• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton's debate reference to nuclear response rekindles judgement questions

No, she's obviously careless. That piece of information was extraneous and irrelevant; therefore only put out to show off her credentials. Good OPSEC practices would have suggested not revealing the information. It was at least sensitive, and she showed poor judgement given her recent position in the govt.

The possibility exists sure. But you don't know that. You dont know what clearance she had (and evidence suggests she doesn't have the real number). You don't know what the OPSEC practices are because I suspect that you aren't privy to their information either. Even if she did know that the number you don't know that she didnt give the popular answer (as found all over the internet) and not the real answer. And there are far more variables than those. The point is you dont know. You just disagree with her politics and the letter in front of her name. Its also worth pointing out that you shouldn't assume everything that is said in a debate. They are full of lies.

Also it is worth pointing out that the people who would hold her accountable if she had leaked that info, didn't seem to care about what she said.
 
Last edited:
Everybody keeps their personal identifer in their pants. Well.... Everyone except Trump and Bill

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Bill's personal identifier cost him $850,000.
 
And to the larger point: "And that's why 10 people who have had that awesome responsibility have come out and, in an unprecedented way, said they would not trust Donald Trump with the nuclear codes or to have his finger on the nuclear button."
Who?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
And to the larger point: "And that's why 10 people who have had that awesome responsibility have come out and, in an unprecedented way, said they would not trust Donald Trump with the nuclear codes or to have his finger on the nuclear button."
Thankfully these are all apolitical opinions

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Whether it's illegal or not, it's certainly a very stupid thing to say in a public forum. Let alone a presidential debate.

Hillary's extreme bad judgment and lack of character on full display, yet again. :roll:
At least her name aint trump

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
The possibility exists sure. But you don't know that. You dont know what clearance she had (and evidence suggests she doesn't have the real number). You don't know what the OPSEC practices are because I suspect that you aren't privy to their information either. Even if she did know that the number you don't know that she didnt give the popular answer (as found all over the internet) and not the real answer. And there are far more variables than those. The point is you dont know. You just disagree with her politics and the letter in front of her name. Its also worth pointing out that you shouldn't assume everything that is said in a debate. They are full of lies.

Also it is worth pointing out that the people who would hold her accountable if she had leaked that info, didn't seem to care about what she said.

What were you expecting, that they'd run out into the street and yell, "OMFG she gave away the keys to city!!!"?
 
What were you expecting, that they'd run out into the street and yell, "OMFG she gave away the keys to city!!!"?

They have done absolutely nothing that you are I know of. I think there is some middle ground between absolutely nothing and screaming in the streets. You have no real ground here. The only people who care are the strong anti Clinton people.
 
Im still trying to figure out where she is comeing up with 4 minutes. If her past history is any imdication of how she would.perfom as the potus. Its pretty clear it would take her at least 13hrs to respond

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
It does not matter if its a crime or not.

It matters to anyone who respects the rule of law if what she did was a crime.

You have to show intent for it to be reasonable to prosecute.

That is false. Section 793(f), a part of the Espionage Act she violated--again--by making this comment, does NOT require intent. Gross negligence is sufficient for a violation. Whether it is reasonable to prosecute a person for violating 793(f) has nothing whatever to do with whether that person showed intent. That has become a popular false claim by Mrs. Clinton's rear guard. I must have seen it parroted eight or ten times now just on these forums.

Apparently this false claim, which I see is now being used for yet more fanny-covering, was originally intended to let Director Comey off the hook for his role in fixing things so Mrs. Clinton would not be prosecuted for violating 793(f) by being extremely careless in handling her emails. Attorney General Lynch was in on this fix, and so was Mr. B.J. Clinton, who did a great deal to advance Lynch's career. Anyone who thinks that meeting at the airport shortly before Comey's announcement was just an accident must believe in the tooth fairy.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom