Why Trumpers? I am truly baffled

Quote: Face

I'm not "fooled" because there is no ruse. Several violations have been made, some of which were offered by RonC. Some of those are no longer viewable due to mod editing, but others are still there. Jo has been advised, and despite that he's come with even more profanity today, he's still standing.

Assuming you've read the thread enough to make a determination on Jo's intent, I'd think you'd have seen that all of this has already been covered.

To be perfectly clear, neither Jo nor his Trumpeting will be silenced due to a witch hunt or Trump supporter butt hurt. Threads may be closed due to redundancy, Jo may be trounced for future breaches. Both are in his control alone.

Actually, Face, I'm NOT in control of your perceptions of what I should or should not be saying. I'm also not in control of your political views or biases. If you are in the tiniest bit objective--and I hope you are--you can perceive that RonC and others' feigned indignation is really just about my insulting their hero. As far as PERSONAL insults go, I've been called several things here and elsewhere (that violate forum rules), including "delusional" for my anti-Trump views. I didn't go crying to the moderators and ask that the insulting persons be banned. I just block those persons whose utterances are of no worth. Likewise, I don't go around telling people they shouldn't start threads because I don't like the content, the way RonC does.

I don't think you're acknowledging 777's point, that claiming "personal insult" is a very, very common internet tactic to get people whose views you don't like silenced. I freely admit that I believe that Trumpers are misguided at best; stupid for the most part; resist logic to at least some extent; often lack common decency; and sometimes, are just plain evil. Now, a given Trumper could be none of those things--it's possible, at least. But I reiterate that they have a moral obligation to explain why they support that hateful man. So far, no Trumper has supplied a cogent answer other than that for a couple of people, his hatred and vitriol are actually appealing. That alone speaks volumes.

Quote: Face

I'm not "fooled" because there is no ruse. Several violations have been made, some of which were offered by RonC. Some of those are no longer viewable due to mod editing, but others are still there. Jo has been advised, and despite that he's come with even more profanity today, he's still standing.

Assuming you've read the thread enough to make a determination on Jo's intent, I'd think you'd have seen that all of this has already been covered.

To be perfectly clear, neither Jo nor his Trumpeting will be silenced due to a witch hunt or Trump supporter butt hurt. Threads may be closed due to redundancy, Jo may be trounced for future breaches. Both are in his control alone.

You know what Face? I think you are missing the point. I specifically asked for him to NOT be suspended but I did request nicely that he treat others around here respectfully. It is not a witch hunt and there are plenty of other members here saying all kinds of things about Trump...but they aren't being nasty to other members.

There is no witch hunt.

Heck, i am not even a "Trump supporter"--I am a "non-Hillary supporter"....

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Actually, Face, I'm NOT in control of your perceptions of what I should or should not be saying. I'm also not in control of your political views or biases.

I didn't mean to imply you were, and even if it were possible, I'd not ask for you to control me. Rather I was speaking to things such as creating multiple threads for the same topic, things such as acting like a gentleman, things such as treating others with respect, keeping threads PG, refraining from profanity, all of which are in the rules and only under your control. While I'll admit we're on (very slightly) opposing sides, and that I didn't care for the way you made your entrance, I would not change your fire OR your opinion even if I could. I appreciate the passion regardless of whether we're aligned in position or opposed. To be frank, I WANT you to stay. I speak because your current path, and to be totally clear, I mean your composure and not your position, is likely going to be cut short for no other reason than repeated breach of very simple to adhere to rules.

Quote: Jo

If you are in the tiniest bit objective--and I hope you are--you can perceive that RonC and others' feigned indignation is really just about my insulting their hero. As far as PERSONAL insults go, I've been called several things here and elsewhere (that violate forum rules), including "delusional" for my anti-Trump views. I didn't go crying to the moderators and ask that the insulting persons be banned. I just block those persons whose utterances are of no worth. Likewise, I don't go around telling people they shouldn't start threads because I don't like the content, the way RonC does.

I perceive, yes, I just do not view it as "feigned". People are passionate about many different things, and those things extend into this board. I've no reason to believe anyone's "faking". And yes, pointed jabs have come back your way. I could just as easily as done against you point out a number of violations coming from the other side. But the fact that you handle it yourself (and in a way I'd prefer many to handle it) does not mean I can expect or demand others to do the same.

Quote: Jo

I don't think you're acknowledging 777's point, that claiming "personal insult" is a very, very common internet tactic to get people whose views you don't like silenced. I freely admit that I believe that Trumpers are misguided at best; stupid for the most part; resist logic to at least some extent; often lack common decency; and sometimes, are just plain evil. Now, a given Trumper could be none of those things--it's possible, at least. But I reiterate that they have a moral obligation to explain why they support that hateful man. So far, no Trumper has supplied a cogent answer other than that for a couple of people, his hatred and vitriol are actually appealing. That alone speaks volumes.

If I haven't done so, I'll do it now. The insult card is as old and tired as the race one. I understand that it is used for exactly the reasons you submit. I will say that I do not believe that this is RonC's intent, because even if you think his stated wish of no suspensions to come was disingenuous, I think the man rather prefers a hot debate and wouldn't want to squash this possibility for himself. I can also tell you that in no way, shape, or form has anyone been trounced, silenced, or excommunicated because of their views. Member "ams288", member "terapined", member "MathExtremist", they have been pounding Trump for months before you showed up. Feel free to peruse and find an example of me trying to bounce them, silence them, or otherwise limit their opinions. While doing that, you'll probably see other examples of other members saying this or that to influence a decision about a rival. What will be hard to find is actual action taken because of it. So we're clear, RonC's complaint about the rules is a valid one. I addressed him, addressed you, and hopefully an understanding was reached. RonC's purported ulterior motive, if valid, would be RonC's problem. Nothing I can or would do about it. Your few complaints are valid. I hope with the above that I've addressed them sufficiently, but I'll be around if you'd like to continue. Your dislike of the insult card... all I can do is ensure you it doesn't influence any decision I make.

