Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

E-mailghazigateFollow

#1 Mar 12 2015 at 4:25 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
This could be Hillary's Waterloo.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#2 Mar 12 2015 at 4:34 PM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
Agreed, she's completely ****** on the 2016 election now. No one is going to elect a known national security risk.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#3 Mar 12 2015 at 5:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
This could be Hillary's WhiteWaterloo.

Corrected.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Mar 12 2015 at 5:13 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
It is only a shame that people have rather short memories and barely understand how sending from a non-sanctioned email account could be an issue; it is already being explained away as a convenience ( real Americans love convenience, you are real American, aren't you? ).

I dislike H. with a passion of the cryst, but BenGate has more staying power ( even though it is much less of an issue ).
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#5 Mar 12 2015 at 8:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
She's absolutely horrifically bad at giving press conferences too. Of course, it's hard to find any way to spin an action that can really only be explained as "wanted to make sure my email couldn't be examined via subpoena to a third party and that I can delete it any time I want". She tried, I suppose. And I've been seeing some pundits really really try too. Not sure how effective it is though. I was particularly amused at the whole "She's the first SecState to hand over personal emails like she did!" line. Um... She's the first SecState to conduct her business on not just a personal email account, but a personally owned and administered email server. No one else needed to be asked to hand over their emails, because they were either hosted by a government computer, or on a third party server that could be subpoenaed (and that is subject to laws requiring things like backups, data structures that prevent modification of the email content and/or metadata, etc). So, not really a great thing. I give them bonus points for the attempt though!

I do think I've figured out how the media will help here though. Just not talk about it. I noticed that on Wednesday, when she gave the conference, there was the normal amount of media coverage that you'd expect. On Thursday, Fox was running with the story (over running it, but that's not surprising given the content and person involved). I remember actually thinking that they were giving it more time than it probably needed (like 3 or 4 segments in an hour of programming), so I decided to hop onto CNN to see how much time they were devoting to it. It was a bit surreal because during the two hours that I watched (Ok, I watched about 45 minutes, then had breakfast and took a shower, and fast forwarded through the buffer for the remaining time), they devoted zero time to the story. Not one mention of it. Now maybe I just happened to pick the wrong time period to watch or something, but they managed to squeeze in a segment about their upcoming show about 80s hackers, and a segment about some Marvin Gaye song that got ripped off, in addition to the actual news of the day, but not a single bit about this.

It was interesting to observe the gulf of weight placed on the story. I fully acknowledge that Fox was way over reporting it, but for CNN to effectively drop all conversation about the subject after less than 24 hours seemed pretty strange. Maybe it's just that bad of a story for the Dems that the only way to reduce the harm is to not talk about it? Dunno. Just a thought I had. Again, maybe I just missed all the coverage and discussion on CNN about this. Maybe they only do political stuff in the evenings? Seemed like a ton of talk about the DoJ report on Ferguson Thursday morning (although to be fair, that was the same day the chief of police was resigning, so who knows?).


Yes. I'm going with media bias. Sue me! Smiley: tongue
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#6 Mar 12 2015 at 8:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
gbaji wrote:
... so I decided to hop onto CNN to see how much time they were devoting to it. It was a bit surreal because during the two hours that I watched (Ok, I watched about 45 minutes, then had breakfast and took a shower, and fast forwarded through the buffer for the remaining time), they devoted zero time to the story. Not one mention of it.
It's the 1-year anniversary of the Malaysia Airlines flight going missing. What could be more important than covering CNN's 6-month coverage of that?!

I saw something on Twitter (so take all this with a grain of salt, because I haven't seen it reported anywhere reputable) about how the unidentified legal counsel Clinton hired to sift through her e-mails and identify those that were "relevant" to government business actually did so. Apparently they created a list of keywords and searched the archive, and anything that turned up a hit was reviewed. Anything that didn't hit the keyword search was tossed. Seems like a specious way to sort through potentially critical state documents.

In any case, I love Democrats' reaction to this and previous Hillary campaigns. They just collectively sighs and say, "fine, whatever, at least she's not John Edwards."
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#7 Mar 12 2015 at 9:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Amusingly, Clinton has a pretty terrible relationship with the media. So conspiracy theories that the media is trying hard to bury this for Clinton are... a bit hard to swallow.

