Poll: Should Sanders keep up the good fight?
Yes (keep it up!)
No (It's over, bud.)
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Should Sanders back out?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-06-2016, 11:47 AM
RE: Should Sanders back out?
(09-06-2016 10:17 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  It's all over but the crying.

The thought of Hillary getting indicted is absurd. If arrogance and ignorance were felonious, DC would be a ghost town. No matter what you think he's doing, what he's actually doing is dividing the Democratic party.

It's a close call ideologically speaking, but the message has been sent. Going from 0 to 22 ain't enough, obviously.

If you read the inspector's report, she did nothing her predecessors hadn't done. She's not getting indicted.

Bernie should do whatever he wants. He's had a great influence on the primaries, and rallied people who were silently very idealistic, .... and pushed that agenda.
Whatever gets him the most leverage over the party platform is what he should do.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
09-06-2016, 11:55 AM
RE: Should Sanders back out?
(09-06-2016 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If you read the inspector's report....

Did. Thus my scorn for those trying to make a mountain out of an agenda.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
09-06-2016, 12:24 PM
RE: Should Sanders back out?
I wish Sanders would see if he can get a spot as Jill Stein's VP and put it into action instead of just blah blah blahing. His 1960's rhetoric or policies isn't going to matter with the average global temperature going up 6 degrees. Trump, Clinton, Sanders, Johnson, fascism, socialism- same old same old. None of that is going to matter without a radical shift from military spending to green energy projects. Sanders ideas are worthless because he isn't talking about gutting the military. That means we couldn't pay for it anyway. To any of you who have been getting swept up in Sanderism. Read up on Jill Stein and what her platform says exactly. There's nothing but ruin left in our two party system. Is Jill Stein a long loooooong shot? Yep. But it's better to take a shot than shoot yourself. Trump is like a bullet in the head. Hillary a bullet in the knee that gets infected and kills you. Jill Stein is hope. The iron is hot. Now is the time to strike. We got to make this change. Don't let the Libertarians steal this chance. Vote for someone with ideas that will work for our future.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes I'mFred's post
09-06-2016, 12:54 PM
RE: Should Sanders back out?
(09-06-2016 12:24 PM)ImFred Wrote:  I wish Sanders would see if he can get a spot as Jill Stein's VP and put it into action instead of just blah blah blahing. His 1960's rhetoric or policies isn't going to matter with the average global temperature going up 6 degrees. Trump, Clinton, Sanders, Johnson, fascism, socialism- same old same old. None of that is going to matter without a radical shift from military spending to green energy projects. Sanders ideas are worthless because he isn't talking about gutting the military. That means we couldn't pay for it anyway. To any of you who have been getting swept up in Sanderism. Read up on Jill Stein and what her platform says exactly. There's nothing but ruin left in our two party system. Is Jill Stein a long loooooong shot? Yep. But it's better to take a shot than shoot yourself. Trump is like a bullet in the head. Hillary a bullet in the knee that gets infected and kills you. Jill Stein is hope. The iron is hot. Now is the time to strike. We got to make this change. Don't let the Libertarians steal this chance. Vote for someone with ideas that will work for our future.

While Jill Stein has publically and on DemocracyNow stated she and the party itself has reached out to Bernie before and are now as a potential ticket head even as the head of the ticket with VP Stein but he's said he won't do it in the past because he wouldn't want to help the case of a far right wing politician getting in & Just today at the White House said he will do everything he can to not help Trump so he isn't in any likely spot going to run outside the Democrat party.

Though I don't agree to your actual what is hope and shifting scenario. There are plenty things wonky and worse with the Stein green party platform unless you're just some bought in to it. Their angles of being alongside the anti-science fields of all naturalistic ideals in some sense are just as harmful as when others support that notion.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
09-06-2016, 02:12 PM
RE: Should Sanders back out?
(09-06-2016 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If you read the inspector's report, she did nothing her predecessors hadn't done. She's not getting indicted.
Liar. None of her predecessors built a private server at home and stored top secret information on it. What they did do as well is use private e-mail addresses (e.g. hotmail instead of .gov) for government business, which is a much less severe offense.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2016, 02:22 PM
RE: Should Sanders back out?
(09-06-2016 02:12 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(09-06-2016 11:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If you read the inspector's report, she did nothing her predecessors hadn't done. She's not getting indicted.
Liar. None of her predecessors built a private server at home and stored top secret information on it. What they did do as well is use private e-mail addresses (e.g. hotmail instead of .gov) for government business, which is a much less severe offense.

