Who has your vote as of 5/19/2016

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

There is also this thing, Chief Rum, where you are misspelling her name constantly for no real reason... what's up with that? It's not like she's new on the scene.

Actually, I wasn't sure I was spelling it right or not. Sorry for the mistake.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Is Trump not all about Trump, and only Trump? Seriously? At least Hillary has done stuff that would seem to qualify her for the job.

And as we've seen with Obama, Congress will be more than happy to stop her from achieving anything.

You might note I don't support Trump either.

[Solecismic]

It's troubling that many Democrats will immediately revert to identity politics when one of their candidates is criticized. In the long run, that does more harm than good.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I mean, has Hillary ever invented a second persona for herself as her own PR flack and had phone calls with media outlets talking about how hot she is and what a great person she is and how she's having to turn away all kinds of dick?

I guess if Trump wins, maybe he'll be his own Communications Director and give some press conferences as "John Miller". It would almost be worth it just for that.

You see the issue then for disenfranchised Republicans like me. I'm asked to vote between a racist, extremist moron and a politician who represents much of what I can't stand about both politics and the left side of the aisle. And if Trump didn't win the nomination, my own party would likely hand me a super religious right candidate who in no way represents me as a social progressive.

For people like me, this is an absolute nightmare.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It's troubling that many Democrats will immediately revert to identity politics when one of their candidates is criticized. In the long run, that does more harm than good.

To be fair, it happens both ways.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

If you literally can't see another answer than misogynism, then you need to pull back and reflect on your own bias.

Ironic.

Though, no, I can't see any other answer that makes rational sense. She is the same as just about 90% of politicians. It's been a running joke for years that all politicians are out for themselves and themselves alone. Heck, the show "Veep" is based on that premise. And yet... somehow Hillary Clinton has become the devil somehow on that basis.

And you haven't provided me any reason or answer that explains this unreasonable and irrational attempt to pin on Hillary Clinton a self-interest that is greater than other politicians. Hell, you even said you "trust" Trump more in that you can see what he'll try to do - even though he's probably an archetype of the in it for himself politician.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

You see the issue then for disenfranchised Republicans like me. I'm asked to vote between a racist, extremist moron and a politician who represents much of what I can't stand about both politics and the left side of the aisle. And if Trump didn't win the nomination, my own party would likely hand me a super religious right candidate who in no way represents me as a social progressive.

For people like me, this is an absolute nightmare.

This is the issue with politics in general. Parties take the individualism away from the candidates and the voters. Who do people vote for the agree/disagree with certain issues each party has? F the two party system.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Ironic.

Though, no, I can't see any other answer that makes rational sense. She is the same as just about 90% of politicians. It's been a running joke for years that all politicians are out for themselves and themselves alone. Heck, the show "Veep" is based on that premise. And yet... somehow Hillary Clinton has become the devil somehow on that basis.

And you haven't provided me any reason or answer that explains this unreasonable and irrational attempt to pin on Hillary Clinton a self-interest that is greater than other politicians. Hell, you even said you "trust" Trump more in that you can see what he'll try to do - even though he's probably an archetype of the in it for himself politician.

Then there is really no reason to continue to engage you in this conversation. If you can't remove yourself from your bias, then this is a pointless exercise

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It's troubling that many Democrats will immediately revert to identity politics when one of their candidates is criticized. In the long run, that does more harm than good.

I'm not a Democrat and see it that way. I also saw it that way when people criticized Sarah Palin back in '08. People subconsciously don't like women in power.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by panerd

I also saw it that way when people criticized Sarah Palin back in '08. People subconsciously don't like women in power.

Very good point. The way people still talk about Palin, as if she's nuttier than the Glenn Beck's of the world, is ridiculous. I also remember when Andrew Sullivan went on a crusade to prove that Sarah Palin's baby wasn't hers.

FWIW, a lot of my Democratic friends got really pissed at me in 2008 because they thought I liked Sarah Palin, when I was just defending her from a lot of ridiculous shit.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Then there is really no reason to continue to engage you in this conversation. If you can't remove yourself from your bias, then this is a pointless exercise

Ah... projection

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It's troubling that many Democrats will immediately revert to identity politics when one of their candidates is criticized. In the long run, that does more harm than good.