People aren't running the story because it's a snoozer. Most people don't give a shit about email servers and there's no real hook here to make them care (unless you're a Fox viewer and already looking for something to wave your arms in the air about). Republicans will overplay their hand by making a big deal out of something most people don't understand or care about and will come across as overly partisan about a trivial matter. Having three separate committees already formed in the House to investigate Clinton's email is a great start on getting that ball rolling.

Edited, Mar 12th 2015 10:38pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Mar 12 2015 at 9:57 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Jophiel wrote:
People aren't running the story because it's a snoozer. Most people don't give a shit about email servers and there's no real hook here to make them care

This says more about the average American voter than the importance of this particular kerfuffle.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#9 Mar 12 2015 at 10:15 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
No story needs more than thirty minutes of airtime per development.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#11 Mar 12 2015 at 10:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Probably. But unless you have a plan to change the average American voter, it is what it is. I'm sure that CNN would love to find evidence that Clinton's emails were full of plane crash secrets and celebrity nudes so that people would want to actually sit through a story about email servers.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Mar 12 2015 at 10:32 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Maybe they'll just tie it all in with President Clinton's post-Presidential Philanthropy project, deleted emails to foreign powers while as Secretary of State, promising political favors in return for large amounts of donations.

One big Benghazi, America-Raping, Foreign Power Sucking, Email Deleting conspiracy.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#13 Mar 13 2015 at 7:37 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm sure that CNN would love to find evidence that Clinton's emails were full of plane crash secrets and celebrity nudes so that people would want to actually sit through a story about email servers.
aHA, Hilary was 4chan all along.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#14 Mar 13 2015 at 5:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Amusingly, Clinton has a pretty terrible relationship with the media. So conspiracy theories that the media is trying hard to bury this for Clinton are... a bit hard to swallow.


She has a terrible relationship with reporters. And yeah, they're investigating this to death right now. But reporters don't decide where their stories show up in the papers, or on the web pages, or whether they get scheduled time slots on a broadcast. The folks who make those decisions tend to not have nearly so bad a relationship with Clinton, nor seem to be as adverse to helping her out (well, helping out a Dem in general).

Quote:
People aren't running the story because it's a snoozer.


Based on the flurry of questions and Clinton's evasive answers in the conference she gave, I'd say that's not the case at all. The reporters in the room certainly seemed to think this was a big deal. Again though, there's a difference between what the guy on the street thinks the public should know about, and what the guy in the boardroom wants to show the public. I just thought it was very interesting how stark that difference appeared in this case.

Quote:
Most people don't give a shit about email servers and there's no real hook here to make them care (unless you're a Fox viewer and already looking for something to wave your arms in the air about).


Really? How much air time do you suppose CNN gave to the boring story about private email accounts used for government business back when it was the Bush White House staff being investigated. I'm reasonably certain that didn't drop from their coverage list in under 24 hours, despite being a far more tenuous allegation involved, and the actions were far less potentially criminal, during a time period when it was far more reasonable for people to use personal email, and it was just email and not personal servers, and it was people who were far less highly placed.

Yeah. I'm not buying that explanation at all.


Quote:
Republicans will overplay their hand by making a big deal out of something most people don't understand or care about and will come across as overly partisan about a trivial matter. Having three separate committees already formed in the House to investigate Clinton's email is a great start on getting that ball rolling.


If "most people" don't understand or care about it, it will be because the media will actively choose not to cover it. Kinda of the cart leading the horse here. Objectively, what Clinton did is (or should be) at the very least incredibly suspicious from a political perspective, and possibly criminal. Are you arguing that we should just ignore anything Clinton does because of who she is? What exactly does she have to do before you'll agree that maybe an investigation is justified?

Edited, Mar 13th 2015 4:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#15 Mar 13 2015 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yeah. I'm not buying that explanation at all.

You're not accepting any reason that doesn't let you whine about "the media"? Well, color me surprised.

Quote:
Are you arguing that we should just ignore anything Clinton does because of who she is? What exactly does she have to do before you'll agree that maybe an investigation is justified?

No, I'm saying, factually, that the GOP will trip over their own dicks in the mad rush to be the one who sticks it to her. As history has proven.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Mar 13 2015 at 8:26 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
In any case, I love Democrats' reaction to this and previous Hillary campaigns. They just collectively sighs and say, "fine, whatever, at least she's not John Edwards."


