Are We Ready For a Woman President? Really?

Unfortunately, people make decisions about online security based on their personal experience. I'm retired DOD, I worked for an intelligence agency, none of the executives had accounts that were not vigorously protected by appropriate agencies. The idea that even the Secretary of the Interior used the same system that the rest of us use for official business is laughable. The cloud is so easily hacked, even I don't use it and I'm retired.

If folks want to believe that any Secretary of State is casual about the security of their communications, you're mistaken. Just think about it, if you are the top diplomat of the United States you would not want your strategy known to those you were negotiating with because any attempt would be useless. That would make the Secretary of State a useless position.

I think it's time people own the real reason you want to believe the 'email situation' is a problem. You want to believe that Hillary was involved in shocking or disgraceful behavior, and desperately hope you will finally find evidence of one of those u/i 'lies' that people keep saying she is guilty of making.

And what is the real reason that you don't want to accept that the email server is a problem?

There are a couple of issues here. The first is transparency. Her communication in her official capacity as Secretary of State don't belong to her. They belong to us. Her policy of deleting emails after 30 days goes against the spirit (if not the letter) of government rules.

The second issue is security. The fact is that emails she thought were deleted are were copied, without her knowledge or control, onto another server. They are now in the hands of the FBI. If her security was good, this never would have happened.

See? I told you you'd find something.

Well the cloud is not easily hack if you allow nothing that go into the cloud or out of the cloud that is not encrypted with only the user holding the key.

You weren't wrong, Setanta (oops) Snood.

From she knowingly sent confidential information to she should have known that it went to cloud or could have been hacked. Do you think the government agencies that have been hacked should be more careful, and how would you go about it. At least you admit you dont like Hillary and are looking for anything to make her look bad. Some others here pretend they are looking to the good of the democratic party when their chief purpose is to defeat Hillary with what ever lies they can come up with.

No, I don't accept that. I am not looking for "anything to make her look bad". I agree with many of her positions, and you don't see me supporting the Benghazi witch hunt.

The email scandal has some substance to it. She may have not broken any rules.... but she sure went against the spirit of transparency rules (which have now been changed to keep anyone from doing it again).

All the complains about Hillary using her own servers for her email it should not be overlook that the federal government had been hack over and over again.

Not a damn week go by where there is another story becoming public such as the six millions security clearance files going god know where.

These hacks are the only ones that the government both know of and had admitted to.

Frankly I trust my own security more then the known security that the federal government had been maintaining for itself.

I'm not going to invent something for you. What is your suspicion, I'm a woman, Hilliary is a woman, therefore I'm unable to face reality?

You keep asking for honest discussion, I tell you exactly what I'm thinking and you never fail to wave it away as so much nonsense. Apparently you are not a very socially adept person, you may have a handicap when it comes to recognizing other peoples skills. I opened up your post out of curiosity, but you are so predictable I should have realized what you might say. You did surprise me when you asked me to say what my real reason is. I've been dealing with you long enough to know you have a dismissive attitude about women. Well, in my lifetime I've run into lots of stunted men like you. It's hard to think of you as smart, because your expectations are so low it's disappointing. You're too confused to be charming. and you need to be the brighter light always. It's not your birthright, if you want to be respected, act respectably. I don't know why you need to denigrate women, honestly it won't make you a superior type of male.

Lets just agree to an amicable separation/divorce. Hopefully, you will find a life companion that thinks you're wonderful and you think she's wonderful. A situation where you both respect each other, real respect, not the master - dumb puppy situation where you need to train her so she won't be an embarrassment to your ego.

OK, I've already spent more time on you than I should. Back on ignore, with an extra 7 days because I need it.

What you are basically saying is that a man should never disagree a woman. Needless to say, I disagree with you.

Apparently you think that men who disagree with you are "stunted", "dismissive", and socially inept. Have you considered the possibility that a man has as much of a right to their own opinion as you do? Gender has nothing to do with it.

There are politicians I like, there are politicians I don't like. Elizabeth Warren is an example of a politician I like very much. Hillary Clinton is an example of a politician I don't like.

All I did is repeat the same question that you posed with a couple of words changed. My question was no more offensive than yours was.

I believe in equality. I treat you the same way I treat everyone else... as I should. When you post bogus arguments or dismissive questions, I am going to challenge them whether you are a man or a woman.

I also judge politicians the same whether they are a man or a woman. In my opinion Hillary Clinton is a poor candidate for all of the reasons that I have explained. I have felt as strongly about many male candidates.

So stop the obsession with gender and let's talk about the strengths and weaknesses of Hillary Clinton... not as a woman, but as a presidential candidate.

Is that too much to ask?

You always twist my words into statements I don't recognize. Thats why I choose to not engage with you. Think whatever you want, and I really don't care how you warp my statements into bullshit you're more comfortable thinking.

You wrote 277 words to him 1:20 ago, but hey, anyone who expects to hear the truth from you is nuts.

They are your words, and your personal attacks. I am not twisting them. They are twisting themselves.

I respect your right to disagree with me, and I have argued my point without attacking you (with the possible exception of parroting a statement that you yourself made). I am going to argue my points with anyone, don't take it personally.

Your posts include personal attacks based on crude gender stereotypes rather than points to support your opinion. I really wish you wouldn't do that.

Of course, as you said, you can choose to not engage with me. That's your decision. But I am here for challenging discussions with people I don't agree with. If you choose to engage, I am going to defend my position and challenge your position. And, I will do this without personal attacks.

Max is doing the same thing with everyone, I'm noticing now. It's just circular, endless argument with no reason or rhyme. Twisting words, being intentionally obtuse, erecting an army of straw men. I can't tell anyone else what to do, but I'm off of that merry go round.

She was the SOS (is that the three letter initial?)She made some reckless decisions for her position for no good reason that I can I see. I don't know why no one on the democrat side wants to face it but I it seems I disagree with a majority of opinion here, so be it.

You aren't on the merry-go-round, Snood. You are the merry go round.

You posted your opinion. I disagreed with it and made my case. I even posted data to support my opinion. You responded with personal insults. I added more thoughts to support my position, and you responded to my responses to your results. This cycle required your responses.

I expressed my opinion. You have every right to express yours. I just wish you could do so with the personal attacks.

And if you don't want to respond to the opinions of people who don't agree with, then don't respond. That you posted a response to say you weren't going to respond any more is kind of funny.

You believe allegations I find to be faulty. No one says you have to like Sec. Clinton, but you don't have to assume every negative thing said about her is true. Just don't vote for her, don't get sucked into believing rumors are facts.

I think all this Clinton stuff misses the topic. Here is my take of this entire thread for what it is worth.

- Is it fair to discuss server gate and Benghazi and the TPP? Sure, all of those are legitimate grounds for discussion. Those might be attacks on Clinton, but they are above board attacks even if they are politically based.

- Do Clinton supporters claim that those discussions are from gender bias? Not that I can see either in this thread or in the "When will Clinton give up" thread. I see plenty of cases where Clinton supporters claim some (or all) of these investigations are politically based or bogus, but that's not pulling the gender card. I don't see any backing for anti-Clinton claims that her supporters routinely trot out gender bias to fend off attacks.

- Does Clinton face a sub thread of gender bias that say Bill Clinton if he could run again would not? IMO, yes. It's not in the main press, but you don't find Bill Clinton nut crackers or hear from Trump how "shrill" his voice is.

- Are those gender biases going to overwhelm her campaign? I doubt it. Clinton has plenty of tools to overcome such attacks. Is Sanders more disadvantaged by his Socialist political affiliation? IMO yes. Back to the topic, I think the US would be fine with a woman for President.

- Does that make it ok for people like Trump (or minor politicians all over the country) to make such comments? No. Just because you don't like Clinton, it doesn't mean you need to support people who make misogynist comments.

Hillary REFUSES to be judged on her record. Any criticism is deemed by her to be sexist, political or both. She REFUSES to acknowledge her mistakes and feels she is ENTITLED to be the next President.

Sorry. But she is old news and I hope the voters recognize her for the loser that she is.

Where does she do that?

I do not hear her suggesting the criticism of her is sexist motivated anywhere near as often as you seem to think she does.

But maybe I am out of the loop...and your comment that ANY CRITICISM is deemed by her to be sexist holds. Where and when have you witnessed it?

(Obviously the criticism is political...even if it is true.)

And...she has acknowledged mistakes...more than any of the Republican candidates have done. Or do you suppose they are mistake free?



That will be decided in November of next year...and not by Republican hacks right now.