Crooked Hillary!

[VerrKol]

Not only is that a personal attack, it's not even relevant.
In a classic display of public hubris, I urge you to recuse yourself from this discussion.

I hope you're aware of the irony. You rail against the enforcement of politically correct speech then become upset when someone actually ignores it. While I disagree with the sentiment, I think @Flonne;'s own public admissions of paranoia and other mental struggles does make it relevant. Flonne hasn't seemed to think skepticism unreasonable in the past.

I think it's also clear from your (Flonne's) last post that his social circle does not well reflect the majority of Americans. I sincerely doubt that any significant number of people will forgo the comforts of civilization to secede because Hillary becomes president. I similarly doubt anyone will move to Canada if Trump becomes president. People like to talk big and then fail to follow through on their extreme measures because it's bloody inconvenient. There's no mechanism for interconnected communities to partition their utilities to start.

While I think Hillary Clinton is grossly negligent and incompetent regarding her treatment of classified material, my impression from the industry is that isn't entirely unusual for politicians or civil servants. It's also my understanding, and that of my lawyer friends, that incompetence such as this is not actually against the law. Since it doesn't appear that the case will ever see a day in court, we don't have a ruling but there does appear to me to be a reasonable legal interpretation that she is "innocent".

[xparasite9]

I hope you're aware of the irony. You rail against the enforcement of politically correct speech then become upset when someone actually ignores it.

There's a massive difference between political correctness and honoring the conventions of debate.

[VerrKol]

There's a massive difference between political correctness and honoring the conventions of debate.

You're confused then. This isn't a formal debate (would that it was!), it's a forum for public opinion.

[Flonne]

There's a massive difference between political correctness and honoring the conventions of debate.

While it was a pretty good example of ad hom, I prefer any conversation I'm in to not have everyone agree with me, it's the only way a person can keep from becoming stuck up their own ass. Hugboxes are real and they are much more damaging than logical fallacies, because they are much easier to fall victim to even if you know about them; it's a comfortable zone that's very easy to lose yourself in. As long as you don't get angry at the insult itself, it keeps you (or at least, me) sane. I am always willing to adjust my views if someone says something, I look it up and it turns out I was wrong. I have done that in the past in threads on this site.

I sincerely doubt that any significant number of people will forgo the comforts of civilization to secede because Hillary becomes president. People like to talk big and then fail to follow through on their extreme measures because it's bloody inconvenient. There's no mechanism for interconnected communities to partition their utilities to start.

All correct, the main way people like that will be resisting the regime would be defensively, there would be no real offensives, they would be a nuisance by cutting off roads attached to their properties as their main form of protest. They feel safest in their own environment and rarely leave even in times when they feel relatively safe, there's no way they would ever leave in a situation where they feel genuinely threatened. Most of them are fully self-sufficient though so they don't need interconnection anyway. The one I visited had a stockpile to last 10 years and crops to replace those, they could probably last twice that if they were frugal and no civil war in a first world country in this day and age would last 20 years, it would be political suicide, they would rather give in to the rebels long before that than risk the world viewing them as that weak. In this instance though, since it would not be any real "attacks", at least not unless things are even worse than I myself imagine, they could probably just play it off by not CALLING it a war and just putting out the message that some malcontents are making a nuisance of themselves.

Since it doesn't appear that the case will ever see a day in court, we don't have a ruling but there does appear to me to be a reasonable legal interpretation that she is "innocent".

Based on the laws of the country, someone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but that is literally the only way I feel she could be interpreted as innocent at this point. In all other ways but legally, she is guilty, and she is only not guilty from a legal standpoint because she is "too big to fail" and they would rather bail her out than bring her down and have to deal with all the preceding fallout.

[VerrKol]

Based on the laws of the country, someone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but that is literally the only way I feel she could be interpreted as innocent at this point. In all other ways but legally, she is guilty, and she is only not guilty from a legal standpoint because she is "too big to fail" and they would rather bail her out than bring her down and have to deal with all the preceding fallout.

While I believe all of this is true to an extant, I wanted to clarify the legal interpretation since this isn't what I meant. The laws regarding the sharing of classified information attempts to legislate intent. Knowingly sharing classified information is illegal. Unknowingly, even through gross incompetence, is not. Note that I'm not a lawyer and this is simply based on a friend that is a lawyer, my interpretation of the relevant laws, and my personal experience in a relevant field. The only incident I know of personally where a person violated clearance requirement led to being summarily fired and no doubt banned from obtaining a clearance in the future, but no criminal prosecution. My impression is that this is the standard action taken.