It's troubling that you use small anecdotal sample sizes to attribute behaviors to large groups of people.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by panerd

I'm not a Democrat and see it that way. I also saw it that way when people criticized Sarah Palin back in '08. People subconsciously don't like women in power.

I'm more than willing to examine my problems with Clinton as a candidate. I think the email question is a serious problem. I think her behavior regarding Benghazi is a serious problem.

Palin was criticized because she couldn't answer basic questions and she did the same populist ranting Trump does today. If people defended her using the same "you're a misogynist if you don't vote for her" argument, that sucks, too. I didn't see that, but I can't say it didn't happen.

[Subby]

President Obama spoke for me and every American in his remarks in #Newtown Connecticut.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 17, 2012

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Subby

It's troubling that you use small anecdotal sample sizes to attribute behaviors to large groups of people.

It's a common theme, and I qualified that as "many" rather than leaving out a qualifier - which would then rightly be criticized as attributing it to much larger groups.

[digamma]

I have serious problems with the e-mail issue as well. That's a substantive issue.

But saying she's power hungry and only about herself is really more subjective and less substantive. Given the type of personality it takes to get into politics, it seems odd to make that a criticism of HRC and not Trump or Cruz or Bernie or Gary Johnson. The altruistic public servant is a rare, rare breed if she even exists. That's the double standard here--we criticize her for her ambition but don't do the same to her male counterparts. (And I think Palin got some of this too.)

[Zinto]

Sexism isn't a black or white idea. It isn't so much that hating Clinton makes you a pure sexist that hates all woman. It is a part of a piece to the puzzle more than likely though. You can dislike her for her policies, how she has handled some scandals, and criticize her role in politics the last 25 years. But, as a predominantly male message board, we would probably be more forgiving of a male with her resume.

And it isn't just a liberal or conservative trait. It is a people trait. Palin has been pointed out as an example of sexism being displayed by liberals but there is also Clarence Thomas. His list of sexual misconduct is very similar to Bill Clinton. It is pretty easy to guess part of the reason why Thomas would be more vilified than Bill.

Racial and gender biases are a part of my, your's and everyone's thinking. Dismissing it out of hand isn't helpful. Just in the same way screaming about sexism and racism isn't helpful either. Sexism and racism don't have to be 0% or 100% of someone's thought process to effect it. And it never is.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by digamma

I have serious problems with the e-mail issue as well. That's a substantive issue.

But saying she's power hungry and only about herself is really more subjective and less substantive. Given the type of personality it takes to get into politics, it seems odd to make that a criticism of HRC and not Trump or Cruz or Bernie or Gary Johnson. The altruistic public servant is a rare, rare breed if she even exists. That's the double standard here--we criticize her for her ambition but don't do the same to her male counterparts. (And I think Palin got some of this too.)

Other candidates get criticized too? I'm not sure how you can say it's a double standard when Trump is on the other side of the argument. HRC gets criticized heavily because she has a long political laundry list of stupid shit dating back to when she was first lady.

Palin got a lot of flack thanks to the media/Hollywood doing a good job of making her look like an idiot. When I think of Sarah Palin i still think of that porn star or Tina Fey acting as her.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Zinto

Sexism isn't a black or white idea. It isn't so much that hating Clinton makes you a pure sexist that hates all woman. It is a part of a piece to the puzzle more than likely though. You can dislike her for her policies, how she has handled some scandals, and criticize her role in politics the last 25 years. But, as a predominantly male message board, we would probably be more forgiving of a male with her resume.

And it isn't just a liberal or conservative trait. It is a people trait. Palin has been pointed out as an example of sexism being displayed by liberals but there is also Clarence Thomas. His list of sexual misconduct is very similar to Bill Clinton. It is pretty easy to guess part of the reason why Thomas would be more vilified than Bill.

