man. I'm not sure how you expect me to respond when you are laying down that it's a personal attack on you if i think she shouldnt be in prison.

CalvinBall wrote:i mean

Donald J. TrumpVerified account
‏@realDonaldTrump
Where is the outrage for this Disney book? Is this the 'Star of David' also?
Dishonest media! #Frozen

Gimpy wrote:

smitty wrote:And we're getting a lot of different stories. Were these emails marked? Were they classified at the time she received and sent them out? I'm reading conflicting stuff about this. And these issues are critical to know in order to draw conclusions.

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.

drsmooth wrote:

momadance wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Gimpy wrote:she's profoundly unqualified to hold public office.

we'll assume the last bit was just a lame joke, but what you meant to assert here is Clinton's DISqualified by her actions from holding office. That's your opinion; but if she is UNqualified, no political actor has EVER been qualified. That's fact.

That's a steamy take.

I'm pretty confident that the consensus among people who spend a lot more time on this stuff than I do would be that individuals who've been elected as US Senators, and been re-elected to their Senate seats, and have served as Secretary of State - whatever the consensus on the caliber of their service in either role - are generally regarded to have Presidential bona fides. Her life in public service, most of it at the national level, can't be completely discounted either; she gets public service. She's qualified, well beyond the technical age/birthplace requirements.

CalvinBall wrote:lol good one jh

smitty wrote:

Gimpy wrote:

smitty wrote:And we're getting a lot of different stories. Were these emails marked? Were they classified at the time she received and sent them out? I'm reading conflicting stuff about this. And these issues are critical to know in order to draw conclusions.

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.

Classified information in emails is not something I'm familiar with. Were these emails marked? I'm not clear regarding what a "chain" is. I'm not certain we'll get the nitty gritty details on this since it's classified.

LG's opinion in regards to this issue would be very valuable as he is up to date on this stuff.