I told Warren if she runs, she's got my vote. She won't, though.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#17 Mar 14 2015 at 8:59 AM Rating: Good
A Clinton campaign for President kicking off with a scandal? Who'd of thunk it?!?!!
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#18 Mar 14 2015 at 6:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
670 posts
My basic understanding (since I don't care) is that what she did was shady but not technically illegal. Much like everything else in business and politics that gets constantly ignored.
#19 Mar 14 2015 at 7:23 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Xantav wrote:
My basic understanding (since I don't care) is that what she did was shady but not technically illegal. Much like everything else in business and politics that gets constantly ignored.

This is nothing more than trying to create dirt on Hillary. Did she do anything wrong, probably. Is it a big deal? no. If this didn't happen during a transition period, it would be a bigger deal. It's like driving 45 MPH in a 40 MPH zone after just leaving a 45 MPH zone.
#20 Mar 14 2015 at 9:33 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Xantav wrote:
My basic understanding (since I don't care) is that what she did was shady but not technically illegal. Much like everything else in business and politics that gets constantly ignored.

This is nothing more than trying to create dirt on Hillary. Did she do anything wrong, probably. Is it a big deal? no. If this didn't happen during a transition period, it would be a bigger deal. It's like driving 45 MPH in a 40 MPH zone after just leaving a 45 MPH zone.


And this, ladies and gents, is your average voter. It is just like driving over a speed limit.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#21 Mar 15 2015 at 6:46 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Angrymnk wrote:

And this, ladies and gents, is your average voter. It is just like driving over a speed limit.
And this, ladies and gents, is why people can never use metaphors, because the receiving end isn't intelligent enough to differentiate concepts from actions.
#22 Mar 15 2015 at 9:57 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Angrymnk wrote:

And this, ladies and gents, is your average voter. It is just like driving over a speed limit.
And this, ladies and gents, is why people can never use metaphors, because the receiving end isn't intelligent enough to differentiate concepts from actions.


Hmm? I think you are mistaken, but I am not sure what is tripping you. "It's metaphor, stupid." is not a good response. You could have used haiku to express the same sentiment and it would be equally invalid.

Edited, Mar 15th 2015 12:49pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#23 Mar 15 2015 at 11:27 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
angrymnk wrote:

Hmm? I think you are mistaken, but I am not sure what is tripping you. "It's metaphor, stupid." is not a good response. You could have used haiku to express the same sentiment and it would be equally invalid.


I'm not mistaken. It's the perfect response to someone who says "It is just like driving over a speed limit". It's evidence that you don't understand how metaphors work. To be fair, I've seen this a lot in the media lately (i.e. Huckabee in his homosexual friends like friends who smoke and drink), where people focus on what is being compared as opposed to the concept at hand.

However, if you're claiming that you do understand the metaphor and are just saying that it is conceptually invalid, then you left that off your original response and have yet provided a reason why.
#24 Mar 15 2015 at 11:33 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Almalieque wrote:
However, if you're claiming that you do understand the metaphor and are just saying that it is conceptually invalid,
That's exactly what I got out of what was written.
#25 Mar 15 2015 at 11:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Alma feels that it's not a huge deal and so compares it to a trivial transgression. Angrymonk feels it is a big deal and so dismisses Alma's comparison as stupid. Both presumably have their own reasons for weighing it as they do so they'd probably be better off discussing those reasons than debating whether or not anyone should talk about the speed limit and metaphors.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Mar 15 2015 at 12:49 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Alma feels that it's not a huge deal and so compares it to a trivial transgression. Angrymonk feels it is a big deal and so dismisses Alma's comparison as stupid. Both presumably have their own reasons for weighing it as they do so they'd probably be better off discussing those reasons than debating whether or not anyone should talk about the speed limit and metaphors.


The metaphor wasn't used to literally say that what Clinton did was the same as not slowing down after passing a new speed limit. That's absurd. The metaphor was used to demonstrate that since the infraction occurred during a transition period from a common practice (personal emails) and it didn't cause any harm (at least from what we know of), then it isn't a big deal. That's not to say she gets off the hook, but it's to say that it isn't as big of deal as others are making it. Now, if everyone before her used government emails and 'twas just Hillary who decided to do her own thing, then it would be a bigger deal.

The speed limit analogy was used because it's something that people can conceptually relate to. As mentioned, people often get stuck on the literal things being compared as opposed to the concepts.

Edited, Mar 15th 2015 8:51pm by Almalieque
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 234 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (234)