POTUS Election 2016- a Fresh Start

[Astronuc]

Is a Michael Moore video newsworthy ? And PF worthy ? If not, delete this post with no hard feelings.

i believe Moore is not a Trump supporter

Michael Moore endorsed Bernie Sanders, and he was quite negative on Clinton. It certainly is interesting commentary by Moore, and it is a current news event.

Moore's endorsement of Bernie Sanders (and criticism of Hillary Clinton)
http://michaelmoore.com/MyEndorsementOfBernie/

 

[Evo]

Here is what Michael Moore is up to. He has a new movie.

At a recent promotional event for his new film “Michael Moore in TrumpLand,” Moore told audience members that he thinks the loudmouthed GOP nominee is going to win, largely because American elites are so cut off from regular people that they don’t realize just how much the middle class has been harmed in recent years.

Moore has repeatedly made clear that he does not support Trump, just that he can see why some people choose to.
(He supported Sen. Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primaries and now supports Clinton.)

In an interview with Rolling Stone about “TrumpLand,” the filmmaker said he thought many Trump supporters viewed voting for him as a way of being “legal terrorists.” For that reason, people who oppose Trump need to be more careful in how they do so, Moore argued.

“You have to protect the population from him like you do with a pedophile,” he said. “A pedophile doesn’t need to be in prison; they’re sick. They have to be separated from us so they don’t hurt children. But you have to treat it that way.”

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/26/mic...-donald-trump-as-a-giant-fk-you-and-hell-win/

Gosh, maybe the first time I've agreed with Moore, even he is sane enough to see the danger.

 

[jim hardy]

Here is what Michael Moore is up to.

That sounds more like Michael.

 

[russ_watters]

I have no idea what that is about, he did walk out on two local news interviews recently, but they appear to be impromptu.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...cism-claims-interview-questions-a7374371.html

Just an FYI, since I've switched to apathy for the remainder of the election cycle, my posts are heavily sarcastic - it appears you are still taking it super-seriously, so you may not be seeing my sarcasm for what it is. That post had two points:
1. CNN often does a terrible job with their reporting, particularly when:
2. They are dragging-up old stories to re-report as "news".

It could be though that those reasons are the same, that the poor writing was pseduo on purpose, since reporting it straight would be boring.

 

[jim hardy]

Just an FYI, since I've switched to apathy for the remainder of the election cycle,

That's a very practical state of mind. Freed from emotional pressure one can think better.

Personalities and pecadillos aside,
Re ship of state :
to change course or not to change course ? That is the question.

old jim

 

[NTL2009]

Evo said: ↑ Here is what Michael Moore is up to.

That sounds more like Michael.

Yes, another example of how important full context is. Clearly, in full context, Moore is anti-Trump and says it would be a big mistake to vote for him.

But that does not change what he said about how voters are rejecting the status quo. They are tired of being lied to. From Bill's “I did not have relations/inhale”, to Obama's 4-Pinochio “You can keep your doctor/plan - period”, to HRC's “were were under sniper fire” and public lies about her handling of sensitive government info. And is it my imagination, or do her supporters (and some of the media) usually frame that in terms of 'her use of a personal server' - as if it is just some obscure technical detail about some computer hardware, rather than the critical issue of her “extremely careless” handling of sensitive government information, destruction of evidence (Bleach-Bit), etc?

And now we have this evidence of election rigging (Debbie Wasserman Schultz fired over the DNC promoting HRC over Sanders, though they are supposed to be impartial).

And evidence that the media is controlled by the HRC campaign ( NY Times allowed the campaign to edit/approve some of their articles - can you imagine them doing that for Trump?!). What could be more dangerous to a free United States than a media that is controlled by the ruling party? Are we headed towards a dictator/Pravda situation?

And evidence that high level members of the HRC campaign (people who visited the White House and met with Obama many, many times) paid people to cause violence at Trump rallies (and were fired over it, so it's not being denied - HRC didn't deny it in the last debate). The Trump rally in Chicago was canceled due to fear of violence - now if some of that was created by these paid goons, that certainly is interfering with the election process and free speech. Outrageous.

Yes, people are sickened by the status quo, and they should be. We don't know if there are enough of them going to the polls to turn the election away from the status quo. But several respected pollsters are showing it to be a very tight race, within 1-2 points (Rassmusen and IBD).

 

[Bystander]

Re ship of state :
to change course or not to change course ? That is the question.

Already on the rocks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Point_disaster

 

[OmCheeto]

Already on the rocks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Point_disaster

As a veteran of the USN, I'm surprised I've never heard that story before.
hmmm...

anyways, Thanks!

 

[Bystander]

veteran of the USN, I'm surprised I've never heard that story before.
hmmm...

Probably not terribly proud of it.

 

[Bystander]

ps. I of course researched, and found that Mrs. Clinton, aka Hillary Brussel Sprouts, has the endorsement of 110 retired generals and admirals.

"Significance of flag rank" endorsements goes up with the third star, down with lack of combat decorations (see wiki for biographies), off the bottom of the scale for political decorations (Legion of Merit). Anyone want to check?

 

[Evo]

Here's an article about it, there is good and bad, I suggest reading the whole article, it's short. I just can't copy the whole thing.

Trump's Unimpressive Support From Military Leaders

His campaign announced endorsements from 88 retired generals and admirals. That’s nice, but 500 backed Mitt Romney in 2012.

Seems impressive, right? Eighty-eight generals and admirals sounds like a lot of military leaders, all rallying around the tough-talking, law-and-order candidate pledging to restore greatness to America’s armed forces.

Well, it’s actually not.

Compare Trump’s haul of 88 to the 500 retired generals and admirals who took out a full-page ad in support of Mitt Romney on the eve of the 2012 presidential election. Romney had some big names, too. The group of 500 included Army General Hugh Shelton, who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Bill Clinton, as well as a former commandant of the Marine Corps and an Air Force chief of staff. In total, five ex-members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff backed Romney over President Obama. There are nearly 900 active general and flag officers in the military and thousands of retirees.None of the signatories was a service chief or led a major combatant command. The most prominent ex-military official backing Trump remains Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who served in senior intelligence roles in Afghanistan but is best known as Obama’s appointee to lead the Defense Intelligence Agency. Flynn delivered a lengthy and impassioned address in support of Trump at the Republican National Convention and was reportedly under consideration to be his running mate. As The New York Times noted, two of the signatories on the letter are best known for their controversial statements about Islam and, in the case of Lieutenant General Thomas McInerey, for filing court documents challenging Obama’s eligibility to serve as president and command the military. Another signatory is listed as a major general in the California State Military Reserve, which is not a branch of the U.S. armed forces (although he did previously serve in the U.S. Army reserve).Trump does retain one advantage over Clinton: Polling of military households and veterans shows him with a lead. Here, too, his performance trails well behind that of other recent Republican candidates. Among prominent ex-military and national-security leaders, the edge clearly belongs to Clinton, and the 88 generals and admirals backing Trump on Tuesday don’t provide quite the impressive show of unified support that it might seem on first blush.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...military-leaders-isnt-that-impressive/498806/

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

FBI reopening Clinton email case
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/polit...iary-committee0514PMStoryLink&linkId=30456657

 

[jim hardy]

FBI reopening Clinton email case

A government source said the emails were found on a device other than Clinton's private email server, which they had been examining earlier as part of a year-long investigation that had appeared to be finished.

wow that's obscure. My guess is it's a distraction .

In other news,
Russia's court jester has caught the attention of legitimate news outfit Reuters .
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-russian-trump-idUKKCN12C292

"Trump will have a brilliant chance to make relations more peaceful ... He's the only one who can do this," he said, adding that Trump could even win a Nobel peace prize.

CLINTON "CRAVES POWER"

In contrast, Zhirinovsky described Clinton as "an evil mother-in law" and said her record as secretary of state under Obama in 2009-2013 showed she was unfit to lead her country.

"She craves power. Her view is that Hillary is the most important person on the planet, that America is an exceptional country, as Barack Obama said," said Zhirinovsky. "That's dangerous. She could start a nuclear war."

In typically chauvinistic remarks, Zhirinovsky said Clinton's gender should also bar her from the presidency.

Oh well. RT recognized our jester Jon Stewart , too. But they don't meet PF sourcing standards.

 

[Evo]

wow that's obscure. My guess is it's a distraction .

Sounds like it's a Blackberry, probably belonging to Abedin, since the article says it didn't belong to Clinton.

 

[jim hardy]

probably belonging to Abedin, since the article says it didn't belong to Clinton.

hopefully not to Huma's husband who they were investigating for something unrelated . I've heard quite enough about his phone games.

 

[Evo]

hopefully not to Huma's husband who they were investigating for something unrelated . I've heard quite enough about his phone games.

I'm sure the conversations on that phone are quite interesting.

 

[Astronuc]

TRUMP: 'We should just cancel the election and give it to Trump'
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-just-cancel-election-trump-215738504.html

Donald Trump: 'We Should Just Cancel the Election and Just Give It to Trump'
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-cancel-election-give-trump/

Not what I would expect from a presidential candidate.

Meanwhile - Trump wants to run the country like his businesses.

Trump U staff included drug trafficker, child molester
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-u-staff-included-drug-trafficker-child-molester-173925535--election.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump says he hand-picked only the best to teach success at Trump University. But dozens of those hired by the company had checkered pasts — including serious financial problems and even convictions for cocaine trafficking or child molestation, an Associated Press investigation has found.

The AP identified 107 people listed as speakers and staff on more than 21,000 pages of customer-satisfaction surveys the Republican presidential nominee has released as part of his defense against three lawsuits.

Half the 68 former faculty and staff identified by AP had personal bankruptcies, foreclosures, credit card defaults, tax liens or other indicators of significant money troubles prior to teaching Trump University courses promoting "wealth building" and "how to invest like a billionaire," according to AP's review. Many of those hired to teach did not have college degrees and were not licensed to broker real estate.

At least four had felony convictions.

They include Ron P. Broussard Jr., who was hired to the Trump University staff in 2007 after years serving as a motivational speaker at get-rich-quick seminars taught in hotel conference rooms.

Though he has never been licensed as a real estate agent or broker, Broussard is listed as "staff" or "coordinator" for at least five Trump seminars titled "Fast Track to Foreclosure."

In a 2005 video targeted at prospective students, Trump said he personally vetted those hired to run his seminars.

"At Trump University we teach success. That's what it's all about. Success. It's going to happen to you," Trump said in a promotional video, looking intently into the camera. "We're going to have professors and adjunct professors that are absolutely terrific — terrific people, terrific brains, successful. We are going to have the best of the best. ... These are all people that are hand-picked by me."

In sworn depositions taken as part of the lawsuits, Trump said he had not met all of those hired at Trump University, though he often reviewed their resumes.
. . . .
Asked whether he could recall the names of any of his hand-picked instructors, Trump, who in the past said he had "one of the world's greatest memories," said he was unable to do so.
. . . .
Timothy C. Gorsline, who taught at least eight Trump University seminars in 2008, pleaded no contest a decade earlier to felony cocaine possession, according to an electronic database of Florida court records.

Records also show Damian D. Pell, who helped teach at least 23 Trump University seminars from 2008 to 2010, pleaded guilty in Florida to a felony charge of trafficking cocaine.

Spencer J. Raffel, who staffed a Trump University event in 2008, has a felony conviction in Florida for grand theft, according to court records. He was sentenced to serve three years of probation in 1989.

That he is the GOP nominee is just sad.

 

[Astronuc]

Emails show how Clinton campaign chair was apparently hacked
https://www.yahoo.com/news/emails-show-clinton-campaign-chairman-apparently-hacked-001804996--election.html

Podesta's chief of staff, Sara Latham, forwarded the email to the operations help desk of Clinton's campaign, where staffer Charles Delavan in Brooklyn, New York, wrote back 25 minutes later, "This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately."

But the email was not authentic.

The link to the website where Podesta was encouraged to change his Gmail password actually directed him instead to a computer in the Netherlands with a web address associated with Tokelau, a territory of New Zealand located in the South Pacific. The hackers carefully disguised the link using a service that shortens lengthy online addresses. But even for anyone checking more diligently, the address — "google.com-securitysettingpage" — was crafted to appear genuine.

I hope these Clinton people do not get jobs in the White House.

 

[Evo]

These people are not internet savvy. Clinton had no idea what she was doing when she was told she could have an email server. When she said she didn't know, she really didn't know. Why the Government doesn't have people in charge to make sure that these people don't go off and do things because they don't know any better is just mind blowing. Who is supposed to be in charge of these things? Who is responsible? And if there is no one responsible...WHY THE HELL NOT?

 

[Astronuc]

Who is responsible?

Clinton hired or approved Podesta who hired or approved Latham. I don't know about Delavan. Delavan screwed up big time and he should find alternative employment, preferably not involving communication over the internet or any interaction with computer systems.

I can't believe that these people aren't internet savvy in this day and age, and given the role that the internet and emails play in the daily routine. It's part of their responsibility to be aware of cyber threats, and if they aren't and/or can't be bothered, then they should have no role in the nation's political process or government. They are basically risks we don't need.Meanwhile -

An artificial intelligence system that correctly predicted the last three U.S. presidential elections puts Republican nominee Donald Trump ahead of Democrat rival Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House.

MogIA was developed by Sanjiv Rai, founder of Indian start-up Genic.ai. It takes in 20 million data points from public platforms including Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in the U.S. and then analyzes the information to create predictions.

The AI system was created in 2004, so it has been getting smarter all the time. It had already correctly predicted the results of the Democratic and Republican Primaries.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/ai-system-finds-trump-win-104022784.html

We shall see in 11 days.

 

[Evo]

Clinton hired or approved Podesta who hired or approved Latham. I don't know about Delavan. Delavan screwed up big time and he should find alternative employment, preferably not involving communication over the internet or any interaction with computer systems.

I can't believe that these people aren't internet savvy in this day and age, and given the role that the internet and emails play in the daily routine. It's part of their responsibility to be aware of cyber threats, and if they aren't and/or can't be bothered, then they should have no role in the nation's political process or government. They are basically risks we don't need.

The Government should have IT specialists in high level security overseeing all levels of traffic, that we don't is just shocking.

 

[russ_watters]

These people are not internet savvy. Clinton had no idea what she was doing when she was told she could have an email server. When she said she didn't know, she really didn't know. Why the Government doesn't have people in charge to make sure that these people don't go off and do things because they don't know any better is just mind blowing. Who is supposed to be in charge of these things? Who is responsible? And if there is no one responsible...WHY THE HELL NOT?

Near as we can tell, there were a lot of people who told Hillary "no" (and even more who told each other "WTF?"), but the problem is that Hillary was the boss, so she didn't have to listen. So she's responsible, whether she knew what she was doing or not. So not only did she not know what she was doing (*wink*), but she didn't listen to people who did know what she was doing and knew she shouldn't. That's a really bad/dangerous combination of incompetence and arrogance for a leader to posses.

The Government should have IT specialists in high level security overseeing all levels of traffic, that we don't is just shocking.

What exactly do you mean by "overseeing"? Do you mean playing the role of her secretary, typing all the emails for her and using the secure systems for her and just handing her printouts? Or do you just mean training her and setting up the systems for her and checking to ensure she was using them right? Because it its the latter, then she had that, she just didn't listen/obey.

[edit] Er -- though if you are referring to the Podesta hack, John Podesta is not a government employee, so there is no reason why the government would oversee his internet usage.