Racial and gender biases are a part of my, your's and everyone's thinking. Dismissing it out of hand isn't helpful. Just in the same way screaming about sexism and racism isn't helpful either. Sexism and racism don't have to be 0% or 100% of someone's thought process to effect it. And it never is.

That sounds too much like religion to me. We're all born with sin, so we should spend our lives in prayer for forgiveness.

I don't want to dismiss racism and sexism out of hand, but this mass equivocation (Clinton and Thomas were both accused of something having something vaguely to do with genitalia, so, by all means, it's the same case and should be treated the same way) isn't productive.

As for Clinton's sex issues, I don't know. It seems adultery is accepted with people in power, but there are rape accusations. What do you do if there never was a trial? All the accusations make it seem like he isn't a very good person, but I think he served well as president.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't want to dismiss racism and sexism out of hand, but this mass equivocation (Clinton and Thomas were both accused of something having something vaguely to do with genitalia, so, by all means, it's the same case and should be treated the same way) isn't productive.

Well let's be clear, the sexual harassment that Thomas and Clinton (Bill) were accused of doing probably ARE the same. If anything Clinton's harassment was worse.

[Zinto]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

That sounds too much like religion to me. We're all born with sin, so we should spend our lives in prayer for forgiveness.

I don't want to dismiss racism and sexism out of hand, but this mass equivocation (Clinton and Thomas were both accused of something having something vaguely to do with genitalia, so, by all means, it's the same case and should be treated the same way) isn't productive.

As for Clinton's sex issues, I don't know. It seems adultery is accepted with people in power, but there are rape accusations. What do you do if there never was a trial? All the accusations make it seem like he isn't a very good person, but I think he served well as president.

I didn't intend for it to sound religious. I also don't think you are born helplessly into biases based on race or gender like sin or that all you can do is ask for forgiveness to be saved from them. I do think it is helpful/important to look at your biases, see how they influence double standards in society and how they influence how you think and talk about a subject.

I also probably should have been more specific about the Clinton and Thomas allegations. They both have a history of rumors of how they treated woman that worked with them. Clinton's are largely forgotten and forgiven(until his wife is running for president) while Thomas' are more ridiculed.

[Suicane75]

Thanks to this thread I've spent most of the last 24 hours researching Gary Johnson. I'll be voting for him.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Zinto

I didn't intend for it to sound religious. I also don't think you are born helplessly into biases based on race or gender like sin or that all you can do is ask for forgiveness to be saved from them. I do think it is helpful/important to look at your biases, see how they influence double standards in society and how they influence how you think and talk about a subject.

I also probably should have been more specific about the Clinton and Thomas allegations. They both have a history of rumors of how they treated woman that worked with them. Clinton's are largely forgotten and forgiven(until his wife is running for president) while Thomas' are more ridiculed.

Why wouldn't you also remind someone of their potential biases when they criticize a white male candidate, like Trump? Or when someone praises a candidate? Or when someone has any opinion about anything? Is there a double standard about reminding people about double standards?

I don't think the accusations against Clinton have been forgotten, being one of two presidents ever impeached (Johnson over technicalities related to the ugliness of reconstruction). And it's not up to me to forgive Clinton for having marital affairs. I can't say whether Thomas or Clinton are subject to the same ridicule, but Clinton is in the news more lately because he's one of the primary surrogates in his wife's campaign for president.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Thanks to this thread I've spent most of the last 24 hours researching Gary Johnson. I'll be voting for him.

Given the overwhelming isidewith lead for the libertarians, I'm probably there as well. While I agree with him about medical marijuana, I don't like that he has made this such a core issue, though. I think it will prevent him from making serious inroads.

[RainMaker]

I'll look into Gary Johnson some more. There is just no way I can vote for a birther who thinks vaccines cause autism.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by wustin

Other candidates get criticized too? I'm not sure how you can say it's a double standard when Trump is on the other side of the argument. HRC gets criticized heavily because she has a long political laundry list of stupid shit dating back to when she was first lady.

Palin got a lot of flack thanks to the media/Hollywood doing a good job of making her look like an idiot. When I think of Sarah Palin i still think of that porn star or Tina Fey acting as her.

