The New American Politics thread

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

But--in short--minimum wage jobs are not intended to be lifetime jobs; they are intended to be starter and stepping-stone jobs. Accordingly, the fact that energy/water/gas/rent/mortgage costs increase should have a very limited bearing on what the pay is for a minimum wage job is at any given time.

sounds familiar

Originally Posted by Sarah Palin

We believe—wait, I thought, fast food joints? Eh, don't you guys think that ... they're like of the devil, or something? That's what ... liberals ... you wanna send those evil employees who dare work at a fast food joint that you just don't believe in, thought you wanted to, I don't know, send them to purgatory, or something ... so they all go vegan ... and uh ... wages and picket lines, I don't know, they're not often discussed in purgatory, are they? I don't know, why're you even worried about ... fast food wages, because ... Well, we believe ... an America where minimum wage jobs, they're not lifetime gigs! They're stepping stones!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Everyone already has that ability.

I'm not aware of anyone who is prohibited or restricted from paying their bills, going to college, or accessing health care.

If they can't, for example, pay their bills because they don't have any money, then they need to reduce their bills. And the simplest way to do that is by spending less money to create the bills in the first place.

Now this is the kind of no-nonsense approach we need!

If you are poor, spend less money!

Can't afford that apartment on minimum wage? Get a cheaper apartment. Duh. If you can't afford that one either, there are plenty of shelters out there for the homeless, and there are plenty of bridges to live under. Let's be resourceful people! Think you are too good to live in a tent or something?

You say you can't afford to go to college? Yes you can. Just go to college. Why is this so hard? If you think you can't afford to go to college, save more money. I mean christ, how expensive can it be to live in a tent? Study by candlelight. Abraham Lincoln did it. Probably think you are better than Abraham Lincoln, but there you are with your crappy minimum wage job because you don't have an education that's just there for the taking but you won't take it because you can't save money in your tent because you bought a fancy sleeping bag when a regular sleeping bag would do it's not like you live at the North Pole you baby.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nik-

Her setting up a private email server outside of the State department network and proceeding to use it to send sensitive, state department related emails.

Well precedent has been set in this regard and nothing happened to those who originally did it, with much more egregious outcomes. Why is it different for this one person rather than others?

We can argue back and forth how bad it is, and the level of illegality. But regardless of where you stand on those two spectrums, one should agree that it's not a smart decision.

A smart decision? That is very subjective. Against the intent of oversight and open government mandates? Then yes, we can agree there.

Originally Posted by nik-

For the record, when this first came out, I thought it was stupid too. I also figured it was just some partisan Benghazi type hackery. As time goes by though, and more info comes out, the situation just looks worse and worse. Some seriously dumb decision making, and questions as to why she did it I feel are pretty legit. Is it to maintain a copy of all her communication? To keep it from oversight? Or is it just because she's a technical moron and didn't realize how poor a decision it was, and also didn't have anyone on her staff to tell her how poor a decision it was?

I'm curious what exactly you know about securing systems and the various mechanisms that account for oversight of technical systems? Can you actually articulate the difference between a secure and a non-secure system? Can you explain what the requirements are for handling data with specific security labels and how they are to be secured and communicated? So far I haven't seen anyone speak to specifics in this regard.

You're the head of foreign policy for the most powerful country in the world. You don't communicate via an email server sitting in your house. An email server that you hire some random IT company to manage and backup.

See here's where you are talking crazy. You have no idea what the security posture of this system was. This isn't some suburbanite living in a McMansion. This is someone with round the clock Secret Service protection who lives in protected bubble. Her residence probably has better security than a lot of local or state government facilities. You also have no idea what the security configuration of the server was, nor why it was considered insecure. This particular term (insecure) can range from a number things - minor to major - but have different meanings. For example, the server may have had a common port left open at configuration, say 23, which is a security risk. That system would then be considered insecure. The system could have been plugged into a UPS that was faulty, making it insecure. The details of what made this system insecure, or the email itself insecure (which is another technical discussion where labels come into play), are important in understanding whether there was wrong doing and where the fault resides.

Also, on who was administering those systems, there are plenty of IT firms that have the clearance to work for the government. It is highly unlikely that anyone working with government is not going to use a highly regarded and well known Washington based firm for administering their systems. Also, there are many cloud based service providers that now have the blessing from the federal government for transmission and storage of labeled data. This is the crux of this issue. What was the label of the data at the time of transmission and storage and who had access to it.

In terms of things that make Clinton a poor choice for president, I would readily admit this is pretty damn far down the list. However, it's not something that should just be dismissed as nothing. It was either just really really dumb, or there was malicious/secretive intent.

There are lots of things that make Clinton a bad choice for President, and this may be another one. Until more details come out, or a charge is leveled, this is just more obfuscation from the noise machine.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

So here's how I see it: life is all about choices. If someone really doesn't want to be "poor" and live paycheck-to-paycheck, then they will do what it takes to not do so. Sometimes that requires sacrifices, and it will likely require some hardship and a good bit of discipline.

