General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPoll: Email-Gate
Seriously, taking the temperature at DU on this subject !
| 17 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| Think the whole thing is totally ridiculous to spend another freakin minute on | |
14 (82%) |
|
| Think there's something fishy, but don't really care that much | |
0 (0%) |
|
| Think this is serious and brings question to her integrity | |
2 (12%) |
|
| Don't care, it will pass | |
0 (0%) |
|
| Care, want to learn more before I pass judgement. | |
0 (0%) |
|
| Other | |
1 (6%) |
|
| 0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Everyone knows email is not private.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)with brief glances at DU only - thought people were against her.
Lawrence O'Donnell seems to be.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Every minute. Care less and less.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Just somebody please pour me a drink. 
A-Schwarzenegger
(15,600 posts)I was deliriously torn between first choice and "dont care, will pass."
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)are making it. Don't care, will pass - is nothing bothers you about the whole thing.
You know, it's a subtle difference because we professional pollsters like to study the nuance.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)the next important thing comes along.
What I find most interesting is somehow this is more important than what those 47 assholes did--to the media anyway--pathetic. Liberal media my ass.
edited to add: I don't think it's that big a deal. It will cause a few wrinkles but in the end it won't matter.
A-Schwarzenegger
(15,600 posts)From scanning the many recent posts on this I thought
it would be at least 2-1 the other way.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)act - is that they are being outwitted whether it's Hillary or Obama so they will drag out forever.
rgbecker
(4,867 posts)I think email is replacing the telephone more than it is replacing snail mail and I'm not sure anyone should be required to publish every last one of them any more than they should be expected to provide transcripts of every phone call
Bravo for transparency in Government affairs, but until we have transcripts of every conversation and phone call we won't have it and maybe we shouldn't have it. Nothing would get done if people can't communicate in private.
TheKentuckian
(25,656 posts)have it.
I think what you are really saying is "fuck transparency in government, it might prove inconvenient but I'd like to give the concept some passing lip service".
This not about everyone, it is about public servants acting in their official capacities and I don't get what is so terribly difficult to get about the concept, it was not something that had to be repeatedly explained until Hillary Clinton was at the center, folks seemed a hell of a lot clearer on the issue when it was TeaPubliKlan fraudsters in charge.
Folks are suddenly constitutionally unable to allow the concept that what Clinton did was not illegal yet was not the kind of handling that we wish to see and that isn't acceptable moving forward. No, now the whole fucking concept has to be irrelevant and silly because there can be no daylight between illegal and best practices and in fact no admission of anything less than stellar handling so not only wasn't it illegal but the concept of such being illegal has to be squashed too.
Fucking dishonest ass hypocrites that just like the crooked ass TeaPubliKlans could give a shit about all that high minded previous talk, it was strictly a weapon to attack the other side to be abandoned not actually lived.
I'm not getting some folks vision for the country at all, seems the most ardent supporters and prolific excuse makers for the surveillance state and total information awareness of us peons are the first out in front of public servants acting as their own holder, gatekeepers, and screeners of their public records, this seems inverted and dangerously insane.
A clear predilection for we the people to be subjects rather than citizens is what I see. Such is not a Democratic or a democratic value that I can recognize much less stomach.
rgbecker
(4,867 posts)In Massachusetts the rule is that members of group of town officials (for example: Planning Board) cannot meet without notice to the public. If a quorum should find themselves gathered, no public business is to be discussed. Fine, but that doesn't outlaw a discussion between 2 of the five members which could happen in person, over the phone or via email. By the law, any email between these 2 would not be expected to be in the public record nor would any email between a board member and the public. A phone call also would not be expected to in the public record.
I was hoping there could be a little discussion about these rules for public officials behavior rather than knee jerk partisan raving without much consideration of the rules themselves.
Consider a government official, say an IRS tax assistant or Social Security advisor giving information on the telephone. Are you expecting a searchable public record to be kept of that exchange? If so would a email also need to be retained for the newspaper to search in the near future?
If you can define "Transparency in government" more precisely, then I'll say fuck it or not.
In the end, there are going to be a lot of judgment calls made at all levels of government and in private lives about what communications are public domain and which are not. And given that, it will be discussed in the political world for all eternity, because it is a political question. If you hate Hillary, you won't ever trust her judgment about which communications are of public interest and which are not. If you like her, you would be happy to leave it to her to decide. If you hate her, you no doubt would like every one of her telephone conversations to be transcribed and posted on line. If you like her, you might like to see her have some level of privacy to conduct state affairs as he thinks best. If you hate Obama, you could insist every conversation between him and John Kerry about the Iran Nuclear Negotiations should be provided to the Senate GOP but if you like him, maybe you would be happy to trust him to carry on as he seems fit.
TheKentuckian
(25,656 posts)Yes, I think phone conversations should be recorded and should be available to the public through the same process that other communications are (some reasonable delays for security and negotiation purposes would be allowed but eventually it is our data not their's), it is OUR business not their private affairs. I don't believe in public servants acting as their own gatekeepers be they my favorite liberal or most despised regressive.
I'd shrink the debate to the smallest parameters possible, eliminating as much "trust" as possible.
I say public officials be restricted from performance of official duties save independent from their control and government owned and retrievable lines of communication while giving a substantial reward and immunity to anyone reporting provable violations.
TheKentuckian
(25,656 posts)Personal info could be redacted and in no case am I hearing anyone argue that the Social Security or IRS agent should be the gatekeeper and holder of such records, that is an exception built for the power elites in some people's minds.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)I pretty much stopped having an extreme opinion one way or another about the shit politicians do when I realized that something a Republican might do that would get me hopping up and down in a rant would probably be not that big of a deal when/if a Democrat did it.
IOW, having double standards sucks.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Kinda like having a corner office or private secretary or her own parking spot.