Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
BenBurch said:
I know it was compromised because I know that any small server system at that point in time could be compromised easily. I've seen it. I've been burned by it. I cannot tell you some of the things I learned, but even if you use the SCAP scanner religiously, that only gets the APTs we know about already. Where I worked, which was a critical infrastructure operation, where we had commendations from the NSA hanging on the walls, was compromised and we never knew about it for several years. And this is with elaborate defenses and constant vigilance.

And because of the raw value of compromising the American Secretary of State, she would not have escaped the Chinese crew.
Click to expand...

Allow me to paraphrase:
"I'm an expert and you'll just have to take my word for it although I've never actually touched her server"

Uhmmm .... no.

I realize this is Politics, but come back when you can at least pretend to have an actual argument.
 
tyr_13 said:
As I said, these all have thread related, (and you can go be wrong there too:p), but to contend that we should all agree with your 'obvious' view is simply silly. You know people disagree greatly on these issues.
Click to expand...

I didn't say people didn't disagree. Plenty of people refuse to see the obvious when it isn't convenient. That doesn't stop it from being obvious.
 
Ziggurat said:
I didn't say people didn't disagree. Plenty of people refuse to see the obvious when it isn't convenient. That doesn't stop it from being obvious.
Click to expand...
Indeed. For an example of this phenomenon, please see: those that think Clinton is done. See also: those that ignore the polls because they really really want Sanders to be doing much better than he is.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Allow me to paraphrase:
"I'm an expert and you'll just have to take my word for it although I've never actually touched her server"

Uhmmm .... no.

I realize this is Politics, but come back when you can at least pretend to have an actual argument.
Click to expand...

Believe what you wish. But if you believe that the Chinese are not in every single important system in the USA,*you're a fool.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Versus.... arming people to overthrow an existing tyrant. History typically hasn't reflected well on that strategy either... much as you might want to shift off that dilemma. You should be familiar with how the partnership ultimately worked out in the case of Afghanistan when the Russians invaded.


Theres a choice between getting involved and not. But if the former, it cannot be half baked... we have the results of that from two administrations as demonstration
Click to expand...


Nuke 'em or stay home.:eye-poppi
 
DavidJames said:
That means using her own server doesn't make a difference, no?
Click to expand...

The difference is that her server would have been easy to attack, and there would have been no outbound monitoring of where packets went.

The State Department's own servers are monitored live and though there have been some breeches (so I am told) they were shut down quickly.

And then there is this; http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-emails-held-info-beyond-top-secret-ig

Emails from Hillary Clinton’s home server contained information classified at levels higher than previously known, including a level meant to protect some of the most sensitive U.S. intelligence, according to a document obtained by NBC News.

In a letter to lawmakers, the intelligence community’s internal watchdog says some of Clinton’s emails contained information classified Top Secret/Special Access Program, a secrecy designation that includes some of the most closely held U.S. intelligence matters.

Two American intelligence officials tell NBC News these are not the same two emails from Clinton’s server that have long been reported as containing information deemed Top Secret.

<SNIP>
Click to expand...

ETA: This is enough to indict her, BTW.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
The difference is that her server would have been easy to attack, and there would have been no outbound monitoring of where packets went.

The State Department's own servers are monitored live and though there have been some breeches (so I am told) they were shut down quickly.

And then there is this; http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-emails-held-info-beyond-top-secret-ig



ETA: This is enough to indict her, BTW.
Click to expand...

Stand by for a level of spin that will make Maytag and Whirlpool envious of it's absolute speed and efficiency.
 
wareyin said:
So, just popping in to point out that Nate Silver is giving Clinton a 64%-80% chance of winning Iowa. Please don't let this distract you from "I know a couple who knows a couple who claims to have swung with the Clintons".
Click to expand...

Clinton's prospects just keep improving according to Silver. Now she's up to 72%-85% chance of winning. This is terrible news for Sanders, as some pundits seem to think "Mr. Sanders almost certainly needs a victory in Iowa for his candidacy to remain viable."

Clinton is doing pretty well for someone who was supposed to have been done 9 months ago!
 
Slight digression: Are we hearing too much from Chelsea? This is a pampered 35-year-old woman -- daughter of a President and a Senator, wife to a rich investment banker -- whose primary work experience has been at her family's foundation. Apart from attesting that her Mom and Dad were good to her, what can she contribute to the national conversation? Even the Bush boys actually ran for office -- and won.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/chelsea-clinton-bernie-sanders/424623/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Chelsea-Clinton-slams-Charlotte-Rampling.html
 
Bob001 said:
Slight digression: Are we hearing too much from Chelsea? This is a pampered 35-year-old woman -- daughter of a President and a Senator, wife to a rich investment banker -- whose primary work experience has been at her family's foundation. Apart from attesting that her Mom and Dad were good to her, what can she contribute to the national conversation? Even the Bush boys actually ran for office -- and won.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/chelsea-clinton-bernie-sanders/424623/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Chelsea-Clinton-slams-Charlotte-Rampling.html
Click to expand...
Ignoring the absurd concept that we need to be looking at the CV of a family member supporting a family member, why the campaign put Chelsea out there to say something so utterly asinine, in her first appearance no less, is bizarre.
 
varwoche said:
Ignoring the absurd concept that we need to be looking at the CV of a family member supporting a family member, why the campaign put Chelsea out there to say something so utterly asinine, in her first appearance no less, is bizarre.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's so "absurd" to look at a speaker's personal history. If a typical candidate's husband or wife or child said "This person is wonderful, and I support him/her!" nobody would blink. But when that family member confronts another candidate directly and lies about his positions, her qualifications to speak about public policy are a legitimate issue. We aren't hearing much from Mrs. Christie or Mrs. Trump or Mrs. Cruz or Mrs. Bush or their kids, and if they were trashing other candidates we'd be asking "Who do they think they are?"
 
wareyin said:
Clinton's prospects just keep improving according to Silver. Now she's up to 72%-85% chance of winning. This is terrible news for Sanders, as some pundits seem to think "Mr. Sanders almost certainly needs a victory in Iowa for his candidacy to remain viable."

Clinton is doing pretty well for someone who was supposed to have been done 9 months ago!
Click to expand...

You do realize that article is almost 3 weeks old and is based upon situations that are even more dated while the dynamics of the campaigns have continued to evolve and change considerably over the last 3 weeks,...don't you?
 
Trakar said:
You do realize that article is almost 3 weeks old and is based upon situations that are even more dated while the dynamics of the campaigns have continued to evolve and change considerably over the last 3 weeks,...don't you?
Click to expand...

Yes, things have changed so much that three days ago, in an article you posted:
"micah: Here’s the real question for me. For Sanders to win the nomination, he probably needs to win Iowa AND New Hampshire. And that’s eminently possible.
...

natesilver: Yeah, I think he needs both. Given its demographics and how much voter enthusiasm matters in a caucus, Iowa should be among the easier states in the country for him to win. If he can’t win in Iowa, I don’t think he’s competitive in enough places to make it a real race, although he could still win New Hampshire."
 
wareyin said:
Yes, things have changed so much that three days ago, in an article you posted:
"micah: Here’s the real question for me. For Sanders to win the nomination, he probably needs to win Iowa AND New Hampshire. And that’s eminently possible.
...

natesilver: Yeah, I think he needs both. Given its demographics and how much voter enthusiasm matters in a caucus, Iowa should be among the easier states in the country for him to win. If he can’t win in Iowa, I don’t think he’s competitive in enough places to make it a real race, although he could still win New Hampshire."
Click to expand...

Which doesn't support anything stated in the post of yours which I responded to, nor does it contradict anything I stated in that response.
 
Trakar said:
Which doesn't support anything stated in the post of yours which I responded to, nor does it contradict anything I stated in that response.
Click to expand...
Wait, the claim that pundits think Sanders needs to win Iowa is not supported by posting quotes of pundits saying Sanders needs to win Iowa? How does this work?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom