Presidential Race 2016

[newtogolf]

19 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Source for the bold please? Lots of claims being made in this thread with no evidence to back them up.  

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/04/romanian-hacker-guccifer-breached-clinton-server-it-was-easy.html

[Gunther]

19 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Source for the bold please? Lots of claims being made in this thread with no evidence to back them up.  

I personally heard Guccifer tell Fox News in an interview that lots of people hacked her server including at least 2 from Russia.  As far as I know, the FBI hasn't confirmed this but he provided them a lot of information.

I've heard other claims that China also hacked in but don't know the source of those claims.

Edit:  thanks @newtogolf

Edited June 7, 2016 by Gunther

[bplewis24]

3 hours ago, Jeremie Boop said:

You can't give me the "but this other person did it, so it must be OK" line either, because ignorance is no excuse. To borrow from the DUI line of talk, people drink and drive all the time, but that doesn't make it OK or mean it's a valid excuse for me if I get caught. Neither is the justification of "nobody got hurt, so it's OK" / "nothing was classified at the time so it's OK".

That's still a flawed analogy.  DUI is against the law and had well established precedent as such.  In this case, she (HRC) did something that former Secretaries of State did, that wasn't considered against the law because it didn't come up.  Unless proven otherwise, there was no reason for her to think this practice--employed by her predecessors--was a crime.  A lot of people here are attempting to assign a criminal intent to HRC here without any justification for it.  The vast majority of people know that a DUI is a crime, and expressly.

There are a number of reasons to dislike Hillary and not want her to be president.  However, this isn't one of them, even though it's a relevant story/topic in the presidential campaign.

2 hours ago, Lihu said:

From what I understand her email systems are all classified, and if they are she broke the law.

That's an oversimplification, and not true.

[drmevo]

8 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/04/romanian-hacker-guccifer-breached-clinton-server-it-was-easy.html

OK, that's a source I guess, but not evidence as far as I can tell.  It's someone making an unsubstantiated claim. He lists some extremely basic programs/techniques to supposedly get in, and then doesn't think it's significant enough to leak/claim at the time he did it? I'd need more than that to claim to other people that her server had been hacked multiple times. There's absolutely no confirmation at this point.

[Jeremie Boop]

1 minute ago, bplewis24 said:

That's still a flawed analogy.  DUI is against the law and had well established precedent as such.  In this case, she (HRC) did something that former Secretaries of State did, that wasn't considered against the law because it didn't come up.  Unless proven otherwise, there was no reason for her to think this practice--employed by her predecessors--was a crime.  A lot of people here are attempting to assign a criminal intent to HRC here without any justification for it.  The vast majority of people know that a DUI is a crime, and expressly.

There are a number of reasons to dislike Hillary and not want her to be president.  However, this isn't one of them, even though it's a relevant story/topic in the presidential campaign.

That's an oversimplification, and not true.

I disagree, anyone in her position, or any governmental position, should\would know that sending work/government emails to their personal email is breaking the rules. It doesn't matter if it was done by her predecessor or not, that doesn't make it any less against the rules/law. It's well established in any job I've had that you don't send work emails to your personal email. While it may not be as widely known to the general public like drunk driving, it's quite well known to people who work in the government. I'm not saying there was criminal intent, but if you break the law without intending to you are still breaking the law and subject to punishment. As I said, ignorance of the law/rule is no excuse. Especially in regards to security and safety.

[bplewis24]

2 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I disagree, anyone in her position, or any governmental position, should\would know that sending work/government emails to their personal email is breaking the rules. It doesn't matter if it was done by her predecessor or not, that doesn't make it any less against the rules/law. It's well established in any job I've had that you don't send work emails to your personal email. While it may not be as widely known to the general public like drunk driving, it's quite well known to people who work in the government. I'm not saying there was criminal intent, but if you break the law without intending to you are still breaking the law and subject to punishment. As I said, ignorance of the law/rule is no excuse. Especially in regards to security and safety.

No, this is just flat out wrong.  It absolutely does matter if it was done by her predecessor, as it relates to criminal intent or mens rea.  What happens on your job is another matter entirely.  And the analogy of sending work emails to your personal email is another analogy that ignores the details and facts of this issue.  

[newtogolf]

2 minutes ago, bplewis24 said:

No, this is just flat out wrong.  It absolutely does matter if it was done by her predecessor, as it relates to criminal intent or mens rea.  What happens on your job is another matter entirely.  And the analogy of sending work emails to your personal email is another analogy that ignores the details and facts of this issue.  

