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.
sebster wrote: Trump dismissing basic constitutional protections. Lying about his charitable giving. Directly lying to people about his investments. Lying about a $5.9 trillion hole in tax plan.
At this point I am genuinely unable to think of one plausible way he could be worse.
Well he's not threatening immediate use of nuclears yet at least...Though with him who knows. He might order one just out of spite of anger.
Presidents can't launch nukes out of spite, that would violate the War Powers Resolution and would be an unlawful order that the military could/should refuse to follow.
sebster wrote: Trump dismissing basic constitutional protections. Lying about his charitable giving. Directly lying to people about his investments. Lying about a $5.9 trillion hole in tax plan.
At this point I am genuinely unable to think of one plausible way he could be worse.
Well he's not threatening immediate use of nuclears yet at least...Though with him who knows. He might order one just out of spite of anger.
Presidents can't launch nukes out of spite, that would violate the War Powers Resolution and would be an unlawful order that the military could/should refuse to follow.
Should/could is not quaranteed though. And that's besides the point. Whether order would be carried out is another thing but even attempting to order would def make Trump even worse than he already is. While not quaranteed it would be followed there's chance bigger than 0% that it WOULD be...
sebster wrote: Trump dismissing basic constitutional protections. Lying about his charitable giving. Directly lying to people about his investments. Lying about a $5.9 trillion hole in tax plan.
At this point I am genuinely unable to think of one plausible way he could be worse.
Well he's not threatening immediate use of nuclears yet at least...Though with him who knows. He might order one just out of spite of anger.
Presidents can't launch nukes out of spite, that would violate the War Powers Resolution and would be an unlawful order that the military could/should refuse to follow.
the donald wrote:“I’m a leader, I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”
He believes he can. He may be technically qualified for the job, but he is in no way actually qualified.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
He's never going to jail though. It's not like he sold a $5 bag of crack or something like that. People like that pretty much never go to jail, unless they kill someone, and often not even then.
He's never going to jail though. It's not like he sold a $5 bag of crack or something like that. People like that pretty much never go to jail, unless they kill someone, and often not even then.
He's in good company then with Clinton.
Indeed... they're both lacking some serious self-awareness...
When... there are very good reason to suspect Clinton's homebrew email server allowed American enemies access to classified national security information. That sure did help the enemy... no?
When there is good evidence to suggest the official servers got hacked (we know for sure they were, unlike with Clinton's whose server was possibly hacked but nobody really knows), what makes having a home server any worse? That it was maybe easier? That we can track the possible hacker easier with the official one? (Just spitballing here, The extent of my computers knowledge goes as far as Ctrl/alt/del when gak goes wrong). When the official one was hacked, It sort of begs the infamous question, "what difference, at this point, does it make?"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/20 19:34:43
sebster wrote: Trump dismissing basic constitutional protections. Lying about his charitable giving. Directly lying to people about his investments. Lying about a $5.9 trillion hole in tax plan.
At this point I am genuinely unable to think of one plausible way he could be worse.
sebster wrote: Trump dismissing basic constitutional protections. Lying about his charitable giving. Directly lying to people about his investments. Lying about a $5.9 trillion hole in tax plan.
At this point I am genuinely unable to think of one plausible way he could be worse.
I hear he's really good at managing his email.
He has his secretary read his emails for him. He doesn't know how to use it himself. He knows Twitter. He also has his secretary cull news stories that mention him and give him a summary every day. He really likes himself.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/20 19:36:44
Gordon Shumway wrote: When there is good evidence to suggest the official servers got hacked (we know for sure they were, unlike with Clinton's whose server was possibly hacked but nobody really knows), what makes having a home server any worse? That it was maybe easier? That we can track the possible hacker easier with the official one? (Just spitballing here, The extent of my computers knowledge goes as far as Ctrl/alt/del when gak goes wrong). When the official one was hacked, It sort of begs the infamous question, "what difference, at this point, does it make?"
Non-confidential servers. Classified servers, there is no such evidence. Hacking those should be next to impossible, given that they aren't even on a network that is capable of being reached from an outside source.
That is why there is so much emphasis on ensuring no classified data gets put unto unclass systems.
djones520 wrote: Non-confidential servers. Classified servers, there is no such evidence. Hacking those should be next to impossible, given that they aren't even on a network that is capable of being reached from an outside source.
That is why there is so much emphasis on ensuring no classified data gets put unto unclass systems.
Then I guess a whole bunch of people from Lockheed Martin will be going to prison soon for putting stealth tech on a live server. One that we actually have verifiable proof was hacked, and top secret military technology potentially compromised.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/20 19:46:29
djones520 wrote: Non-confidential servers. Classified servers, there is no such evidence. Hacking those should be next to impossible, given that they aren't even on a network that is capable of being reached from an outside source.
