Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 486 posts

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#211

Post by MichaelGG »

yolesaber wrote: post #181
Zpalmtree wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I checked "undocumented" immigrants aren't a race, and they also broke the law. It's not racist to attack people breaking the law.

>“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” It's pretty racist to attack a whole contingent of people and make broad negative generalizations about the…

Sounded like it was clearly "you" as legal Mexicans and other immigrants. The rest of the sentence is about illegals -- he's not, afaik, made any claims about Mexicans in general. If he was actually making a racist statement, then immigration status wouldn't matter.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#212

Post by gjolund »

PKop wrote: post #193
mcphage wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Literally what point are you making? The point I'm making is that I don't think you, or anybody else actually cares about the emails—they care it's something they can criticize Clinton for. Before her, nobody gave a shit. After her, nobody will give a shit. They don't matter, except that they can be used to criticize Clinton. So of course nobody complained about it with Bush, because nobody cares about them. > I su…

I served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was held to a high standard in regards to OPSEC and security around classified information. Being as careless or purposely negligent as she was would have gotten me or anyone else court martialed. Hillary Clinton is a grown ass woman. She knows what she'd doing. She held a position of high responsibility, that deals with highly sensitive intel that impacts many facets of national s…

Great response, looking forward to seeing their reply.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#213

Post by 794CD01 »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #57
jimmywanger wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> being run by a bunch of criminals who delete incriminating evidence. I have no problems accepting the fact that politicians might hire crooks to do some things that are extra legal. The fact that they're incompetent criminals who get caught and who don't understand the internet, that worries me.

Can you help me understand your point of view?

Evil can be harnessed to good with appropriate incentives. You can't incent a stupid person to be smart.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#214

Post by danso »

mozumder wrote: post #191
danso wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The removal of private email addresses should be left to the State Department who was in charge of releasing those emails. In the emails released so far, Clinton's actual address has been removed from the To: field (physically, as in it was whited-out) as is at least one name from the From: field http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs... But I could see this as a result of incompetency, that is,…

> The removal of private email addresses should be left to the State Department who was in charge of releasing those emails. Only for her work email account. This is her personal email account that they requested to release, but it isn't under their control. Employers aren't supposed to be able to control one's private email account.

Yep, but it became under their jurisdiction when it was discovered that she did government business via the private server. There are various different reasons why (and when) her email was requested by investigators. If I'm not mistaken, the existence of Clinton's private server was alluded to when Guccifer 1.0 hacked Sidney Blumenthal's emails, which included memos to her private address:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/sidney-blumenthal/hacker...

In an unrelated tangent, when the Secretary of State's original search found few emails involving Clinton's ostensible state.gov address, a Tumblr meme (which was in support of Clinton) caught someone's eye who then inquired how Clinton was sending messages if they weren't showing up on her state.gov account: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/06/hillar...

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#215

Post by Pxtl »

jimmywanger wrote: post #26

The actual facts aside, this makes her appear far less electable, as her campaign camp looks like it's being run by a bunch of clowns. Just from a PR perspective, this could not have come at a worse time. The collapse at the 9/11 memorial, the "basket of deplorables", and the mention of the Pepe meme on her official website. Right after a couple of muslim terror attacks, some evidence surfaces purporting that she tri…

The fact that those items have more negative impact on her electability than her mentorship under Henry Kissinger is terribly depressing.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#216

Post by [deleted] »

imron wrote: post #47
EpicEng wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under a freaking user name that can be easily traced back to them. I mean, seriously?

And this is why the NSA collecting all data on everyone should have people worried. Sure, it's just pictures of your cat and 'my life is boring, they can spy on me all they want because they won't find anything interesting" And then 2 years later your post on an internet forums about your missing dog helps tie you the destruction of evidence.

[deleted]

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#217

Post by gjolund »

nostromo wrote: post #84
mhomde wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just when you thought this election couldn't get any weirder... there's a major scoop about Clinton on r/conspiracy

Hillary attacking the Pepe the Frog meme was the point at which I had to pinch myself to wake up.

Don't Tread on Meme!

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#218

Post by hiram112 »

colemickens wrote: post #194

What's wrong with HRC calling white supremacists and nationalists deplorable? (edit: I'll proudly take downvotes for calling a spade a spade.)

Because she's trying to assign guilt by association. I'm sure most people that support white supremacy are, in fact, Trump supporters.

Does that logically make all Trump supporters white supremacists?

And what is wrong with a bit of Nationalism? I personally feel globalization has most been a clever campaign to allow large business to play wage arbitrage. The current division of wealth in the US supports my idea.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#219

Post by gjolund »

manachar wrote: post #109
mhomde wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just when you thought this election couldn't get any weirder... there's a major scoop about Clinton on r/conspiracy

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

They have been right several times in the past couple months.

/r/conspiracy and /r/the_donald have been pretty prophetic.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#220

Post by 794CD01 »

skylan_q wrote: post #65
spinlock wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing that will happen with Trump although whatever that is isn't very clear. Though, I think it's a long shot that you indite clinton over this. She should be insulated. Trump, on the other hand, has been indited for TrumpU

National security issues brought into question vs. possible scam. Different issues. One disqualifies handling of sensitive info and public records, the other, trust in being ethical.

More relevantly, both disqualifying.
Post reply on HN