OT: Go Blue

[HumanCockroach]

I don't remember that being quite as big of a deal with other politicians, in some cases the sitting president and VP at the time. I haven't seen much outrage about Pence suing to avoid turning over his e-mails currently. I've said many times that I didn't vote for either, but I question the thought process in this regard. I didn't trust Clinton further than I could throw a tank, that said, at least she didn't have a litany of litigation hanging over her head.

[RiverDog]

Poor choice of words... My point was that both instances would be considered "high crimes", and are impeachable offenses.. it also is true that crimes committed prior to presidency are considered valid offenses in the case if impeachment....

It does surprise me that somehow Trump despite over 400 cases currently pending was propped up as the "honest" candidate despite Clinton having zero pending litigation... Doesn't mean I liked or voted for her, just that of the two, Trump admitted to underhanded politic involvement, amongst other shady practices ( I'm the only one who knows how to fix it, because I did it. Is far too similar to I can stop murders because I've committed them , for my personal comfort), yet it was "crooked" Hillary and "voice of the forgotten" Trump in the end...

To this day I remain baffled not just by the support he seemed to find despite these admissions, but the support he received by groups of people that have destroyed political careers over comparatively minor "failings" ( IE: drug use in college, extra marital affairs decades before etc). I really just don't get it. There's a difference between not liking an insider it career politician, and burying ones head and basically committing willful political punishment not just for those you don't like, but yourself and loved ones as well. The "statement" was made, but at what cost?

There really is no definition of an impeachable offense. It depends on the opinion of those in Congress at the time. My opinion, and the opinion of most conservatives at the time, on Bill Clinton's impeachment was pretty simple: Did Clinton commit perjury in front of a grand jury and if he did, is perjury an impeachable offense? But others obviously didn't see it that way, justifying lying under oath by saying that the lie was about sex, not something more sinister.

I am right there with you on your second paragraph. I am dumbfounded at the level of support for Trump, and here in conservative eastern Washington, I have only met a couple of people that said that they voted for him. Yes, HRC was a horrible candidate, IMO the worst nominee that the Dems have put up since I started voting in 1972. But Trump was worse. I just don't see how so many people can vote for a guy that from my vantage point has so many obvious personal flaws. Never mind his politics. He's a lunatic.

[Steady_Hawk]

Get used to Trump. Ford Motor Co just announced they are now moving their HD truck manufacturing to Ohio from Mexico and creating 1000 U.S jobs. This is why he got elected. This is exactly why he will win a second term too.

Also in Trump news, Trump is making his 4000 people sign a contract that they cannot lobby Washington for 5 years after they are done with their service in his cabinet. The swamp drain has officially started.

Keep hating haters!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7leQB_Oe_k

[HumanCockroach]

LOL.... ^^^^^^^^^

http://www.snopes.com/ford-from-mexico-to-ohio/

Like I said earlier... Head, sand, believe everything....

Here is how he got elected right here.

In the future before claiming something, might want to at least Google it before doing so. Statements like that don't help your cause even a little bit. It isn't hate that fuels that advise, but general concern about the lack of informed claims many seem hell bent on regurgitating from completely inaccurate and unreliable news sources because they "were on the internet, it HAS to be true".

As for the lobbyist ban, congrats, on having a nominee that followed a good example put in place by the current President. So while you're lauding him for the idea, you might want to applaud the person who actually came up with it. Obama.

[Hawktawk]

Exactly HC. The lobbying *ban* was a reversal of direction by the Trump team which was littered with lobbyists. The trump train drones dont know, dont care, dont have a clue.

Its Trump and hes godlike, gonna make america super duper greater than ever.
Trumps ascension is based on enough lies to make pinocchio's nose snap off.

[burrrton]

I didn't trust Clinton further than I could throw a tank, that said, at least she didn't have a litany of litigation hanging over her head.

No disagreement, but no other politician has ever been bold enough to set up an unsecured server in their home through which to intentionally route all State communication, then lie about virtually everything about it at every step of an investigation. We're not just talking about "She used yahoo for an email with Huma" here.

Again, this isn't to defend Trump, who I think probably cares as little about being truthful with his supporters as she does- I just think (guessing) that real estate or "Trump Youniversitee" stuff seems more shallow or something to voters.

I hope this is a lesson going forward to both parties that you can't just prop a POS like that up and hope to drag his or her ass across the finish line if you care about the results.