 

[Evo]

I mean for all of the government Russ, I used to work with very sensitive Government accounts and they had nothing in place for security. Sure, they had some rules about not using government email for personal use, but that was about it. Yeah, I had to sign documents about not disclosing information, which I never did, but there was no oversight. There were no secure servers that we used to send information about highly sensitive information. Nothing was encrypted. It's mind boggling.

And don't try to tell me what she had as oversight unless you can prove it.

 

[RonL]

The Government should have IT specialists in high level security overseeing all levels of traffic, that we don't is just shocking.

I think you would be more shocked to find out just how much security and IT personnel the Government has and how everyone has to be tested and approved to operate behind very strict firewalls.

 

[Evo]

I think you would be more shocked to find out just how much security and IT personnel the Government has and how everyone has to be tested and approved to operate behind very strict firewalls.

Well, it's been a few years,maybe 5-6 and if I told you what I did and what I worked on and the departments I worked with, your ears would curl up and fall off. Maybe they are different now, I certainly hope so, but back when Clinton was in office, there wasn't. I was a Government SPOC at the time for a very sensitive network.

 

[russ_watters]

I mean for all of the government Russ, I used to work with very sensitive Government accounts and they had nothing in place for security.

I can't parse that. It is practically impossible to have "nothing in place for security" on a multi-user computer system/network. Their email accounts had usernames and passwords, didn't they? And:

There were no secure servers that we used to send information about highly sensitive information. Nothing was encrypted. It's mind boggling.

I don't know what agencies you worked for, but you are aware that military/government classified communications have their own special system that is separate from peoples' normal email, right? After months of discussing it, I don't think I've ever seen you acknowledge that Hillary sent and received secure message traffic on her secure, government provided classified system.

And don't try to tell me what she had as oversight unless you can prove it.

C'mon, Evo, we've been discussing this for months. Don't just keep your blinders on and just keep repeating Hillary's proven lies, unsubstantiated claims and intentional distractions over and over again. You're better than that.

[edit]
Just one of many examples you've probably already seen:

In March 2009, after unsuccessful efforts to supply Secretary Clinton with a secure government smartphone, DS was informed that Secretary Clinton’s staff had been asking to use BlackBerry devices inside classified areas. The Assistant Secretary of DS then sent a classified memorandum to Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff that described the vulnerabilities associated with the use of BlackBerry devices and also noted the prohibition on the use of Blackberry devices in sensitive areas. According to a DS official, shortly after the memorandum was delivered, Secretary Clinton approached the Assistant Secretary and told him she “gets it.”

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf

 

[Evo]

C'mon, Evo, we've been discussing this for months. Don't just keep your blinders on and just keep repeating Hillary's proven lies, unsubstantiated claims and intentional distractions over and over again. You're better than that.

I'm saying that you are giving the woman way too much credit. She wanted a way to work at home so that important issues didn't wait until she was in the office and she was happy to hear that was possible. Gullible? Maybe. Too willing to believe it was ok? Most likely. Intentionally trying to get away with something illegal? Highly doubtful. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this, I don't believe that she was that IT savvy that she fully understood when she was told that they could set up a secure server that it wouldn't be "ok". Maybe not 100% Kosher, but "ok". Politicians do things that aren't Kosher all of the time, she probably felt justified in doing it because she saw no wrong in getting important issues addressed faster (that probably meant she could stay home and not have to go to the office in the middle of the night, I'm not saying it wasn't part laziness). Her fault is not admitting she screwed up when it was first explained to her.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm saying that you are giving the woman way too much credit. She wanted a way to work at home so that important issues didn't wait until she was in the office and she was happy to hear that was possible.

"Credit"? I don't know how such a word even applies here. Anyway, I've never heard before that a state department email address can't be accessed from home nor that that was a reason why she used a personal account. Do you have a source for that?

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this, I don't believe that she was that IT savvy that she fully understood when she was told that they could set up a secure server that it wouldn't be "ok".