It doesn't matter, she knew it was wrong and just decided if others could do it, she could too.  It's called entitlement.  

[bplewis24]

6 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

It doesn't matter, she knew it was wrong and just decided if others could do it, she could too.  It's called entitlement.  

And what are you basing that on?

[Braivo]

21 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Is that why Trump is now taking GOP money and using their ground network? How much of what he campaigned on in the Primary is he willing to put aside? For someone who claims to be an outsider to the process surely is slowly being incorporated. 

The GOP is openly chiding him for his remarks. He is not playing by their rules. He cannot run on his money alone, so he will accept their support, but he will not change his message to please them. He is in the position of power now, they either support him or throw the election to Hillary. 

21 hours ago, Elmer said:

So what happens when Trump listens to the GOP and softens his rhetoric with "Latinos"  just to get their vote? 
Is he going to continue to run "his" campaign and alienate voters or get in line with the party's wishes?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/05/politics/gop-fears-donald-trump-judge-attack/

He won't because he's not using any rhetoric right now. He never said he had a probelm with latinos, only illegal ones. He will make that distinction more clear as time goes on. 

I repeat, he will not get in line with party wishes, if anything he is going to move further left after the convention much to the dismay of the GOP. He does not care about the GOP. 

20 hours ago, iacas said:

In other words, DT could call HRC an asshole, a meanie, a jerk, a buffoon, a crook, a deviant, etc. He just can't call her a bitch? Or that c word?

Ooooooookkkkkkaaaaaaayyyyyy.

Right, so many people are operating from a false narrative that there is some sort of sexist patriarchy plaguing our society and that men are completely free from all difficulties and ridicule. 

Except for the fact that men have astronomically higher rates of suicide and workplace deaths and are taking the brunt of recent economic challenges. But that isn't convenient to mention because it doesn't fit the narrative. 

20 hours ago, Gunther said:

Her withdrawal from the race is in Valerie Jarrett's hands.  If the polls keep trending towards Trump beating her, and if Bernie beats her in Cali and NJ, they will figure a way to exit her gracefully and plug in Biden.  Most likely it'll be a health issue.  If she doesn't play ball, they will put the Justice Department on her.  That's the only way she gets indicted

This ^^

Hillary is a pawn of the establishment. They will sacrifice her in a hearbeat if it looks like she may lose. 

[Jeremie Boop]

1 minute ago, bplewis24 said:

No, this is just flat out wrong.  It absolutely does matter if it was done by her predecessor, as it relates to criminal intent or mens rea.  What happens on your job is another matter entirely.  And the analogy of sending work emails to your personal email is another analogy that ignores the details and facts of this issue.  

I find it almost impossible to believe that she was unaware that such a practice was breaking protocol. Especially given the amount of time and exposure she's had to government workings. I work in a government agency, there are rules and laws regarding what you can and can't do with work emails and information. Work emails can not be kept somewhere where they can not be wiped remotely by the network admin. When you take a position you sign paperwork stating you understand the rules and regulations regarding the use of all information systems. Once she sent those email to her personal server and the network administrator no longer had the ability to remove them she circumvented the safety and security of those emails. This is really no different that if she were to make copies of documents to keep in her home, which I'm pretty sure everyone would understand is wrong.

As far as sending work to personal ignoring details and fact, I don't see how. She sent work *government* emails to her personal *personal server* email, are you refuting that is what she did? Because, as far as I'm aware, that's exactly what she did.

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, bplewis24 said:

That's an oversimplification, and not true.

I can already say that emails to my friends are not going over company emails. If there is a secure network, I'm not using it for personal emails.

Anything she writes on a State Department email system is, by definition, secure. If she forwards anything over to a non secure link it could be bad news.

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, Braivo said:

He cannot run on his money alone, so he will accept their support, but he will not change his message to please them. He is in the position of power now, they either support him or throw the election to Hillary. 

Hold on, let me quote Trump here, 

Trump said, "I'm self-funding my own campaign. It's my money."

5 minutes ago, Braivo said:

He won't because he's not using any rhetoric right now. He never said he had a probelm with latinos, only illegal ones. He will make that distinction more clear as time goes on. 

Of course he doesn't (sarcasm). That is why he claimed all immigrants from Mexico were rapist and murders. Not illegal immigrants, all immigrants. 

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." 

Note he didn't mention once the word illegal in that quote. Of course his inner "Oh shit" meter went off there at the end. Still, I think the Latino's realize which comments are what his true feelings are.  

