EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4887
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
On September 03 2016 06:13 Plansix wrote: Shit doesn't get archived? I've done E-discovery, where you dig through emails from 3-5 years ago. Its a fucking nightmare and not everything makes its. Very little is worth keeping. Not everything makes it to the back up. Most systems don't archive instantly, they do it several times a day. Sometimes they miss stuff. Sometimes things are deleted from the archive because they are deemed to be not worth archiving or they are part of a larger chain that is already archived. Do you really believe the goverment is going to archive every single email that passes through it's computers for decades? Edit; This is the sort of fruitless debate where no one changes their minds. Its all about what we believe is true and we all think the others side are fools for believing what they believe. Like that Trump is Putin's love child and wants to make daddy proud by become president. Sure, but you just don't hit delete on a 10 GB PST outlook file just because you think that one thread in there is already archived by someone else. These processes are automated for a reason and human intervention is rarely needed. Achieving emails both on the client and server side is standard practice in large organizations so I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you delete some useless spam in your work inbox thats ok because theres a record of it in the enterprise server most likely. In this case, both were privately managed. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 03 2016 06:23 biology]major wrote: Yeah I doubt anyone is going to change their minds, you guys are on some serious hrc kool aid if you think deleting 30k emails during the midst of an FBI investigation, immediately after the story came out is the same as deleting a few 100 emails at work. They were deleted years before the investigation took place. That is the part people keep missing. This all happened years ago and most of the systems were shut down or in storage. The emails that were deleted were not deleted because this investigation took place. They were just deleted for reasons. And once again. The goverment isn't going to keep every email ever sent to every computer for decades or beyond. Every time someone sends or responds or ccs someone on an email, that is a new email that has to be backed up. Every single time. At some point they need to move on. And no archiving system is perfect. | ||
KwarK
United States42774 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders. Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her. And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party. Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!" So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On September 03 2016 06:24 CorsairHero wrote: Sure, but you just don't hit delete on a 10 GB PST outlook file just because you think that one thread in there is already archived by someone else. These processes are automated for a reason and human intervention is rarely needed. Achieving emails both on the client and server side is standard practice in large organizations so I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you delete some useless spam in your work inbox thats ok because theres a record of it in the enterprise server most likely. In this case, both were privately managed. I'd be very surprised if you can even open a 10 GB PST file through Outlook if the file is stored on a networked drive. Maybe its gotten better in recent years, I haven't used Outlook in a long time, but holy fuck I could tell you stories. Besides that, I imagine that BleachBit or similar tools are probably used pretty commonly to delete stuff by IT people across the world none of whom are trying to hide nefarious schemes or plots. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42774 Posts
Why are you using the argument that Hillary is such a master political player and dealer that she locked the DNC down ahead of time as something we should count against her as a presidential candidate? Won't that be helpful? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 03 2016 06:34 KwarK wrote: LegalLord Why are you using the argument that Hillary is such a master political player and dealer that she locked the DNC down ahead of time as something we should count against her as a presidential candidate? Won't that be helpful? Sure, it's helpful for Hillary Clinton to gain favors. For people who actually care about the issues, not so much. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 03 2016 06:37 LegalLord wrote: Sure, it's helpful for Hillary Clinton to gain favors. For people who actually care about the issues, not so much. I care about the issues, this doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. As long as the democrats move towards what Warren and other members have been pushing for, I only see this as a good thing. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On September 03 2016 06:34 KwarK wrote: LegalLord Why are you using the argument that Hillary is such a master political player and dealer that she locked the DNC down ahead of time as something we should count against her as a presidential candidate? Won't that be helpful? To me, it is really strange to think that some people seem to believe that being able to play the game to get elected means you will be a good leader and thus deserve praise/endorsement. I feel like good leaders are those who are able to bring two opposing parties to mutual agreement, and surround themselves with people who are capable of gathering data to make sure that they will make informed decisions instead of firing off on ideological stuff without evidence that the decisions will be good policy. That sort of stuff. Political games are part of the horrifying reality that we find ourselves in, but shouldn't be encouraged in any way shape or form. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 03 2016 06:38 Plansix wrote: I care about the issues, this doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. As long as the democrats move towards what Warren and other members have been pushing for, I only see this as a good thing. Hillary's record has not been one that makes me have any faith that that would be what actually happens. As GH puts it, when you look more carefully into how good of a job she has actually done, rather than how she claims she did, you see a very different story. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On September 03 2016 06:37 LegalLord wrote: Sure, it's helpful for Hillary Clinton to gain favors. For people who actually care about the issues, not so much. Favors like getting people to support her policy agenda perhaps? : ) | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
Previously I had insisted that she could not have possibly lied to the FBI because that is their favorite statute and they would go after someone named "Richard Tracey" if he told them his name was "Dick Tracey". My confidence in the FBI's objectivity is much lower than before. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 03 2016 06:40 Mercy13 wrote: Favors like getting people to support her policy agenda perhaps? : ) Your mistake here is in assuming that she would use her political leverage to act in the country's best interest. Historically she has been known to be nominally supportive of issues that people care about and otherwise just playing the game for her own gain in rank and to some extent, wealth. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42774 Posts
On September 03 2016 06:39 a_flayer wrote: To me, it is really strange to think that some people seem to believe that being able to play the game to get elected means you will be a good leader and thus deserve praise/endorsement. I feel like good leaders are those who are able to bring two parties to mutual agreement, and surround themselves with people who are capable of gathering data to make sure that they will make informed decisions instead of firing off on ideological stuff without evidence that the decisions will be good policy. That sort of stuff. Political games are part of the horrifying reality that we find ourselves in, but shouldn't be encouraged in any way shape or form. It's the part of how the sausages are made that nobody wants to see. Your idea that mutual intellectual agreement and compromise will win is a little idealistic. The reality is that half the people she'll have to work with won't want to work with her and will need something in return and the other half who do want to work with her will pretend to be the first half so they don't get left out when the deals are being made. It's a shitty game but that's no reason to send someone in who doesn't know how to play it. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 03 2016 06:45 KwarK wrote: It's the part of how the sausages are made that nobody wants to see. Your idea that mutual intellectual agreement and compromise will win is a little idealistic. The reality is that half the people she'll have to work with won't want to work with her and will need something in return and the other half who do want to work with her will pretend to be the first half so they don't get left out when the deals are being made. It's a shitty game but that's no reason to send someone in who doesn't know how to play it. People dislike compromise because in politics because it means giving away something you don't want to give away. They forget that the other side did the same thing. You always hear this from the far left of the Democrats, that they "gave up to much to the Republicans" after someone worked on a deal for half a year. Or with the Iran deal, that we "gave up to much". The way you know a deal is a good deal is if both sides of the deal are bitching about it. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Which is an argument that could be made for sure, but also one I doubt most Hillary supporters would agree with. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
But if we use the standard that all back room deals are bad, I think Teddy Roosevelt gets a bad rating. For all his public bluster, he did a lot of back room deals with businesses to get them to compromise. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On September 03 2016 06:45 LegalLord wrote: Your mistake here is in assuming that she would use her political leverage to act in the country's best interest. Historically she has been known to be nominally supportive of issues that people care about and otherwise just playing the game for her own gain in rank and to some extent, wealth. Well presumably she wants to get reelected, and the way to do that is to deliver policy victories to the people who would vote for her. What does your second sentence mean? Are you saying it is "known" that she only pretends to support liberal priorities for personal gain? If so, citation needed. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4773 Posts
On September 03 2016 06:40 cLutZ wrote: IMO the new report by the FBI is just more a drip drip. But, it does seem to indicate she lied/misled the FBI even during her interview, which is a problem, because that itself is a felony (the Martha Stewart corollary). 18 U.S. Code § 1001 Previously I had insisted that she could not have possibly lied to the FBI because that is their favorite statute and they would go after someone named "Richard Tracey" if he told them his name was "Dick Tracey". My confidence in the FBI's objectivity is much lower than before. Like how they did the Friday, pre-holiday news dump? | ||
| ||