The key part we'll have to "agree to disagree" on is the part where you claim she had permission. The only "evidence" that she had permission is her own claim itself - and both the FBI and DOS Inspector General put a lot of effort into trying to verify that claim and came up empty. You must be aware of that. This is what I mean about you just accepting anything she says and putting on blinders to the issue of proof.

 

[Evo]

"Credit"? I don't know how such a word even applies here. Anyway, I've never heard before that a state department email address can't be accessed from home nor that that was a reason why she used a personal account. Do you have a source for that?

It was in an article I read at least a year ago. I have no idea if I could find it now.

I didn't say that she had "permission" I said that she asked if it could be done and she was told yes, and it could, and it was, that's not the same as permission.

 

[russ_watters]

It was in an article I read at least a year ago. I have no idea if I could find it now.

Sounds solid, thanks.

I didn't say that she had "permission" I said that she asked if it could be done and she was told yes, and it could, and it was, that's not the same as permission.

I don't see a difference but in either case - again - there is no evidence besides her claim itself that "she was told yes" to any such thing.

 

[Astronuc]

and setting up the systems for her and checking to ensure she was using them right?

The part about setting up the systems for her - wasn't done properly. It should have been secured/encrypted and wasn't. She should have made clear to anyone she contacted that it was an unsecure system. No one, including her, should have sent any classified information over that system.

If she didn't know something was classified, she wasn't properly trained. When in doubt, ask, and she didn't know to do that, then she wasn't properly trained, or perhaps she didn't bother, which is more disturbing.

 

[Evo]

If she didn't know something was classified, she wasn't properly trained. When in doubt, ask, and she didn't know to do that, then she wasn't properly trained, or perhaps she didn't bother, which is more disturbing.

Edit: Clarification - Neither of her 2 emails deemed classified by Comey were actually classified, according to Kirby from the sate department, Comey was mistaken, the State Department cleared that up, stating that they were "human error", see below. This is not in reference to any other emails that have not been examined by the State Department as mentioned in Russ's post.

Some classification markings found in email messages on Hillary Clinton's private server were the result of "human error" and the related information was not considered classified at the time it was sent to her, State Department spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday.

When FBI Director James Comey announced Tuesday that investigators were not recommending any charges in the Clinton email matter, he noted that "a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information."

The claim appeared to contradict Democratic presidential candidate Clinton's repeated claims that nothing in her emails was marked classified at the time she received it, although the State Department has also said on numerous occasions that none of the information in those messages was marked classified.

At a regular briefing for reporters Wednesday, Kirby said State is aware of two instances in the set of roughly 30,000 messages turned over to the agency by Clinton where classification markings appeared in the emails. However, he said those were mistakes where staff failed to remove the notations while preparing background and talking points for Clinton in a planned phone call with a foreign official.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/hillary-clinton-classified-emails-error-225194

 

[S.G. Janssens]

This is what I mean about you just accepting anything she says and putting on blinders to the issue of proof.

There may be people with blinders here, but I doubt that the person you are addressing is among them.

 

[russ_watters]

The part about setting up the systems for her - wasn't done properly.

You need to go a step further: it shouldn't have been done at all. Or, from the opposite direction: she had a "system" that was set up properly: It was her DOS email. She just never used it.

 

[russ_watters]

None of her emails were classified, Comey was mistaken, the State Department cleared that up.

From the mouth of the fox guarding the hen house. It's the same as the tactic you are using when you say Clinton did the same thing that Powell did. It is true in a very narrow sense but wildly misleading because it ignores everything else. But at least he admitted later in the press conference that he wasn't necessarily talking about the same thing the FBI was:

Kirby acknowledged that he could not say for sure whether "human error" accounted for all such instances of classification markings the FBI identified in Clinton's private email account because Comey said the FBI had recovered more such emails than the ones Clinton provided to State in December 2014.

Here's the full transcript:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/07/259402.htm

The reporters were all over him because they picked-up on a couple of problems:
1. He falsely claimed that you can just make something unclassified by deleting the classification header (!)
2. He implied but then backed away from the claim you forwarded - that those were the only marked as classified emails.