quoted for utter nonsense. Putting any information on a private email server like hotmail is giving it away completely. Once you use hotmail, gmail it is out of your control.
her staff's intention on having it on their own server was so it would be secure.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2016, 02:36 PM
RE: Should Sanders back out?
(09-06-2016 02:22 PM)skyking Wrote:  quoted for utter nonsense. Putting any information on a private email server like hotmail is giving it away completely. Once you use hotmail, gmail it is out of your control.
Hotmail is not a private e-mail server, neither is gmail. They're corporately owned servers whose owners adhere to strict security standards (Look up ISO/IEC 27000).

(09-06-2016 02:22 PM)skyking Wrote:  her staff's intention on having it on their own server was so it would be secure
That's the most ludicrous thing I've heard all day. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The top secret information (the highest possible classification category, by the way) that was found on her server originated from a government server system that is completely shut off from the Internet. It was very secure there. Not so much on Clinton's private server, which was subject to repeated hacking attempts due to its connection to the Internet.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2016, 02:45 PM
RE: Should Sanders back out?
(09-06-2016 02:36 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(09-06-2016 02:22 PM)skyking Wrote:  quoted for utter nonsense. Putting any information on a private email server like hotmail is giving it away completely. Once you use hotmail, gmail it is out of your control.
Hotmail is not a private e-mail server, neither is gmail. They're corporately owned servers whose owners adhere to strict security standards (Look up ISO/IEC 27000).

(09-06-2016 02:22 PM)skyking Wrote:  her staff's intention on having it on their own server was so it would be secure
That's the most ludicrous thing I've heard all day. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The top secret information (the highest possible classification category, by the way) that was found on her server originated from a government server system that is completely shut off from the Internet. It was very secure there. Not so much on Clinton's private server, which was subject to repeated hacking attempts due to its connection to the Internet.
And those same corporate servers get hacked. They can and do get hacked from within.
Saying Clinton's server was less secure is speculation. Both cases are servers facing the net.
Government mail does not belong in either place, regardless but saying it was less of an offense on corporate servers is incorrect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2016, 03:07 PM
RE: Should Sanders back out?
(09-06-2016 02:45 PM)skyking Wrote:  
(09-06-2016 02:36 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Hotmail is not a private e-mail server, neither is gmail. They're corporately owned servers whose owners adhere to strict security standards (Look up ISO/IEC 27000).

That's the most ludicrous thing I've heard all day. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The top secret information (the highest possible classification category, by the way) that was found on her server originated from a government server system that is completely shut off from the Internet. It was very secure there. Not so much on Clinton's private server, which was subject to repeated hacking attempts due to its connection to the Internet.
And those same corporate servers get hacked. They can and do get hacked from within.
Saying Clinton's server was less secure is speculation. Both cases are servers facing the net.
Government mail does not belong in either place, regardless but saying it was less of an offense on corporate servers is incorrect.
No, it's not speculation. The corporate servers in question were tested and certified by industry experts according to the ISO security standards I mentioned earlier. The same cannot be said of Clinton's private e-mail server. In fact, the State Department didn't even know about its existence and according to the IG report, even if she had followed proper procedure and asked for permission to build it first, she wouldn't have been allowed to do it. Are you still going to spout that ridiculous falsehood about her staff doing this because they wanted the e-mails to be secure?

What her predecessors did was, in fact, a less severe offense. Not one of them had their staff remove top secret information from the JWICS network and distributed it via e-mail.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2016, 03:08 PM
RE: Should Sanders back out?
(09-06-2016 02:36 PM)Vosur Wrote:  which was subject to repeated hacking attempts due to its connection to the Internet.

Any successful? You seem to paint her as having made every technical decision in this - if her staff were involved she probably just said "I want access to my emails and I want it now". It's not like she's some computer whiz who suddenly decides to implement her own security protocol. Someone advised her. She probably wasn't even aware it was a risk until this shit blew up in her face.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: