What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (11 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
Rove! said:
Tim, you should give Lincoln Chaffee a long look. I think you would agree with him on a great number of issues...
Click to expand...
I'm sure I'll agree with him a lot. And with Webb. And there are several Republicans I agree with a lot.But let's be real here. The Democratic nominee is going to be either Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, with an outside shot of Joe Biden. So those are the ones to concentrate on. No offense to Chaffee, O'Malley, or Webb, but they're wasting our time being up there.
Click to expand...
Wait. I thought you said the nominee could only be Hillary.

 
timschochet said:
During the debate tomorrow night, a question will be raised about college education. Bernie will say that he is for paying for everyone's tuition. Hillary will respond that those who want to go to college and cannot afford it should be helped with their tuition, and that existing college loans should be alleviated, but that rich people in our society should not have their college paid for.

This sort of distinction is what should win the debate for Hillary.
Click to expand...
What about grades 1-12? Carrying that further, do you mean rich people should pay a lot more taxes but get very little back in terms of government services?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
During the debate tomorrow night, a question will be raised about college education. Bernie will say that he is for paying for everyone's tuition. Hillary will respond that those who want to go to college and cannot afford it should be helped with their tuition, and that existing college loans should be alleviated, but that rich people in our society should not have their college paid for.

This sort of distinction is what should win the debate for Hillary.
Click to expand...
Of course. Let's not fight the real problem of the bloated and ridiculous bureaucracy of the university system in this country. Too many liberal voters depend on it.

 
fourd said:
Come on in, the water's warm.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ap-exclusive-clinton-servers-software-085844620.html
Click to expand...
The AP exclusively reviewed numerous records from an Internet "census" by an anonymous hacker-researcher, who three years ago used unsecured devices to scan hundreds of millions of Internet Protocol addresses for accessible doors, called "ports." Using a computer in Serbia, the hacker scanned Clinton's basement server in Chappaqua at least twice, in August and December 2012. It was unclear whether the hacker was aware the server belonged to Clinton, although it identified itself as providing email services for clintonemail.com. The results are widely available online.

Remote-access software allows users to control another computer from afar. The programs are usually operated through an encrypted connection — called a virtual private network, or VPN. But Clinton's system appeared to accept commands directly from the Internet without such protections.

"That's total amateur hour," said Marc Maiffret, who has founded two cyber security companies. He said permitting remote-access connections directly over the Internet would be the result of someone choosing convenience over security or failing to understand the risks. "Real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this," he said.
Click to expand...
In Clinton's case, Internet addresses the AP traced to her home in Chappaqua revealed open ports on three devices, including her email system. Each numbered port is commonly, but not always uniquely, associated with specific features or functions. The AP in March was first to discover Clinton's use of a private email server and trace it to her home.

Mikko Hypponen, the chief research officer at F-Secure, a top global computer security firm, said it was unclear how Clinton's server was configured, but an out-of-the-box installation of remote desktop would have been vulnerable. Those risks — such as giving hackers a chance to run malicious software on her machine — were "clearly serious" and could have allowed snoops to deploy so-called "back doors."

The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, the federal government's guiding agency on computer technology, warned in 2008 that exposed server ports were security risks. It said remote-control programs should only be used in conjunction with encryption tunnels, such as secure VPN connections.
Click to expand...
- This has been speculated on when the news first broke, but we're getting more evidence now.

- I think the first 3-4 months in which Hillary's server was running there was reportedly almost no protection. - Oddly enough this is also the missing time frame in her emails.

- Another article indicates there was also a vulnerable period after she left State in the first half of 2013. This is when Blumenthal was hacked and when she brought on the CO vendor.

- I don't think it helped that her server and URL were originally registered by two aides, one of whom is now a JP Morgan bondbroker and the other who works at Teneo. Neither are likely IT experts. Pretty much all her IP and connection information were left publicly available.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A ‘Cancer’ on the Clinton Candidacy

This is from Politico Magazine

Despite the incendiary title - this is a very even-handed look into Clinton's campaign, as it struggled to deal with the email issue over the last 7 months. It is a look at how the campaign dealt with the issue, and the candidate, and some of the internal debates that go on within any campaign. Its not an expose on the emails themselves - just how the campaign has been dealing with the fallout.

 
Sinn Fein said:
A ‘Cancer’ on the Clinton Candidacy

This is from Politico Magazine

Despite the incendiary title - this is a very even-handed look into Clinton's campaign, as it struggled to deal with the email issue over the last 7 months. It is a look at how the campaign dealt with the issue, and the candidate, and some of the internal debates that go on within any campaign. Its not an expose on the emails themselves - just how the campaign has been dealing with the fallout.
Click to expand...
This is all that really needed to be said. No idea why anyone would want to stay on a campaign under conditions like that.