From all of this, I conclude that she is actually innocent. Mind, I'm not thrilled about her maintaining a security clearance or having access to nuclear launch codes because her incompetence and that of her staff is a very real security risk.

[xparasite9]

Unknowingly, even through gross incompetence, is not.

Ignorantia juris non excusat

[Flonne]

Ignorantia juris non excusat

Absolutely this. Any normal person would be thrown away without a second thought for what she did. A judge would likely laugh at your face if you tried to explain how "it's OK since I didn't know it was wrong". Just because you don't mean to do something doesn't mean it has no consequences, and just because you apologize for something doesn't mean it will or even should be forgiven based on severity; there are breaches that are not forgivable regardless of intent or sincerity of regret or any other factor, once something has happened you have to live with the results even if they truly were an accident, and some accidents are too damaging to be allowed to slide even if it was purely coincidence. Taking responsibility for your actions regardless of origin is something adults are supposed to do and something adults try to force down kids' throats all while they are being raised (or at least mine did).

The only incident I know of personally where a person violated clearance requirement led to being summarily fired and no doubt banned from obtaining a clearance in the future, but no criminal prosecution.

SAPs operate on a strictly need-to-know basis as they are considered above Top Secret clearance. Just because you are allowed to see something doesn't mean you are supposed to unless it applies directly to you. Her private server had references to and even some data from those SAPs, which are generally hosted strictly on un-networked physical servers that are locked down and cannot be accessed from the outside. There is no way she could have had that data unless she directly accessed those sites, which she had no reason to do, and also it is completely illegal to rehost any of that information ANYWHERE.

She has directly violated clearance as well.

[ShinkuDragon]

while i agree that hillary has done so much pomegranate she should don an orange jumpsuit, i find it very doubtful that the US will burn itself if she becomes next president, will she burn it or sell it to the russians or who knows what, maybe, but the coddled american seceding and other such measures? i highly doubt it.

[xparasite9]

while i agree that hillary has done so much pomegranate she should don an orange jumpsuit, i find it very doubtful that the US will burn itself if she becomes next president, will she burn it or sell it to the russians or who knows what, maybe, but the coddled american seceding and other such measures? i highly doubt it.

it all depends on if she's dumb enough to actually try to take away their guns.

[Eos]

it all depends on if she's dumb enough to actually try to take away their guns.

Do you even understand what an absurd statement that is?
Nothing short of an amendment to the constitution could do that, and amendments don't come from the president.



"They'll take our guns" has been one of the most repeated and spurious fear mongering tactics of nearly every election for the past eighty or so years.

Even Breitbart admits that's not plausible - http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...onstitutional/

Any president trying to disarm the country in today's culture would swiftly stir an uprising, which is why not a single person ever likely to reach that position would even consider trying that route. Limiting types perhaps, but outright banning would be suicidal, politically or otherwise.

they could probably just play it off by not CALLING it a war and just putting out the message that some malcontents are making a nuisance of themselves.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/03/us/ore...efuge-protest/

[xparasite9]

Do you even understand what an absurd statement that is?
Nothing short of an amendment to the constitution could do that, and amendments don't come from the president.

"They'll take our guns" has been one of the most repeated and spurious fear mongering tactics of nearly every election for the past eighty or so years.

Any president trying to disarm the country in today's culture would swiftly stir an uprising, which is why not a single person ever likely to reach that position would even consider trying that route. Limiting types perhaps, but outright banning would be suicidal, politically or otherwise.

don't patronize me. I know very well how the process goes, but that's possibly all thrown out the window when it comes to the successor to "I'll blatantly misuse executive orders to get what I want" Obama.

It doesn't even need to get that far though. There's an open seat in the SCOTUS. All she has to do is appoint an outspoken anti-gun justice and that would likely be enough to set people on edge. Very little would have to be done from then on to put them over the tipping point.

[VerrKol]

Ignorantia juris non excusat

While certainly a standard I'd like to see upheld, it's not relevant in this case. This isn't about ignorance of the law. It's about (malicious) intent.

Absolutely this. Any normal person would be thrown away without a second thought for what she did. A judge would likely laugh at your face if you tried to explain how "it's OK since I didn't know it was wrong".

This is not true and simply wrong. Outside of military personnel who are subject to military laws, these cases are not prosecuted because getting a conviction is unlikely. Stop projecting your desires and moral standards into US law.

Just because you don't mean to do something doesn't mean it has no consequences, and just because you apologize for something doesn't mean it will or even should be forgiven based on severity; there are breaches that are not forgivable regardless of intent or sincerity of regret or any other factor, once something has happened you have to live with the results even if they truly were an accident, and some accidents are too damaging to be allowed to slide even if it was purely coincidence. Taking responsibility for your actions regardless of origin is something adults are supposed to do and something adults try to force down kids' throats all while they are being raised (or at least mine did).

While I agree with the sentiment, this is all irrelevant from a legal perspective.

SAPs operate on a strictly need-to-know basis as they are considered above Top Secret clearance. Just because you are allowed to see something doesn't mean you are supposed to unless it applies directly to you. Her private server had references to and even some data from those SAPs, which are generally hosted strictly on un-networked physical servers that are locked down and cannot be accessed from the outside. There is no way she could have had that data unless she directly accessed those sites, which she had no reason to do, and also it is completely illegal to rehost any of that information ANYWHERE.

She has directly violated clearance as well.

I am far more aware of this than you realize. You're largely correct, however SAPs are uniquely protected and can have more or less stringent security measures than what you describe. It depends on the specific program. It does not surprise me that the Secretary of State would have access to several of these programs as part of her duties. I've already said that I agree that she violated her clearance requirements and should never be allowed to have one again.

[Eos]

don't patronize me. I know very well how the process goes, but that's possibly all thrown out the window when it comes to the successor to "I'll blatantly misuse executive orders to get what I want" Obama.

I believe you mean "I guess I will have to use executive orders to get anything done because the opposition held house and senate block anything else meaningful I try to do in complete disregard for the well being of their constituents and to "prove" that the government "doesn't work" and should be dismantled" Obama.

Perspective is everything.

It doesn't even need to get that far though. There's an open seat in the SCOTUS. All she has to do is appoint an outspoken anti-gun justice and that would likely be enough to set people on edge. Very little would have to be done from then on to put them over the tipping point.

I think you grossly misjudge the degree that people care and the degree to which they would recognize that as a threat considering something would have to get that far for the SCOTUS to even rule on it and even a supreme court ruling can't find the constitution unconstitutional.

[xparasite9]

even a supreme court ruling can't find the constitution unconstitutional.

They don't have to find the amendment unconstitutional; just certain interpretations.
Language changes, and modernist judges like to interpret from a modernist perspective. There's already high-profile people arguing that guns should only be in possession of officially-recognized militias. The phrase "well regulated" historically meant "highly functional"; in today's language it means "subject to many restrictions".
And let's not forget the "le muskets meme", which even @KhainiWest; has repeated.

[VerrKol]

It doesn't even need to get that far though. There's an open seat in the SCOTUS. All she has to do is appoint an outspoken anti-gun justice and that would likely be enough to set people on edge. Very little would have to be done from then on to put them over the tipping point.

Are we pretending someone like that could be confirmed by the Senate? Checks and balances.

[Flonne]

I believe you mean "I guess I will have to use executive orders to get anything done because the opposition held house and senate block anything else meaningful I try to do in complete disregard for the well being of their constituents and to "prove" that the government "doesn't work" and should be dismantled" Obama.

Yes, but notice how if you leave off the second half of that narrative it suddenly becomes a much less desirable talking point. If the house and senate are blocking something, even if they are held by the other party, that doesn't mean you just get to go around it because you don't like it, you deal with it because that's how the country works. If nothing is happening it means the president believes he is more important than the entirety of Congress and is not willing to treat them as peers, instead only trying to push things that are only in his own interest. I feel that the biggest thing that needs to be removed immediately is earmarking; initially nothing would get done (but nothing is getting done now anyway so what's the difference?), but eventually I think it would actually be greatly beneficial and make our politicians into actual adults instead of whiny babies who will only vote for something if they have a direct vested interest in it at the cost of the integrity of the bill itself, and many more things would actually get done because every bill would be a SINGLE issue and not a thousand small issues of various ideologies that only a schizophrenic could agree with all of at once.

That said, he should really look at this chart
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Obama actually hasn't signed a -ton- of them, regardless of how damaging those he has signed may be he hasn't done anywhere near as many as people say. Just look at pineappleing FDR, lol.

Are we pretending someone like that could be confirmed by the Senate? Checks and balances.

It can be done in this current situation, but it is incredibly prohibitive in what they can do, they are only in temporarily (1 year), and it would inflame every conservative in the entire country and likely throw the presidential election outright for very little gain. So, essentially, there's no point in not doing it the hard way, nothing could get done in 1 year anyway, at least not on the scope they are after.


Just so you all know, and just in case anyone else actually has 30-50 hours of free time to read all of this, there IS a comprehensive list of everything Hillary and those attached to her have ever done that is in public record or can be extrapolated (usually reliably, but if not it will say outright that it's guesswork in every portion that cannot be completely verified) based on those public records. I'm sure most of you don't care or don't have time to actually look through the whole thing, but https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...t?pref=2&pli=1 (may freeze your browser for a bit, it's around 350 pages). It mainly focuses on the Clinton Foundation and Soros/power families. THIS IS A RABBITHOLE, AND IT IS VERY DEPRESSING TO READ, just be forewarned.

[KhainiWest]

They don't have to find the amendment unconstitutional; just certain interpretations.
Language changes, and modernist judges like to interpret from a modernist perspective. There's already high-profile people arguing that guns should only be in possession of officially-recognized militias. The phrase "well regulated" historically meant "highly functional"; in today's language it means "subject to many restrictions".
And let's not forget the "le muskets meme", which even KhainiWest; has repeated.

The funny part about that 'meme' is that all of the weapons listed are not as efficient or functional as the weapons we have today lol

Tbh you just don't know anything about guns so the legitimate arguments regarding this actually elude you

[xparasite9]

The funny part about that 'meme' is that all of the weapons listed are not as efficient or functional as the weapons we have today lol

Tbh you just don't know anything about guns so the legitimate arguments regarding this actually elude you

say that to my puckle gun fucker not online and see what happens

[VerrKol]

It can be done in this current situation, but it is incredibly prohibitive in what they can do, they are only in temporarily (1 year), and it would inflame every conservative in the entire country and likely throw the presidential election outright for very little gain. So, essentially, there's no point in not doing it the hard way, nothing could get done in 1 year anyway, at least not on the scope they are after.

Uh no it can't? The Senate is refusing to even have hearings much less confirm an anti-gun supreme court justice. I think you're talking about a 4-4 split decision that will just piss people off and energize the conservative voter base for the presidential election so the next justice can rule against when Trump wins? SCOTUS is full of smart people and there's no way in hell they'd do it. They'll continue to avoid controversial decisions until there's a full bench. I'll eat my hat if any (known) anti-gun justice is confirmed after the election.

Can I just say that anyone complaining about the constitutionality of Obama's unilateral use of executive orders should be equally appalled at the Republican Senators for blatantly ignoring their constitutional obligation to confirm supreme court justices. They can reject candidates, but they shouldn't be allowed to ignore them indefinitely.

[Flonne]

Uh no it can't?

It hasn't been done in a long time, but yes a president can do that. I believe the Senate can actually block it if they specifically vote on it, but it's not just an automatic thing, they have to actually make the decision that it can't happen BEFORE it is done in order for it to be blocked. Pro-forma sessions or something? They actually did that this time to preemptively block Merrick Garland (just in case Obama was actually self destructive enough to do it) I think, now that I'm looking, and they also did it in 2005 (I think, I know it was sometime at the end of his second term) with GWB.

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Thus, when the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment to any office requiring Senate approval, including filling vacancies on the Supreme Court, without the Senate's advice and consent. Such a recess appointee to the Supreme Court holds office only until the end of the next Senate session (at most, less than two years). To continue to serve thereafter and be compensated for his or her service, the nominee must be formally nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Of the ten Justices who have received recess appointments - two Chief Justices and eight Associate Justices - only Chief Justice John Rutledge was not subsequently confirmed for a regular appointment. No president since Dwight Eisenhower (who made three such appointments) has made a recess appointment to the Supreme Court and the practice has become highly controversial even when applied to lower federal courts. During the 110th Congress, the Democratic leadership of the Senate specifically blocked Republican President George W. Bush from making any recess appointments with the use of pro forma sessions.

In 1960 the Senate passed a resolution stating that it was the sense of the Senate that recess appointments to the Supreme Court should not be made except under unusual circumstances.

The reason this is a loophole is because of that final clause, except under unusual circumstances, otherwise this sort of thing is indeed not possible at all.

Can I just say that anyone complaining about the constitutionality of Obama's unilateral use of executive orders should be equally appalled at the Republican Senators for blatantly ignoring their constitutional obligation to confirm supreme court justices. They can reject candidates, but they shouldn't be allowed to ignore them indefinitely.

Not arguing that, they should at the very least vote them down if they are going to, and not just leave them hanging there, it's stupid and a waste of time.