POTUS 2016, part 3

[chownah]

Hillary's emails are not private matter; they are matters of grave national security but no one (least of all debate mods) wants to discuss it.

I found something of note on this issue:

What makes Clinton's case different is that she exclusively sent and received emails through a home server in lieu of the State Department's unclassified email system. Neither would have been secure from hackers or foreign intelligence agencies, so it would be equally problematic whether classified information was carried over the government system or a private server, experts say.

In fact, the State Department's unclassified email system has been penetrated by hackers believed linked to Russian intelligence.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-08-state-depa ... l.html#jCp

Also, after having looked around I have found some stuff concerning the nature of some of the emails which were determined to be classified and of course the top secret stuff was more heavily blacked out. I would say that my impression is that there was stuff which was of a serious nature over a short period of time but not so much long term....stuff like real time discussions of evolving situations. It seems that there was a habit of putting classified stuff on unsecure email systems both inside and outside the state department and top secret info should not have been sent to hillary on her unsecure email system...the gov't has a system for top secret stuff only it seems that typically state dept officials didn't like it and didn't want to use it so they just slipped the top secret stuff into unsecure emails especially when real time discussion of evolving situations was required. Kind of scary but it is described as being what the gov't culture was up to at that time.....seems like there is a lot of blame to go around and hillary deserves her share.

I think one key thing from this is that it is her use of a home based email system which makes people feel uneasy but from what I can find out the gov't system (which she chose to not use) was just as easy to hack and in fact there is actual evidence that it was in fact hacked while there is no evidence that her home based system was....of course her home based system could have been hacked only it was not detected....but in any event both systems were equally hackable from what I have read.
chownah

[No_Mind]

A Trump supporter knows that he lies all the time, but he comes across as less fake than politicians (including but not limited to Hillary). Fakeness is more complicated than simple lying, it implies role playing and hypocrisy. Kids might make more lies than adults, but an adult is more likely to be fake and pretentious because they care more about appearances.

Politicians (including Hillary) not only succeeded in hiding their fakeness for long time, but extended it and infected a large portion of the population who care only about appearances, repeat shiny ideals and slogans in an idiotic ways, thoughtless mob who depend on media even to tell them who won a particular debate or to spoon-feed them with the so-called facts!

That is extremely well put. Everything neatly in a nutshell

of course her home based system could have been hacked only it was not detected....but in any event both systems were equally hackable from what I have read.
chownah

Chownah ..

You are now arguing that US State Dept server or US government's official servers are as easily hackable as an unprotected home server.

I have nothing more to add to the discussion after that statement. It is obvious you have no understanding of strength of firewalls managed by professional IT administrators and use of Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). This is not a slight but more of an observation.

I will say one last word .. it would have been perhaps safer if Hillary had used a plain Gmail account since that is harder to hack into than an unprotected home server (note I said Gmail not Yahoo). Not only that, she used an unsecured Blackberry to send and read emails.

On issue of Hillary's email's I will be silent from now.

[chownah]

Chownah ..

You are now arguing that US State Dept server or US government's official servers are as easily hackable as an unprotected home server.

I have nothing more to add to the discussion after that statement.

Did you even read my entire post? I'm not putting forth my own analysis of the government's official server....it is the article I linked to from phys.org which says that "experts" say this. I'll quote it again:

What makes Clinton's case different is that she exclusively sent and received emails through a home server in lieu of the State Department's unclassified email system. Neither would have been secure from hackers or foreign intelligence agencies, so it would be equally problematic whether classified information was carried over the government system or a private server, experts say.

In fact, the State Department's unclassified email system has been penetrated by hackers believed linked to Russian intelligence.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-08-state-depa ... l.html#jCp

This is from the article. It says "Neither would have been secure from hackers or foreign intelligence agencies, so it would be equally problematic whether classified information was carried over the government system or a private server, experts say." If you contest the hackability of the gov't email system how do you explain that it is readily admitted that it HAS IN FACT BEEN HACKED? So much for your "strength of firewalls managed by professional IT administrators and use of Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF)." It seems that you are confusing the titles of "IT administrator" and "SCIF" for effective security measures....which it seems that they are not....hacking occured on the gov't systems regardless of how you might like to explain why you can't believe that they are hackable.

I'm glad you have nothing more to add because what you have added seems to be without carefully reading my posts and so is really misdirected. Fact is the gov't email system was hacked.... Fact is there is no evidence that hillary's system was hacked although admittedly it might be that a hack was undetected....and don't forget that it is possible that there were further hacks which were undetected on the gov't system as well.

chownah

[No_Mind]

This is from the article. It says "Neither would have been secure from hackers or foreign intelligence agencies, so it would be equally problematic whether classified information was carried over the government system or a private server, experts say." If you contest the hackability of the gov't email system how do you explain that it is readily admitted that it HAS IN FACT BEEN HACKED? So much for your "strength of firewalls managed by professional IT administrators and use of Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF)." It seems that you are confusing the titles of "IT administrator" and "SCIF" for effective security measures....which it seems that they are not....hacking occured on the gov't systems regardless of how you might like to explain why you can't believe that they are hackable.