The double standard is that her ambition is used against her. That usually isn't an argument against male politicians.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'll look into Gary Johnson some more. There is just no way I can vote for a birther who thinks vaccines cause autism.

How was Gary Johnson as governor? : NewMexico

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by digamma

The double standard is that her ambition is used against her. That usually isn't an argument against male politicians.

I'm not sure it's ambition - I get the feeling that she's actively worked with her cronies to suppress other Democratic candidates from gaining traction for a decade now and hurt the party as a whole. Barack Obama challenged her "before he was supposed to" and won, now Bernie Sanders ran a campaign no one thought had a chance and has somehow dragged it out into a borderline fight. We've talked about this in the Democratic campaign thread some.

There also is a sexism double standard. Of course there are some people for whom her being a woman is a factor in their dislike, whether overt or subconscious, but there are also plenty of people who support her because they want to see a Woman President, which is equally dumb. Especially when you have a better candidate on the bench in Gillibrand (I think Warren is much better in the legislative side.)

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Given the overwhelming isidewith lead for the libertarians, I'm probably there as well. While I agree with him about medical marijuana, I don't like that he has made this such a core issue, though. I think it will prevent him from making serious inroads.

I agree about the medical Marijuana point. Fine, be for it or even outright recreational legalization....but treat it as one of the minor (relative to the larger issues facing the country) that it actually is.

From the little I've heard him, he seems quite up on most current topics including foreign policy, but he needs to convey more importance to other topics else people will see him as the "pot guy".

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Is Trump not all about Trump, and only Trump? Seriously? At least Hillary has done stuff that would seem to qualify her for the job.

And as we've seen with Obama, Congress will be more than happy to stop her from achieving anything.

For me, Hillary says one thing but is out for herself. Trump is so bombastic, I realize he is spewing stuff just to get elected. I'd rather deal with an "honest" crook than one who comes in promising all sorts of things but has no intention of doing so.

My main issue with Hillary is she has been in public life for a very long time and what has she actually accomplished where she has taken the lead?

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

For me, Hillary says one thing but is out for herself. Trump is so bombastic, I realize he is spewing stuff just to get elected. I'd rather deal with an "honest" crook than one who comes in promising all sorts of things but has no intention of doing so.

My main issue with Hillary is she has been in public life for a very long time and what has she actually accomplished where she has taken the lead?

But then what has Trump accomplished that wasn't with the intention of making him money?

He talks about Make America Great Again, but what has he actually done to help that along? Nothing in his business practices, they're all about maximizing profit. Nothing, or at least very little on the philanthropic side, especially compared to some of the other famous wealthy business people in America.

[cuervo72]

Third party most likely. I figure Maryland is a lock to go blue, so I can contribute to getting someone else to 5%. Johnson will probably be the only one remotely close.

[tarcone]

We need to start a ground swell for Johnson.

Start telling your facebook friends.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'll look into Gary Johnson some more. There is just no way I can vote for a birther who thinks vaccines cause autism.

He's interesting to me but this along with being against net neutrality, stem cell research, government healthcare, and being a tea party supporter makes it impossible for me to vote for him.

[cuervo72]

Yeah, those would be problems. What are the other 3rd party options though? Green? Not sure I could go Green Party.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Ryche

But then what has Trump accomplished that wasn't with the intention of making him money?

He talks about Make America Great Again, but what has he actually done to help that along? Nothing in his business practices, they're all about maximizing profit. Nothing, or at least very little on the philanthropic side, especially compared to some of the other famous wealthy business people in America.

Apples and oranges.

Hillary's career has been in politics. Her campaign has been based in part upon her experience. Where are her accomplishments?

Sure, Trump has made money. He's also had companies go down the tubes. He's running as an outsider and people are hoping that he will shake up Washington.

He's not telling people to vote for him based upon his experience in the public sector like Hillary is. My problem with Trump is in part his bombast, but mostly his lack of concrete proposals. The problem is, he has rightly figured out a large portion of the electorate do not care about the particulars. They want someone to walk tall and carry a big stick.

