• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

Interesting...is there any reason you mention the bolded bit? (Perhaps i've missed something in the news about a bubling scandal in the last year or so..)
Clinton has spent most of her time in public office using her personal email for government use (there's been some leaks already). http://observer.com/2016/01/why-hillarys-emailgate-matters/

The first and most obvious problem is the security. Clinton initially claimed (more on this later) that no classified emails made it on to this server - over time, more and more classified emails have been shown to have been sent and received from this personal server. The server was run, and secured, by an amateur and most IT pros are of the impression that remote access would have been of negligible difficulty. It even had the RDP port directly open to the internet - it really was amateur hour.

The next issue is of accountability/clarity. As with most governments, there are regulations as to how email communications are recorded, stored and archived. These policies did not apply and were not applied to her own server. All of her communications were wiped at Clinton's request, leaving us with little knowledge as to what was said by who and to whom and when - an obvious issue in a democracy. We only know what we do because some people she was communicating with have been hacked. This is especially problematic when you consider that this was her means of communication for issues in which her private communications were unlikely to paint her in a good light, such as Benghazi. Clinton pretty much exclusively used her private email for discussions about Benghazi and it was whilst her actions were being considered in an enquiry that she had the server wiped.

This all leads us around to Clinton's penchant for lying. Not that political "I won't raise taxes" kind of lying, but the Watergate kind - somewhat more serious than "My daughter was jogging next to the WTC on September 11th" or "I landed in Bosnia under sniper fire". In this case, she initially denied using her personal server for government reasons at all. When that was proven untrue, she claimed that she only used it on rare occasions when she couldn't access the gov servers. When this was proven untrue she claimed that she used it, but not for anything classified. When this was proven untrue she agreed to hand over anything relevant to the authorities. It's since been discovered that she failed to hand over all the relevant information.

My suspicion (although it's just that) is that there's more ammo where this is concerned, but it's being kept back for use during a presidential election. This went too quiet too quickly for all of the juice to have trickled out.
 
Last edited:
Clinton has spent most of her time in public office using her personal email for government use (there's been some leaks already). http://observer.com/2016/01/why-hillarys-emailgate-matters/

The first and most obvious problem is the security. Clinton initially claimed (more on this later) that no classified emails made it on to this server - over time, more and more classified emails have been shown to have been sent and received from this personal server. The server was run, and secured, by an amateur and most IT pros are of the impression that remote access would have been of negligible difficulty. It even had the RDP port directly open to the internet - it really was amateur hour.

The next issue is of accountability/clarity. As with most governments, there are regulations as to how email communications are recorded, stored and archived. These policies did not apply and were not applied to her own server. All of her communications were wiped at Clinton's request, leaving us with little knowledge as to what was said by who and to whom and when - an obvious issue in a democracy. We only know what we do because some people she was communicating with have been hacked. This is especially problematic when you consider that this was her means of communication for issues in which her private communications were unlikely to paint her in a good light, such as Benghazi. Clinton pretty much exclusively used her private email for discussions about Benghazi and it was whilst her actions were being considered in an enquiry that she had the server wiped.

This all leads us around to Clinton's penchant for lying. Not that political "I won't raise taxes" kind of lying, but the Watergate kind - somewhat more serious than "My daughter was jogging next to the WTC on September 11th" or "I landed in Bosnia under sniper fire". In this case, she initially denied using her personal server for government reasons at all. When that was proven untrue, she claimed that she only used it on rare occasions when she couldn't access the gov servers. When this was proven untrue she claimed that she used it, but not for anything classified. When this was proven untrue she agreed to hand over anything relevant to the authorities. It's since been discovered that she failed to hand over all the relevant information.

My suspicion (although it's just that) is that there's more ammo where this is concerned, but it's being kept back for use during a presidential election. This went too quiet too quickly for all of the juice to have trickled out.

Thanks! That looks juicy and i'm going to dig deeper into this. In my mind the odds of Trump getting into the Oval Office just slashed in half...
 
Must be a pretty massive reason for pit stains in the Clinton campaign, and Democratic party in general.

Just such a huge source of potential problems that they probably have no idea of knowing what their opponents actually have access to or not. And I think Clinton's image is a lot more vulnerable than Trump's too. Trump could essentially be found guilty of kicking small children working as in an underground meth lab for him and he could probably brush it off with a hand wave, joke and some promise that after he rediscovered Jesus he hasn't gone near drugs again.
 
Thanks! That looks juicy and i'm going to dig deeper into this. In my mind the odds of Trump getting into the Oval Office just slashed in half...

Must be a pretty massive reason for pit stains in the Clinton campaign, and Democratic party in general.

