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

261–270 of 486 posts

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

#261

Post by Inconel »

bcg1 wrote: post #176
thatswrong0 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think he's said anything about having a problem with legal immigrants.

Incorrect. He wants to end the H1B visa program (despite the fact that he uses for seasonal work at his club in Florida) and he does not want to accept political refugees attempting to come to the US legally.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I may well be, but I'm under the impression that a significant number of posters on HN have problems with the H1B visa program. I'm not particularly knowledgable on the subject but from the comments I've read most of the concern centers around driving down wages, and thus costs for employers, and shackling H1B visa holders to specific jobs.

Is this an incorrect reading of the sentiment here? And more importantly, should I assume that anyone against the H1B program feels so because of racial animus?

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

#262

Post by JoeAltmaier »

throwaway2016b wrote: post #260
douche wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fixing a broken, oft-abused system is contemptible now?

I think this is a big part of why the SV powerhouses are mobilizing against Trump. They rally the troops with hyperbole and accusations of racism and sexism, but in private they're afraid of losing their H1B wage slaves and tax havens.

Some of that I suppose. But also, he's an evil man. Doesn't take a conspiracy theory to want to see him defeated.

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

#263

Post by mozumder »

stale2002 wrote: post #254
mozumder wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yep, but it became under their jurisdiction when it was discovered that she did government business via the private server. No, it didn't. It's still her private email account. They can request nicely to see them, but they can't forcibly see them without a warrant.

There was a criminal investigation, and a freedom of information request. So yes, according to the courts, they WERE able to forcibly make her turn over the emails.

Later on, but not at the point here.

He could delete all her private emails here if he wished.

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

#264

Post by saboot »

throwaway2016b wrote: post #180
Tinyyy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this getting down voted? There's no place for these accusations on HN. Using them to silence discussions is very arrogant because you're implying that people disagreeing with you are not capable of independent thought.

Is it? HN has a history of patently obvious shills and downvote brigades policing various topics. Paul Graham and Sam Altman are publicly supporting and creating various PACs with the aim of swinging the election in favor of Hillary, to say nothing of what their hyperbolic language reveals about their loyalties. Is it really so hard to believe that there could be paid political shills operating on here? CTR pays peop…

> Is it really so hard to believe that there could be paid political shills operating on here?

Yes

> CTR pays people to spam 4chan

[Citation Needed]

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

#265

Post by JoeAltmaier »

learc83 wrote: post #256
hiram112 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Does that logically make all Trump supporters white supremacists? She never said that all Trump supporters are white supremacists. Did you listen to the quote? She said half of Trump supporters were racists, homophobes, xenophobes, etc... If you look at the polling data, her comments were pretty well supported.

Agreed. But some of us would go a little further. When you see a crowd around a bully and a blowhard, you can be sure they are almost all weak and cowardly.

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

#266

Post by mindcrime »

int_19h wrote: post #107
mindcrime wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly can't understand how anybody is considering voting for Clinton or Trump. If this world was anything close to reasonable, Gary Johnson would win in a landslide. shrug

Realistically, given how little exposure third party candidates get, there's no chance of any third party winning this year. Most voters don't even know they're running. Thus, it becomes a choice of 1) making a symbolic vote for a third party to "show them", 2) helping Clinton win, and 3) helping Trump win. Given the potential outcomes of Trump vs Clinton, a lot of people believe (rightly, IMO) that this electoral cy…

Given the potential outcomes of Trump vs Clinton, a lot of people believe (rightly, IMO) that this electoral cycle is not a good time to make symbolic gestures or long-term strategic voting games. Too much is at stake.

And a lot of us believe (rightly, IMO) that both Clinton and Trump are so equally bad, that there's no effective difference.

Me personally, if Gary wasn't in the race, I wouldn't cast a vote for President at all. shrug

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

#267

Post by throwaway2016b »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #90
kevhito wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was getting ready to point out that Hillary really has a large lead, even if the day-to-day talking heads insist on making this and every race/issue seem as if it is 50/50 split. Then I checked 538.com [1]: they have her at 60% chance of winning -- pretty strong lead and hardly a normal time to throw someone under the bus -- but those graphs should be terrifying team Hillary. [1] http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com…

The reason I'm worried is that it's becoming increasingly clear why the GOP was so enthusiastic about blocking Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to SCOTUS. That never made any sense, except in a bizarro world where they were very sure they weren't going to lose the Presidency. Nate Silver has been wrong at every single juncture, as have the rest of the polls. We're off the beaten path and down the rabbit hole, an…

>The reason I'm worried is that it's becoming increasingly clear why the GOP was so enthusiastic about blocking Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to SCOTUS. That never made any sense, except in a bizarro world where they were very sure they weren't going to lose the Presidency.

How does that not make sense? They've been blocking everything they can since they got the majority.

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

#268

Post by takeda »

goatlover wrote: post #170
int_19h wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, given how little exposure third party candidates get, there's no chance of any third party winning this year. Most voters don't even know they're running. Thus, it becomes a choice of 1) making a symbolic vote for a third party to "show them", 2) helping Clinton win, and 3) helping Trump win. Given the potential outcomes of Trump vs Clinton, a lot of people believe (rightly, IMO) that this electoral cy…

Doesn't this get said every single election, though?

Yep, the thing different about this election that is that we really have two bad candidates that is hard to like. With previous elections even the candidates that were disliked and lost didn't seem as bad:

- Obama vs Romney

- Obama vs McCain

- Bush Jr vs Kerry

- Bush Jr vs Gore

- Clinton vs Dole

- Clinton vs Bush Sr

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

#269

Post by mindcrime »

jpfed wrote: post #198
mindcrime wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly can't understand how anybody is considering voting for Clinton or Trump. If this world was anything close to reasonable, Gary Johnson would win in a landslide. shrug

Easy- Duverger's Law. One of Clinton or Trump will be president. If you vote for one of those two people, you get to influence that outcome. I view voting as a strategic act, not a moral stand.

Easy- Duverger's Law.

Keep in mind, "Duverger's Law" isn't a law in the same sense that gravity is. That is, it's more of an observation of how things usually are... it's not an inviolable fundamental principle of the universe.

If you vote for one of those two people, you get to influence that outcome.

You're not influencing the outcome when the outcome is the same in both cases.

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

#270

Post by bcg1 »

CPLX wrote: post #224
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…

It's going to be mildly amusing when our bizzare micro-obsession over State Department email retention policies leads to domestic ethnic cleansing.

Probably even more mildly amusing when the ideological cleansing begins as well.
Post reply on HN