Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[kenberg]

http://www.reuters.c...r-idUSKCN12L011

 

 

 

I think they should be on high alert for the actions of Romanian government also (since Guccifer 1.0, the guy who firstly exposed Clinton's private email server, was Romanian), they might want to interfere also, they are well known for doing that.

 

The possibility of mischief is real and I hope we address it. However, this is not what Trump is talking about at all. He did not bring up the Romanian government, he spoke of the New York Times as being part of the corrupt media that is rigging the election. We can probably agree that there is a difference between a foreign government hacking into the political process and a newspaper taking a stance on the candidates. I think HC's observation that Trump declared the Emmy process to be rigged when he didn't win is an excellent summary of what is going on here.

 

But yes, the threat of foreign, or domestic, hacking is something to worry about. It's a difficult world that we live in.

[MrAce]

Brits and Europeans say they need us Americans again!

 

http://www.culturepu...au-vote-idiots/

[MrAce]

Dbl post.

[kenberg]

Brits and Europeans say they need us Americans again!

 

http://www.culturepu...au-vote-idiots/

 

This is terrific.

[Kaitlyn S]

There seems to be a great Hillary sentiment here. Nobody will doubt that Donald Trump is got great and many will agree with me that he was the 17th best of the Republican candidates. However, in order to vote for Hillary, I need to get a successful resolution to the following question:

 

Which of the following is true?

 

(1) She risked jail time, losing lots of votes, and her reputation for the hell of it.

 

(2) The reason she risked jail time, losing lots of votes, and her reputation by scrubbing clean the subpoenaed emails was that she had something so bad to hide that she could never be elected if the American public knew about it.

[Zelandakh]

Which of the following is true?

Or (3) She used her email system normally and this included the deletion of some emails that she did not consider important enough to archive.

[helene_t]

Or (3) She used her email system normally and this included the deletion of some emails that she did not consider important enough to archive.

This. It is a unusual that she used a private email server but she can have had good reasons.

 

There is a discussion about this on Quora. https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Hillary-Clinton-Colin-Powell-and-Condeleeza-Rice-use-private-email-for-official-State-Department-business-Why-mix-work-and-personal-email

 

From my own experience with working for government offices in NL, UK and DK (and according to the rumors the situation in USA is no better), I would absolutely have set up my own private email server if I were in Clinton's situation. Government IT systems are slow, inconvenient and unreliable. Probably Clinton's emails are better protected against Russian hackers on her own server than on an official server.

[Al_U_Card]

Or (3) She used her email system normally and this included the deletion of some emails that she did not consider important enough to archive.

Life in a fantasy bubble, anyone? ROFLMAO

[Al_U_Card]

There seems to be a great Hillary sentiment here. Nobody will doubt that Donald Trump is got great and many will agree with me that he was the 17th best of the Republican candidates. However, in order to vote for Hillary, I need to get a successful resolution to the following question:

 

Which of the following is true?

 

(1) She risked jail time, losing lots of votes, and her reputation for the hell of it.

 

(2) The reason she risked jail time, losing lots of votes, and her reputation by scrubbing clean the subpoenaed emails was that she had something so bad to hide that she could never be elected if the American public knew about it.

Adroit analysis. US presidents are a cast of buffoons and crooks,(FDR and Honest Abe are exceptions to the rule.) lately mostly crooks. We could use a good buffoon right about now...

[Vampyr]

This. It is a unusual that she used a private email server but she can have had good reasons.

 

There is a discussion about this on Quora. https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Hillary-Clinton-Colin-Powell-and-Condeleeza-Rice-use-private-email-for-official-State-Department-business-Why-mix-work-and-personal-email

 

Your own link suggests that it is not unusual at all.

[Zelandakh]

Life in a fantasy bubble, anyone? ROFLMAO

Your post comes directly below one of someone with direct experience of working for a national government. It appears once again that it is your position that is far removed from reality. Nothing new there though. :lol:

[Winstonm]

There seems to be a great Hillary sentiment here. Nobody will doubt that Donald Trump is got great and many will agree with me that he was the 17th best of the Republican candidates. However, in order to vote for Hillary, I need to get a successful resolution to the following question:

 

Which of the following is true?

 

(1) She risked jail time, losing lots of votes, and her reputation for the hell of it.

 

(2) The reason she risked jail time, losing lots of votes, and her reputation by scrubbing clean the subpoenaed emails was that she had something so bad to hide that she could never be elected if the American public knew about it.

 

Unfortunately, you are falling prey to the false dichotomy presented daily by right wing a.m. radio and right wing bloggers. Outside the false reality bubble they create is an immense world of doubt and alternative ideas and options.

[Al_U_Card]

Even though people with relevent experience should know better, some prefer not to.

 

As for alternate ideas and "unpopular" opinions, heaven forbid that we stray from the party line...

[ggwhiz]

Outside the false reality bubble they create is an immense world of doubt and alternative ideas and options.

 

Trump supporter to a Canadian reporter at Fridays rally...

 

The Canadian President is a Muslim. You can google it.

