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.

**Frazzled**

Team Clinton

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Rand Paul throwing his hat in the ring for the White House. Probably no surprise to Americans on this site, but the bit where he says he wants to defeat Washington made me laugh. His idea of winning seems to be moving to Washington for four years, and taking all that taxpayer money to fight other things funded by the tax payer

Anyway, what's the lowdown on Rand Paul? Genuine contender, or Louis Tully trying to be a Ghostbuster?

**whembly**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Rand Paul throwing his hat in the ring for the White House. Probably no surprise to Americans on this site, but the bit where he says he wants to defeat Washington made me laugh. His idea of winning seems to be moving to Washington for four years, and taking all that taxpayer money to fight other things funded by the tax payer

Anyway, what's the lowdown on Rand Paul? Genuine contender, or Louis Tully trying to be a Ghostbuster?

We don't really know at this point.

He's a savvy politician... but, the biggest knock on Paul is that he also caters (or at least subliminally) to his Dad's (Ron Paul) fan-base.

Plus, he wants to empower Congress the ability to audit the Federal Reserve... which, would be a disaster imo.

**CptJake**

I don't think Paul is a serious contender, but he will try to push the debates and Republican positions towards a more libertarian right, forcing the eventual candidate to take more conservative positions than they would have in order to win the primary.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

CptJake wrote:
I don't think Paul is a serious contender, but he will try to push the debates and Republican positions towards a more libertarian right, forcing the eventual candidate to take more conservative positions than they would have in order to win the primary.

And the further to the right they go, the easier it is for Hilary Clinton?

Anyway, British TV will soon be getting bombarded with American presidential news, so I'd better start reading up about the main contenders. I can't speak for everybody on this site, but I love politics, and sitting up all night watching the presidential election, whilst high on diet coca cola, is a highlight for me every four years

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Rand Paul throwing his hat in the ring for the White House. Probably no surprise to Americans on this site, but the bit where he says he wants to defeat Washington made me laugh. His idea of winning seems to be moving to Washington for four years, and taking all that taxpayer money to fight other things funded by the tax payer

Anyway, what's the lowdown on Rand Paul? Genuine contender, or Louis Tully trying to be a Ghostbuster?

We don't really know at this point.

He's a savvy politician... but, the biggest knock on Paul is that he also caters (or at least subliminally) to his Dad's (Ron Paul) fan-base.

Plus, he wants to empower Congress the ability to audit the Federal Reserve... which, would be a disaster imo.

Wasn't that the original plan years ago anyway? Congress auditing the federal reserve. Being a student of American history, I'm pretty sure that the founders wanted Congress to be the most important branch, not the executive.

**Tannhauser42**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Rand Paul throwing his hat in the ring for the White House. Probably no surprise to Americans on this site, but the bit where he says he wants to defeat Washington made me laugh. His idea of winning seems to be moving to Washington for four years, and taking all that taxpayer money to fight other things funded by the tax payer

Anyway, what's the lowdown on Rand Paul? Genuine contender, or Louis Tully trying to be a Ghostbuster?

It's pretty much a requirement for every candidate for any political position to rail against "Washington Insiders" during their campaign, despite the reality that every last one of them is a Washington insider, or immediately turns into one after getting elected.

**Frazzled**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Rand Paul throwing his hat in the ring for the White House. Probably no surprise to Americans on this site, but the bit where he says he wants to defeat Washington made me laugh. His idea of winning seems to be moving to Washington for four years, and taking all that taxpayer money to fight other things funded by the tax payer

Anyway, what's the lowdown on Rand Paul? Genuine contender, or Louis Tully trying to be a Ghostbuster?

he has no chance.
He was an isolationist in a party that wants to fight everybody, and then flipped.
He was a libertarian on social issues in a party that isn't, and then flipped.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Rand Paul throwing his hat in the ring for the White House. Probably no surprise to Americans on this site, but the bit where he says he wants to defeat Washington made me laugh. His idea of winning seems to be moving to Washington for four years, and taking all that taxpayer money to fight other things funded by the tax payer

Anyway, what's the lowdown on Rand Paul? Genuine contender, or Louis Tully trying to be a Ghostbuster?

It's pretty much a requirement for every candidate for any political position to rail against "Washington Insiders" during their campaign, despite the reality that every last one of them is a Washington insider, or immediately turns into one after getting elected.