Clinton’s frustration with her own campaign staff was striking. So was her refusal for much of the year to characterize the escalating email controversy as anything other than a failure of communications, messaging or the vast right-wing-and-media conspiracy.
Click to expand...
 
“It sounds crazy, but I think she simply wasn’t equipped to deal with all this,” says one longtime ally who has been in regular contact with Clinton. “She’s never been a great candidate, OK? She needed time and campaigns don’t give you time. … She was blindsided, and I think only now, after all this crap, is she finally in the right headspace.”
Click to expand...
Certainly a quality I want in my President :thumbup:

 
Sinn Fein said:
A ‘Cancer’ on the Clinton Candidacy

This is from Politico Magazine

Despite the incendiary title - this is a very even-handed look into Clinton's campaign, as it struggled to deal with the email issue over the last 7 months. It is a look at how the campaign dealt with the issue, and the candidate, and some of the internal debates that go on within any campaign. Its not an expose on the emails themselves - just how the campaign has been dealing with the fallout.
Click to expand...
But Clinton’s answer—and that of her lawyer David Kendall and her former State Department chief of staff Cheryl Mills—was a “no” when Podesta and other advisers asked for some details. Foggy Bottom needed to review the emails, they were told, and besides, half of them, the ones deemed “personal,” had already been deleted.

At least Clinton was talking regularly with Podesta. In the concentric circles of Clintonworld, many of the political team she had put in place to run her campaign were still considered outsiders, hired hands more loyal to President Barack Obama or to her husband, former President Bill Clinton, than to the candidate herself, and as soon as the New York Times dropped its bombshell server story, they saw themselves as stymied by a legal team parsimonious with disclosure and a candidate reluctant to express remorse.
Click to expand...
This is what I've been saying, I don't think she has been sharing information with her core decision makers and spokespersons.

Hence when they go out and get left hanging off a cliff or have the rug pulled out from them.
 
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
avoiding injuries said:
What nonsense will she leave behind?
Click to expand...
Why, the so-called "email scandal", of course.
Click to expand...
What would he think if he learned that Russia’s Foreign Minister, or Iran’s, was conducting official business on a homebrew server?

Admiral Rogers: "From a foreign intelligence perspective, that represents opportunity."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
How many times are you going to repeat that quote? I get it. By using a private email server, it made it easier for people, including our enemies, to hack it. While there's no evidence that anyone actually did, there is evidence that somebody could have, and perhaps some classified documents might have been read as a result.

I get all of that. I personally don't believe that it should have any bearing on whether or not Hillary Clinton would make a good President. If you do, we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me it's all nonsense (in terms of a Presidential campaign) and I'm hoping we move past it.

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
avoiding injuries said:
What nonsense will she leave behind?
Click to expand...
Why, the so-called "email scandal", of course.
Click to expand...
What would he think if he learned that Russia’s Foreign Minister, or Iran’s, was conducting official business on a homebrew server?

Admiral Rogers: "From a foreign intelligence perspective, that represents opportunity."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
How many times are you going to repeat that quote? I get it. By using a private email server, it made it easier for people, including our enemies, to hack it. While there's no evidence that anyone actually did, there is evidence that somebody could have, and perhaps some classified documents might have been read as a result.

I get all of that. I personally don't believe that it should have any bearing on whether or not Hillary Clinton would make a good President. If you do, we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me it's all nonsense (in terms of a Presidential campaign) and I'm hoping we move past it.
Click to expand...
I told you it would be posted as many times as you pushed it off as "silly", "no big deal", "inconsequential" etc. :shrug:

ETA: To be clear, it's just another piece of evidence. In a vacuum, it's probably 4-5 on the list. The most alarming trait of hers is how she reacts after being "blindsided" followed by not being willing to acknowledge mistakes and owning them.

This server "issue" is a pretty perfect summary picture of most of those things if you get passed email content. Email content doesn't matter.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Tim you don't think a president's recklessness or ignorance has any bearing on what kind of president he or she is?
Click to expand...
I do not believe that Hillary Clinton had anything to do with the setup of her email account, beyond asking if she could keep her own, and then saying "OK let's do that." Therefore, IMO, it was neither a question of recklessness nor ignorance (nor deliberate malfeasance, which you have hinted at in several of your posts.) It simply was an ill-thought out decision at a level lower than she was. I don't believe that on the issues that matter, Hillary Clinton is either reckless or ignorant.

 
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
avoiding injuries said:
What nonsense will she leave behind?
Click to expand...
Why, the so-called "email scandal", of course.
Click to expand...
What would he think if he learned that Russia’s Foreign Minister, or Iran’s, was conducting official business on a homebrew server?

Admiral Rogers: "From a foreign intelligence perspective, that represents opportunity."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
How many times are you going to repeat that quote? I get it. By using a private email server, it made it easier for people, including our enemies, to hack it. While there's no evidence that anyone actually did, there is evidence that somebody could have, and perhaps some classified documents might have been read as a result.

I get all of that. I personally don't believe that it should have any bearing on whether or not Hillary Clinton would make a good President. If you do, we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me it's all nonsense (in terms of a Presidential campaign) and I'm hoping we move past it.
Click to expand...
I told you it would be posted as many times as you pushed it off as "silly", "no big deal", "inconsequential" etc. :shrug:

ETA: To be clear, it's just another piece of evidence. In a vacuum, it's probably 4-5 on the list. The most alarming trait of hers is how she reacts after being "blindsided" followed by not being willing to acknowledge mistakes and owning them.

This server "issue" is a pretty perfect summary picture of most of those things if you get passed email content. Email content doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
You're going to have keep posting it a whole lot more then.

 
timschochet said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Tim you don't think a president's recklessness or

ignorance has any bearing on what kind of president he or she is?
Click to expand...
I do not believe that Hillary Clinton had anything to do with the setup of her email account, beyond asking if she could keep her own, and then saying "OK let's do that." Therefore, IMO, it was neither a question of recklessness nor ignorance (nor deliberate malfeasance, which you have hinted at

in several of your posts.) It simply was an ill-thought out decision at a level lower than she was. I don't believe that on the issues that matter, Hillary Clinton is either reckless or ignorant.
Click to expand...
For a guy who supposedly enjoys politics and follows it closely, that is an insane opinion. There isn't a person working on her campaign that believes it was a matter of convenience or that Hillary didn't drive this decision.

 
timschochet said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Tim you don't think a president's recklessness or ignorance has any bearing on what kind of president he or she is?
Click to expand...
I do not believe that Hillary Clinton had anything to do with the setup of her email account, beyond asking if she could keep her own, and then saying "OK let's do that." Therefore, IMO, it was neither a question of recklessness nor ignorance (nor deliberate malfeasance, which you have hinted at in several of your posts.) It simply was an ill-thought out decision at a level lower than she was. I don't believe that on the issues that matter, Hillary Clinton is either reckless or ignorant.
Click to expand...
I just want to point out that this is Hillary's own defense, that delegation is somehow plausible deniability - it's not.

I think you can file this one under "ignorance."

 
timschochet said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Tim you don't think a president's recklessness or ignorance has any bearing on what kind of president he or she is?
Click to expand...
I do not believe that Hillary Clinton had anything to do with the setup of her email account, beyond asking if she could keep her own, and then saying "OK let's do that." Therefore, IMO, it was neither a question of recklessness nor ignorance (nor deliberate malfeasance, which you have hinted at in several of your posts.) It simply was an ill-thought out decision at a level lower than she was. I don't believe that on the issues that matter, Hillary Clinton is either reckless or ignorant.
Click to expand...
Just as a point of clarification, Hillary set up her email server after she was appointed SOS, right? So it was not as simple, as just "keep her own". By all appearances this was a set up designed for privacy not convenience.

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
avoiding injuries said:
What nonsense will she leave behind?
Click to expand...
Why, the so-called "email scandal", of course.
Click to expand...
What would he think if he learned that Russia’s Foreign Minister, or Iran’s, was conducting official business on a homebrew server?

Admiral Rogers: "From a foreign intelligence perspective, that represents opportunity."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
How many times are you going to repeat that quote? I get it. By using a private email server, it made it easier for people, including our enemies, to hack it. While there's no evidence that anyone actually did, there is evidence that somebody could have, and perhaps some classified documents might have been read as a result.

I get all of that. I personally don't believe that it should have any bearing on whether or not Hillary Clinton would make a good President. If you do, we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me it's all nonsense (in terms of a Presidential campaign) and I'm hoping we move past it.
Click to expand...
I told you it would be posted as many times as you pushed it off as "silly", "no big deal", "inconsequential" etc. :shrug:

ETA: To be clear, it's just another piece of evidence. In a vacuum, it's probably 4-5 on the list. The most alarming trait of hers is how she reacts after being "blindsided" followed by not being willing to acknowledge mistakes and owning them.

This server "issue" is a pretty perfect summary picture of most of those things if you get passed email content. Email content doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
You're going to have keep posting it a whole lot more then.
Click to expand...
Sadly, I know.

 
timschochet said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Tim you don't think a president's recklessness or ignorance has any bearing on what kind of president he or she is?
Click to expand...
I do not believe that Hillary Clinton had anything to do with the setup of her email account, beyond asking if she could keep her own, and then saying "OK let's do that." Therefore, IMO, it was neither a question of recklessness nor ignorance (nor deliberate malfeasance, which you have hinted at in several of your posts.) It simply was an ill-thought out decision at a level lower than she was. I don't believe that on the issues that matter, Hillary Clinton is either reckless or ignorant.
Click to expand...
Is this the "plausible deniability" approach thinly veiled?? What a crock. That's what I want in my President for sure.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I have a question for the pro & con Hillary crowds on the email issue, and the undecideds too if there are any:

- If the prospects for the DOJ actually doing something serious about Hillary's email er "situation" are remote, that is if you expect that they are going to go lightly on her or just sit on the case and do nothing, or perhaps if you think she did nothing wrong or improper at all...

...then why have they expanded the investigation to the backup vendor Datto and the State Department servers?

Seems to me that if they weren't planning on doing anything, or if the data were really say harmless, they wouldn't be doing this.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Maybe the DOJ isn't and has never been fibbing about their focus?

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I have a question for the pro & con Hillary crowds on the email issue, and the undecideds too if there are any:

- If the prospects for the DOJ actually doing something serious about Hillary's email er "situation" are remote, that is if you expect that they are going to go lightly on her or just sit on the case and do nothing, or perhaps if you think she did nothing wrong or improper at all...

...then why have they expanded the investigation to the backup vendor Datto and the State Department servers?

Seems to me that if they weren't planning on doing anything, or if the data were really say harmless, they wouldn't be doing this.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Maybe the DOJ isn't and has never been fibbing about their focus?
Click to expand...
Thanks, substantive answer. And that is security of classified data? Or seeing who if any mishandled classified data? Or both?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I have a question for the pro & con Hillary crowds on the email issue, and the undecideds too if there are any:

- If the prospects for the DOJ actually doing something serious about Hillary's email er "situation" are remote, that is if you expect that they are going to go lightly on her or just sit on the case and do nothing, or perhaps if you think she did nothing wrong or improper at all...

...then why have they expanded the investigation to the backup vendor Datto and the State Department servers?

Seems to me that if they weren't planning on doing anything, or if the data were really say harmless, they wouldn't be doing this.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Maybe the DOJ isn't and has never been fibbing about their focus?
Click to expand...
Thanks, substantive answer. And that is security of classified data? Or seeing who if any mishandled classified data? Or both?
Click to expand...
I assume they care about what is there, how it got there, and how secure "it", assuming there is a "it" and any copies were maintained. I still believe that practices will be found inadequate, but no individual wrong doing. That being said, if something serious is found I do not believe there would be any sweeping under the rug. No indictments will mean no serious breaking of laws. (The DOJ doesn't maintain its 90+% conviction rate for going after "judgment calls" so there could be some technical violations they eventually report but don't pursue.)

 
Sinn Fein said:
Parrothead said:
Jamesbrownkid said:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill-clinton-las-vegas-attending-democratic-debate/story?id=34431417

Bill Clinton In Las Vegas But Not Attending the Democratic Debate

Anyone surprised by that?
Click to expand...
why would Bill waste a night in Vegas where Hillary is?
Click to expand...
Because he knows he has a 4-hour window where he knows exactly where Hillary will be...
Click to expand...
Moderator " Mrs Clinton: it's 8:00, do you know where your husband is?"

 
Latest Fox News polls:

Clinton losing to Trump, Bush, Fiorina, and Carson

Biden beating Trump, Bush, Fiorina, and Carson

:thumbup: Looks like the establishment has backed a winner here...

 
Some guy Trolls Hillary's daughter at her book signing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT7fGcRtW5c

“Has your mother ever told you that you’re the daughter of Webb Hubbell, and not Bill Clinton,” he said while Chelsea was looking down, signing a copy of “It’s Your World: Get Informed, Get Inspired & Get Going.” http://i.imgur.com/4bonuYW.jpg

The question was in reference to a long-time rumor alleging Chelsea was the result of an affair between the Clinton lawyer and Hillary.

Looking up, smiling, Chelsea responded, “I am so proud to be my parents’ daughter,” without actually naming her parents.

The store staff thanked Morrow, seemingly as a way get him to move on, but obliged another question.

Referring to Clinton’s book being geared towards kids, Morrow asked, “Would you say Bill Clinton also targets teenage girls, except for sexual reasons?”

“I would say my book is really resonating with kids,” Clinton responded. “I was at the Ann Richards School earlier today and I’m so grateful that it’s resonating to the young girls and the young boys that I’ve been talking to across the country.”

“Thank you so much,” the book store staff said repeatedly after Morrow’s question.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
260K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 10 (members: 0, guests: 10)
Back
Top