[kenberg]

There seems to be a great Hillary sentiment here. Nobody will doubt that Donald Trump is got great and many will agree with me that he was the 17th best of the Republican candidates. However, in order to vote for Hillary, I need to get a successful resolution to the following question:

 

Which of the following is true?

 

(1) She risked jail time, losing lots of votes, and her reputation for the hell of it.

 

(2) The reason she risked jail time, losing lots of votes, and her reputation by scrubbing clean the subpoenaed emails was that she had something so bad to hide that she could never be elected if the American public knew about it.

 

I have a third option, a little different from Zel's.

 

She seems to be something of a control freak. Not entirely a bad thing, but it can go awry. Although I do not know the details of exactly how it would differ, I have no trouble at all seeing her thinking "If I cut out the official server, I have more control over what happens to the messages". Now this is not good thinking. Sending a message leaves a trace, receiving a message leaves a trace. So this was not very bright. One might argue that this shows my explanation must be wrong because, afer all, she is bright. So was Nixon. He still taped stuff he should not have taped. Bright people make such errors frequently. Hell, even I have made mistakes. There have been times when I cannot believe the stupidity of something I have done. Whether she "has something to hide" or not, and really just about everyone and especially just about everyone in high pressure public life, has at least a couple of things that they want to hide, she should not have done this. It was not just a mistake, it was a really dumb error.

 

But it is not disqualifying. Not for me anyway.

 

HC, and anyone in a position of power, desperately needs someone to say "This is really stupid, don't do it". And s/he needs to value, to truly appreciate, such people.

 

 

And I will put in a reply to Al in this same message. Most if us were not born yesterday (although I really like the Judy Holliday movie Born Yesterday). But total cynicism is just as misleading as total naivety, maybe more so.

[Winstonm]

Or (3) She used her email system normally and this included the deletion of some emails that she did not consider important enough to archive.

 

And this:

CNN: “There were still emails on Clinton’s server that she considered personal. However, at this point, Clinton decided she no longer wanted to keep any personal emails on her server that were older than 60 days. Combetta was instructed to delete those as well. He failed to do so, later claiming he forgot. At this point, no subpoena for her emails had been issued by any congressional committees.”

 

CNN: “We find Trump’s claim that Clinton and/or her staffers deliberately destroyed emails after they were subpoenaed to be false.”

 

Compared to this:

 

During the 2007 Congressional investigation of the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys, it was discovered that administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[1] for various official communications. The domain name is an abbreviation for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States....In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.

 

The "gwb43.com"[9] domain name was publicized by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), who sent a letter to Oversight and Government Reform Committee committee chairman Henry A. Waxman requesting an investigation.[10] Waxman sent a formal warning to the RNC, advising them to retain copies of all emails sent by White House employees. According to Waxman, "in some instances, White House officials were using nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications."[11] The Republican National Committee claims to have erased the emails, supposedly making them unavailable for Congressional investigators.[12]

 

The right wing a.m. radio reality finds no problems with one but the other is a criminal offense?

[Al_U_Card]

 

And I will put in a reply to Al in this same message. Most if us were not born yesterday (although I really like the Judy Holliday movie Born Yesterday). But total cynicism is just as misleading as total naivety, maybe more so.

I agree and when skepticism becomes cynicism, it implies an abandonment of involvement. Just what the PTB are hoping for. Confusing naivety for credulousness is another pitfall. If you believe what they are feeding you, you are not paying sufficient attention. If you fall for their lies but learn from the experience, then skepticism is born and credulity is no longer a problem.

[Phil]

As I have told some of my family members that are voting for Trump: I don't have to make the case for HRC, I simply have to make a stronger case why Trump shouldn't be elected and that's a pretty easy task.

 

I wanted Bernie, but HRC looked better and better as the debates progressed.

[Al_U_Card]

 

The right wing a.m. radio reality finds no problems with one but the other is a criminal offense?

So two wrongs DO make a right! Or both are crooked and use the same sneaky methods. Heads they win, tails you lose...

[helene_t]

I have a third option, a little different from Zel's.

 

She seems to be something of a control freak. Not entirely a bad thing, but it can go awry. Although I do not know the details of exactly how it would differ, I have no trouble at all seeing her thinking "If I cut out the official server, I have more control over what happens to the messages".

Yes maybe something like this.

 

She (or one of her staff members) might have brought up some frustration with the government email server. Maybe it was a technical thing like too aggressive filtering, low performance, or incompatibility with their favourite email client. Maybe it was concern about security. Maybe it was (as was suggested in the quora thread) concern about private emails surfacing after FOI requests.

 

Then some geek in her team proposed setting up a private server and she approved it. Maybe it was originally meant as a temporary fix and then it hang on, as so many other temporary IT fixes.

[Kaitlyn S]

Or (3) She used her email system normally and this included the deletion of some emails that she did not consider important enough to archive.

I would consider (3) except for the fact that the emails seemingly existed until they were subpoenaed and they they were not only gone, but deleted in such a way that the public could have no chance of finding out what they are. To me this is highly suspicious and anybody that thinks otherwise is simply being naive.

 

Mind you, I am under no delusion that Trump is a good person. There are many questions about his character and anybody that needs a president to have good character is going to be disappointed this election.