[NorthHawk]

I don't think HC is technologically literate and probably didn't or still doesn't understand the implications of her actions.
It's easy for us who have been in the business for 35+ years and have seen it grow from dumb tubes off a mainframe running at 9.6kb to today's high speed internet to have a much greater feel for the pitfalls of bad decisions.
Ignorance is never an excuse, but in my mind, the people around her are almost as culpable for not explaining the security concerns strongly enough to dissuade her from doing such a stupid thing. How they went along with that decision is to me mind boggling considering they must have known how she was going to use it.
I'm just not convinced it was a conscious attempt to deceive in this case, rather it was naivete or perhaps hubris.

On other question that I haven't read or heard is does the Gov't give a directive to all employees and contractors from the top down on the policies for electronic communication and the possible exposures and penalties of violating it? I've missed any type of talk about that.

[burrrton]

On other question that I haven't read or heard is does the Gov't give a directive to all employees and contractors from the top down on the policies for electronic communication and the possible exposures and penalties of violating it? I've missed any type of talk about that.

Yes, and she indicated she was fully briefed when she signed her NDA in 2009.

I'm just not convinced it was a conscious attempt to deceive in this case, rather it was naivete or perhaps hubris.

Perhaps, and I think this is what gets her off the hook with the FBI, but it requires a suspension of disbelief bordering on absurd. [edit- and it's worth noting, of course, that naivete is not a defense- I nearly lost my job for merely improperly walking out of a SCIF for a moment- they didn't directly cover that in my training, but oddly that doesn't matter to the DoD or DoE]

Hubris would explain why she thought she could get away with it, but how can someone go out of their way to route all State communication through a channel off the government system, delete 10s of thousands of emails under subpoena, bleachbit the HDD, then reasonably claim they weren't trying to hide everything they didn't explicitly release? Hell, she didn't even tell anyone (outside her inner circle) about the damn server until it was discovered by the Benghazi Committee.

Something like that would have been 100% disqualifying for anyone not name Hillary Clinton, and if Dems hadn't been so enamored with her and cocksure about her/their ability to handwave it all way, I can't help but think we wouldn't be fretting about a Trump administration right now (although I think there were other factors that contributed heavily to his win).

[HumanCockroach]

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/geor ... 97373.html


This is what I was discussing. This wasn't a secure government server, while it wasn't his private server, it was indeed a private server that was used, and then summarily deleted. This isn't some random occurrence by Clinton, it's been pretty common, from Colin Powell to Bush W. My point absolutely wasn't condoning, approving or even defending her poor judgement ( did you guys think I just didn't vote for her because I have some bias against grandmothers or something? Really?). My point was the blasé attitude people had with politicians in the past.

[burrrton]

Bush's use of that server was shady, HC, but it's not just the server, and it's not just the use of private email- it's the intentional use of both those *exclusively* for all State communication (that took place via email), which guaranteed highly classified info would be available to anyone who cared to look for it.

I'm not interested in defending Bush too much on that front, but his admin could point to directions issued instructing staff to not use that domain for official business, and that's a rather key distinction- it wasn't their intent, at least officially, to route classified info through there, and they didn't hide its existence from everyone outside his ring of personal advisers.

He also didn't delete emails under subpoena (they were mislabeled or something if I recall, not deleted), then wipe the drive.

Bleh- water under the bridge now.

My point absolutely wasn't condoning, approving or even defending her poor judgement ( did you guys think I just didn't vote for her because I have some bias against grandmothers or something? Really?). My point was the blasé attitude people had with politicians in the past.

I don't mean to accuse you of defending her- this situation is a bit different than in the past, though. I also don't recall there being a blase attitude toward Bush's suspected chicanery except with sycophants, but that could just be my memory failing me.

[NorthHawk]

Perhaps, and I think this is what gets her off the hook with the FBI, but it requires a suspension of disbelief bordering on absurd. [edit- and it's worth noting, of course, that naivete is not a defense- I nearly lost my job for merely improperly walking out of a SCIF for a moment- they didn't directly cover that in my training, but oddly that doesn't matter to the DoD or DoE]

Hubris would explain why she thought she could get away with it, but how can someone go out of their way to route all State communication through a channel off the government system, delete 10s of thousands of emails under subpoena, bleachbit the HDD, then reasonably claim they weren't trying to hide everything they didn't explicitly release? Hell, she didn't even tell anyone (outside her inner circle) about the damn server until it was discovered by the Benghazi Committee.