Just such a huge source of potential problems that they probably have no idea of knowing what their opponents actually have access to or not. And I think Clinton's image is a lot more vulnerable than Trump's too. Trump could essentially be found guilty of kicking small children working as in an underground meth lab for him and he could probably brush it off with a hand wave, joke and some promise that after he rediscovered Jesus he hasn't gone near drugs again.
Clinton currently has two lines of defence and neither are particularly strong:

  1. Everybody else does it. Clinton's argument is that she's not the first to use personal email in this way. She's right, but it could easily be said that she's the first to do so in an era when people properly understand the implications of doing so
  2. Much of the classified materiel wasn't classified at the time of her emails - also true. This isn't really much of a defence either. That the emails contained information later considered classified by the authorities show incredibly poor judgement at best and stops short of her breaking the law. But it also shows why personal servers are such a bad idea - if an email is later classified on a government server then all history of that email becomes classified. If you take the email out of the system then that doesn't happen.
 
I am a little late (a month and a half) but I read this back at the beginning of December and I think that there is something on this being Trump's strategy to win the nomination and then presumably alter his approach slightly if he is the GOP candidate.

This is about winning the nomination
Donald Trump’s statement about stopping Muslims from entering the US has been widely condemned both in America and round the world. In the UK David Cameron has joined those attacking the current GOP front runner and possibly the next President.

But amidst all the noise some US pundits are saying that this might help the property billionaire just as there were polling indications that his position in Iowa, the first state to decide. was starting to wane.

This is from the editor of Erik Erickson editor RedState

“..Hate Donald Trump all you want, be offended by his proposal all you want, but it is really brilliant politics for Trump right now in the Republican primary and the reactions from the other candidates prove it. All the people attacking Trump on his immigration proposals now attacking him on this have done themselves no favors within the primary process.

Have none of these people read Art of the Deal? This is an opening, bombastic salvo to set the terms of negotiations and the other candidates except Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 100% just decided to negotiation in Barack Obama’s position. And it comes at a time some polls are suggesting Trump is starting to fade in places like Iowa…”

This is the old problem for the Republicans – the party base is much more likely to warm to a hard-line appeal when what’s needed to win the White House itself requires very different positioning.

I’m still long on Trump, Cruz and Rubio for the nomination.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/in...from-entering-the-us-might-be-smart-politics/
 
Dan Carlin on his common sense podcast often has interesting takes on what's going on (imo at least).

He's been rather positive about Trump because he can expose the cracks and show people what's actually going on because he's an outsider. Carlin in huge on the issue of money in (US) politics in particular. But even Carlin seems scared of what Trump can actually do if he gets into power. He's just so much of an unknown quantity. His financial record is massively overstated and whatever skills he has aren't necessarily transferable to a political leader situation.
And that's my point - he is successful (in a capitalist sense). And America is capitalism to its heart. He didn't make money by being clueless - manipulative and with the help of the right people, probably.
And do his skills transfer to politics? No. But I'm not so sure the skills of modern politicians should be held up high. ( I'm not saying Trumps should be either - bit he might just be the nemisis that changes world politics by showing the BS)
 
America is such a horribly pc country, I've worked in the UK and the US and you would hate to work in this country, I've seen people walked out of offices here for something that would be laughed off in most other places, Trump says things mainstream america is afraid to say, this is a very racist and divided country and Trump is playing a great game pulling in resentment to minorities, he likely won't win the election as the republican base is shrinking but he's definitely laid a marker as to how american politics will be defined going forward. Iowa results on Monday will be very interesting. I'll be voting for Bernie sanders for no other reason than he'll change up the system here, this is without doubt, for both parties, the most interesting electoral cycle in a generation.
 
And that's my point - he is successful (in a capitalist sense). And America is capitalism to its heart. He didn't make money by being clueless - manipulative and with the help of the right people, probably.
And do his skills transfer to politics? No. But I'm not so sure the skills of modern politicians should be held up high. ( I'm not saying Trumps should be either - bit he might just be the nemisis that changes world politics by showing the BS)

That's certainly the narrative he wants to present.

If you look around quite a lot has been written about his inheritance and his current net worth. Seems that a reasonable argument can be made that he's not done particularly well with his inheritance at all and if he had just passively invested his inheritance in big companies he would have done just as well. I don't know enough about finances and money and stuff to know which side of the argument is true. But I'm inherently skeptical of a politician trying to present a narrative about his strengths, and this one seems super thin.
 
That's certainly the narrative he wants to present.

If you look around quite a lot has been written about his inheritance and his current net worth. Seems that a reasonable argument can be made that he's not done particularly well with his inheritance at all and if he had just passively invested his inheritance in big companies he would have done just as well. I don't know enough about finances and money and stuff to know which side of the argument is true. But I'm inherently skeptical of a politician trying to present a narrative about his strengths, and this one seems super thin.
I think if you drew a straight line from start to finish with Trump's fortune he'd be at a similar pace to most Nasdaq leaders.

That doesn't tell the whole story though, as Trump's market is property. He took a massive bath when the property market dipped, which set him back a long way. Outside of that, he's outperformed most markets.

In order to have fully maximised his returns, he'd have needed to come right out of the property market and get back in either side of any large dip. For people with fairly well spread portfolios that's not too difficult to do. For someone whose trade is property, sometimes it's better to ride the lows out and stick to what you do.

After all, if he'd jumped out of property and taken a massive hit on the stock market or in commodities we'd all be saying g what a fool he was for delving into something he had no experience with.

That's not to say he isn't full of bluster, he obviously is. But what he does isn't easy and plenty have failed a few times over - it's a bit simplistic to use hindsight on investment choices.
 
Michael Moore and Marc Marin were talking about this a bit on the WTF podcast... iirc Moore was saying that something like 81% of Americans are not fat old white dudes, and those are the ones that will vote for Trump, so there are enough people to keep him out... something like that anyway, I wasn't really listening attentively!
 
America is such a horribly pc country, I've worked in the UK and the US and you would hate to work in this country, I've seen people walked out of offices here for something that would be laughed off in most other places, Trump says things mainstream america is afraid to say, this is a very racist and divided country and Trump is playing a great game pulling in resentment to minorities, he likely won't win the election as the republican base is shrinking but he's definitely laid a marker as to how american politics will be defined going forward. Iowa results on Monday will be very interesting. I'll be voting for Bernie sanders for no other reason than he'll change up the system here, this is without doubt, for both parties, the most interesting electoral cycle in a generation.

Brilliantly put. it's somewhat alarming but, as you suggest, perhaps not all THAT surprising!
 
America is such a horribly pc country, I've worked in the UK and the US and you would hate to work in this country, I've seen people walked out of offices here for something that would be laughed off in most other places, Trump says things mainstream america is afraid to say, this is a very racist and divided country and Trump is playing a great game pulling in resentment to minorities, he likely won't win the election as the republican base is shrinking but he's definitely laid a marker as to how american politics will be defined going forward. Iowa results on Monday will be very interesting. I'll be voting for Bernie sanders for no other reason than he'll change up the system here, this is without doubt, for both parties, the most interesting electoral cycle in a generation.

Is America really more PC than the UK? I haven't lived in the US so don't doubt you but I just find it surprising. I always had the impression that with how they hold the constitution sacred they could speak more openlywithout people raging about it.
 
Read a funny piece in the Sunday Times about some property one of his companies are building in Dubai, they have his and his daughters face on the billboards but the local Muslims wanted them taken down as they were quite understandably miffed at being tarred with the same brush as the terrorists. Anyway his company fought a legal battle to have his face put back on the billboards.

The guy is such a hypocrite he makes our politicians looks reasonable.
 
Read a funny piece in the Sunday Times about some property one of his companies are building in Dubai, they have his and his daughters face on the billboards but the local Muslims wanted them taken down as they were quite understandably miffed at being tarred with the same brush as the terrorists. Anyway his company fought a legal battle to have his face put back on the billboards.

The guy is such a hypocrite he makes our politicians looks reasonable.

Who won the battle? Did his face get put back on the billboards??
 
Who won the battle? Did his face get put back on the billboards??
Apparently they have yes, which to me is quite funny. As you know I am a little to the right of the political spectrum not the far right i might add. But I think his idea of making every muslim in America register locally is disgusting.

Kind of funny that he wants his face shown on a massive billboard in an arab country when you think about it. Muslims aint the problem, maybe checking the schools have normal teachers and not nutters and try and integrate society a bit more, maybe a limit on how much immigration a country can take. But making a section of society register and banning the rest of them from coming to the country, no not for me, the guy is a loon.
 
Apparently they have yes, which to me is quite funny. As you know I am a little to the right of the political spectrum not the far right i might add. But I think his idea of making every muslim in America register locally is disgusting.

Kind of funny that he wants his face shown on a massive billboard in an arab country when you think about it. Muslims aint the problem, maybe checking the schools have normal teachers and not nutters and try and integrate society a bit more, maybe a limit on how much immigration a country can take. But making a section of society register and banning the rest of them from coming to the country, no not for me, the guy is a loon.

Lol. You gotta laugh at the irony....they should just have said he has to register his company for 100 times the normal rate to get the billboard up...they missed a big trick there methinks..
 
Is America really more PC than the UK? I haven't lived in the US so don't doubt you but I just find it surprising. I always had the impression that with how they hold the constitution sacred they could speak more openlywithout people raging about it.
Full circle - the right to offended becomes the right to not allow someone to offend you rather than freedom of expression.
 
Back