Quote: AZDuffman

And you sound like someone who has never worked in an environment where security and record retention is important. First., my guess is the State Department did not have a "flaky ISP."

Exactly - you're guessing. Turns out you're wrong on both counts. Also the part about me never working in an environment where security or confidential information is important is hilarious considering I make my living generating and evaluating confidential information. At this instant I am bound by more judicial protective orders than you've probably signed in your lifetime.

But hey, don't bother with the facts, just keep guessing and spouting off whatever comes to mind at that instant. Just like Trump does.

Quote: Why AZDuffman is against taxes

Something about when people keep their own money they invest and spend it and when it is taken at the point of a gun they cannot do so.

When you can earn even a single dollar without relying on anything developed by another taxpayer, you can go ahead and keep all of your own money. Until then, you'll just have to suck it up and play nice with the rest of society because you owe all of us a debt. If you don't want to incur that debt going forward, the U.A.E. has no taxes for expats. Have a nice trip.

It is amazing to see the blinders in action. Even ME, who is a great poster on these subjects, somehow found that Albright saying she regrets the faux pas of openly admitting she was fine killing 500,000 children, as cleansing the deed or attitude.

As to Hillary's corruption, the pro Hill camp apparently wants video tape of her accepting a silver tray stacked with $100s and a note from Exxon or Halliburton saying, "this is for your Iraq war vote."

That ain't how it works. The speaking fees, the cushy jobs, etc. are part of a culture of corruption, in which the elites form a unified front against everyone else. They all agree that you have too much bankruptcy protection, or that we need a war, or that American's (outside of the elites) make too much money, or that there's too much democracy, and then they spread the gains from that consensus among themselves with speaking fees, ridiculous salaries, lavish parties, etc.

The idea that someone is an efficient administrator when her goals are almost all opposed to my goals, and to the interests of anybody in my demographics, is hardly a big selling point.

This is not a right wing conspiracy at all, and it is why people who are in, or who should theoretically be affiliated with either party, are beginning to revolt. The Republicans got further in their revolt, as their process was more democratic. They picked a real turd to do the job, but I hope it continues.

Here is that right wing kook, Bill Moyer interviewing Fox News's Elizabeth Warren on this process, how it works, and a concrete example of Crooked Hillary selling out you and me, like the piece of garbage that she is.



This, of course, went through with bi-partisan support. Even though, I doubt a single representative had a constituency who would have favored it.

It was elites vs. you and me. Hillary, and many other Republicans and Democrats, went with their team. More speaking fees for them, more cushy jobs for them and their kids (like Chelsea the hedge fund wizard, lol http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15549672/ns/business-us_business/t/chelsea-clinton-joins-new-york-hedge-fund/#.V6EwILgrLIU ), etc. etc.

Nobody has to hand them a suitcase in an underground parking garage.

Still kind of hoping Trump wins.

Quote: MathExtremist

Exactly - you're guessing. Turns out you're wrong on both counts. Also the part about me never working in an environment where security or confidential information is important is hilarious considering I make my living generating and evaluating confidential information. At this instant I am bound by more judicial protective orders than you've probably signed in your lifetime.

If and I say "if" that is the case I am sure you understand required retention of records. And if you understand that they you understand that if emails are not on the company server cannot meet this requirement. So how can you not understand the problem with the private server?

Put another way, you come off as someone who took a master course in being a locksmith but does not understand that the lock is useless if you leave the door open!

See, this is why I have the position I do on over-educated people. You claim to know how internet security works, and maybe you do, But you intentionally or unintentionally do not understand the most basic part of security being useless when security procedures are not followed.

I won't even bother discussing how a regular vs a secure email works since you do not believe an email needs to be secure in the first place.

Quote: AZDuffman

If and I say "if" that is the case I am sure you understand required retention of records. And if you understand that they you understand that if emails are not on the company server cannot meet this requirement. So how can you not understand the problem with the private server?

Put another way, you come off as someone who took a master course in being a locksmith but does not understand that the lock is useless if you leave the door open!

See, this is why I have the position I do on over-educated people. You claim to know how internet security works, and maybe you do, But you intentionally or unintentionally do not understand the most basic part of security being useless when security procedures are not followed.

I won't even bother discussing how a regular vs a secure email works since you do not believe an email needs to be secure in the first place.

Only undereducated people think that there is such a thing as an overeducated person. In any case, you dueling wits with someone like ME is like a toddler trying to throw a sumo wrestler. You should give up. As you should give up on the pointless email nonsense. I reiterate: Trumper Republicans couldn't find any wrongdoing even after a two-year investigation. They've dropped the issue. So has Trump, for that matter. Is your mind that set in stone, that you won't even follow the lead of those who you follow and admire?

Saying that ME "doesn't understand" ANYTHING while you supposedly do is somewhere between risible and pathetic. He is far, far, far more knowledgeable and articulate than you. Your only (tired, dumb) argumentative tactic is to put words in his mouth, as in your last sentence, above. It's a cowardly tactic, born of desperation when you are being hopelessly bested in an argument.

Oh yeah, and you should drop the racist logo.

Emails emails emails emails emails emails. AWWWWWWWK!

Well said and well taken AZ Duffman. Just working in a hospital environment, tapped e-mails can leave patients records open to the public which is a direct violation of HIPAA. I believe a government e-mail could potentially hold much higher security risk for the Secretary of State pipeline. Oh, and HIPAA violations almost always result in termination of employment.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Only undereducated people think that there is such a thing as an overeducated person.