Yeah, I remember the golden days of the tea party when they were sending people to Congress and promising to fight the system...where are they now? Up to their necks in 5 star hotels, trips abroad, and generous pensions.

There's an old British saying: Guy Fawkes was the most honest man to enter Parliament - he wanted to blow the place up. You don't seem to get that level of honesty any more.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Rand Paul throwing his hat in the ring for the White House. Probably no surprise to Americans on this site, but the bit where he says he wants to defeat Washington made me laugh. His idea of winning seems to be moving to Washington for four years, and taking all that taxpayer money to fight other things funded by the tax payer

Anyway, what's the lowdown on Rand Paul? Genuine contender, or Louis Tully trying to be a Ghostbuster?

he has no chance.
He was an isolationist in a party that wants to fight everybody, and then flipped.
He was a libertarian on social issues in a party that isn't, and then flipped.

Who in your view is the best candidate? We're not going to get another Mitt Romney clone, are we? God, he was dull. Say what you want about Bob Dole, at the least the guy could crack a joke.

**Easy E**

Say what you will about Mitt, but at least he can put together a decent bracket!

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Easy E wrote:
Say what you will about Mitt, but at least he can put together a decent bracket!

But he's still not welcome in London, though

**whembly**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Who in your view is the best candidate? We're not going to get another Mitt Romney clone, are we? God, he was dull. Say what you want about Bob Dole, at the least the guy could crack a joke.

The Best Candidate™?

I'm partial to Scott Walker.

Now... who's going to win?

Hillary R Clinton of course.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

whembly wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Who in your view is the best candidate? We're not going to get another Mitt Romney clone, are we? God, he was dull. Say what you want about Bob Dole, at the least the guy could crack a joke.

The Best Candidate™?

I'm partial to Scott Walker.

Now... who's going to win?

Hillary R Clinton of course.

You may or may not know this, whembly, but here in the UK, we're right in the middle of an election to pick a new prime minister, and quite frankly, the three main candidates are awful. I wouldn't trust any of them to organise a funeral in a graveyard.

I look at these American presidential candidates, and they are just as bad.

Where did it all go wrong for western civilization?

**Frazzled**

Where did it all go wrong for western civilization?

This is what happens when you don't vote for the Wiener Dog Party.

**Jihadin**

Frazzled wrote:

Where did it all go wrong for western civilization?

This is what happens when you don't vote for the Wiener Dog Party.

Time to change your party name

**dogma**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Say what you want about Bob Dole, at the least the guy could crack a joke.

Not to mention a banister.

**Tannhauser42**

whembly wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Who in your view is the best candidate? We're not going to get another Mitt Romney clone, are we? God, he was dull. Say what you want about Bob Dole, at the least the guy could crack a joke.

The Best Candidate™?

I'm partial to Scott Walker.

Now... who's going to win?

Hillary R Clinton of course.

But...but...if Hillary wins, doesn't that mean she is the best candidate? It's not like the American People could be wrong.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Tannhauser42 wrote:

But...but...if Hillary wins, doesn't that mean she is the best candidate? It's not like the American People could be wrong.

That all depends greatly on the individual person's political leaning. I don't think that Scott Walker is the best candidate... but then, of all the "Front runners" of all parties being put forward in the media to this point in the discussion... It really is like deciding whether to eat a gak sandwich or poop soup.

Also there's this:

**Co'tor Shas**

And with our current political climate, there will be a big argument about which is which.

**Bullockist**

I'll happily trade a Paul Rand for a Tony Abbott, it couldn't be worse..... could it?

**Ouze**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Who in your view is the best candidate? We're not going to get another Mitt Romney clone, are we? God, he was dull. Say what you want about Bob Dole, at the least the guy could crack a joke.

I suspect Jeb Bush is the only current contender who can get through a primary season. We'll go through a bunch of motions of anyone-but-Jeb, just as we did with Mitt, but those motions will be briefer and less pointed than they were for Mitt because the party leadership realizes how badly they hurt Mitt last season.

Ultimately Jeb is the best contender out of that field. I don't think he'll be able to beat Hillary, but who knows, the election is a long way off and a lot can happen. Besides, it would be sort of neat to have the first Hispanic president, right?

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Who in your view is the best candidate? We're not going to get another Mitt Romney clone, are we? God, he was dull. Say what you want about Bob Dole, at the least the guy could crack a joke.

I suspect Jeb Bush is the only current contender who can get through a primary season. We'll go through a bunch of motions of anyone-but-Jeb, just as we did with Mitt, but those motions will be briefer and less pointed than they were for Mitt because the party leadership realizes how badly they hurt Mitt last season.

Ultimately Jeb is the best contender out of that field. I don't think he'll be able to beat Hillary, but who knows, the election is a long way off and a lot can happen. Besides, it would be sort of neat to have the first Hispanic president, right?

Heh...

But, for the love of gawd, please no Jeb. Ugh!

One of the thing Rand Paul is appealing to me is that he's rather adamant that we need Justice Reform and Incarceration Reform. He hates... hates, the for-profit-model prison systems.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Jeb Bush would be a nail in the coffin of American democracy if he ever became president. I say this not because I think he'd make a bad president (he can't do much worse than the previous candidates) but because to have 3 people from the same family holding the highest office in the USA, would destroy the founding principals of American democracy.

I've always understood the USA of being diametrically opposed to the UK i.e. not having a 'royal' family like Bush, or the Kennedys.

Power seems to be focused in the hands of an elite, and that's bad for democracy.

**dogma**

Ouze wrote:

I suspect Jeb Bush is the only current contender who can get through a primary season.

I think Rand Paul could push the Tea Party voters in the Primary towards Scott Walker, assuming Walker runs, and that together they could create a Primary Walker win. If Walker doesn't run it is basically Jeb's Primary to lose, and he is the most electable candidate in the General so the GOP leadership will probably back him; it is basically a "must win" for the GOP.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Power seems to be focused in the hands of an elite, and that's bad for democracy.

Power is always focused in the hands of elites, that's why they're elites.

**whembly**

Annnnd the hits keeps on coming for Team Clinton:

Hillary Clinton's Private Server A Foreign Spy Magnet

Hillary Clinton's private email server was a spy magnet for the Russian, Chinese, Iranian and other intelligence services, say current and former intelligence officials.

As secretary of state, Clinton routed all her government-related email through the server, based in her house in Chappaqua, New York. She reportedly hired a Cablevision (NYSE:CVC) subsidiary to run the server, with antivirus protection from Intel's (NASDAQ:INTC) McAfee. And she registered her domain name, clintonmail.com, through Network Solutions.

Intelligence professionals fear that the use of the privately installed server, free of certified government defenses against foreign interception, has been a boon to foreign cyberspies.

"By using her own private server with email — which we now know was wholly unencrypted for the first three months of Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state — she left this easily interceptable by any decent 21st century SIGINT service," said John Schindler, a former National Security Agency counterintelligence officer. SIGINT is shorthand for signals intelligence, or electronic spying.

"The name Clinton right on the email handle meant this was not a difficult find," Schindler said. "We should assume Russians, Chinese and others were seeing this."

'Epic' Counterintelligence Disaster

"In all, this is a counterintelligence disaster of truly epic proportions, not to mention that, since Clinton admitted she did not use higher-classification email systems at all" — systems like SIPR and JWICS, Schindler said — "we have to assume some bleed-over into her unsecured private email too, which makes this even worse."

SIPR is the Secret Internet Protocol Router network that the Department of Defense runs to ensure secret communications for the U.S. military, other agencies and certain allies. JWICS is the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System for top-secret government communication. Both provide secure communications for the State Department and secretary of state. Clinton's private server was not protected by the Department of Homeland Security's Einstein intrusion detection system, which relies on NSA systems, for official State Department emails.

"She may have deleted 30,000 e-mails before turning her files over to the State Department, but that doesn't mean that the Russians and the Chinese don't have them," said Michelle Van Cleave, former U.S. National Counterintelligence Executive.

Others say that the potential damage to U.S. national security is so grave that the FBI should seize the server and conduct a forensic analysis to determine the extent of foreign penetration. That analysis would be part of what is called a damage assessment, which is routine after any suspected security breach.

FBI Forensic Analysis

However, the FBI might not find anything now, according to Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of a House investigative panel, who says that Clinton had the server wiped clean. Still, the forensic analysis by trained personnel could yield valuable clues about foreign spies gaining access to America's most fiercely guarded secrets. Gowdy has called on Clinton to appear before his committee for what he called a "transcribed interview regarding her use of private email and a personal server for official State Department business."

Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., a former prosecutor, said that the FBI should conduct a forensic analysis of any attempted foreign penetrations, to determine which foreign intelligence services might have hacked into Clinton's email server.

"Denying a legitimate request by the Bureau to examine her computer would certainly suggest that America's security is not Clinton's highest priority," Buck said.

"The FBI investigated a sitting CIA director for intentionally disclosing classified information. The Bureau can certainly investigate whether a former secretary of state unintentionally disclosed classified information," Buck said. "The motive may be different, but the potential damage to national security is similar."

Why Clinton hasn't offered to turn over the server to the FBI, or why the FBI has not seized it to assess the damage to national security, is unclear. A Clinton spokesperson declined to comment.

In a question-and-answer sheet provided to reporters, Clinton did not address the issue. The FBI won't say whether or not it made a request or took possession of the server. The Bureau does not have the device, according to a highly placed FBI source. That source is not cleared to speak to the press and could not speak on the record.

The lure of reading a secretary of state's emails would exert a pull on any foreign spy, intelligence officials say.

Where, on a scale of one to 10, would any sitting secretary of state rank as a target of foreign spies? "10, of course," said Van Cleave. "That being the case, all of her e-mails would have been potentially of interest to any number of foreign parties."

"A target like this would be at least a 10, maybe 10-plus if the enemy knew the email address and server," said Robert W. Stephan, a former counterintelligence analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency who also served 19 years in the CIA. "If a foreign intelligence service determines that it is indeed the secretary of state's private communications/e-mail/server and even given the security measures that were set up, it would still be a top target for some sophisticated services," Stephan said. "Obviously Chinese, Russian, and Cuban, and possibly Iranians and North Koreans."

That statement presumes that the server was strongly protected against outside penetration, which does not seem to be the case. News reports indicate that the server's security configurations were done improperly, protecting Clinton's personal privacy and not national security, and that, even if everything was done by the book, that type of server and software package remains vulnerable to a good hacker.

"A 16-year-old can break into a server, and certainly a government sophisticated enough to break into the Sony (NYSE:SNE) system can break into Hillary Clinton's system," said Rep. Buck. "That's a no-brainer."

How would adversary spy services exploit this intelligence? "The positions, the interests, the communications between the secretary of state and her staff are of great interest to any foreign intelligence service, whether hostile or friendly," said Paul Joyal, former director of security of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

"The American secretary of state using an open, unprotected server? That's an invitation to a party," said a veteran intelligence officer who asked for anonymity because he still holds active clearances. "All of her private musings. There's no secretary of state who doesn't communicate with classified information. How the hell could she do her job without it?"

Gateway To Government Systems?

"From a counterintelligence perspective, (for) anyone with any responsibility for intelligence, counterintelligence and security, this thing is a monumental disaster," the longtime senior intelligence officer said. "It's a disaster for U.S. policy. It's a huge boon for the former KGB and the Iranians."

Some experts are concerned that foreign spies could have penetrated the server as a gateway to breaking into other government systems, including classified communications.

"The real question is, what if any intelligence collection was being done on a private server somewhere?" Joyal said. "The only way to know is for the proper federal authorities to impound the server and do a forensic analysis."

"It would be possible for a hostile service to use the server as a platform to deliver other malware to other targets of their choosing, based on their knowledge of whom the former secretary and president were communicating with," Joyal said.

'Vast Deception Potential'

Foreign spies could use their access to Clinton's server to warp or distort information that government officials rely on. "If they're getting into her server, they're not just extracting stuff," said a senior former Defense Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They're going to do things that could be planted from other sources."

"The denial and deception potential here is vast," said John Schindler, referring to intelligence tradecraft in which a spy service denies or conceals information, and seeks to deceive other countries. "Not to mention that any shady games played" by the Obama Administration "would be known to Moscow and Beijing — but not to the American public."

"It could affect a number of people within the U.S. government and, for that matter, people around the world," Joyal said. "It would behoove the federal government to conduct a forensic analysis of the server itself."

Until such a forensic analysis is done, he said, authorities simply will not know the answer.

"This should not be politicized," said Joyal. "It should be done with hard-nosed national security interests driving the forensic analysis."

**dogma**

Sounds like a witch hunt, double points given that the source is IBD.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

There is also the outside chance that Clinton has been feeding false information on a massive scale to Russia or China, part of a disinformation campaign. Spies have been known to feed false intel to the other side.

But, seeing as we know that NSA and GCHQ have been spying on most of the known world anyway, they probably know what intel, if any, Clinton accidently gave to Russia or China. I don't think this is a big deal.

US foreign policy has been such a mess since Iraq, that any sane person wouldn't believe a word they read coming from the White House or Clinton's emails.

As President Tug Benson said in Hot shots part 2, I don't need the enemy to prove I'm incompetent, I could tell them that.

**streamdragon**

Hahaha wow that hack job of an article is hilarious.

OH MY GOD! SO MANY THINGS COULD HAVE HAPPENED! OH MY GOD! WE HAVE NO PROOF, WE HAVE NO REAL REASON TO BELIEVE THEY SUCCEEDED! SKY IS FALLING! SERVER IS HACKED! CLINTON IS A LIZARD PERSON!

**Jihadin**

You all need to back away from Whembly article that he posted.....your just feeding into his Glee moment

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:
You all need to back away from Whembly article that he posted.....your just feeding into his Glee moment

Thanks dude... now I can't get that crap out of my head.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Sounds like a witch hunt, double points given that the source is IBD.

Maybe...

But, if her server was simply a "homebrew", outside of the current IT best practice and the IS Department's own policies, then this IBD* article does have merits.

*Is IBD a sensationalist site?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

streamdragon wrote:
Hahaha wow that hack job of an article is hilarious.

OH MY GOD! SO MANY THINGS COULD HAVE HAPPENED! OH MY GOD! WE HAVE NO PROOF, WE HAVE NO REAL REASON TO BELIEVE THEY SUCCEEDED! SKY IS FALLING! SERVER IS HACKED! CLINTON IS A LIZARD PERSON!

Lemme help the other Dakkaroos here and translate steamdragon's response here:

streamdragon ***translated*** wrote:Dammit weebly, we need to sweep this under the rug!

Clinton released all relevant documents. Because she said so... and also, shut up!

**streamdragon**

whembly wrote:

streamdragon wrote:
Hahaha wow that hack job of an article is hilarious.

OH MY GOD! SO MANY THINGS COULD HAVE HAPPENED! OH MY GOD! WE HAVE NO PROOF, WE HAVE NO REAL REASON TO BELIEVE THEY SUCCEEDED! SKY IS FALLING! SERVER IS HACKED!

Lemme help the other Dakkaroos here and translate steamdragon's response here:

streamdragon ***translated*** wrote:Dammit weebly, we need to sweep this under the rug!

Clinton released all relevant documents. Because she said so... and also, shut up!

My post wasn't suggesting things be swept under a rug, I've said before in this thread she should have been using a government system. My point was that your article makes no definitive claims. It is the written form of someone running around waving their hands shouting that the sky is falling. Of course Hilary's server would be a rich target. EVERY government server is a rich target. Heck, Congress's own site was once replaced with a dude stuffing a chicken, and I don't mean thanksgiving style. "OH MY GOODNESS SHE COULD HAVE VULNERABILITIES!" Well, yeah, EVERY system has vulnerabilities. Unless I'm missing something, there isn't a single definitive accusation of "this happened!"; it's all "this could have happened, or this could have happened, or this could have happened!". It's essentially scare mongering; pointing out all the things that COULD have happened, without any actual proof that anything DID happen or was even attempted. It's a hack job, through and through. Bottom line is, as far as we know, no laws were broken. This has been stated time and time again.

As for "she said so!", I don't know how many investigations you've been in (I do lit support for a living), but 99% of the time, that is EXACTLY what we get. Those other 1% are times we can prove something definitively enough to get a court order to seize and copy hardware like her server. In this case, they knew who she was sending email to. If they want to prove malfeasance, they can look through what other people received, compare it to what she gave the investigators, and if anything is missing, go to a judge. Until then "oh my god she won't give them the server, even though she doesn't have to, so she must be hiding something!" is nothing other than political mud slinging masquerading as actual investigative integrity.

Edit: we do totally have to sweep one thing under the rug though. I SAID TOO MUCH!