- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Libertarian Party debate was on TV yesterday
The Libertarian Party debate was on TV yesterdayFollow
See post 127.
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Is that actually coming from the Trump campaign? Cause I've been hearing the same two names, but it's always coming from some political pundit speculating about what he or she thinks Trump's choices should be. I'm not sure how much weight I'm putting in most of the pundit class these days. It's half amusing and half really really weird. Watching people who usually have very simple choices to make kinda scrambling around when it comes to Trump because (and this is just my speculation) they honestly have no clue what he's going to do and don't have the historical data to actually make very good predictions. But they're paid to be on TV and act like they know stuff, so they do. And it comes out like a bunch of people garbling political blather and then spewing it at the TV.
You are correct. The pundits stumbling around right now is a lot like people insisting after the fact that the GOP should just have supported a third party candidate as a response to Trump. Good call!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
See post 142.
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
Gbaji wrote:
You are correct. The pundits stumbling around right now is a lot like people insisting after the fact that the GOP should just have supported a third party candidate as a response to Trump. Good call!
If he never bothered to read your post the 1st time around, what makes you think he's going to go through the effort of going back a page to find it and read it this time?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
See post 133.
Just as Planned.
Sorry, Bernie fans -- FBI just said no indictments in the e-mail probe.
Wasn't a good announcement for Clinton: they cited an "extremely lax" culture of security in the State Department and found 110 emails (in 52 different chains) that contained some form of classified information but there was no evidence of intentional misconduct that would warrant an indictment.
Wasn't a good announcement for Clinton: they cited an "extremely lax" culture of security in the State Department and found 110 emails (in 52 different chains) that contained some form of classified information but there was no evidence of intentional misconduct that would warrant an indictment.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Something something conspiracy theory something something.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
At a certain point, if your conspiracy is deep enough, then the amount of influence and control that Clinton must have, then it won't really make a difference if she's president or not will it?
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Well, Director Comey is a Republican so if Clinton was able to conspire with him to avoid indictment, maybe she really IS the best person for breaking Washington gridlock! Hell, if she can convince a Republican with his finger on the button to keep her out of court while she runs for president, what CAN'T she do?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Well, Director Comey is a Republican so if Clinton was able to conspire with him to avoid indictment, maybe she really IS the best person for breaking Washington gridlock! Hell, if she can convince a Republican with his finger on the button to keep her out of court while she runs for president, what CAN'T she do?
Edited, Jul 5th 2016 11:07am by Poldaran
Jophiel wrote:
Sorry, Bernie fans -- FBI just said no indictments in the e-mail probe.
Wasn't a good announcement for Clinton: they cited an "extremely lax" culture of security in the State Department and found 110 emails (in 52 different chains) that contained some form of classified information but there was no evidence of intentional misconduct that would warrant an indictment.
Wasn't a good announcement for Clinton: they cited an "extremely lax" culture of security in the State Department and found 110 emails (in 52 different chains) that contained some form of classified information but there was no evidence of intentional misconduct that would warrant an indictment.
If there was anywhere that we should play fast and loose with security, it's the world police!
Fortunately, we are arming Al Queda to assist with the common defense.
Just as Planned.
So basically she did a bunch of illegal stuff, but everyone else was doing it too, so she isn't going to face any punishment? That has to be about as close to a 'worst possible outcome' as you can get without someone dying. 
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
She did a bunch of stuff that may or may not have been illegal but the FBI didn't find that it came to a level to warrant indictment/prosecution just as they haven't in numerous previous cases. It's a realm where the burden of proof is difficult enough that only the most open-and-shut cases get pursued.
New Republic makes the point that much of what she did is done regularly as a result of how cumbersome the system is and setting a precedent by indicting her would result in tons of people being open for indictment but that's mainly a point of how the antiquated system needs to be changed.
New Republic makes the point that much of what she did is done regularly as a result of how cumbersome the system is and setting a precedent by indicting her would result in tons of people being open for indictment but that's mainly a point of how the antiquated system needs to be changed.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
New Republic makes the point that much of what she did is done regularly as a result of how cumbersome the system is and setting a precedent by indicting her would result in tons of people being open for indictment but that's mainly a point of how the antiquated system needs to be changed.
I mean, any better I would have felt about Clinton is being dwarfed by the nature and scale of the problem; especially given our nation's recently acquired habit of collecting large amount of sensitive information on anything more dangerous than a housefly.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
someproteinguy wrote:
So basically she did a bunch of illegal stuff, but everyone else was doing it too, so she isn't going to face any punishment? That has to be about as close to a 'worst possible outcome' as you can get without someone dying.
What she did was not illegal, it was just a total disregard for security that would have been adequate reason to fire or restrict clearances for any gov't or ancillary contracted employee, and in no way absolves other employees from participating. However, as she has already left the post there is no way to sanction her, as again, it isn't considered criminal negligence, or intentionally treasonous. The report also says it was highly likely that the server was hacked and read by foreign spies. It's basically fine in the same way Zimmerman did nothing wrong. Accidents just happen and there is nothing you can do about them.
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
The report also says it was highly likely that the server was hacked and read by foreign spies.
Comey wrote:
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
Not quite the same thing.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Not even close to the same thing, but I like how it was mentioned that her use of a personal email domain was both largely known and apparent. A pesky fact that is often ignored.
Timelordwho wrote:
What she did was not illegal, it was just a total disregard for security that would have been adequate reason to fire or restrict clearances for any gov't or ancillary contracted employee
A government that collects large amounts of data on people, and is also horribly negligent with securing information, is really a perfect storm of a problem waiting to happen.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
The report also says it was highly likely that the server was hacked and read by foreign spies.
Comey wrote:
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
Not quite the same thing.
That looks like highly likely to me. I'd probably take odds north of 80-90%, as would most sec. analysts, I suspect.
Just as Planned.
You're making up words (and odds). Regardless of how it looks to you, Comey did not say "highly likely" as you claim. What he did say was that they found no direct evidence but that it was "possible".
"No Evidence But Possible" =/= "Highly Likely"
For what it's worth, the departments usually associated with collecting large amounts of data on people (FBI, CIA, NSA) aren't the State Department.
Edited, Jul 5th 2016 5:36pm by Jophiel
"No Evidence But Possible" =/= "Highly Likely"
someproteinguy wrote:
A government that collects large amounts of data on people, and is also horribly negligent with securing information, is really a perfect storm of a problem waiting to happen.
For what it's worth, the departments usually associated with collecting large amounts of data on people (FBI, CIA, NSA) aren't the State Department.
Edited, Jul 5th 2016 5:36pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Might as well add: I'm not defending Clinton's actions here. She shouldn't have done it. It will rightfully hurt her. She needs to fully address it. Against any half-decent opponent who wasn't a walking clusterfuck, this would quite possibly cost her the election and she'd only have herself to blame.
But that's not a reason to start making up stuff that isn't actually said by the FBI.
But that's not a reason to start making up stuff that isn't actually said by the FBI.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
A government that collects large amounts of data on people, and is also horribly negligent with securing information, is really a perfect storm of a problem waiting to happen.
For what it's worth, the departments usually associated with collecting large amounts of data on people (FBI, CIA, NSA) aren't the State Department.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
You are correct. The pundits stumbling around right now is a lot like people insisting after the fact that the GOP should just have supported a third party candidate as a response to Trump. Good call!
Post 82 didn't say a whole lot at all. However, the one part of that post which could be remotely considered relevant to my post was the part where you repeated this statement:
alma wrote:
The GOP, conservatives and Republicans should have done what the DNC, Democrats and liberals have done.
Hence my response.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 389
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (389)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Libertarian Party debate was on TV yesterday
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC