The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Notice I said that this would only be for department heads and elected positions. People in this position are granted position of power, and thus we must take steps that these power are adjudicated appropriately. And the only way to ensure that, imo, is that these paper trails *are* subject to public scrutiny in some fashion.

So you want people in positions of power to use their powers appropriately, and your means of enforcement regarding this is to subject all of their records to the People? That's a rather optimistic take on the capabilities of the People/public.

Also, are people that might have incriminated themselves along the way of your "paper trail" immune?

**Ensis Ferrae**

dogma wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:

What if you're like me, and aren't really conservative or liberal?? Typically, when I use "The Media" I am actually lumping MSNBC, Fox and CNN and their ilk together, because I am tending to talk about how each one is spinning/warping the "news" to fit their viewer ideology/office ideology.

That's the problem with amorphous terminology, it always depends on the context provided by the person using the term. Whembly was obviously conflating "DNC" with "the media", which has been a hilariously bad part of the conservative (especially the extreme conservative) playbook for years now.

And while I know many of us throw around terms like "liberal" and "conservative" they do actually mean something, and often times mean something other than what people use them as.... For instance, Libertarians are actually Liberals, as they are among the closest ideologically to Locke's ideals of liberalism, while guys like Santorum are true "conservatives" because they are calling on values that are "higher" than human beings as a reason to limit/conrtol the populace.

**dogma**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

And while I know many of us throw around terms like "liberal" and "conservative" they do actually mean something, and often times mean something other than what people use them as.... For instance, Libertarians are actually Liberals, as they are among the closest ideologically to Locke's ideals of liberalism, while guys like Santorum are true "conservatives" because they are calling on values that are "higher" than human beings as a reason to limit/conrtol the populace.

Sure, those terms mean things when context is provided; as you are doing here by referencing Locke. But John Locke did not define "liberal" then, and he certainly cannot do so now.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Notice I said that this would only be for department heads and elected positions. People in this position are granted position of power, and thus we must take steps that these power are adjudicated appropriately. And the only way to ensure that, imo, is that these paper trails *are* subject to public scrutiny in some fashion.

So you want people in positions of power to use their powers appropriately, and your means of enforcement regarding this is to subject all of their records to the People? That's a rather optimistic take on the capabilities of the People/public.

Yup.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

So the Clinton Foundation received money from the Algerian government but since Eli Lily gave money to a Polish foundation who had the authority to make pharmaceutical purchases (like stuff that Eli Lily manufactures) and they were accused of wrong doing (which they never denied) that makes the Clinton Foundation equally guilty although there is no proof of said wrongdoing but because it's the Clintons so everything they do is shady?

Did I get that right?

**sebster**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
For instance, Libertarians are actually Liberals, as they are among the closest ideologically to Locke's ideals of liberalism, while guys like Santorum are true "conservatives" because they are calling on values that are "higher" than human beings as a reason to limit/conrtol the populace.

It's interesting to point out that over here in Oz our mainstream right wing party are the Liberals... because the party was formed around the idea of laissez-faire economics.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
So the Clinton Foundation received money from the Algerian government but since Eli Lily gave money to a Polish foundation who had the authority to make pharmaceutical purchases (like stuff that Eli Lily manufactures) and they were accused of wrong doing (which they never denied) that makes the Clinton Foundation equally guilty although there is no proof of said wrongdoing but because it's the Clintons so everything they do is shady?

Did I get that right?

It is actually quite dodgy, I think.

The things in favour of Clinton;
The money wasn't directly solicited or requested. It was volunteered by Algeria after the Clintons put out a general request for Haiti.
The idea that Clintons would start giving up favours through her Sec of State role over $500,000 is silly - Bill can generate more than that in a week of speaches.

The things against Clinton;
The money sets up a relationship, and that relationship can come with expectations of future money, and that can lead to a request for favours down the line. That's how bribery works, and why you have to be vigilant even about the small payments.
Failure to tell the Obama administration about the donation directly breached the ethics rules that were put in place before Clinton was appointed Sec of State. The Foundation didn’t even have to reject the money, it just had to inform the Whitehouse about it. That they didn’t is either an incredibly bad oversight, or a decision made to ignore ethics requirements for political convenience. Either way it’s pretty bad.

It’s that last point that ultimately matters most of all. Clinton agreed to ethics rules, and then failed to follow them.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

sebster wrote:
It is actually quite dodgy, I think.

The things in favour of Clinton;
The money wasn't directly solicited or requested. It was volunteered by Algeria after the Clintons put out a general request for Haiti.
The idea that Clintons would start giving up favours through her Sec of State role over $500,000 is silly - Bill can generate more than that in a week of speaches.