I think that's where the people (or company) providing her server support should have advised her (and maybe even refused to delete the emails) as they would fully understand the ramifications of these actions. I can't picture her in front of a terminal busily deleting emails. I actually can't imagine her having the wherewithal of how to file her Emails into different folders properly as I get the impression she's basically technically illiterate. I've come across hundreds of people in my career who were near the top, who don't know about technology and didn't care as they had staff who do it all for them. Her staff really failed her there, but she is ultimately responsible.

[Steady_Hawk]

Roach, sorry, heard it on passing and got excited! This is real however. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... n-kentucky

Though it's not a as good, it's better than losing jobs.

Also, some of you need to relax. Let this guy do his thing. Stop buying the BS that Trump was elected for racist reasons. I'm not a racist, nobody I knew voting for him was a racist. That's pretty insulting and a pathetic broad brushing of his supporters. Some of you act like Trump f'd your wife, killed your kids and ate your damn dog.

I posted this already, but this sums up Trumps general support in a short rant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mr9_lY-RrU&t=10s

Lastly, Snopes is not politically neutral, I'll own my mistake but these guys aren't the gold standard of honesty here.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact- ... l-blogger/

[burrrton]

I can't picture her in front of a terminal busily deleting emails.

Me, either, but I also can't imagine anyone doing it for her without her approval.

[HumanCockroach]

steady I didn't see anyone claim you were racist, anywhere throughout this thread. My mother voted for Trump, as did my grandfather, odds are they're not racist either, that doesn't mean that a lot of the vitriol that was spewed during the campaign wasn't, nor does it mean that a lot of racists aren't celebrating this election, and acting on their hate. You would have to bury your head in the sand not to see it at this point. Do you believe it's going to just magically go away? Or somehow just stop? Exactly how is that going to work? I don't see things just evaporating, and it's shocking and sad to see so many non racists ignoring it.....

Maybe none of them are, doubtful, but possible. It doesn't change that in essence, by supporting those statements, claims and policies, you've cosigned on those statements. Maybe people aren't, they "don't hate those of different religions and nationalities, they just don't care about them" is basically your stance. You're welcome to it, after all it's a free country( at least for now-ish) but I'm not going to support the incredibly offensive views, beliefs or agenda of this adminstration. I will NOT support anything that is designed to make other people second class humans, for a job ( which remains to be seen, no matter how willingly people are to believe a guy who made his name and money by taking ADVANTAGE of those people, want to believe).

Trump had spent his life looking out for a single entity, a single person, and you want people to believe he's now all of a sudden grown a heart? Yeah, OK, whatever you say.....

I'll tell you the exact same thing I told my mother while she was professing the "virtues" if Trump and gloating about the statement she made. Remember this moment in the future, remember you voted for him, and bought all of his claims( including the racial rhetoric.) Because I'll remember.

[NorthHawk]

Me, either, but I also can't imagine anyone doing it for her without her approval.

That's where her IT staff should have stepped in as they knew the authorities were asking for all of the Emails and should have understood at least the basic legalities.
I know that I would not have gone through with that process knowing that the FBI among others want to see all the Emails.
Having said that I'm sure there are some who would.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

By the same token, those who voted for HRC are personally okay with dishonest and unethical behavior. Just pointing out that it seems both sides are more than willing to paint the other side with the same brush as the candidate they voted for and both sides felt the faults of one candidate out-weighed those of the other.

Bottom line is these are the two most reprehensible candidates in United States history, and the Democratic Party has only itself to blame for undermining Bernie Sanders, which turned some of his supporters on to Trump, and assuming HRC would roll Trump up like a wet blanket. I thought Sanders was very ambitious with two of his main platforms (universal health care and free public college) in that I have no idea how he'd get those passed and paid for, but he was much more a man of the people than either of the options we were presented with. I can't see Trump beating Sanders.

[burrrton]

That's where her IT staff should have stepped in as they knew the authorities were asking for all of the Emails and should have understood at least the basic legalities.

You're implying she needed IT staff to tell her such blatant violations were almost 100% illegal. She was FLOTUS, Senator, and SoS- she didn't.

[NorthHawk]

Sanders as candidate sure would have been a different dynamic. Could he get enough votes being labelled as a socialist? In some areas that's still like saying he's the devil.
What would Trump have labelled him?

[burrrton]

I thought Sanders was very ambitious with two of his main platforms (universal health care and free public college) in that I have no idea how he'd get those passed and paid for

Great ideas except for that little wrinkle, eh?

You're not a "man of the people" promising to take money from Peter to give it to Paul.

[burrrton]

Could he get enough votes being labelled as a socialist?

Is it "labeling" when the candidate himself proudly calls himself it?

In some areas that's still like saying he's the devil.

If "some areas" translates roughly to "not on the Berkeley campus", yes (although "devil" is too strong- I think a majority of the country would call him "laughably dopey", though).

[NorthHawk]

You're implying she needed IT staff to tell her such blatant violations were almost 100% illegal. She was FLOTUS, Senator, and SoS- she didn't.

People at the top need to be reminded of policy or law at times.
Attempts to bend or break the rules happen with frightening regularity.
I agree, she should have known better, but apparently she either didn't or discounted the possibilities of retribution.

[NorthHawk]

Is it "labeling" when the candidate himself proudly calls himself it?

Of course it is but how might Trump have used that against him? He put a negative label on all of his opponents, so what might it have been with Sanders?
It would have been interesting to see how that played out.

[burrrton]

People at the top need to be reminded of policy or law at times.

Of arcane or nuanced policies and laws, sure- not for laws like "don't delete information that has been subpoena'd". To imply that is asking us to treat her like a mentally challenged 5 year old.

[burrrton]

Of course it is but how might Trump have used that against him? He put a negative label on all of his opponents, so what might it have been with Sanders?
It would have been interesting to see how that played out.

"Labeling", in this context, to me, implies an attempt to paint someone into a box they might not like- hardly seems accurate to call it that when Sanders himself is the one that "labels" himself a Socialist.

[NorthHawk]

"Labeling", in this context, to me, implies an attempt to paint someone into a box they might not like- hardly seems accurate to call it that when Sanders himself is the one that "labels" himself a Socialist.

That, to me would be the interesting point - how would he twist it or what else would Trump come up with to paint Sanders in a negative light?

[burrrton]

That, to me would be the interesting point - how would he twist it or what else would Trump come up with to paint Sanders in a negative light?

Oh, I see- yeah, who the hell knows.

[obiken]

That, to me would be the interesting point - how would he twist it or what else would Trump come up with to paint Sanders in a negative light?

Commie troll, Socialist midget, Enterprise destroyer, etc.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Great ideas except for that little wrinkle, eh?

You're not a "man of the people" promising to take money from Peter to give it to Paul.

I'm not down with either of those proposals: I said "ambitious" because they don't get off the ground, and, yes, it all comes down to "how do you pay for it?". I do think he cares more about the common man than the two candidates we ended up with.

[burrrton]

I do think he cares more about the common man than the two candidates we ended up with.

Well, compared to the two boobs we had, maybe, but... I have mixed feelings. Who cares more for you- the person that promises you the universe with absolutely *no* way to even begin to deliver it, or the guy who says "I'll get you a decent job and you can start working your way up"?

I'll take the second guy 7 days a week (and twice on Sunday!). The first guy is no different than a leprechaun at the end of a rainbow.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Well, compared to the two boobs we had, maybe, but... I have mixed feelings. Who cares more for you- the person that promises you the universe with absolutely *no* way to even begin to deliver it, or the guy who says "I'll get you a decent job and you can start working your way up"?

I'll take the second guy 7 days a week (and twice on Sunday!). The first guy is no different than a leprechaun at the end of a rainbow.

Trump does have to deliver on jobs front. Perhaps this is too simplistic, but having a strong jobs market and rolling economy is liking winning to a troubled locker room.

[burrrton]

Trump does have to deliver on jobs front. Perhaps this is too simplistic, but having a strong jobs market and rolling economy is liking winning to a troubled locker room.

Agreed, and I don't know how much success he'll have, and I have low confidence he knows what to do- point, though, is that any 3rd-grader can make pie-in-the-sky promises like "I'LL GIVE YOU FREE MEDICAL CARE AND FREE COLLEGE AND FREE CARS AND FREE GROCERIES!" (as if the people that provide those things will work for $0/yr salary if the policy is solid).

Grown-ups assess how they can make such things happen in the real world, and limit their promises based on that assessment. I don't think Bernie's ever done that beyond promising he'll make somebody that makes more than you pay for your stuff.

[HumanCockroach]

I suppose the thought was to get guys like Mr. Trump to you know, pay some taxes like Peter AND Paul, and maybe perhaps cut back on things like billions of dollars invested in non operational military weapons, removing loopholes for corporate giants etc.

Personally, I would be down with a flat tax across the board. Ultimately, it would affect the working class ( ie: me) slightly more, but it would do wonders for class division that is a huge underlying issue in this society ( and yes I'm fully aware of your position on the job creators. No reason to delve into yet again).

Truth is the money IS there, the question was only, what does this country want to spend that money ON, not how are you going to come up with it. Many would rather dump billions into military experiments, than to educate it's populace, or feed all children in schools healthy food, or even make medical available to all, and prescription costs reasonable.

The balance of whether we "can" afford it, versus whether we "want" to afford it is really the question, and currently more people don't want to afford it... Can has never been anything but a red herring. Of COURSE we can, if one of the wealthiest countries in the world can't, I'm not entirely sure how a vast majority of developed countries without said wealth "do" it...

[burrrton]

Truth is the money IS there, the question was only, what does this country want to spend that money ON, not how are you going to come up with it.

Whether the money is "there" or not, you can't just confiscate 100% of it, so yeah, pondering a realistic level at which you *can* expect to collect it is a real-world issue.

I suppose the thought was to get guys like Mr. Trump to you know, pay some taxes like Peter AND Paul

Take your average "rich" guy, and I'll bet they pay FAR more than you, and at a level that outpaces the level at which they out-earn you.

Personally, I would be down with a flat tax across the board.

Me, too, although I might be more down with a consumption tax (VAT, etc) that replaces our income tax. Makes it voluntary, and would allow people to exert a level of control over their contribution... which means it will never, EVER get passed.

[Hawktawk]

Trumps pick for AG Jeff Sessions said and I quote" I thought the KKK was OK till I found out they smoked marijuana. "Good people dont smoke marijuana".
Another dumb ass ignorant slam on millions of people with far more character than the groper in chief.
Its not surprising this redneck neanderthal was the first one to crawl out of the swamp and endorse him before slithering back in.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

[obiken]

Me, too, although I might be more down with a consumption tax (VAT, etc) that replaces our income tax. Makes it voluntary, and would allow people to exert a level of control over their contribution... which means it will never, EVER get passed.

Me three! No loopholes, no deductions. The only downside is it would put a lot of CPA's outta work.

[burrrton]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/18/politics/ ... legations/

You guys have *got* to quit acting like every dmn person anywhere near Trump is literally evil incarnate.

[Steady_Hawk]

Guys,

We've all been together a long time. I respect everyone here. I feel bad for those who feel bad about this outcome, I know the feeling all too well. I didn't vote Obama, twice, but I didn't go out and protest because I didn't get my way. I accepted America's choice, took a shot of some Jack Daniels and got on with my life. In four years, you'll have another chance to change this direction.

I truly understand why people voted against Trump and I respect that.

This is our President. I wanted Obama to succeed. Let's want the same thing for Trump. He has a tall order to fill, and many promises to keep. He'll live or die by those and I'll be the first to tighten the noose.

Burrrton, I just wanted to say thank you very much. I know you were not a fan of Trump's, but thank you for being the most level headed one here. I sincerely appreciate it and hope all of us can continue to respect one another.

I'm leaving this thread alone as nothing good will come of it as things are too raw for people and emotions are running way too hot.

[savvyman]

I think Trump himself doesn't care if I'm married. He's more liberal on this issue. But, his SCOTUS appointments will be über conservative which is where the rubber meets the road. AND, like Bob, I think Trump will be lucky as F### to make it 4 whole years w/o breaking the law. Pence is a giant bigot and thinks I need conversion therapy, whatever that means.

Thanks for the support, Bob and others. I appreciate ya. See you in 1955.

Yep - that is where he will reward the base who supported him through thick and thin - he is a deal maker so he will reward the conservatives this prize while he will move our economic policies and defense policies back to the center again - unlike that war hawk - Jobs destroying - all wealth flowing to the top 1% - and thoroughly corrupt - Hillary Clinton.

[savvyman]

Yes - "Boo" - Here comes the racist boogeyman to eat your children - lets all run around in a panic and welcome the end of the world..... or at least the republic - will the last minority please turn out the light?

[Hawktawk]

Of all the post election chatter pro and con I liked what Tom Hanks had to say. " I hope he is such a great president I vote for him in 4 years".
I concur although early returns are about as I predicted.
I don't support protests in the street but I support peoples first amendment right to oppose some of the incendiary things hes said and some of the kooks like sessions who get a loyalty lollipop.

LOL drain the swamp and fill it up with the swamp dwellers for the last 20 years.

And any Trump supporter who wants to justify his thin skinned twitter wars with media etc go right ahead.
Its always been about the messenger for me.
At any rate it is what it is and I'm done with the topic.
GO HAWKS!!!