Ultimately, presidents aren't assessed by what great people they were. Jimmy Carter is a great person, and he's regarded as a dud as a president. They're assessed by what tangible measures they accomplished and whether voters remember their term as a happy time. Obama, largely due to a dysfunctional Washington, didn't accomplish much. As for whether his term will be regarded as a happy time, it was pretty miserable for the large swathes of the country that never recovered from the 2008 financial meltdown.
I was age 5-9 during the Carter presidency and even at that young age remember watching the news and seeing Carter flounder. I recall thinking for some reason Reagan was a great president in the years that followed and as a child he certainly held much more charisma. I had no concept of left or right but the TV I was watching, and this was pre-CNN, showed me that Regean was better than Carter. I don't know why.
The Following User Says Thank You to Kjesse For This Useful Post:
I was age 5-9 during the Carter presidency and even at that young age remember watching the news and seeing Carter flounder. I recall thinking for some reason Reagan was a great president in the years that followed and as a child he certainly held much more charisma. I had no concept of left or right but the TV I was watching, and this was pre-CNN, showed me that Regean was better than Carter. I don't know why.
Because Reagan was a practised actor with a campaign and presidency designed to sparkle for the camera. He also had Roger Ailes.
The Reagan presidency is 'Camelot' for conservatives.
Last edited by Flash Walken; 11-18-2016 at 05:29 PM.
There's another protest at the Trump Plaza in West Palm Beach tonight. I thought of going just to observe but after working 11 hours - nah.
In any case , there is always some scammy seminar or something going on around here.
A neighbor who was about to come into a bunch of money from a real estate deal dragged me to the free sales-pitch part of the Trump University seminar .
I tried to tell her that info was available for free from so many other sources, but she decided to pony up $1400 I think for a weekend or whatever it was.
She thought it was the greatest thing.
Fortunately she didn't have the money or credit to do the 35K Trump U thing anyway.
And her real estate deal fell through too.
There was an even more pathetic eBay seminar a couple of years before.
They were trying to convince senior citizens that they had to pay them in order to sell on eBay.
Because a demonstrably incompetent nincompoop is about to gain control of the most important steering wheel in the world. I think there's cause for concern
Yeah over a more demonstrably incompetent corrupt career nincompoop. Seems like a pretty obvious choice of the lesser of two evils.
Yes because the leftists seem to be real good on "facts". Just like that apparent gender wage gap that both Obamanation and Shillary sloganeered to get female votes.
But we know to progressives, their feelings trump any real facts.
Last edited by Illuminaughty; 11-19-2016 at 01:07 AM.
I don't think it did though. There wasn't ever an actual example of pay to play as far as I ever saw.
That's not surprising, no matter what comes out about her if you didn't hear it from some msm source, it clearly should be dismissed. Yet any sexual assault allegation about "Trump" you will take as gospel. Perhaps a bit of bias?
While that was insinuated, nothing in the leaks showed. In fact, the incredible volume of emails with no proof should really exonerate her
You mean those emails that she deleted? You don't delete that many emails, if you weren't trying to hide something. This is after a federal subpoena, that's criminal in itself. But totally continue with apologizing for this criminal cultural sodomite.
Protest at the voting booth. Otherwise shut yer yap if you didn't vote at all. What's next a bumper sticker that says I didn't participate but I demonstrate?
Clinton did this to perfection by alienating half the voting public.
It's funny because these people defending the Trump protesters now, would be the same ones condemning the Hillary protesters if she won. Leftist ideals of democracy are interesting at times.
At 7pm on election night, his campaign manager said the following: "We never got the full support of the national GOP". Now that was before a single vote had been counted. They fully expected to lose, no one is more shocked about this than Trump. That election night picture really did say a lot with the "Holy #### what have I done?" look on his face. I think we all know what a Trump Presidency will be, other people doing most of the work and Trump making the final decision. So it'll probably be a standard GOP Presidency, just with a lot more hate and anger.
HAHAHA The part you quoted is obvious, we all knew that. The rest is just conjecture on your part. The guy was selling out arenas while Shillary was in hiding and recovering from some illness. You can't possibly be insinuating that Trump being all about his," it's all rigged kick", actually took some msm media polls seriously. Only the ridiculously self-assured would delude themselves with such nonsense.
He very well could be. I personally think its too early to say. However, I do think he is way too "smart" for this job. He could have made so much more money and have so much less stress if he stayed in private life. Not bad for a community organizer.
Ultimately, he is a decent human being and I think that would be his lasting legacy.
LOl tell that to all the whistle blowers and his drone strike victims. Get real!
I am pretty sure it is because you don't debate crazy. You will always have am answer for everything that doesn't fit into your world view, manufacturing controversy and conspiracy where none exist. The use of mocking names like Shillary demonstrates how pointless getting into a disagreement with you would be as it would quickly devolve into jeering, mocking insinuations about ####s and the like.
Donald Trump is a complete unknown, I fear his economic policy will be disastrous to the world economy as he has no true policy or objectives, other than to reduce free trade, something that United States consumers benefit from greatly.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Mean Mr. Mustard For This Useful Post:
Probably how I feel - there was really no good candidate (and there never really is). Democracy doesn't really exist any longer in the USA, and the USA ensures that democracy is rare in the rest of the world.
I completely agree with this video that Hillary represents 'status quo' - and status quo is incredibly frightening when you see what is going on around the world due to US foreign policy.
Trump to me represents 'chaos'. It represents and unabashed misplaced irrational blame on what plagues the USA domestically at immigrants (illegal or not) and minorities in general, when the truth really lies at the feet of the rich people in charge of the USA for the last 'x' amount of years, irrespective of which party is in charge (which is part of the reason I say democracy has been long dead in the USA).
Hillary represented a more unified US domestically, but more than likely much more of a war monger (don't let the shield of the Democrats fool you) and would continue to be the world's largest exporter of terror.
Trump represents an increasing destabilization of the US domestically, but POTENTIALLY (and I have absolutely no faith other than the slightest and faintest glimmer here) of a reduction in world-wide terror and hopefully the start to a reversal of the new cold war (including Russia and China).
In the end, neither candidate should have been elected. It may not really matter anyways, as regardless of party lines there is only so much that a president can do when elected, contrary to popular opinion.
If you were to ask me who I prefer, I would have told you that neither of these candidates are fit to run a country, and that in the end they will cause the mass murder of people all over the world, including in their own nation. I dislike both parties, and democracy in the USA is nothing more than a facade in this poster's opinion.
At this point in time, we just have to hope for the best.
The Following User Says Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
Can we have two PGT? One with the any crazy news of items or actions that the Donald has done and one with the philosophical debates? I came here looking for the crazy news and am leaving disappointed
__________________
The legs feed the wolf.
The Following User Says Thank You to pgsieve For This Useful Post:
Yes because the leftists seem to be real good on "facts". Just like that apparent gender wage gap that both Obamanation and Shillary sloganeered to get female votes.
But we know to progressives, their feelings trump any real facts.
See, it's hard to argue facts with trolls, because as soon as you throw the facts in their faces they run away and hide and wait for the post to slide four or five pages back in the discussion. Just like you're about to do with this one as I bury you in facts.
The gender wage gap is real, and there is no denying it. Women have always got paid less, especially in many male dominated industries. The one places where women have an edge are businesses where women are the dominant gender or they run themselves. There are some tangible reasons why women get paid less, but the reality is that they do earn less than men. Here are the facts to prove just that.
I'm sure you're going to cry foul based on the source, because it is an advocacy group for women. Well, don't worry troll, I come prepared with a non-partisan report from congress on gender pay inequity.
Man, I hate it when the facts stack against you like that. It's almost like you live in your own little isolated bubble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illuminaughty
You mean those emails that she deleted? You don't delete that many emails, if you weren't trying to hide something. This is after a federal subpoena, that's criminal in itself. But totally continue with apologizing for this criminal cultural sodomite.
See, this is why you can't be taken seriously. You don't know anything about the incident nor who was responsible for what happened. From another post in another thread explaining the email issue:
This is a complex issue. It boils down to data classification and labels, who is responsible for data handling according to those labels, who is responsible for management of the email system and the overall security of it, and who is responsible for the approval of the configuration of the system and the clearances for individuals who manage the system.
Data classifications are pretty straight forward. There is no grey area when it comes to data classification and labels. If a document has a classification label affixed to it you must protect it as per the classification standard for that label. If something is public, anyone can see it. If it is internal, only individuals from the agency should have access to the data. If it is confidential, there is a restriction and it may only be handled by individuals cleared to do so. Labels of this type are normally associated to the operational issues affecting an agency and are handled through role based controls. One you get into labels above that, they become protected by layers of security policy and mechanisms. These mandatory access controls provide no wiggle room. If they have one of these labels affixed you are compelled to handle the data in the appropriate manner or face criminal prosecution.
An important thing to understand about data classification and handling is that a document does not receive a label until there is some type of administrative action that identifies the information as requiring a specialized label. A document may be circulating in email for days, months or years before is receives a classification label. Only at that point is anyone compelled to handle that information with the procedures as outlined in the security policy. So in this particular case, it is very likely that the information is Clinton’s email was there prior to the application of the classification label.
As to who is responsible for handling information and who is accountable, well Clinton is responsible for her data handling. No one else’s. Each individual is responsible for their own actions when it comes to data handling. Responsibility extends to what you do when you receive information with a sensitivity label. Receiving information is legal, because you have no control over who is sending information to you. The requirement to follow security protocols is on the individual who sent (disseminated) the information. If you receive information and you do not forward it (second party dissemination) you have broken no law. If you elect to sit on it, you must do so by storing in a secure location, usually an encrypted database or file share on a server. If you save it locally to your workstation, you may be in compliance so far as your workstation uses full disk encryption (FDE). Almost all federal systems are mandated to use FDE, strong passwords with a minimum complexity of three and a minimum length of 8-15 characters (depends on agency), and multi-factor authentication to access systems. This is where server configuration comes into play.
The Clinton team procured the services of a third party to manage her email system. This contractor would normally be cleared for service provision by the State Department, as this is Clinton’s home agency. They would have to submit the appropriate credentials and go through a substantial background check just to be a government contractor to the State Department. This is SOP and every department does it. So these guys would have been fingerprinted, interviewed, a wants and warrants run through NCIC, and then, depending on the access requirements, a background exam and polygraph. I suspect that since these guys were handling government data, even just email, they would have had to do the full boat. It isn’t fun, as they really go through the history of your personal relationships and check everything. I’ve been in some of these systems and it is scary the information available to the feds to establish relationships. Seriously, it would blow your mind. So these guys would have been vetted to the Nth degree if the State Department had anything to do with it. The fact that they got these guys to do a synchronization between Clinton’s server and the State Department servers tells me they knew about them and had properly vetted them.
So now it comes down to the configuration of the server. Here is where things get a little dicey. These guys didn’t sound like they were Exchange experts nor security engineers. I don’t think they did anything but a standard configuration as you would expect from any business. Based on the comments from the feds they definitely did not use encryption on the server in any shape or form. These guys are ones responsible for managing the server and responsible for the proper configuration of the system. If there is any wrong doing in this regard the buck stops with the contracted third party. If they screwed the pooch and didn’t configure it properly they would be the ones accountable. Clinton and the State Department face a possible reprimand, and it could be substantial with penalties as documented in policy, but they aren’t falling on their swords. The only way Clinton has to fall on her sword is if she practiced second party dissemination of information with a security label.
Normally, because of mandatory access controls, it is unlikely you are going to get information through email without appropriate encryption placed on the doc. Normally, information that has a mandatory access control will be protected on secure infrastructure when you have to log in remotely to view the document. This is part of every agencies Data Loss Prevention (DLP) strategy and it is mandated for most federal agencies that handle documents requiring a mandatory access control. These systems have everything logged in the most verbose manner, so they know who has accessed what, when, from where, and by what device.
Comey’s original comments clearly stated that there was not enough evidence to prosecute. To prosecute, there must be intent. If Clinton forwarded an email that was not labelled, and a sensitivity label had been affixed after the fact, there is no intent. She would have to forward something that clearly had a handling label on it, or pull it from a system that she knew was secure. If this was the case, she would have been charged and frog marched in front of the media. The FBI granting immunity to the service providers confirms much of my suspicions. They granted these guys immunity on configuration in hopes of nailing Clinton for dissemination of classified information. Unfortunately, there wasn’t any evidence to support the claim and the immunity left the FBI holding a big steaming bag of ####. This happens more often than law enforcement likes to admit because they will give up a small fish in hopes of nailing a big one. It didn’t work here.
One last thing I would like to point out. The use of BleachBit is a joke. Seriously, this has the government security community privately laughing. BleachBit is effective in “erasing” information so your boss or local system administrator can’t see it, or fully recover information, but the feds use tools and hardware that can recover data after a multiple pass DoD wipe (writing 1s and 0s across the full disk). EnCase is a bad motherfugger when it comes to recovering data, and it can crack some of the best security around. That doesn’t even include some of the homegrown tools available to the Computer Forensics experts are Quantico. There is no hiding deleted files from the Feds unless you know what you are doing, and these guys clearly didn’t have a clue. They would have had to burn the system completely down to the ground to make that data go away. A free piece of software ain’t getting the job done.
I'm curious how what the Clinton team did is any different to you than what Karl Rove and the Bush Administration did when they ran a private server at RNC headquarters and deleted 330 MILLION emails when they were told to produce them?
Also, WTF is with that bolded comment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illuminaughty
Because you would have absolutely zero chance in a debate with me.
I am pretty sure it is because you don't debate crazy. You will always have am answer for everything that doesn't fit into your world view, manufacturing controversy and conspiracy where none exist. The use of mocking names like Shillary demonstrates how pointless getting into a disagreement with you would be as it would quickly devolve into jeering, mocking insinuations about ####s and the like.
You must have missed all the insults hurled at Donald Trump on this forum (for months) he was called everything in the book including making fun of his ancestral name, as low as you can go.