The things against Clinton;
The money sets up a relationship, and that relationship can come with expectations of future money, and that can lead to a request for favours down the line. That's how bribery works, and why you have to be vigilant even about the small payments.
Failure to tell the Obama administration about the donation directly breached the ethics rules that were put in place before Clinton was appointed Sec of State. The Foundation didn’t even have to reject the money, it just had to inform the Whitehouse about it. That they didn’t is either an incredibly bad oversight, or a decision made to ignore ethics requirements for political convenience. Either way it’s pretty bad.

It’s that last point that ultimately matters most of all. Clinton agreed to ethics rules, and then failed to follow them.

I don't disagree with any of that, but I also don't think this is going to sink the Clinton Foundation like Whembly assumes it will.

My biggest issue with how this story is being presented is what we (and the author) don't know. We know that the Algerian government gave the foundation $500,000 and the rules to report it were not followed. The linchpin of the article is this though: a kind of similar (but not the same) situation involving American pharmaceutical companies and a Polish charity is proof that the Clintons are up to no good, even though there doesn't seem to be any real proof that this is the case. It plays in to the preconceived notion that the Clintons are inherently shady in their dealings. No matter what, I think it's a little early to say that this will sink the Clinton Foundation and Hilary's future in politics.

**whembly**

I dunno scooty... the more scrutiny the foundation gets... the more shady it gets.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-hsbc-swiss-bank

The charitable foundation run by Hillary Clinton and her family has received as much as $81m from wealthy international donors who were clients of HSBC’s controversial Swiss bank.
Leaked files from HSBC’s Swiss banking division reveal the identities of seven donors to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation with accounts in Geneva.

wo man...

wo.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Yup.

What reason do you have to suspect that the People will act responsibly on the basis of new information provided to them, when they don't do as much on the basis of information they are provided with now?

whembly wrote:

Wat?

I asked a very simple question: Are people that might have incriminated themselves along the way of your "paper trail" immune? The fact that you cannot provide an answer is a rather significant strike against the kind of populism you are espousing.

**whembly**

Why the Clinton email server story matters — and why it may be worse than you think

Commentary: Let me start by saying what this article isn’t.

This isn’t an article about Hillary Clinton (in fact, for the rest of the article, I’m simply going to talk about the “Secretary of State” or “Secretary”). This isn’t an article about records retention and access and possible motivations around that. And it’s not about questions of the law.

This article is about actions that we know the Secretary of State took, and what it means from the point of view of information security.

Information security is the most important point in this whole situation, in my opinion. And because of the usual political nonsense, it’s getting lost and we can’t afford for it to get lost: it relates directly to critical matters of national security.

From this point of view, the facts are nearly undisputed. The Secretary of State did not use an email account that was hosted on an official State Department server. Instead, she used an email account on an outside server. All accounts indicate that this email account was used exclusively: the Secretary never used an official State Department email account hosted on State Department servers. And reports indicate that this email account was hosted on a physical server that was not physically under government control or protection. Some reports have even indicated that it was located in the Secretary’s personal residence. Some reports have characterized this as a “homebrew” server, and that’s apt and accurate.

These are the facts that we need to focus on from an information security point of view. Because if these facts are true, this can represent one of the most serious breaches in data handling that we’ve ever heard of.

This matters for three reasons.

1) The Secretary of State is a very “high value target” from the standpoint of nation-state threat actors. The President, Secretary of Defense and the head of the CIA would also qualify in this top tier. These individuals handle the most important, most sensitive, most dangerous and therefore most interesting information to foreign intelligence.

2) Nation-state threat actors represent the top of the food chain in terms of adversaries in information security. Nation-states can bring the most talent and resources to bear in this arena. For all the worry about cybercriminals and terrorists, everyone in information security looks at nation-state threat actors as the most advanced and sophisticated threat to defend against.

3) Take #1 and #2 together and you have a situation where the very high value targets are threatened by the most advanced and sophisticated offensive information security capabilities out there. Put another way, the best of the best are gunning for those people to get their information.
The third point is critical: if the best of the best are after your information, you need the best of your best protecting it. And there is simply no way that a “homebrew” server is EVER going to have the security and resources appropriate to defend it adequately.

Looking at it this way, a “homebrew” server was the worst possible choice. Even using a webmail system like Gmail, Outlook or Yahoo would have been better because those companies have the expertise and capability to meet at least some of the threat this class of information would face.

This is the most important point. You can liken this to the CFO of Chase taking billions of dollars in cash home and storing it in the mattress. It’s so inadequate to meeting the risks that it would be laughable if it weren’t so serious.
Unless we learn that this server was being protected by the government using the same levels of protection that official servers are, we have no choice but to assume that this server has been compromised by foreign intelligence agents. And let’s be clear, this isn’t just hostile governments: if the Snowden disclosures have shown us anything (reminded us, really) it’s that everyone spies on everyone, friend and foe alike. To put this in the starkest terms: we have to assume the Russians, the Chinese, the Israelis have had access to the Secretary of State’s official email.

In any data breach like this, one of the questions we raise is whether this kind of action represents a failure of policy. Did the State Department have clear security policies and procedures that were communicated to its employees about the appropriate use of systems? This is important because it helps us understand if this is the failure of a single individual or if we have a bigger problem where others (including other Secretaries of State) could be creating the same kinds of risks.

The press reports haven’t delved into this question adequately, being focused on other questions. I have the benefit of having a friend who was a political appointee to the State Department under a Secretary of State prior to the one in question. I asked this friend if there were clear guidelines that would make clear this was inappropriate, and I was told that everyone knew you only used your Blackberry for work, and only for work. Based on that, it would seem this was an intentional violation of security policies and procedures by this Secretary. The good news here, I suppose, is that we would seem to not have to worry that our ambassador to Russia is using Gmail or that John Kerry has his own server in his house.

But the fact remains that, unless we learn otherwise, this Secretary of State took actions that endangered the security of critical information in their trust and so the security of the United States. Regardless of one’s political affiliation and support that is a very serious violation, much more serious than the other violations being discussed.

What needs to happen is there needs to be a full investigation of the security piece of this. How secure was the server? Who was protecting it? Was there any evidence that it was compromised (though the best compromises are never detected)? Assuming that it was compromised, what information was on it and now has to be assumed to be lost?

But right now, the discussion isn’t focused on this. Where security is being raised it’s peripheral. These questions are secondary to other ones. And that is a problem.

This potentially could be the most serious national security data breach that we’ve heard of. The pieces are in place for it to be that. And part of the problem right now is we just don’t know and no one is focusing on those questions appropriately.

Hopefully calm heads will prevail and an appropriate investigation will occur so we can understand this situation better. But for now, I’m not hopeful that will happen. This critical piece of this situation may get lost in the shuffle as people focus on other, more interesting, but less important points.

Indeed...

**dogma**

whembly wrote:
I dunno scooty... the more scrutiny the foundation gets... the more shady it gets.

You should dig into how private foundations are run in the US, they're all shady.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:
I dunno scooty... the more scrutiny the foundation gets... the more shady it gets.

You should dig into how private foundations are run in the US, they're all shady.

So that makes it okay? and, it shouldn't factor into a possible HRC candidacy?

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

So that makes it okay? and, it shouldn't factor into a possible HRC candidacy?

Yes, that does make it okay, and no it shouldn't factor into an HRC bid. At least unless you want to chase all the personal foundations, and the regulations which enable them.

**Ensis Ferrae**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

So that makes it okay? and, it shouldn't factor into a possible HRC candidacy?

Yes, that does make it okay, and no it shouldn't factor into an HRC bid. At least unless you want to chase all the personal foundations, and the regulations which enable them.

I somewhat agree with Dogma here.... Anyone remember the noise being made about shady goings-on at the very top of Wounded Warrior Project? Or the same kind of noise about Girl Scouts of America?

I agree that it shouldn't factor in to ANY political bid, unless there is hard evidence that the potential candidate personally "commanded" that shady gak being done. I'm fairly sure that even though the Clinton's have their name on the foundation, they probably have very little to do with it's operation except in terms of money (either giving or receiving)

**Vaktathi**

If their name is on it, regardless of whether they directly had anything to do with it, the buck stops at them.

Even if they're not directly guilty of anything shady when something shady goes down, they're guilty of failing to manage & oversee such organizations properly, in most cases.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

So that makes it okay? and, it shouldn't factor into a possible HRC candidacy?

Yes, that does make it okay, and no it shouldn't factor into an HRC bid. At least unless you want to chase all the personal foundations, and the regulations which enable them.

I agree, it's "okay by default" because that's the way it is. I know that doesn't make it right to you and I because we don't have personal, private foundations, but such is the world.

I'm of the mind that unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was indeed wrongdoing with this Algerian donation thing then no, it won't factor in to her possible candidacy. Right now, it doesn't seem like there is enough here to do that.

Besides, skirting the law and operating in the grey area is the American way, dude.

**sebster**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
I don't disagree with any of that, but I also don't think this is going to sink the Clinton Foundation like Whembly assumes it will.