Nonsense, there are plenty of over educated folks. They tend to fall for the most simple things because they think that the simple answer is just not possible.

Quote:

In any case, you dueling wits with someone like ME is like a toddler trying to throw a sumo wrestler. You should give up. As you should give up on the pointless email nonsense. I reiterate: Trumper Republicans couldn't find any wrongdoing even after a two-year investigation. They've dropped the issue. So has Trump, for that matter. Is your mind that set in stone, that you won't even follow the lead of those who you follow and admire?

My mind is such that I see reality and think for myself. There was wrongdoing, but we have a corrupt system that is ignoring it and a bunch of sheep that just want their side to win so ignore it. My mind makes my own arguments. The "educated" people say "it doesn't matter" or "go listen to someone else who is supposed to be smart."

Quote:

Saying that ME "doesn't understand" ANYTHING while you supposedly do is somewhere between risible and pathetic. He is far, far, far more knowledgeable and articulate than you.

I explained how security works. He said it is not important to follow security procedures. I don't care what his diploma on the wall says, when he talks like that he shows a lack of knowledge on the subject. Maybe he does not understand or maybe he does not care what Hillary does so long as she wins. But if he does not understand the problem with a person using their own and not the corporate server he is not qualified to get a job resetting passwords on help line. The server thing is indeed THAT simple to understand.

Quote:

Oh yeah, and you should drop the racist logo.

I do not have a racist logo.

Quote: mikeabiomed

Well said and well taken AZ Duffman. Just working in a hospital environment, tapped e-mails can leave patients records open to the public which is a direct violation of HIPAA. I believe a government e-mail could potentially hold much higher security risk for the Secretary of State pipeline. Oh, and HIPAA violations almost always result in termination of employment.

Thanks and exactly what I am trying to say. Not sure what you do exactly, but sounds similar to the training we get as new employees at a bank. First week stuff. No need for a degree to understand it.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Saying that ME "doesn't understand" ANYTHING while you supposedly do is somewhere between risible and pathetic. He is far, far, far more knowledgeable and articulate than you. Your only (tired, dumb) argumentative tactic is to put words in his mouth, as in your last sentence, above. It's a cowardly tactic, born of desperation when you are being hopelessly bested in an argument.

Before RonC, AZDuffman or other Trumper/non-Trumper raise the personal insult issue here, IMO, the "tired", "dumb", and "cowardly" words used in Jo's articulation add value to the debate (or may not depend on your perspective), but there is no personal insult here.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

I freely admit that I believe that Trumpers are misguided at best; stupid for the most part; resist logic to at least some extent; often lack common decency; and sometimes, are just plain evil. Now, a given Trumper could be none of those things--it's possible, at least. But I reiterate that they have a moral obligation to explain why they support that hateful man. So far, no Trumper has supplied a cogent answer other than that for a couple of people, his hatred and vitriol are actually appealing. That alone speaks volumes.

Before RonC, AZDuffman or other Trumper/non-Trumper raise the personal insult issue here, IMO, the "misguided", "stupid", and "hateful" words used in Jo's articulation add value to the debate (or may not depend on your perspective), but there is no personal insult here.

AZ That's correct. You get trained before you start your regular duties and they make it very clear that if you violate those rules, you can be fined and terminated. It's a federal offense and NOT tolerated. I worked in healthcare for 32 years and these rules/laws have been in effect for 20 years. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (1996). At her security level, why is Hillary above the law on this one? Oh, wait, she hasn't done anything negligent right? Wait, FBI Director James Comey said she did but recommended no punishment. Perhaps some of the other members can clarify.

Quote: mikeabiomed

AZ That's correct. You get trained before you start your regular duties and they make it very clear that if you violate those rules, you can be fined and terminated. It's a federal offense and NOT tolerated. I worked in healthcare for 32 years and these rules/laws have been in effect for 20 years. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (1996). At her security level, why is Hillary above the law on this one? Oh, wait, she hasn't done anything negligent right? Wait, FBI Director James Comey said she did but recommended no punishment. Perhaps some of the other members can clarify.

Thanks for bring up HIPA btw, I forgot all about that. Probably even more than that and finance out there. Meanwhile the "educated" folks say high-level State Dept emails don't matter.

They say they are smart but what they are saying is 2 + 2 = FISH.

There's a difference between using your work-email for personal stuff versus using your personal email for work stuff. Seems like she used her personal email for work, while ME is trying to paint it as the other way around.

Quote: RS

There's a difference between using your work-email for personal stuff versus using your personal email for work stuff. Seems like she used her personal email for work, while ME is trying to paint it as the other way around.

We know all top security clearance requires training as well. She was either sleeping or absent that day. This isn't over yet.

Quote: RS

There's a difference between using your work-email for personal stuff versus using your personal email for work stuff. Seems like she used her personal email for work, while ME is trying to paint it as the other way around.

Well put. Using work for personal may get you called to IT and scolded, but it will generally not get you fired unless it is wildly inappropriate or has viral attachments. OTOH, using personal for work means IT has no control and if the law comes looking for the email records the employer cannot comply and is in legal trouble.

Not to mention hacking, which has hit everything from the DNC to Target to how many other places. A personal server is not at all secure from that.

Quote: AZDuffman

If and I say "if" that is the case I am sure you understand required retention of records. And if you understand that they you understand that if emails are not on the company server cannot meet this requirement.

Oh my gosh, that's just so wrong. You know what a subpoena duces tecum never says? "Produce all documents and emails related to X but only those you sent through your corporate server, we don't really care about everything else."

Of course, if you don't know what a subpoena duces tecum even is, maybe you don't know quite as much as you think you do.

Quote:

See, this is why I have the position I do on over-educated people. You claim to know how internet security works, and maybe you do, But you intentionally or unintentionally do not understand the most basic part of security being useless when security procedures are not followed.

I won't even bother discussing how a regular vs a secure email works since you do not believe an email needs to be secure in the first place.

Have you ever studied encryption algorithms? Analyzed a random number generator for weaknesses? Self-signed a certificate? If your answer to the last one is "yes, I did it with my favorite ball-point pen" then you don't have the chops to speak on this topic.

When the undereducated and willfully ignorant think and act like they're more knowledgeable on a topic than those who have actually studied it -- as Trump does with military, economic, and scientific affairs -- then they simply need to be removed from any position of authority or influence over those topics. Ignorance is no virtue. Neither is belligerent anti-intellectualism. I get that from my kids, but they're supposed to think they know everything. You? What's your excuse? What's Trump's? At least you're not running for president.

"I know more about ISIS than the generals." Should we believe him? Why?

"I know more about internet security than a computer scientist." Should we believe you? Why?

Quote: mikeabiomed

We know all top security clearance requires training as well. She was either sleeping or absent that day. This isn't over yet.

If she had the training, there would be a written record of it. As its never surfaced, I imagine it never was done. As a former employee of the Dept. of Commerce, we underwent all sorts of training regarding confidentiality and privacy issue. Each class was documented and preserved. Cant imagine State is any different.

Quote: MathExtremist

Have you ever studied encryption algorithms? Analyzed a random number generator for weaknesses? Self-signed a certificate? If your answer to the last one is "yes, I did it with my favorite ball-point pen" then you don't have the chops to speak on this topic.

Neither do you, since you do not understand the most basic security procedures. See, some computer nerd at the State Department made a good encryption algorithm to protect all data. But, and I will scream to get through to you, THE ALGORITHM DID NOT WORK BECAUSE HILLARY REFUSED TO USE IT! Do you not understand this? Your posts indicate you do not understand this.

It reminds me of the two hours wasted on conference calls talking all kinds of fancy big words then I summed up what we needed to check in less than 10 seconds because two of us after two hours still do not understand what the "smart" people need done.

Quote:

"I know more about internet security than a computer scientist." Should we believe you? Why?

Because I understand that internet security useless when you do not use the security that is in place and the computer scientist insists that it does not matter if you use the secure server or the one under the kitchen sink.

Quote: AZDuffman

Not to mention hacking, which has hit everything from the DNC to Target to how many other places. A personal server is not at all secure from that.

You're holding up examples of hacked organizational servers to demonstrate how much more secure organizational servers are than personal ones. That's rich.

Let me ask you a question -- do you actually believe that Hillary would use an insecure email system going forward?

Quote: MathExtremist

You're holding up examples of hacked organizational servers to demonstrate how much more secure organizational servers are than personal ones. That's rich.

Let me ask you a question -- do you actually believe that Hillary would use an insecure email system going forward?

And I ask you, would Bill shove a Cigar in a woman going forward? Same question, same answer.
We live, we learn. Doesn't excuse the past.

Quote: AZDuffman

.

Should Trump be impeached if he makes a security error. I'm expecting him to make several when or if he is elected.

Quote: Boz

And I ask you, would Bill shove a Cigar in a woman going forward? Same question, same answer.
We live, we learn. Doesn't excuse the past.

I'm not trying to excuse the past, I just don't want to live in it. I know she f**ked up by using an insecure server, I'm not trying to suggest she didn't. What I am suggesting is that she won't *keep* doing it. In fact, I believe that there is now so much scrutiny on the matter that she would have no choice but to comply. So I have no worries going forward. As you say, we live, we learn. But that's not good enough for the Hillary-bashers. Why? There have already been several investigations and the Director of the FBI concluded that even though she screwed up, that there was no criminal intent and no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.

So why is everyone still being unreasonable prosecutors?

We live, we learn, right? Except not all of us. If the anti-Hillary philosophy centers on the thesis that one mistake tarnishes someone forever, then why the shameless double standard when it comes to Trump? Is it because Trump won't acknowledge his mistakes even when a court of law finds him liable? He doesn't learn (or we don't) and he keeps scamming people. He's defrauded thousands of people on dozens of different occasions, all in the name of being good at business. He touts that business acumen as a central plank of his campaign. "I'm good at screwing the little guy, therefore I should be President." Why are all those events, and the larger trend that he not only has defrauded people but will continue to defraud people, simply given a free pass? Live and learn? What are we learning if, knowing Trump runs roughshod over his domain, we expand that domain for him?

Edit: you know, I can answer this a simpler way. Some people are incorrigible. Doesn't matter if you throw them in jail, they'll just keep on as criminals when they get out.

Do you believe Hillary Clinton is incorrigible vis-a-vis her use of insecure email? I don't.
Do you believe Donald Trump is incorrigible vis-a-vis his use of fraud and deception? Absolutely. As Fareed Zakaria said on live TV, his is the behavior of a "bulls**t artist".

She is incorrigible in her disdain for the welfare of most other people and for the idea that any rules apply to her. This episode will reinforce that, if anything.

I doubt Bernie Madoff would set up the exact same scam if he got out of prison. I still would not invest money with him.

Quote: Rigondeaux

She is incorrigible in her disdain for the welfare of most other people and for the idea that any rules apply to her. This episode will reinforce that, if anything.

You do acknowledge, do you not, that your charge applies to an even greater degree to Donald Trump?

Quote: Judge Curiel, earlier today

The court finds that plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant knowingly participated in the scheme to defraud.

I don't understand the Hillary-bashers who overlook Trump doing the same things, but more brazenly and without remorse.

Quote: MathExtremist

Trump? Well, either he believes what comes out of his mouth or he doesn't. If he does, he's absolutely a lunatic. If he doesn't, he's the ultimate con man. Does it really matter which is the truth?

No it does not. But let me also say Hillary will not make a good president either, but shes a hell of a politician. I will give her that.

Probably. Trump is a prick, without a doubt. I strongly disliked him long before he got into politics.

He's also a scumbag. I think the "rules don't apply to me," thing applies well to him.

I suspect the total disregard for human life and welfare might apply to him, but he has yet to prove it. Advocating torture and the assassination of children goes a long way. But that's just talk. He has not yet knowingly started a war on false pretenses, directly killing a million people and throwing a whole region into chaos, just to make money for his friends. HIlldog has, at there's plenty more on her resume.

"As I have written before, Hillary Clinton has a lot to answer for with regard to her record as Secretary of State under the Obama administration, particularly in Haiti and Honduras, two countries that are still reeling from U.S. intervention into their affairs. At the last Democratic debate, Bernie Sanders brought up the epidemic of violence in Honduras that has forced many unaccompanied minors to flee, but stopped short of bringing up Clinton’s role in the 2009 coup in Honduras that removed the democratically elected Manuel Zelaya and helped lead to a new era of repression and lawlessness."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/04/19/hillary-clintons-dodgy-answers-on-honduras-coup/#comments

Powerful Hondurans were repelled by Zelaya’s advocacy of populist reforms like subsidies for small farmers and increased minimum wages. Some in Washington disliked to him because of his ties to President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who was then a hot-button bogeyman. On the night of June 28, 2009, after Zelaya proposed a referendum to change the Honduran constitution, soldiers stormed his residence, captured him, and put him on a plane out of the country — in his pajamas.

Republicans in Congress proclaimed the coup a victory for freedom. A handful of them even flew to Honduras to embrace the country’s new leaders. Secretary of State Clinton sided with them. She approved a new election in which the deposed president was not allowed to run. Her goal, as she wrote in her memoir, was to “render the question of Zelaya moot.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/03/29/hard-choices-honduras/sLI9xnEw6TWXQgGb9ZVTZO/story.html

Worst case Ontario, he's as bad as she is in that area.

Quote: Rigondeaux

She is incorrigible in her disdain for the welfare of most other people and for the idea that any rules apply to her. This episode will reinforce that, if anything.

I doubt Bernie Madoff would set up the exact same scam if he got out of prison. I still would not invest money with him.

How do you equate 6 years working for, and getting, health care coverage for 8 million disabled and special needs kids with disdain for the welfare of other people? That is more people right there than everyone on this forum will help in a lifetime.

I'll throw in my two cents. FWIW, I am not registered to either party, and have voted both Democrat and Republican in the past, depending on the candidates.

To start off with, I HATE the fact that these are the only two candidates with a legit chance to win. The system sucks, and is rigged so the smaller parties don't get their chance of time in the spotlight. I wish the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties automatically got included in the debates, and got equal time in the media. Other countries have multiple parties, and they are generally forced to work out some sort of compromise. Canada, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and Spain all have 4-5 parties with decent percentages of seats in their governments. Sweden has 8! Maybe if we had more than just two heavyweights fighting it out, the politicians would have to work together more and actually accomplish something.

I'm amazed that Hilary Clinton has what appears to be so much support, especially considering the fiasco at the Democratic Convention, and all of the investigations on the email scandal. She seems to be as Teflon coated as Slick Willy was. Oh, and then there's that Benghazi mess she was involved in. People DIED, and she acted like it was a pain for her to testify about it. Now, I'm not located in New York, so I couldn't tell you a thing she did while being a Senator from there. Maybe there were some positives, I honestly don't know. I can't recall a single positive piece of legislation she pushed or supported. From what I see of her, I've basically got two huge negatives and a whole lot of smoke and haze around her that by all rights should have turned into fire already. I honestly can't figure out how she hasn't been arrested yet for the email thing, when there are precedents on that.

That's not to say that Donald Trump is my clear cut choice. The man has an ego as big as his bank account, and has no filter. Some people say he's failed his companies several times, but at least he's built them back up from that too. The man knows how to make a deal, and I believe we need more of that in Washington, especially after 8 years of Obama refusing to compromise on virtually anything. But I worry that while maybe he could help the economy, he'd be downright awful on foreign policy and social issues. I believe like him that we need to get a firmer grip on our illegal immigration problems, but I also know better than to outright insult certain ethnic groups and to stereotype people, especially on camera. I also worry about his specific plans - I haven't heard any. It's all broad generalizations.

I took an online political quiz, and it showed my best match as Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. He's fiscally conservative and socially liberal. He was Governor of New Mexico for 8 years before becoming term limited. He built his own construction company from a few employees up to one of the largest in the state, with 1,000+ employees. He is a former Republican. Some of his tax reform ideas are pretty extreme - I like the concepts but would need to see the details before agreeing with them. I'm against his stand on legalizing Marijuana, and worry about his plans to cut the military. (I think some reductions would work, but believe he's looking at larger scale cuts than that.)

Trumps spokesperson is now saying Obama and Hillary are directly responsible for Capt Khans death. Not to mention Justin Bieber, the breakup of the Beatles and the Texans at the Alamo not getting the needed air support.

Quote: Toes14

To start off with, I HATE the fact that these are the only two candidates with a legit chance to win.

To everyone who says this or some version of it, part of the reason this is the way it is, is everyone who ties money to free speech is selling us down the river.

Either candidates have to sell their souls for patronage, or we get only the super rich or the professional politician who knows a lot of people (which is just more selling)

If you're so cynical that you think money can't be kept out of the system, bend over and take the raping you actually are asking for, and by god, stop complaining about the results and start saying you like the raping you're going to be getting over and over.