I'm glad you have nothing more to add because what you have added seems to be without carefully reading my posts and so is really misdirected. Fact is the gov't email system was hacked.... Fact is there is no evidence that hillary's system was hacked although admittedly it might be that a hack was undetected....and don't forget that it is possible that there were further hacks which were undetected on the gov't system as well.

chownah

Oh Lord ..

The website wrote

In fact, the State Department's unclassified email system has been penetrated by hackers believed linked to Russian intelligence.

Of course .. who said secure servers do not get hacked .. I do not deny that. Great hackers can hack into quite a few secure systems.

But you did not take it one step further but hundred steps further and let your imagination run riot and you wrote

of course her home based system could have been hacked only it was not detected....but in any event both systems were equally hackable from what I have read.

Where does it say State Dept servers are equally hackable as her unsecured home server?

And even if it does say .. is that believable? A professionally designed and run system and her unsecured home server are equally hackable?



This post really is my last word on Clinton emails.

[chownah]

OK, now I get it. You are pointing out that I said the two systems were EQUALLY hackable. I did say that and although I do not really know how capable the two security systems were my uninformed judgement on this is that THEY WERE NOT EQUALLY HACKABLE. Based on my uninformed judgement I SEE THAT I WAS WRONG TO SAY THAT THEY WERE EQUALLY HACKABLE....and actually my intent when posting was not to claim that the two systems were equal in their abilities to defend against attack...my intention was to show that the danger of being hacked was not just something that arose because of hillary having her own at home system but that the danger of being attacked existed in the gov't's system too and in fact the gov't system which would have been used if hillary had not used her home system in fact DID GET HACKED...and if hillary had used the gov't's system her emails WOULD HAVE BEEN HACKED for sure. As it is we have no evidence that her at home system was hacked but it is possible that it did not detect some hack. MAYBE THROUGH A QUIRK OF FATE WE HAVE DODGED A BULLET BECAUSE HILLARY DID NOT USE THE GOV'T SYSTEM......maybe not.

Here is an important reminder.....hillary has admitted several times in public meetings that it was a mistake to use the home system the way she did.

There are other things I would like to find out. For instance. The us gov't has got a lot of people working in cyber security. How is it that they did not detect that hillary was using an evidently unguarded email system and report it somewhere. If this is a serious breach of security how can our intelligence people just seemingly ignore it?........Perhaps there is a gov't wide lapse of security or perhaps there is more going on here than meets the eye.

chownah

[retrofuturist]

Greetings

Trump Against The World

Choice quotes from the Donald, as appearing in the article...

“This is a conspiracy against you, the American people, and we cannot let this happen or continue,” he told supporters of alleged efforts to protect Hillary Clinton from accountability. “This is our moment of reckoning as a society and as a civilization itself.”

“Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe and morally deformed,” he said. “These vicious claims about me of inappropriate conduct with women are totally and absolutely false,” he said. “And the Clintons know it. And they know it very well. These claims are all fabricated. They’re pure fiction and they’re outright lies.”

“I take all of these slings and arrows gladly for you. I take them for our movement so that we can have our country back,” he said. “Our great civilization … has come upon a moment of reckoning. We’ve seen it in the United Kingdom where they decided to liberate themselves.”

The stakes of the movement, in Trump’s view, are existential. “This is a struggle for the survival of our nation,” he said. And he vowed to take arms against a corrupt establishment whose means and cunning know no bounds. “Their political resources are unlimited,” he said. “Their media resources are unmatched and most importantly the depths of their immorality is absolutely unlimited.”

(Full transcript of the speech in question...)

Metta,
Paul.

[Phena]

Exposing the myth that Trump support is largely from the downtrodden, dispossessed, white working-class:

• According to the study, his supporters didn’t have lower incomes or higher unemployment levels than other Americans. Income data misses a lot; those with healthy earnings might also have negative wealth or downward mobility. But respondents overall weren’t clinging to jobs perceived to be endangered. “Surprisingly”, a Gallup researcher wrote, “there appears to be no link whatsoever between exposure to trade competition and support for nationalist policies in America, as embodied by the Trump campaign.”
  
  Earlier this year, primary exit polls revealed that Trump voters were, in fact, more affluent than most Americans, with a median household income of $72,000 – higher than that of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders supporters. Forty-four percent of them had college degrees, well above the national average of 33% among whites or 29% overall. In January, political scientist Matthew MacWilliams reported findings that a penchant for authoritarianism – not income, education, gender, age or race –predicted Trump support.
  
  These facts haven’t stopped pundits and journalists from pushing story after story about the white working class’s giddy embrace of a bloviating demagogue.
  
  In seeking to explain Trump’s appeal, proportionate media coverage would require more stories about the racism and misogyny among white Trump supporters in tony suburbs. Or, if we’re examining economically driven bitterness among the working class, stories about the Democratic lawmakers who in recent decades ended welfare as we knew it, hopped in the sack with Wall Street and forgot American labor in their global trade agreements.
  
  
  But, for national media outlets comprised largely of middle- and upper-class liberals, that would mean looking their own class in the face.
  
  The faces journalists do train the cameras on – hateful ones screaming sexist vitriol next to Confederate flags – must receive coverage but do not speak for the communities I know well. That the media industry ignored my home for so long left a vacuum of understanding in which the first glimpse of an economically downtrodden white is presumed to represent the whole.

The Guardian - Dangerous idiots: how the liberal media elite failed working-class Americans

The article, I believe makes three important points:

• 1. That Trump supporters have income and education above the national average
  2. That a "penchant for authoritarianism – not income, education, gender, age or race –predicted Trump support"
  3. That the mainstream media have been unwilling to expose the demographic of Trump's support as it aligns more closely with their own 'class'.

[rowboat]

Just in case you thought Donald Trump was insufficiently awful: He repeatedly called a deaf actress “retarded,” three sources tell The Daily Beast.
Trump, who was accused on Wednesday of making sexual comments to Marlee Matlin, an Oscar-winning actress who once competed on Trump’s Celebrity Apprentice, also apparently had a habit of insulting, mimicking, and demeaning as mentally handicapped his star female contestant—all because she was deaf.

In 2011, Matlin, who is still the only deaf actor or actress to win an Academy Award for best actress, appeared on Trump’s NBC reality-TV series.

...

“[Trump] would make fun of her voice. It actually sounded a lot like what he did [to] the New York Times guy,” another person who worked on The Apprentice for years told The Daily Beast, referring to when Trump mocked a disabled reporter last year. The source said this incident occurred outside the boardroom, during a break from filming. “Like, to make it seem like she was mentally not there? [It] sounded like he got a real kick out of it. It was really upsetting.”

Donald Trump Called Deaf ‘Apprentice’ Marlee Matlin ‘Retarded,’ Three Staffers Say

[chownah]

The article, I believe makes three important points:

• 1. That Trump supporters have income and education above the national average
  2. That a "penchant for authoritarianism – not income, education, gender, age or race –predicted Trump support"
  3. That the mainstream media have been unwilling to expose the demographic of Trump's support as it aligns more closely with their own 'class'.

Isn't the Guardian considered to be sort of famous for sensationalism?...they like to print stuff that is sort of shocking and defies the current views people hold?

Anyway....Some things don't seem to add up here. The Gallup poll website has an abstract of the article which the guardian article links to (the first link in the guardian article) which says:

His supporters are less educated and more likely to work in blue collar occupations, but they earn relatively high household incomes

which does support the above average income idea but seems to go against the 44% college grad idea which really seems very very high.

Also...I think if you look carefully you will find that "penchant for authoritarianism" is presented as the best preditor of trump support and that this does not rule out "income, education, gender, age, or race" as being predictors. For instance....if we assume that trump supporters have higher incomes than average then in fact we can say that income IS a predictor of trump support meaning that a higher income would predict trump support....saying that income is not a predictor would be saying that there is no difference in income between trump and clinton's supporters.

Also...the mainstream media is definitely NOT "unwilling to expose the demographic of Trump's support ". If you just google "demographics trump" you will find lots and lots of media discussion and analysis.

And finally...the guardian is a british paper and perhaps you are british too, I don't know, but the idea that the media or americans in general are concerned about if something "aligns more closely with their own 'class'" is definitely a british concept and I think that thinking in terms of 'class' is much more common in british society than in america.
chownah
Edit: just one more thing. My view is that trump supporters are seen by some to have lower incomes because they are always complaining about how bad things are economically because of current foreign trade policies and gov't regulations of industry etc. while in fact his supporters are actually mostly quite well off and they just like to complain and are greedy for more.
chownah

[chownah]

The hideous, diabolical truth about Hillary Clinton
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/co ... 7f0c99605d
A humorous article from the Washington Post.
chownah

[Phena]

Post by chownah » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:35 pm

Phena wrote:
The article, I believe makes three important points:

1. That Trump supporters have income and education above the national average
2. That a "penchant for authoritarianism – not income, education, gender, age or race –predicted Trump support"
3. That the mainstream media have been unwilling to expose the demographic of Trump's support as it aligns more closely with their own 'class'.


Isn't the Guardian considered to be sort of famous for sensationalism?...they like to print stuff that is sort of shocking and defies the current views people hold?

"Sensationalism"? I equate sensationalism more with tabloid media, the kind that never let the facts get in the way of a good story. But perhaps more relevant is the second part of your question. The Guardian may be less likely to keep regurgitating and recycling the unexamined status quo of the more tabloid mainstream media (though I would still consider The Guardian pretty mainstream but not so tabloid), then I would agree with you. I see this as a positive attribute though, and this story seems to be a good example of it.

As you seem skeptical of The Guardian, perhaps you would be more comfortable with the same understanding from another source (one that you said was more "credible" - thanks for that link btw) The Mythology Of Trump’s ‘Working Class’ Support - His voters are better off economically compared with most Americans:

• But the definition of “working class” and similar terms is fuzzy, and narratives like these risk obscuring an important and perhaps counterintuitive fact about Trump’s voters: As compared with most Americans, Trump’s voters are better off. The median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000, based on estimates derived from exit polls and Census Bureau data. That’s lower than the $91,000 median for Kasich voters. But it’s well above the national median household income of about $56,000. It’s also higher than the median income for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters, which is around $61,000 for both.
  
  These figures, as I mentioned, are derived from exit polls, which so far have been conducted in 23 primary states.1 The exit polls have asked voters to describe their 2015 family income by using one of five broad categories, ranging from “under $30,000” to “$200,000 or more.” It’s fairly straightforward to interpolate a median income for voters of each candidate from this data; for instance, we can infer that the median Clinton voter in Wisconsin made about $63,000.2 You can find my estimates for each candidate in each state in the following table, along with each state’s overall household median income in 2015.3

Also...I think if you look carefully you will find that "penchant for authoritarianism" is presented as the best preditor of trump support and that this does not rule out "income, education, gender, age, or race" as being predictors. For instance....if we assume that trump supporters have higher incomes than average then in fact we can say that income IS a predictor of trump support meaning that a higher income would predict trump support....saying that income is not a predictor would be saying that there is no difference in income between trump and clinton's supporters.

Yes, I think you could interpret it that way too, but I think the point that is being made is that the appeal of authoritarianism is a stronger predictor than income and other factors.

And finally...the guardian is a british paper and perhaps you are british too,

The Guardian was solely a British paper but it now has online editions for the UK, USA, Australia and also an international edition, using local journalists from the those countries for each edition. As I'm Australian, I generally read that edition, but of course there is a fair amount of cross-linking between editions.

I don't know, but the idea that the media or americans in general are concerned about if something "aligns more closely with their own 'class'" is definitely a british concept and I think that thinking in terms of 'class' is much more common in british society than in america.
chownah

I don't I agree with this statement regarding class and I don't think there is any evidence to support this either, but there certainly is evidence that there is greater wealth disparity in the US than Britain and a greater rate of growth in wealth disparity. The emergence of the working poor and the decline of the middle-class in the US comes to mind. This disparity would have the effect of making people more class-conscious.

Edit: just one more thing. My view is that trump supporters are seen by some to have lower incomes because they are always complaining about how bad things are economically because of current foreign trade policies and gov't regulations of industry etc. while in fact his supporters are actually mostly quite well off and they just like to complain and are greedy for more.

Yeah, good point. The more some people have the more they want. It's hard to satiate greed.

[lyndon taylor]

Everyone knows that Republicans tend to be richer than democrats on average, so what news about that. The studies I have read show Trump supporters are less educated, though, at least not finishing college as much.

[Bundokji]

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37683119

[chownah]

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37683119

So...what's your point?
Is your point that the title of the article (which is "Clinton emails: 'Quid pro quo' bid to bury Benghazi message") is kind of silly because kennedy (a state department official) tried to de-classify an email which is an act which would UNBURY the benghazi message while the title implies that he was making a bid to BURY it?.....blatant misrepresentation it seems.....also having nothing to do with clinton directly.

Or is your point that this:

Explaining that security and protocol procedures were regularly breached, the report states that early in Mrs Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, "she and her staff were observed removing lamps and furniture from the State Department", which were brought to her residence in Washington DC. The unnamed source does not know if the government property was ever returned.

this is just guilt by inuendo.....they don't know if the stuff was returned!!!!....they don't know!!!!!!....maybe...just maybe...it was all returned. If so then what does has this statement done?....it has besmirched some people's honesty falsly if the stuff was actually returned. Did they calculate how much paper and how many pencils were removed to clinton's home office?...and then did they calculate from examining the waste paper bin if it was all used up in official gov't business. This item seems to point to somepeople or someone trying really hard to speak badly of clinton....and not doing a very credible job of it.

What is your point here?
chownah

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

There's been so many unverified accusations levelled at both Clinton and Trump in recent times that it's really hard to make head nor tail of it all. Hopefully the final debate will be more policy-centric and less person-centric, although I doubt that will the case.

Metta,
Paul.