I don't think it will sink the foundation, unless way more than this is revealed. Its value is more in wiping the sheen off part of Hillary if she runs in 2016 - "look at all the amazing stuff the Clinton Foundation has done" is largely nullified by accusations of corruption within the foundation.

My biggest issue with how this story is being presented is what we (and the author) don't know. We know that the Algerian government gave the foundation $500,000 and the rules to report it were not followed. The linchpin of the article is this though: a kind of similar (but not the same) situation involving American pharmaceutical companies and a Polish charity is proof that the Clintons are up to no good, even though there doesn't seem to be any real proof that this is the case. It plays in to the preconceived notion that the Clintons are inherently shady in their dealings. No matter what, I think it's a little early to say that this will sink the Clinton Foundation and Hilary's future in politics.

The article was pretty silly, I'll grant you that.

The point of the penalties handed out to the pharmaceuticals is that it's argued, and with good reason, that donations to private projects associated with government officers, are really likely to lead to corruption. That's why Obama required Clinton to follow a really strict regime of declaring Foundation donations and even rejecting them if the Whitehouse didn't approve. Clinton didn't follow those requirements.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
I dunno scooty... the more scrutiny the foundation gets... the more shady it gets.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-hsbc-swiss-bank

Okay, this is pure smoke. "People we don't know gave money" is not a story. When the names of the donors, and/or the nature of the donations and all the revealed, if there's something dodgy then that can add to story.

In the meantime, just stick to the the Algerian funds that weren't declared - that actually is a story based on what we already know.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I somewhat agree with Dogma here.... Anyone remember the noise being made about shady goings-on at the very top of Wounded Warrior Project? Or the same kind of noise about Girl Scouts of America?

I agree that it shouldn't factor in to ANY political bid, unless there is hard evidence that the potential candidate personally "commanded" that shady gak being done. I'm fairly sure that even though the Clinton's have their name on the foundation, they probably have very little to do with it's operation except in terms of money (either giving or receiving)

If it was just stuff like the "$81 million from people we don't know" then that's just regular dodgy, and there's nothing there.

But Clinton accepted additional ethics rules in order to take the position of Sec of State, and then failed to meet those standards on one occasion. That ought to count against her in a Presidential run, to some extent.

**whembly**

wat? A press conf at the UN?!?!

Hillary Clinton does damage control, plans press conference on email controversy

O.o

o.O

Shady ya'll... shady.

**d-usa**

No talk yet about the GOP letter to Iran?

**streamdragon**

Spoiler:

I always think "wow, they really couldn't sink much lower".

I am always, always wrong.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
No talk yet about the GOP letter to Iran?

What's wrong with this letter?

**dogma**

streamdragon wrote:

I am always, always wrong.

But you are always live from The Ocho.

**streamdragon**

dogma wrote:
streamdragon wrote:

I am always, always wrong.

But you are always live from The Ocho.

<--- me

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
No talk yet about the GOP letter to Iran?

What's wrong with this letter?

Not a surprising post.

**Kanluwen**

streamdragon wrote:
dogma wrote:
streamdragon wrote:

I am always, always wrong.

But you are always live from The Ocho.

---Reference---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<--- me

It's from the movie "Dodgeball".

"The Ocho" was a fictional ESPN channel concerned with Xtreme sports like...Dodgeball.

**dogma**

Kanluwen wrote:

"The Ocho" was a fictional ESPN channel concerned with Xtreme sports like...Dodgeball.

And Cotton McKnight was a broadcaster.

Honestly I was just trying to introduce a bit of levity.

**streamdragon**

Kanluwen wrote:It's from the movie "Dodgeball".

"The Ocho" was a fictional ESPN channel concerned with Xtreme sports like...Dodgeball.

dogma wrote:And Cotton McKnight was a broadcaster.
Honestly I was just trying to introduce a bit of levity.

Ooooooh. I have never seen that movie.

**d-usa**

dogma wrote:

Honestly I was just trying to introduce a bit of levity.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
No talk yet about the GOP letter to Iran?

What's wrong with this letter?

Not a surprising post.

Again... what's wrong with a letter from Congress advising the Iranian government that it is in their best interests to consent to a deal that could be ratified by the Senate?

The letter itself seems largely benign... unless I'm missing something here.

**d-usa**

The Senate can affirm or not affirm whatever treaty they want.

Negotiating the treaty is the role and responsibility of the President.

But with the current "feth everything Obama does" climate within the party it is not surprising that stuff like this happens. Hosting the Prime Minister of Israel and writing letters that basically amount to nothing more than "feth Obama Iran, he will be gone soon" is not "advice and consent". It's crapping on the presidency.

There used to be a role about politics stopping at the shore and presenting a united front against foreign allies and enemies. Or as we say in soccer: "country before club".