That is why there is so much emphasis on ensuring no classified data gets put unto unclass systems.
Then I guess a whole bunch of people from Lockheed Martin will be going to prison soon for putting stealth tech on a live server. One that we actually have verifiable proof was hacked, and top secret military technology potentially compromised.
When did this occur?
Were they stored in some executive's basement on a non-approved email server?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/20 19:54:27
djones520 wrote: Non-confidential servers. Classified servers, there is no such evidence. Hacking those should be next to impossible, given that they aren't even on a network that is capable of being reached from an outside source.
That is why there is so much emphasis on ensuring no classified data gets put unto unclass systems.
Then I guess a whole bunch of people from Lockheed Martin will be going to prison soon for putting stealth tech on a live server. One that we actually have verifiable proof was hacked, and top secret military technology potentially compromised.
djones520 wrote: Non-confidential servers. Classified servers, there is no such evidence. Hacking those should be next to impossible, given that they aren't even on a network that is capable of being reached from an outside source.
That is why there is so much emphasis on ensuring no classified data gets put unto unclass systems.
Then I guess a whole bunch of people from Lockheed Martin will be going to prison soon for putting stealth tech on a live server. One that we actually have verifiable proof was hacked, and top secret military technology potentially compromised.
As I understand it, Lockheed's systems are separate from government ones. I don't know anything about their infrastructure, I just know a bit about about ours. From what I understand though, that breach was through a fault in the system, not through employee mishandling. I'm not an expert on this though.
Gordon Shumway wrote: When there is good evidence to suggest the official servers got hacked (we know for sure they were, unlike with Clinton's whose server was possibly hacked but nobody really knows), what makes having a home server any worse? That it was maybe easier? That we can track the possible hacker easier with the official one? (Just spitballing here, The extent of my computers knowledge goes as far as Ctrl/alt/del when gak goes wrong). When the official one was hacked, It sort of begs the infamous question, "what difference, at this point, does it make?"
Non-confidential servers. Classified servers, there is no such evidence. Hacking those should be next to impossible, given that they aren't even on a network that is capable of being reached from an outside source.
That is why there is so much emphasis on ensuring no classified data gets put unto unclass systems.
Logically, that doesn't make sense. How do different military bases communicate? Dedicated land lines that nobody else has access to and are guarded and monitored their entire length? How do ships at sea communicate? If one system has to communicate with another over any significant distance, there will always be points of access.
Edit: and not every agency does it the same way anyway. My own agency used to have encrypted fax machines, but those faxes still went out over normal phone lines.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/20 20:01:10
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
djones520 wrote: As I understand it, Lockheed's systems are separate from government ones. I don't know anything about their infrastructure, I just know a bit about about ours. From what I understand though, that breach was through a fault in the system, not through employee mishandling. I'm not an expert on this though.
I'm more pointing out that it's completely wrong that we don't store classified and confidential information on live servers. The Pentagon isn't going to send a runner with a thumb drive over to JSOC at Bragg every time they want to talk. We use satellites and we use land lines, and all these things can be hacked by someone with the know how, or at least attempted.
So while millions of federal employees are getting their personal information stolen, and the US defense industry is constantly under attack with verified breaches of security owing to stupidity like RSA not updating iSecurID to fix known vulnerabilities we're talking about sending someone to jail because the file header on their daily itinerary wasn't properly formatted.
Gordon Shumway wrote: When there is good evidence to suggest the official servers got hacked (we know for sure they were, unlike with Clinton's whose server was possibly hacked but nobody really knows), what makes having a home server any worse? That it was maybe easier? That we can track the possible hacker easier with the official one? (Just spitballing here, The extent of my computers knowledge goes as far as Ctrl/alt/del when gak goes wrong). When the official one was hacked, It sort of begs the infamous question, "what difference, at this point, does it make?"
Non-confidential servers. Classified servers, there is no such evidence. Hacking those should be next to impossible, given that they aren't even on a network that is capable of being reached from an outside source.
That is why there is so much emphasis on ensuring no classified data gets put unto unclass systems.
Logically, that doesn't make sense. How do different military bases communicate? Dedicated land lines that nobody else has access to and are guarded and monitored their entire length? How do ships at sea communicate? If one system has to communicate with another over any significant distance, there will always be points of access.
Our classified systems work on a completely different net. It's like the internet, but is completely closed off to world, unless you have the proper hardware/knowledge to access it. I'm a weather guy, not a comm guy, so I don't know how to explain it properly, but picture it this way. It's like the multiple universe theory. You have the internet, which we're using right now. The siprnet (Secret system) is just like that, except it's on a parallel plane. They are alike, but they don't coexist in the same area.
djones520 wrote: As I understand it, Lockheed's systems are separate from government ones. I don't know anything about their infrastructure, I just know a bit about about ours. From what I understand though, that breach was through a fault in the system, not through employee mishandling. I'm not an expert on this though.