(I'm not just targeting the above poster, but I've seen this comment enough that I finally ticked off enough to respond)

Quote: rxwine

Should Trump be impeached if he makes a security error. I'm expecting him to make several when or if he is elected.

If what he does meets the standard for impeachment, he should be subject to it....just as any other person should be...

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The question then becomes what meets the standard for impeachment? Would Hillary's mishandling of classified information meet it? Good for the goose, good for the gander. If he does something that would get Hillary impeached then he should be impeached... Here are some thoughts to consider to get a framework for whether a "security error" is impeachable. This person is not in office, but should she have been...would her actions have made her impeachable?

I don't think Hillary's server was set up to potentially compromise national security or for anyone intended to pass classified traffic across the server. I'd prefer to think that someone as smart as she is would not allow that to happen given a long history in government in positions that should make one fully understand that the top level of government has some pretty important things that they know and would like to keep, well, secret. That in no way negates her responsibility for the fact both happened; whether or not it is prosecuted as a crime is irrelevant.

The more troubling part of the whole incident is that it appears the server was set up not just to handle her emails, but to keep the record of her time in office as Secretary of State from the very people she was serving by attempting to avoid the Freedom of Information Act. If the intent was to comply with that act, even with a private server, there would be no need to search for missing emails...they all would still be there, properly archived and easily found. The FOIA is an important tool in keeping government from being too secretive about things that are not sensitive in nature--it is a "sunshine" law of sorts that was originally proposed 60 years ago and was signed into law by LBJ in the 60's.

I understand that people still support Hillary in spite of this, though I am baffled why they want to make excuses for her proven misbehavior. I get that she has not been found guilty of a crime, but when I speed I am still breaking the law whether I am caught and prosecuted or not. She did violate the law, whether intentional or not. She also attempted to hide her emails from possible public release via FOIA. If she had intended to comply with that, the appropriate archiving processes would have been in place.

So...if Hillary was in office and all of this revealed, should she be subject to impeachment? The conviction is not one in court, it is a conviction by the Senate. Impeachment is tricky--Bill Clinton did perjure himself, but did it really rise to the level of an impeachable offense?

The long answer to a short question is yes...if Trump does something that any other person in the same office would be impeached for, so should he. In the case of the question that is being replied to, it would come down to what the "security error" is.

Quote: rxwine

To everyone who says this or some version of it, part of the reason this is the way it is, is everyone who ties money to free speech is selling us down the river.

Either candidates have to sell their souls for patronage, or we get only the super rich or the professional politician who knows a lot of people (which is just more selling)

If you're so cynical that you think money can't be kept out of the system, bend over and take the raping you actually are asking for, and by god, stop complaining about the results and start saying you like the raping you're going to be getting over and over.

(I'm not just targeting the above poster, but I've seen this comment enough that I finally ticked off enough to respond)

Money can be taken out of the system. It would have to be fair across the board--corporations not allowed to give and unions not allowed to give unless their membership approves of it, etc.

I don't necessarily think that lamenting the two fine candidates we have means that anyone supports the amount of control of the process that "money" has; even with "money" in the process we have better candidates sometimes than others. If money was taken out, the same kind of thing could happen.

We could do some things in addition to taking money out...

--Term limits (the framers ddn't anticipate "holding political office" being something that one could do for 40 or 50 years when the average life expectancy was in the 30's. They also thought people would serve and go home. With the perks and power added over time, that has become the exception rather than the rule.

--Perk limits--yep, cut them back to nothing or close to it. Cut benefits to what good companies give, give them a decent salary and maybe even a tricky little pension that is highest after say 10 years in office and goes down from there unless the person progresses for Representative to Senator to President. It is public service...make it more like it...

Quote: Face

I'm not "fooled" because there is no ruse. Several violations have been made, some of which were offered by RonC. Some of those are no longer viewable due to mod editing, but others are still there. Jo has been advised, and despite that he's come with even more profanity today, he's still standing.

Assuming you've read the thread enough to make a determination on Jo's intent, I'd think you'd have seen that all of this has already been covered.

To be perfectly clear, neither Jo nor his Trumpeting will be silenced due to a witch hunt or Trump supporter butt hurt. Threads may be closed due to redundancy, Jo may be trounced for future breaches. Both are in his control alone.

Mods are editing posts? If so that's silly.

Quote: RonC

Money can be taken out of the system. It would have to be fair across the board--corporations not allowed to give and unions not allowed to give unless their membership approves of it, etc.

Sorry, but money cannot be removed from the system. No matter how you try to hold it back like water it will always flow to the point of lease resistance.

Quote: MathExtremist

You're holding up examples of hacked organizational servers to demonstrate how much more secure organizational servers are than personal ones. That's rich.

Let me ask you a question -- do you actually believe that Hillary would use an insecure email system going forward?

You just do not get the most basic points of it all. Going forward she will do something else shady. Here is what I learned during fairly low management training about hiring people.

PAST BEHAVIOR INDICATES FUTURE BEHAVIOR.

By the time a person hits their mid--20s their behaviors are really set in stone. Names, faces, and places will change. But the root behavior are set for life.

Before she was SOS she was involved in many shady things, from a crooked land deal to a crooked cattle futures investment to having a load of FBI files she should not have had to looting the White House of items when she left. She attracts scandal like a magnet because her standards for integrity are rock bottom.

The insecurity of the server is just one part. The belief that rules of retention and accountability of the emails did not apply to her are the root of the problem.

If she gets elected expect 4 years of wall-to-wall scandal and failure, That is what her career is made of and no reason to expect it to change noe.