Wow...

You don't honestly believe it's as simple as that, do you?

[2Stonedbirds]

No one is crying foul over the level of security her at home server provides.

People are concerned that it even existed in the first place.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Now this is the kind of no-nonsense approach we need!

If you are poor, spend less money!

Can't afford that apartment on minimum wage? Get a cheaper apartment. Duh. If you can't afford that one either, there are plenty of shelters out there for the homeless, and there are plenty of bridges to live under. Let's be resourceful people! Think you are too good to live in a tent or something?

You say you can't afford to go to college? Yes you can. Just go to college. Why is this so hard? If you think you can't afford to go to college, save more money. I mean christ, how expensive can it be to live in a tent? Study by candlelight. Abraham Lincoln did it. Probably think you are better than Abraham Lincoln, but there you are with your crappy minimum wage job because you don't have an education that's just there for the taking but you won't take it because you can't save money in your tent because you bought a fancy sleeping bag when a regular sleeping bag would do it's not like you live at the North Pole you baby.

Rouge, you keep that up you'll be on the Republican ticket before you know it! That or have your own segment on Fox News!

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

No one is crying foul over the level of security her at home server provides.

People are concerned that it even existed in the first place.

Seems they are crying about just that. Also, what is the difference between running your email through an email server in your home versus using gmail or hotmail or any other third party provider like, say the RNC? What is the difference?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by New Era

Well precedent has been set in this regard and nothing happened to those who originally did it, with much more egregious outcomes. Why is it different for this one person rather than others?



A smart decision? That is very subjective. Against the intent of oversight and open government mandates? Then yes, we can agree there.



I'm curious what exactly you know about securing systems and the various mechanisms that account for oversight of technical systems? Can you actually articulate the difference between a secure and a non-secure system? Can you explain what the requirements are for handling data with specific security labels and how they are to be secured and communicated? So far I haven't seen anyone speak to specifics in this regard.



See here's where you are talking crazy. You have no idea what the security posture of this system was. This isn't some suburbanite living in a McMansion. This is someone with round the clock Secret Service protection who lives in protected bubble. Her residence probably has better security than a lot of local or state government facilities. You also have no idea what the security configuration of the server was, nor why it was considered insecure. This particular term (insecure) can range from a number things - minor to major - but have different meanings. For example, the server may have had a common port left open at configuration, say 23, which is a security risk. That system would then be considered insecure. The system could have been plugged into a UPS that was faulty, making it insecure. The details of what made this system insecure, or the email itself insecure (which is another technical discussion where labels come into play), are important in understanding whether there was wrong doing and where the fault resides.

Also, on who was administering those systems, there are plenty of IT firms that have the clearance to work for the government. It is highly unlikely that anyone working with government is not going to use a highly regarded and well known Washington based firm for administering their systems. Also, there are many cloud based service providers that now have the blessing from the federal government for transmission and storage of labeled data. This is the crux of this issue. What was the label of the data at the time of transmission and storage and who had access to it.



There are lots of things that make Clinton a bad choice for President, and this may be another one. Until more details come out, or a charge is leveled, this is just more obfuscation from the noise machine.

Why don't you read up on the company that did the backup and management. No, they didn't have security clearance.

Your posts are laughably apologetic.

She ####ed up, I'm not sure why you can't accept that.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

1) Minimum wage is not 9-10 per hour federally. Some states/communities are at that or higher, but federal mandate is 7.25.

2) Nearly half of minimum wage workers are over the age of 24. These are not teenagers working to make a little extra spending money. These are people with children and apartments and car payments who cannot survive while their employers are paying CEOs millions annually.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-s...-minimum-wage/

And nearly half are under 24. I have a hard time buying that a 20 year old with no kids paying $200 a month rent for a decent place as someone raising a family in a DC suburb. At some level, a high enough minimum wage will kill jobs. You can't argue that a $50 minimum wage wouldn't be devastating in the amount of jobs it kills. The fact is though, it is hard to figure out that right number that strikes the balance where the benefits are greater than the risks. In my opinion $15 is above that line nationally. There are regions in the US where it makes sense, but there are regions where it would have very negative effects. Are there countries in the world that have $15USD min wages that haven't seen negative affects? How does their cost of living compare?

A national minimum wage for such a large and diverse country is just not a very elegant anti-poverty tool. Other tools that into account such regional cost of living and stage of life would have much better results.

3) Unemployment among youth workers--specifically black youth--is far higher than the actual unemployment rate (young black male unemployment rate, as of last July, was over 20%). Unemployment among youth is already high.

Is it an acceptable consequence to raise that number higher to get a higher wage to some?

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by New Era

Seems they are crying about just that. Also, what is the difference between running your email through an email server in your home versus using gmail or hotmail or any other third party provider like, say the RNC? What is the difference?