 

However, Donald's character flaws seem to be "trumped up" while Hilary's seem to be ignored by most media outlets. While I think the rumors of her being involved in murders are false, I certainly think all of these are true: setting up mortgages so that if one misses one payment, he loses his house much to the Clintons' benefit, using the Clinton Foundation as a tool to go from broke to worth a hundred million dollars while promising favors to foreign entities with bad agendas, lying to the parents of Benghazi victims, and hiding something seriously bad by scrubbing emails. There are others too numerous to mention, but these are the ones that stick out in my mind.

 

I could go on a serious rant about Trump's shortcomings also, but anybody that has paid any attention to a mainstream media outlet has already heard all of them several times already, so I don't feel the need.

 

In reality, this comes down to which candidate you think is going to be better for the country, knowing that the candidate will likely affect the Supreme Court for a quarter century. For anybody that thinks our next president won't be a scoundrel is seriously deluded IMO.

[PassedOut]

In reality, this comes down to which candidate you think is going to be better for the country, knowing that the candidate will likely affect the Supreme Court for a quarter century.

Although that might indeed be a strong reason to vote for Clinton, she is certainly better in other ways too, such as competence in government, a strong work ethic, a reliable temperament, and the demonstrated ability to work across the aisle and with leaders of other nations.

[Winstonm]

I would consider (3) except for the fact that the emails seemingly existed until they were subpoenaed and they they were not only gone, but deleted in such a way that the public could have no chance of finding out what they are. To me this is highly suspicious and anybody that thinks otherwise is simply being naive.

 

Mind you, I am under no delusion that Trump is a good person. There are many questions about his character and anybody that needs a president to have good character is going to be disappointed this election.

 

However, Donald's character flaws seem to be "trumped up" while Hilary's seem to be ignored by most media outlets. While I think the rumors of her being involved in murders are false, I certainly think all of these are true: setting up mortgages so that if one misses one payment, he loses his house much to the Clintons' benefit, using the Clinton Foundation as a tool to go from broke to worth a hundred million dollars while promising favors to foreign entities with bad agendas, lying to the parents of Benghazi victims, and hiding something seriously bad by scrubbing emails. There are others too numerous to mention, but these are the ones that stick out in my mind.

 

I could go on a serious rant about Trump's shortcomings also, but anybody that has paid any attention to a mainstream media outlet has already heard all of them several times already, so I don't feel the need.

 

In reality, this comes down to which candidate you think is going to be better for the country, knowing that the candidate will likely affect the Supreme Court for a quarter century. For anybody that thinks our next president won't be a scoundrel is seriously deluded IMO.

Wow. I cannot believe anyone smart enough to play bridge can really believe these things:

While I think the rumors of her being involved in murders are false, I certainly think all of these are true: setting up mortgages so that if one misses one payment, he loses his house much to the Clintons' benefit, using the Clinton Foundation as a tool to go from broke to worth a hundred million dollars while promising favors to foreign entities with bad agendas, lying to the parents of Benghazi victims, and hiding something seriously bad by scrubbing emails.

 

From what source do you get your information to make your determinations? The only people I know of who have repeated these claims you make are all completely biased with an agenda to discredit Hillary Clinton, regardless of the veracity of the claims. If a non-biased observer has made these claims, I would be interested to know who it was.

[Kaitlyn S]

Wow. I cannot believe anyone smart enough to play bridge can really believe these things:

While many of my friends call your kind "uninformed uneducated libtards", I know better. Many liberals are quite well educated and smart, but IMO have been fooled by the mainstream media.

 

From what source do you get your information to make your determinations? The only people I know of who have repeated these claims you make are all completely biased with an agenda to discredit Hillary Clinton, regardless of the veracity of the claims. If a non-biased observer has made these claims, I would be interested to know who it was.

I could list several links to back up each of these statements, but in my experience it will do no good. Each and every link I post you will discredit as being right wing nut propaganda. In most discussions, sites such as Breitbart and Fox News are dismissed as being racist hate groups while only liberal leaning sites like MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, or one of the major networks are accepted as truth. None of these will say anything bad about Hillary, no matter how much bad there is (although much to my surprise, CNN had a brief mention of the videotapes showing that the Democrats were interrupting and disrupting the Trump rallies.)

 

My time is valuable and you are voting for Hillary no matter what I post, so I would consider it a waste of time, but if you promised not to call anything I posted as paranoid bullsh*t, I would be happy to post some links supporting my statements. I could easily find links supporting the murder allegations but i don't even believe them myself.

[andrei]

Yes maybe something like this.

 

She (or one of her staff members) might have brought up some frustration with the government email server. Maybe it was a technical thing like too aggressive filtering, low performance, or incompatibility with their favourite email client. Maybe it was concern about security. Maybe it was (as was suggested in the quora thread) concern about private emails surfacing after FOI requests.

 

Then some geek in her team proposed setting up a private server and she approved it. Maybe it was originally meant as a temporary fix and then it hang on, as so many other temporary IT fixes.

 

Clearer now why John Kerry is doing such a lousy job.