Clinton reveal more state secrets? - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: Clinton reveal more state secrets? (/Thread-Clinton-reveal-more-state-secrets) |
RE: Clinton reveal more state secrets? - GMDino - 10-20-2016 http://www.snopes.com/clinton-four-minute-nuclear/ Quote:At 8:35 PM on 19 October 2016, Clinton published a tweet on the same subject, stating that a president's decision to use nuclear weapons "can take as little as four minutes" (from order to launch) suggesting that the window she referenced was somewhat fluid: RE: Clinton reveal more state secrets? - fredtoast - 10-20-2016 (10-20-2016, 01:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: .. Putin is not some rube who depends on the right wing echo chamber for 100% of his information. So he already knew this information from this 2012 report from the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/reducing-alert-rates-of-nuclear-weapons-400.pdf) or from this 2015 report from the Global Zero Commission on Nuclear Risk Reduction (http://www.globalzero.org/files/global_zero_commission_on_nuclear_risk_reduction_report_0.pdf) RE: Clinton reveal more state secrets? - SunsetBengal - 10-20-2016 (10-20-2016, 04:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Putin is not some rube who depends on the right wing echo chamber for 100% of his information. So he already knew this information from this 2012 report from the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/reducing-alert-rates-of-nuclear-weapons-400.pdf) or from this 2015 report from the Global Zero Commission on Nuclear Risk Reduction (http://www.globalzero.org/files/global_zero_commission_on_nuclear_risk_reduction_report_0.pdf) It just kills you that the Democrat Campaign is going down in flames, caught up in all of their own law breaking ways. Me, I'm just over here going RE: Clinton reveal more state secrets? - fredtoast - 10-20-2016 (10-20-2016, 05:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: It just kills you that the Democrat Campaign is going down in flames, caught up in all of their own law breaking ways. Going down in flames? I just embarrassed you for listening to the right wing echo chamber, but you still believe everything they say? Remember when you claimed Hillary would not be healthy for the debate? Don't you ever learn? RE: Clinton reveal more state secrets? - PhilHos - 10-21-2016 (10-20-2016, 04:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Knowledgible people know that she can not reveal MORE state secrets if she has not already revealed some. I was referencing the email scandal and the fact that the FBI admitted Hillary MAY have been hacked by foreign sources when I said "more". (And, yes, I know there was no conclusive evidence, yet, that she WAS hacked, hence another reason why I made the title a question) RE: Clinton reveal more state secrets? - Dill - 10-23-2016 (10-20-2016, 05:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: It just kills you that the Democrat Campaign is going down in flames, caught up in all of their own law breaking ways. Absolutely. Trump told us he won all three debates, and that all the polls have him ahead of Clinton. Democrats are going down and the US will finally have a strong leader who can distinguish fact from fiction. RE: Clinton reveal more state secrets? - SunsetBengal - 10-23-2016 (10-23-2016, 04:03 PM)Dill Wrote: Absolutely. Trump told us he won all three debates, and that all the polls have him ahead of Clinton. Well, it ain't all Sunshine and Rainbows for the pro-Trump crowd. The guy certainly has his shortcomings. However, I would rather take my chances on a guy with no political history, over a career crook. RE: Clinton reveal more state secrets? - Belsnickel - 10-23-2016 (10-23-2016, 04:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, it ain't all Sunshine and Rainbows for the pro-Trump crowd. The guy certainly has his shortcomings. However, I would rather take my chances on a guy with no political history, over a career crook. They're both career crooks. One is private sector, one is public. RE: Clinton reveal more state secrets? - Dill - 10-23-2016 (10-23-2016, 06:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They're both career crooks. One is private sector, one is public. An odd sort of crook who provides half the world's AIDs victims with medicine, and uses the world stage in a developing country to affirm women's rights. Can crooks in the public sector do good in the world? RE: Clinton reveal more state secrets? - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 10-23-2016 (10-23-2016, 08:49 PM)Dill Wrote: An odd sort of crook who provides half the world's AIDs victims with medicine, and uses the world stage in a developing country to affirm women's rights. Can crooks in the public sector do good in the world? Trump created jobs (in Bangladesh for pennies on the dollar.) RE: Clinton reveal more state secrets? - Belsnickel - 10-24-2016 (10-23-2016, 08:49 PM)Dill Wrote: An odd sort of crook who provides half the world's AIDs victims with medicine, and uses the world stage in a developing country to affirm women's rights. Can crooks in the public sector do good in the world? Absolutely. No one is 100% good or 100% bad. Look, where there's smoke, there's fire. There are too many things going on to deny there is a preponderance of evidence that something is amiss with the Clintons. A preponderance is not a high enough standard, though, for a finding of guilty in a court. And I don't even know if anything legitimately illegal took place. I do see plenty of ethically questionable behavior, though, and that concerns me. RE: Clinton reveal more state secrets? - Dill - 10-24-2016 (10-24-2016, 09:08 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Absolutely. No one is 100% good or 100% bad. Look, where there's smoke, there's fire. There are too many things going on to deny there is a preponderance of evidence that something is amiss with the Clintons. A preponderance is not a high enough standard, though, for a finding of guilty in a court. And I don't even know if anything legitimately illegal took place. I do see plenty of ethically questionable behavior, though, and that concerns me. I hear what you are saying. But what bothers me in this case is that a lot of the "smoke" is generated by rich Republican donors paying people to create it, along with the the usual suspects at Fox News. Benghazi is a prime example, but I could tick off a list going back to the "murder" of Vince Foster and Whitewater (8 years taxpayer money was wasted on that one). Clinton's husband does appear to be a womanizer, though like her also a very competent politician. Most of what currently raises suspicions about Clinton should be classified as innuendo. A secret service agent claims she was terrible to work under and maybe threw a lamp at Bill, though no one actually saw that. The King of Morocco offered to donate 12 million to the Clinton Foundation--though nothing ever came of that, etc. This is in contrast to Trump scandals, which rest largely upon what he himself says before an audience of millions. The Clinton's, since his presidency, have seemed bent on doing good, public work in one way or another, as opposed to the self-aggrandizing, Xenophobic, Trump, whose chaotic business history is matter of public/court record. It is not Fox News but angry, stiffed contractors/customers who are his accusers. RE: Clinton reveal more state secrets? - Belsnickel - 10-24-2016 (10-24-2016, 10:19 AM)Dill Wrote: I hear what you are saying. But what bothers me in this case is that a lot of the "smoke" is generated by rich Republican donors paying people to create it, along with the the usual suspects at Fox News. Benghazi is a prime example, but I could tick off a list going back to the "murder" of Vince Foster and Whitewater (8 years taxpayer money was wasted on that one). Clinton's husband does appear to be a womanizer, though like her also a very competent politician. You're preaching to the choir here. Even though I am not a Clinton supporter, I believe she would be less damaging to our country and is not as crooked as Trump. But, this is something that I think a lot of people defending either one of those two tend to forget, is that in the world of politics, in the world of public opinion and foreign affairs, the image is everything. The perception is reality. If someone appears to be not trustworthy because of those innuendos, then that perception is there. When we are working on diplomatic relations with country x who is not on good terms with country y, yet there is an innuendo out there of favorable treatment to country y by the Diplomat in Chief (one of the roles of POTUS), then it can cause problems. As for the stuff about Clinton from SS agents, I've heard some of the stories from primary sources, people that were there. Someone in particular that was the target of a tirade or two from her. And these are stories I was privy to over a decade ago. I have to admit, I do not like Clinton on a personal level because I am one of those that sees the way you treat those there to serve you as a reflection of your true character, but I separate my opinions of her as a person from those I have of her as a politician. She is an effective civil servant, she is good at the game. But I don't think her motives are all that great. She has done all of these things, IMO, with the end goal of becoming POTUS, not for philanthropic ideals. She said to someone close to her when Bill was elected that her goal was 8 years of Bill, and 8 years of Hill, that's been her goal all along and that is what she has been trying to shape the whole time. RE: Clinton reveal more state secrets? - Dill - 10-24-2016 (10-24-2016, 10:34 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're preaching to the choir here. Even though I am not a Clinton supporter, I believe she would be less damaging to our country and is not as crooked as Trump. But, this is something that I think a lot of people defending either one of those two tend to forget, is that in the world of politics, in the world of public opinion and foreign affairs, the image is everything. The perception is reality. If someone appears to be not trustworthy because of those innuendos, then that perception is there. You are a thoughtful person, Bels, and I always respect what you have to say. In this case, though, I think we should be careful not to accept "perception" as identical to reality, while recognizing your point that for enough people it is. This would be one of the central points made in my ideal civics course, that we strive to make this distinction. As for the effect on diplomatic relations, we live in a world now in which, if "perception" can be crafted and manipulated, it will be. Any politician may him or herself have very little control over this. RE: Clinton reveal more state secrets? - Belsnickel - 10-24-2016 (10-24-2016, 10:41 AM)Dill Wrote: You are a thoughtful person, Bels, and I always respect what you have to say. In this case, though, I think we should be careful not to accept "perception" as identical to reality, while recognizing your point that for enough people it is. This would be one of the central points made in my ideal civics course, that we strive to make this distinction. I'm not advocating that perception should be reality, only that is. If people understood public opinion in the political realm then they may be more inclined to work to understand the issues more, and I'm all for that, but that just isn't the case. Even among those that should know better. RE: Clinton reveal more state secrets? - Dill - 10-24-2016 (10-24-2016, 10:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not advocating that perception should be reality, only that is. If people understood public opinion in the political realm then they may be more inclined to work to understand the issues more, and I'm all for that, but that just isn't the case. Even among those that should know better. I am in complete agreement with you on this. I only add that schools should do more to address this problem at the secondary and tertiary level, when people can still absorb standards without the heavy emotional investment in one party or the other which so many adults have. I should add that the press could a better job, especially of explaining to the public what the function of the press is--and it isn't always just to report "facts." |