Quote: billryan

Trumps spokesperson is now saying Obama and Hillary are directly responsible for Capt Khans death. Not to mention Justin Bieber, the breakup of the Beatles and the Texans at the Alamo not getting the needed air support.

Captain Khan was KIA in 2004. If I know that happened under Bush Cheney Rumsfeld, why doesn't a Trump spokesperson? Could it be incompetence, or just stupidity to open your mouth just because there's a microphone near it?

Quote: AxelWolf

Mods are editing posts? If so that's silly.

Mods are masking swears, as we have been.

Mods fix format errors, at least I do. The "unnamed admin" tag still appears.

If I edit for content, which I generally don't, I make it known, as in swears. Format errors I fix, I don't bother.

I will admit to censoring/deleting one thread this week, other than killing kitchens in the UK. Some "person" who's posting regularly started a thread asking for suggestions and comments on how to assassinate one of the major candidates. I hope you and everyone else understands that we don't need the FBI investigating this board.

Person in quotes above in order to keep me from calling them what I really think of that post.

Quote: AZDuffman

You just do not get the most basic points of it all. Going forward she will do something else shady. Here is what I learned during fairly low management training about hiring people.

PAST BEHAVIOR INDICATES FUTURE BEHAVIOR.

By the time a person hits their mid--20s their behaviors are really set in stone. Names, faces, and places will change. But the root behavior are set for life.

Before she was SOS she was involved in many shady things, from a crooked land deal to a crooked cattle futures investment to having a load of FBI files she should not have had to looting the White House of items when she left. She attracts scandal like a magnet because her standards for integrity are rock bottom.

The insecurity of the server is just one part. The belief that rules of retention and accountability of the emails did not apply to her are the root of the problem.

If she gets elected expect 4 years of wall-to-wall scandal and failure, That is what her career is made of and no reason to expect it to change noe.

Oh, nonsense. People learn all the time. She says she learned from this. Not just that, but nobody, not just her, in that type of position will be allowed to make the same mistake.

You conveniently forget or overlook that Rice and Powell had similar arrangements, which tells me she walked into past practice, did the same thing they did, and she and her staff did not evolve as security practices changed. And yeah, staff was involved, probably primarily responsible, because her main error was based in her ignorance of technology. Setting all this up was her depending on pros making it all as simple and convenient as possible. She had NFC about the nuts and bolts of doing it, or the implications of the choices made. She's been sucking it up, taking responsibility, which she should, but none of it was in her job description.

I spent 2 years full time at FAA HQ, advising SES, including Cabinet members. Not one of them was involved in the security arrangements around their email; there was a whole department of IT experts who issued their devices and set up their security. And this was in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when security was in the harshest of spotlights. So I'm not just offering an opinion; this is how it works up there.

Oh, silly me. Arguing anything political with AZD. NVM. Over and out.

Quote: AZDuffman

If she gets elected expect 4 years of wall-to-wall scandal and failure,

Same old same old
We heard this in 2008. If Mccain not elected, USA failure
2012, if Rommney not elected, USA failure
2016, If Trump not elected, USA failure

Every 4 years the conservatives cry wolf and I continue to enjoy the good life in the USA

lol, last 8 years have been great, improving economy and gays can get married
Life is good, playing golf Sat
Once Hill is elected, life will continue to be good, I will continue to play golf

Same old same old- No, Trump's message is nothing like McCain's and Romney's.
Cry Wolf-Terrorist attacks in the western world, including killing gays married or not, yeah, you say life is good. WOW!
Maybe when the current pres is out of office, he will have a round of golf with you. I wouldn't play for money as his game has improved a lot with all of the practice these last 7+ years.

Quote: mdh

No it does not. But let me also say Hillary will not make a good president either, but shes a hell of a politician. I will give her that.

This harks to one of the supposed reasons why Trump would be a really "awesome" president--he's not a politician. That's certainly true, and it's certainly true that Hillary is a politician. However:

1) The job of President is a political one above all else. If you don't know how to be a politician, you won't get anything done. Trump thinks that the Presidency is like being the CEO of a corporation. It isn't. A President's power is FAR more restricted than that of a CEO. Thus, he/she has to negotiate, compromise, and be diplomatic. Trump seems incapable of doing that. Clinton has been doing that for years, and one of the factors that shows she's been effective at it is that you DON'T hear about the things she did to get stuff accomplished. Just quiet negotiation. "Politician" is not a pejorative term.

2) Clinton is not actually all that great of a politician when it comes to the public appeal portion of the job. If she had concentrated on being likable, she would have been WAAAAY ahead of Trump by now, as he's one of the least likable people in the galaxy. But that's never been her style, as she freely admits. She's been a worker rather than a showperson, and that's why you and many others think she's a poor choice. What she does isn't flashy or shiny, and frankly, it's often boring,. The public doesn't want to hear about the minutiae of working on Section 37 of Article 12 of a mutual defense agreement or a trade pact, even though she's working until 2 in the morning on it.

3) Clinton is smart. The public is dumb. Dumb people tend to dislike smart people. Smart people who wish to be charismatic dumb down their speech so it appeals to dumb people--sound bites, slogans, easily digestible five-word condensations of complex concepts. Clinton is reluctant to do that--she's a "policy wonk," after all--so she lacks the appeal that would make her attractive to that great amorphous mass of voters who are so critical in any election: those who don't know diddly squat about either candidate but vote anyway, based on some vague impression or whim.

Quote: terapined

Same old same old
We heard this in 2008. If Mccain not elected, USA failure
2012, if Rommney not elected, USA failure
2016, If Trump not elected, USA failure

Every 4 years the conservatives cry wolf and I continue to enjoy the good life in the USA

lol, last 8 years have been great, improving economy and gays can get married
Life is good, playing golf Sat
Once Hill is elected, life will continue to be good, I will continue to play golf

Go back to the election 2012 thread and look at AZ's predictions for the next four years that he made on election night.