8 minutes ago, Braivo said:

I repeat, he will not get in line with party wishes, if anything he is going to move further left after the convention much to the dismay of the GOP. He does not care about the GOP. 

It's going to be a battle of conscious for a lot of GOP voters who don't want Hillary and who can't trust Trump.

If he goes more left when does he start losing GOP voters? This is where Gary Johnson might do some damage as well. Look at a state like Utah. In a recent pole, when the choices are just Hillary versus Trump it's Trump by +7. If it's Hillary, Trump and Johnson (nice law firm) Trump's lead drops to +3.  He turned a state that looked to be a solid lead for Trump into one that's a tight race. Given it's a poll.  Still taking 4% off Trump is something to keep an eye on. 

18 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Right, so many people are operating from a false narrative that there is some sort of sexist patriarchy plaguing our society and that men are completely free from all difficulties and ridicule. 

There is a sexist patriarchy in this nation. 50% of the population is women yet only 20% of Congress in woman. This is the first time that a woman has gotten through the primaries to be a candidate. It is a bit absurd that the political establishment has hampered women from holding higher political office.

No one is saying that men are free from difficulties.

26 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Except for the fact that men have astronomically higher rates of suicide and workplace deaths and are taking the brunt of recent economic challenges. But that isn't convenient to mention because it doesn't fit the narrative. 

This has nothing to do with comparing who has it harder in society. You can't compare the unwarranted self applied stress based on the male-centric ego.

That isn't to say the suicide issue isn't a problem. You can see that the businesses are adjusting by offering more balanced life options like flex schedules, counseling, ect... Businesses are starting to realize that work place pressure is real and damaging to the workforce. 

[Braivo]

33 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

This has nothing to do with comparing who has it harder in society. You can't compare the unwarranted self applied stress based on the male-centric ego.

I don't have time to reply to all of your points right now, but this may be one of the dumbest least educated things I've seen from you. 

Men are expected to perform, period. When men are unable to provide for their families they take a hit. Others that don't have a family find it quite difficult to obtain a mate when they are broke. This hit is not self-inflicted, it is real and tangible. 

[saevel25]

6 minutes ago, Braivo said:

but this may be one of the dumbest least educated things I've seen from you. 

How so? 

3 minutes ago, Braivo said:

When men are unable to provide for their families they take a hit. 

So women can't provide for a family? I guess with your thinking only proper families have men providing everything. 

7 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Men are expected to perform, period. 

So you support the classic male stereotype that performance matters above all else? Not family, not a life outside of work, just profits and production? 

So you don't think that the culture that men have create hasn't done tangible harm by causing men to end their life? Heck, they are just weak right? They should just man up and keep performing. 

8 minutes ago, Braivo said:

This hit is not self-inflicted, it is real and tangible. 

Of course it's real and tangible, but it's also something that can be controlled.

Stress is something that can be mitigated and controlled with out medication for a good majority of people who are not predisposed to being depressed due to a genetic chemical imbalance in the brain. 

[Braivo]

 

6 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

So women can't provide for a family? I guess with your thinking only proper families have men providing everything. 

I never said this. 

6 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

So you support the classic male stereotype that performance matters above all else? Not family, not a life outside of work, just profits and production? 

I never said I support it, it's reality. For all of the changes due to equality and feminism a man still suffers a greater loss from economic turmoil.

9 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

So you don't think that the culture that men have create hasn't done tangible harm by causing men to end their life? Heck, they are just weak right? They should just man up and keep performing. 

Men weren't killing themselves (at this rate) when they were building and creating things and bringing checks home to their famiies, they are killing themselves when sitting home on unemployment feeling useless. Men were not meant for all of the fluffy contributions you speak of, we are happiest when we are creating, competing, building, providing. Human nature. 

12 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Of course it's real and tangible, but it's also something that can be controlled.

This is a very elementary view of the issues at hand. 

[GolfLug]

3 hours ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I find it almost impossible to believe that she was unaware that such a practice was breaking protocol. Especially given the amount of time and exposure she's had to government workings. I work in a government agency, there are rules and laws regarding what you can and can't do with work emails and information. Work emails can not be kept somewhere where they can not be wiped remotely by the network admin. When you take a position you sign paperwork stating you understand the rules and regulations regarding the use of all information systems. Once she sent those email to her personal server and the network administrator no longer had the ability to remove them she circumvented the safety and security of those emails. This is really no different that if she were to make copies of documents to keep in her home, which I'm pretty sure everyone would understand is wrong.

As far as sending work to personal ignoring details and fact, I don't see how. She sent work *government* emails to her personal *personal server* email, are you refuting that is what she did? Because, as far as I'm aware, that's exactly what she did.

People drive over the legal speed limit knowing well that in effect it endangers lives. But their intention is not to hurt anybody. As a matter of fact they precisely believe they will NOT hurt anybody even though they are circumventing the LAW.

Criminal intent is driving fast SPECIFICALLY to hurt. The difference cannot be ignored.

Are they breaking the law? Of course. Are they acting a bit entitled that their personal judgment is better than the system that set up the safety net? Yupp. I too strongly believe she was in the least aware that she was circumventing the system that had a potential of serious compromise. IMO this is much more grave disregard. Even though she did not specifically set out to hurt our country it is a huge minus in my book. Any other presidential election she is not doing it at all for me. People like that have a fundamental 'chip' missing in their system.

If she wins she should thank the GOP for producing a nominee like DT. All the swing votes that vote for her are likely to do so because they DO NOT want DT. I might end up being one of them.

DT is too much of a wild card bet for my taste so far. No experience in public service of ANY kind and am still waiting for substantial details of his plans and policy. It is time for him to turn that on if he is really going to give HRC a scare.

 

[RandallT]

Listened to some talk radio today on the way to the course. I've been tuning this presidential race stuff out, but wow. 

I've been able to see a path for a Trump landslide in my past posts in this thread, and early on, it wouldn't have surprised me to see Trump use his instincts like nobody has done before and even penetrate into the black and Hispanic vote. I think it's safe to say that path is pretty much closed. 

At this point, I'm not sure he has much of a path to victory. Quite a few former Trump supporters were calling in to the show saying Trump is now done.  A few said they might hold their noses to vote for Hillary (hard to believe, to me), and a few said they'd sit out the election. All were disappointed that they bought into the "Trump is a winner" thing and that they got their hopes up. Even the show hosts who have been fair to Trump are cringing, and saying that they're not sure about Trump's judgment anymore.

I've been trying to ignore politics lately and focus on golf in my spare time, so I'm not up on all the ins and outs of the story these past few days with this judge, but Trump seems to be playing pretty poorly (anecdotally from the DC talk radio market). I can now see a path for Clinton landslide. A sad day, but as long as Congress stays as completely inept as it has, then the country should be just fine. 

Surprised nobody mentioned Gary Johnson as an option on the show. Guess it'll be another year where the 3rd party is negligible.

[bplewis24]

4 hours ago, Jeremie Boop said:

She sent work *government* emails to her personal *personal server* email, are you refuting that is what she did? Because, as far as I'm aware, that's exactly what she did.

No, not refuting the facts as you presented them.  I'm saying that the conclusion you're drawing from it and the parallels you're making don't correlate.

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

Men are expected to perform, period. When men are unable to provide for their families they take a hit. Others that don't have a family find it quite difficult to obtain a mate when they are broke. This hit is not self-inflicted, it is real and tangible. 

It may be real and tangible, but I think you're also presenting it in a vacuum, without context.  Without even knowing the statistics, I would fully accept your numbers in terms of how many men were affected by the downturn.  However, that type of figure doesn't account for how much better they may have already been doing compared to women in the workplace before the downturn.  Or that there might be more men in the workplace who have higher salaries.  So your assertion that it "doesn't fit the narrative" might be true, but it may not fit the narrative for a valid reason.  I mean, if your narrative is that men have it harder than women (in either some broad sense or some specific sense in the workplace), then I'm going to have to strongly disagree.

28 minutes ago, RandallT said:

I've been trying to ignore politics lately and focus on golf in my spare time, so I'm not up on all the ins and outs of the story these past few days with this judge, but Trump seems to be playing pretty poorly (anecdotally from the DC talk radio market). I can now see a path for Clinton landslide. A sad day, but as long as Congress stays as completely inept as it has, then the country should be just fine. 

Surprised nobody mentioned Gary Johnson as an option on the show. Guess it'll be another year where the 3rd party is negligible.

The stuff with the judge is providing a counterpoint to many of the arguments people are making in defense of Trump lately.  Regarding a third party, it's just not going to happen anytime soon, unless one of the traditional parties has some sort of a split.  There is simply too much money in politics to allow for a third party to gain traction in mainstream politics.  And even if they could at the presidential level, the problem is that statehouses are still largely dominated by the two parties, and the funding in those races tends to come from the party establishment.  The parties are institutions at this point.

 

 

Edited June 7, 2016 by bplewis24