[CU Tiger]

My disdain for Hillary is very simple. I think 2012 can not be forgiven. The #1 job of a politician in my eyes is to serve their constituents and protect the country.

Hillary failed, spectacularly I might add, on both accounts. Historically bad. Then after she failed she continued to parrot a narrative of obstruction and defense long after it was proven incorrect. She blindly put her personal growth in front of the very lives of Americans. They paid the price for her decisions and yet somehow to date she has not.

In my lifetime I cant remember another mistake this grave where the offender didnt at least have the decency to step down. She offered a token apology and then went on a media campaign to defend her actions. And again repeated the "anti-muslim video caused this" rhetoric. Her lies further bring shame and discredit to the lives she lad already taken.

Her actions are the most treasonous committed by an American citizen in my lifetime. To think that she could be President is truly sickening to me.

So you can dismiss detractors as "yeah yeah Benghazi, we get it" but to me it is an unforgivable discretion. It is a non starter for me. For that reason and that reason alone I will vote Trump or whomever has the best chance to beat her.

Lots of people laugh about moving out of the country if...

I own a home in Dominican Republic. We are seriously discussing in our family if we will live in this country if she presides over it.

[tarcone]

Well said.

[JPhillips]

That's basically 9/11 truther territory.

[PilotMan]

So we're going to find out the results of the 7th Benghazi commission just prior to the conventions in July. They have spent more money and been longer that the entire 9/11 investigation and Watergate and really have there been any longer at all? It's clearly been a partisan effort the whole way. You've got Trey reiterating facts that have been clear for years, yet, people just won't see it. They'll only see the fact "as they see them." You're mind is already made up. Your anger already fed. It doesn't really matter what comes out, even if the requests and subsequent responses never came across the desk of the Secretary of State. You've made your mind up.

There's no real question there, but you're upset because Americans died. I'm upset too. I'm upset that simple video editing, statements taken out of context can create such an outburst against Planned Parenthood (for doing nothing wrong) that a "freedom fighter" can go in and kill Americans in an unprotected clinic and yet the burden of those killings isn't on those who made the video. It's not on the Carly Fiorina's (or anyone else) of the world who stoke the false fire, somehow it's nobody ones fault, except the guy who pulled the trigger.

At that point, Benghazi seems like a more convenient rallying point. Americans died in both cases. In one case millions and millions of dollars and years have been spent investigating and reinvestigating and the other nobody gave much thought to it except to what a crazy man he must be to kill Americans. We still have Carly out there saying the same things that lead to the killings. So pardon me if I feel like it's all a little phony and a little convenient.

[Toddzilla]

I think the Benghazi = 9/11 truther comparison is perfect.

Even when the GOP lead counsel, a 3-star general says "There was nothing that could be done," those whackos still don't believe it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Her actions are the most treasonous committed by an American citizen in my lifetime.

And for as much as I detest HC, I don't even think she comes close to that bar.
I don't know that I'd put her in the top 500,000 or even top 1,000,000.
Like Obama, she's not much more than a symptom afaic.

And on her worst day ever, if she'd had Vince Foster murdered and botched Benghazi simultaneously, I'd still campaign for her over a vile p.o.s. like Sanders.

He might very well be the most despicable (U.S.) public figure of my lifetime.

[CarterNMA]

Can anybody adequately explain why Hillary is getting so much more hatred thrown at her for Benghazi than W got for Iraq? If death of Americans is the bar, were not W's decisions more egregious? If lying in relation to the death of Americans is the bar, were not W's (and Colin Powell's) actions more egregious? Iraq was horribly irresponsible while we were engaged with Afghanistan.

I detest Hillary for many reasons but the emails is just one of them, albeit a pretty major one. I think if your average Joe government worker had classified on their home computer, they'd forever be out of a job with the government, if not in a prison cell. Judge her for that.

But the whole Benghazi thing is so illogical.

And CU Tiger, you think she is more treasonous than Aldrich Ames, Robert Hansen, and, dare I say, Edward Snowden? Maybe it's time to come out of the "Backwoods."