The difference doesn't matter as those emails are supposed to be moved through the Federal gov'ts own servers.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by nik-

Why don't you read up on the company that did the backup and management. No, they didn't have security clearance.

Your posts are laughably apologetic.

She ####ed up, I'm not sure why you can't accept that.

Yep. I'd have been fired and escorted out of the building for doing what she did period. Someone running for president should absolutely have better judgement than that. That said, I'd still vote for her, given the current candidates.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nik-

Why don't you read up on the company that did the backup and management. No, they didn't have security clearance.

Your posts are laughably apologetic.

She ####ed up, I'm not sure why you can't accept that.

Do you have the name of said company? I have not seen it anywhere. I have a hard time believing they would not have a clearance considering they were in the residence of two people with round the clock Secret Service protection.

Clinton has not been proven of doing anything wrong, except by a bunch of uneducated partisan hacks who don't understand the first thing about the subject matter they are speaking to. I personally hope she gets caught, but at this point there is not enough detail to say if she did anything wrong. The lawyers in this thread should understand this. Unless the timing of the events line up she did nothing that has not been done by multiple others in government including the previous administration and many of her contemporary challenging for office.

[nik-]

Platte River Networks.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/14/ex...ity-clearance/

Even their internal emails expressed concerns about the Clinton server. Especially when they shortened the backup retention window. Twice.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/1...-server-214487

[peter12]

Originally Posted by New Era

Do you have the name of said company? I have not seen it anywhere. I have a hard time believing they would not have a clearance considering they were in the residence of two people with round the clock Secret Service protection.

Clinton has not been proven of doing anything wrong, except by a bunch of uneducated partisan hacks who don't understand the first thing about the subject matter they are speaking to. I personally hope she gets caught, but at this point there is not enough detail to say if she did anything wrong. The lawyers in this thread should understand this. Unless the timing of the events line up she did nothing that has not been done by multiple others in government including the previous administration and many of her contemporary challenging for office.

How do you not understand politics? You really don't seem to grasp that right or wrong this is a significant issue.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nik-

Platte River Networks.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/14/ex...ity-clearance/

Even their internal emails expressed concerns about the Clinton server. Especially when they shortened the backup retention window. Twice.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/1...-server-214487

Wow, that is damning. Thanks for the information! If they did not have a DDS approved clearance there are major ramifications for them for having access to classified data. Clinton hiring them and not having the system secured to federal requirements puts her in a world of hurt, if there was classified data on the server. This is what is to be determined by the FBI, and it all depends on when the security labels were applied.

One thing I take away from this is her reliance on Blumenthal for advice and to make things happen is very disturbing. Is Blumenthal her legal counsel or just a friend? This relationship will have huge ramifications on how this plays out as well. He may be the one guy that ends up taking down one of America's most powerful families. How bitter sweet that would be!

[ernie]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Respectfully, I'm having difficulty following your post.

People who make enough money to live but don't budget well are not the target of a higher minimum wage. It may help those people but they aren't the concern as their problem is not that they don't make enough to live.

Higher minimum wage is for people who through (usually) no actual fault of their own are below the poverty line unable to satisfactorily provide for family and self. Which is a tremendous amount of people in the US.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You say you can't afford to go to college? Yes you can.

Of course someone can go to college, provided that they have the academic record to support admittance. Financial aid exists and it is given out to many (if not most) students. Cheaper community colleges exist, and financial aid works there too.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Of course someone can go to college, provided that they have the academic record to support admittance. Financial aid exists and it is given out to many (if not most) students. Cheaper community colleges exist, and financial aid works there too.

But you know what doesn't work? The education system from K-12.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Wow...

You don't honestly believe it's as simple as that, do you?

Generally speaking, yes.

ETA: I saw a quote a few days ago that I think speaks to this matter:

Rich people plan for three generations. Poor people plan for Saturday night

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

How do you not understand politics? You really don't seem to grasp that right or wrong this is a significant issue.

I understand politics quite well. I also understand the mechanisms these creatures use to protect themselves and insulate themselves from wrong doing. While you get all emotional and foam at the mouth over your distaste for someone, I try and understand the what and how to take people down like this. To kill Hillary politically with this you have to prove wrong doing. To do so requires exposure of classified data. To do so requires proving there was a data label on the information transmitted and then stored. This is where the crime is and how you prove the wrong doing. Trying to assassinate her character is not going to effective. She needs to be taken completely out of the game through federal charges. The only way those federal charges come down is if the data was classified at the time. This is a very simple and unemotional issue. Prove that and she is done.

So far there has been nothing to indicate that she did anything wrong. Now, if she did expose a classified document she is over, and her hiring and use of Platte River Networks will be her ultimate undoing, because they were not cleared to handle such data. This will result in a greater number of, and more damning criminal charges. This will be the nail in her political coffin because it won't be something that could be construed as being a partisan attack.