Welcome to the US where everything is given as two artificial choices. Seriously... I was approached a couple of days ago and asked if I believe laws should be based on the Bible? When I said no the person quickly accused me of wanting a "muslim theocracy (his words)". I guess the current constitutional republic wasn't one of the two choices he considered for his argument.
I'm not big supporter of either party. I'm like most of the US and just vote for the lesser of the two evils.
It was Virginia's AG that did not do his job.
They swore an oath to uphold the state's constitution and their laws regardless of their personal beliefs. Virginia's AG usurped the authority given to the state legislature and failed to act on their behalf. His job is to represent law makers to the state supreme court and higher.
I don't agree with the ban but you can't overlook someone's failing as an AG simply because the outcome was favorable to your side. Roy Cooper was correct, since in my state the AG would face impeachment for refusing to act on behalf of the legislature.
College was affordable before federal loans
By what standard? Cost of college has always been high. Federal loans made college more accessible. If your theory is based on generated demand then you have discounted the fact that a seat not filled by a in-state resident will be filled by an out-of-state or foreign student who pay more tuition anyway.
The amount of student loan debt is at an all time high and I blame allowing student loans to be used to finance attending for-profit "educational" companies that amount to little more than $40K paper mills. The reason the default rate is high for those institutions is because the employers already understand that those "degrees" aren't worth the paper it is printed on. This doesn't stop the "institution" from insinuating (or outright stating) that you would be guaranteed a job.
Make it to where only public (i.e. state owned) 2-year and 4-year institutions can receive federal student loans and we will see both the rate of default and the number of debtors lower.
Closed culture often tries to destroy open culture. SCO/Microsoft vs Linux is a good example.
That's not a very good example since Linux is still here.
This is like doing 6 episodes of Dallas after 30 years. Pointless.
Except Dallas resumed for three whole seasons.
she personally sent emails out telling others no to use personal email accounts for official communications - and warned them to do so might cost them their jobs.
The cool thing about being the head of a department is that you can place requirements on your staff. You can choose not to apply those rules to yourself.
The question isn't what she did was fair. The question is what she did expressly forbidden and illegal during her employment.
You introduced a fallacy, namely that I said YOU did anything at all.
I called this scandal "low grade political material" not some unnamed left wing hater. Yet you were the one that sad:
Funny, the left's view of Sarah Palin's Email usage was a BIG concern 8 years ago. Funny how "Big Concern" becomes "Low Grade" depending on which party you're rooting for.
Since I was the one the inserted "low grade" into the conversation, I could only assume that you consider me a member or at least a diehard fan of the democratic party (which I am not) and that I was concerned about Sarah Palin.
Then after back peddling two steps, you move forward three steps with:
The question is, is using private email for official government use, under the retention policies, laws and rules apply to Clinton equally as it does for everyone else or not? Because, there are several people who have been tried and convicted for less than what Clinton has DONE (admitted to). Just asking how much of a Clinton apologist you are.
I think using private email for official government use is a valid concerned for a current governmental employee. That said Hillary is retired and serves no official capacity.
I also don't subscribe to the theory that existence of a personal email server is damning evidence of a serious crime. Especially in light of how loose the regulations were for government appointees in 2009. Just like I didn't think 2.2 million Bush emails disappearing was part of a republican cover up. I'm more interested in facts and all I see from the talking heads today is conjecture.
Do I think this issue should be taken into consideration when voting for president? Yes.
Do I think this issue is of such national importance that we should drop everything and ignore the bigger more tangible issues happening this moment and spend huge amount of political discourse on Hillary's email habits? No. At least not today.
So for you this is a party issue.
No. I think it's political fodder regardless of the party.
For the record, I wasn't too concerned about President Bush losing 2.2 million emails either. So for me at least it is not a republican vs. democrat issue.
Now we know why you don't care about this. For some of us, this is straight up legal matter. Hillary needs to follow the same laws as all of us.
Actually according to several news sources, the regulations that were in place in 2009 did not prohibit the Hillary Clinton's use of a non-agency email system. Instead it stated:
agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.
They also point out that Hillary did turn over 50,000 pages of email to the agency in December 2014.
You introduced a fallacy that somehow I was one of the people upset about Sarah Palin's email habits. This isn't true since I am not even familiar with Sarah Palin's email usage.
If what you say about Sarah Palin is true then, to carry your logic even further, the republicans had no serious objections about how email is handled either.
So, the Bush White House had its staffers use government email for government stuff, who'da thunk it?
As far as we know, ONLY Hillary Clinton used her family email server. The rest of her staff used government mail servers. Therefore any correspondents between her and her staff or the president is recorded on an official email server anyway.
I'm not saying that I agree with her using her own personal email server, but I also don't think this "controversy" rises to the level of me really giving a rat's ass about. Actually it rises to the level of "She should have known better... but meh".
What does concern me is that the right decided to use this low grade political material so early that it will be forgotten by the time the election season actually hits full stride. So the more important question is what's going on that requires the gullible media's distraction on something as trivial as email usage by a retired secretary of state?