He was hilariously wrong.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/off-topic/11186-decision-2012/110/#post195063

I must have slept through that 2013 recession he predicted?

"Sandy is turning into Obama's Katrina"?!? LOL.

Actually - he kind of was right about that "Libya embassy thing" festering - but not because of Obama. Because of desperate righties who can't stop beating a dead horse.

Often mistaken, but never in doubt.
He's a rebel and hes never been understood.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Oh, nonsense. People learn all the time. She says she learned from this. Not just that, but nobody, not just her, in that type of position will be allowed to make the same mistake.

You conveniently forget or overlook that Rice and Powell had similar arrangements, which tells me she walked into past practice, did the same thing they did, and she and her staff did not evolve as security practices changed. And yeah, staff was involved, probably primarily responsible, because her main error was based in her ignorance of technology. Setting all this up was her depending on pros making it all as simple and convenient as possible. She had NFC about the nuts and bolts of doing it, or the implications of the choices made. She's been sucking it up, taking responsibility, which she should, but none of it was in her job description.

I spent 2 years full time at FAA HQ, advising SES, including Cabinet members. Not one of them was involved in the security arrangements around their email; there was a whole department of IT experts who issued their devices and set up their security. And this was in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when security was in the harshest of spotlights. So I'm not just offering an opinion; this is how it works up there.

Oh, silly me. Arguing anything political with AZD. NVM. Over and out.

I don't think Powell or Rice had their own servers. Besides, if they were Presidential candidates and were involved in the improper handling of classified information--as she is--you can bet your bottom dollar that it would be an issue...unless she was running against Hillary.

Here is the Politifact take on your claim:

"Hillary Clinton said 'my predecessors did the same thing' with email"

"Our ruling

Clinton said, regarding her State Department email practices, "my predecessors did the same thing."

This is a misleading claim chiefly because only one prior secretary of state regularly used email, Colin Powell. Powell did use a personal email address for government business, however he did not use a private server kept at his home, as Clinton did.

We rate this claim Mostly False."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/

In addition, many seem to forget that more and more bad things have been happening with hackers, etc. over time; there is no way Hillary was unaware of at least some of the risks of exposing classified material to those threats.

Did she learn? She is still afraid to answer questions about the incident truthfully. One would think someone who learned would not have a problem with the truth....

"On Sunday, the former secretary of state told FOX News’ Chris Wallace that FBI Director James Comey cleared her of misleading the public about her rogue email server at the state department: “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”

That’s wrong and she knows it, which makes it a lie."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/why-hillary-clinton-keeps-lying/493841/

Quote: mikeabiomed

Cry Wolf-Terrorist attacks in the western world, including killing gays married or not, yeah, you say life is good. WOW!
Maybe when the current pres is out of office, he will have a round of golf with you. I wouldn't play for money as his game has improved a lot with all of the practice these last 7+ years.

WOW is right
Life is good
Just step from the keyboard and clear your head and look at the website you posting this on
WOV, we are all here because we enjoy gambling and Vegas.
This web site is dedicated to the good life in the USA.
If life was not good, you wouldn't be posting on a website dedicated to the good live is the USA (Vegas and gambling)

I live in Tampa, the land of cheap summer golf.
Always open to playing anybody
Courses are practically begging you to come out with real cheap prices
20 bucks gets you 18 and a cart :-)
I don't play for money either, I suck
Some shots I top it or hit ground way before the ball :-(
Its so short, have to walk to my next shot
If I have to drive the cart to my next shot, that's a huge victory for me :-)

Quote: terapined

WOW is right
Life is good
Just step from the keyboard and clear your head and look at the website you posting this on
WOV, we are all here because we enjoy gambling and Vegas.
This web site is dedicated to the good life in the USA.
If life was not good, you wouldn't be posting on a website dedicated to the good live is the USA (Vegas and gambling)

I live in Tampa, the land of cheap summer golf.
Always open to playing anybody
Courses are practically begging you to come out with real cheap prices
20 bucks gets you 18 and a cart :-)
I don't play for money either, I suck
Some shots I top it or hit ground way before the ball :-(
Its so short, have to walk to my next shot
If I have to drive the cart to my next shot, that's a huge victory for me :-)

You go outside?
What about the hordes of criminal illegals that are pillaging unchecked?
Is your home there when you return?
What is your weapon of choice when venturing into the badlands?

Quote: AZDuffman

You just do not get the most basic points of it all. Going forward she will do something else shady. Here is what I learned during fairly low management training about hiring people.

PAST BEHAVIOR INDICATES FUTURE BEHAVIOR.

By the time a person hits their mid--20s their behaviors are really set in stone. Names, faces, and places will change. But the root behavior are set for life.

Yet you're voting for Trump. That tells me you think his past behavior -- swindling, fraudulent, hucksterism and utter lack of respect for women, minorities, and the military -- will carry forward into the White House and you're okay with that. You want a Commander in Chief who belittles the death of his soldiers. That's like a CEO hating his employees. Did you learn that in "low management training" too?

I'm not even going to debate you on the more basic philosophy of human nature. Your general pessimism is, fortunately, not universally accepted. It may be commonplace to think so poorly of your fellow humans in your circle of friends, but I'm glad that not everyone is so curmudgeonly.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I will admit to censoring/deleting one thread this week, other than killing kitchens in the UK. Some "person" who's posting regularly started a thread asking for suggestions and comments on how to assassinate one of the major candidates. I hope you and everyone else understands that we don't need the FBI investigating this board.

I assume you permanently banned that member? If not please explain?