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by CarterNMA

Can anybody adequately explain why Hillary is getting so much more hatred thrown at her for Benghazi than W got for Iraq? If death of Americans is the bar, were not W's decisions more egregious? If lying in relation to the death of Americans is the bar, were not W's (and Colin Powell's) actions more egregious? Iraq was horribly irresponsible while we were engaged with Afghanistan.

I detest Hillary for many reasons but the emails is just one of them, albeit a pretty major one. I think if your average Joe government worker had classified on their home computer, they'd forever be out of a job with the government, if not in a prison cell. Judge her for that.

But the whole Benghazi thing is so illogical.

And CU Tiger, you think she is more treasonous than Aldrich Ames, Robert Hansen, and, dare I say, Edward Snowden? Maybe it's time to come out of the "Backwoods."

Well Hillary voted for Iraq so I'm not sure that's a good attack angle.

However this is a much better comparison to Benghazi:
Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush? | PolitiFact

And no Republicans made any noise about it.


Also I'm not a big Trump fan but at least he has the honesty(?!?!?!) to admit that Bush did not keep us safe on 9/11. If thousands of Americans had died in an attack on Obama's watch the Republicans would be calling for impeachment and criminal charges. Now we just need to find out what's in those 28 pages.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

In my lifetime I cant remember another mistake this grave where the offender didnt at least have the decency to step down.

Her actions are the most treasonous committed by an American citizen in my lifetime. To think that she could be President is truly sickening to me.

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go Team Go!

[CU Tiger]

There is a difference between ,
"Bin Laden is going to attack somewhere in the US, somehow, sometime soon"

And

"We need extra security because they are going to attack us here on the anniversary of 9/11"

and btw, to say that I defile Clinton does not mean that I approve of all of W's actions either. However I will only say we differ on our opinions of what drove the move into Iraq.

[Solecismic]

I wouldn't equate the Benghazi/email thing with 9/11 truthers or Obama birthers.

Bipartisan Report Calls Benghazi Attacks 'Preventable' : The Two-Way : NPR

The email scandal is related. The whole thing began because the House Select committee investigating Benghazi found that all the email from the period surrounding Benghazi had been deleted.

And, during the email investigation, it was found that Hillary emailed her daughter telling her that it was a planned attack at the same time she was repeating the "talking points" that it was a spontaneous response to a Youtube video criticizing Islam.

Like Nixon's missing tapes, we don't know what Hillary knew and when, only that she has taken extraordinary measures to erase that record and that she has been quite reckless with her email.

Maybe all of this is a crazy fantasy from the right, but it's still reasonable to be quite concerned because all of this should be on the record somewhere.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

He's interesting to me but this along with being against net neutrality, stem cell research, government healthcare, and being a tea party supporter makes it impossible for me to vote for him.

The net neutrality is a big blow.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I wouldn't equate the Benghazi/email thing with 9/11 truthers or Obama birthers.

Bipartisan Report Calls Benghazi Attacks 'Preventable' : The Two-Way : NPR

That's not the part that's similar. CUTiger said Clinton was the most treasonous, meaning she intentionally worked against the interests of the United States. That certainly is equivalent to truthers.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's not the part that's similar. CUTiger said Clinton was the most treasonous, meaning she intentionally worked against the interests of the United States. That certainly is equivalent to truthers.

It's a question that requires more information. I don't think we can conclude, yet, that she made political decisions that put the Libyan embassy at severe risk. But there's a non-crazy narrative that leads to that conclusion.

This is the reason why everything at this level should be properly archived. Not only to prevent repeating mistakes, but as a constant reminder that playing politics instead of doing a job that requires great responsibility is a poor idea.

Treason is too loaded a word, though. It implies intentional misconduct, and we don't know what she was thinking. The rest of it I'm leaning toward agreeing with, though obviously if we had the communications in question, we'd know if it was just poor security in general or if specific threats and requests for additional protection were ignored - and what actually happened that day. Unfortunately, the best potential witness didn't survive the attack.