I'm more pointing out that it's completely wrong that we don't store classified and confidential information on live servers. The Pentagon isn't going to send a runner with a thumb drive over to JSOC at Bragg every time they want to talk. We use satellites and we use land lines, and all these things can be hacked by someone with the know how, or at least attempted.
So while millions of federal employees are getting their personal information stolen, and the US defense industry is constantly under attack with verified breaches of security owing to stupidity like RSA not updating iSecurID to fix known vulnerabilities we're talking about sending someone to jail because the file header on their daily itinerary wasn't properly formatted.
It's absurd.
And I never said it wasn't stored on live servers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/20 20:04:47
Gordon Shumway wrote: When there is good evidence to suggest the official servers got hacked (we know for sure they were, unlike with Clinton's whose server was possibly hacked but nobody really knows), what makes having a home server any worse? That it was maybe easier? That we can track the possible hacker easier with the official one? (Just spitballing here, The extent of my computers knowledge goes as far as Ctrl/alt/del when gak goes wrong). When the official one was hacked, It sort of begs the infamous question, "what difference, at this point, does it make?"
Non-confidential servers. Classified servers, there is no such evidence. Hacking those should be next to impossible, given that they aren't even on a network that is capable of being reached from an outside source.
That is why there is so much emphasis on ensuring no classified data gets put unto unclass systems.
Logically, that doesn't make sense. How do different military bases communicate? Dedicated land lines that nobody else has access to and are guarded and monitored their entire length? How do ships at sea communicate? If one system has to communicate with another over any significant distance, there will always be points of access.
Edit: and not every agency does it the same way anyway. My own agency used to have encrypted fax machines, but those faxes still went out over normal phone lines.
The military and *some* agency operate on independent network/internet than the "outside world" internet.
In networking parlance, that means they're air gapped.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/20 20:12:34
Gordon Shumway wrote: When there is good evidence to suggest the official servers got hacked (we know for sure they were, unlike with Clinton's whose server was possibly hacked but nobody really knows), what makes having a home server any worse? That it was maybe easier? That we can track the possible hacker easier with the official one? (Just spitballing here, The extent of my computers knowledge goes as far as Ctrl/alt/del when gak goes wrong). When the official one was hacked, It sort of begs the infamous question, "what difference, at this point, does it make?"
Non-confidential servers. Classified servers, there is no such evidence. Hacking those should be next to impossible, given that they aren't even on a network that is capable of being reached from an outside source.
That is why there is so much emphasis on ensuring no classified data gets put unto unclass systems.
Logically, that doesn't make sense. How do different military bases communicate? Dedicated land lines that nobody else has access to and are guarded and monitored their entire length? How do ships at sea communicate? If one system has to communicate with another over any significant distance, there will always be points of access.
Edit: and not every agency does it the same way anyway. My own agency used to have encrypted fax machines, but those faxes still went out over normal phone lines.
The military and *some* agency operate on independent network/internet than the "outside world" internet.
I networking parlance, that means they're air gapped.
The Department of Defense, and Department of State use the same system.
Gordon Shumway wrote: When there is good evidence to suggest the official servers got hacked (we know for sure they were, unlike with Clinton's whose server was possibly hacked but nobody really knows), what makes having a home server any worse? That it was maybe easier? That we can track the possible hacker easier with the official one? (Just spitballing here, The extent of my computers knowledge goes as far as Ctrl/alt/del when gak goes wrong). When the official one was hacked, It sort of begs the infamous question, "what difference, at this point, does it make?"
Non-confidential servers. Classified servers, there is no such evidence. Hacking those should be next to impossible, given that they aren't even on a network that is capable of being reached from an outside source.
That is why there is so much emphasis on ensuring no classified data gets put unto unclass systems.
Logically, that doesn't make sense. How do different military bases communicate? Dedicated land lines that nobody else has access to and are guarded and monitored their entire length? How do ships at sea communicate? If one system has to communicate with another over any significant distance, there will always be points of access.
Edit: and not every agency does it the same way anyway. My own agency used to have encrypted fax machines, but those faxes still went out over normal phone lines.
The military and *some* agency operate on independent network/internet than the "outside world" internet.
I networking parlance, that means they're air gapped.
The Department of Defense, and Department of State use the same system.
Yup.
I'm pretty sure the Dept of Transportation or Education don't use the same system as the DoD/DoS.
But at anyrate, for the data to have ended up on Clinton's private server at home, that means it had to have been taken from a secure server, by removable media. It is literally impossible to send data from a SIPR machine, directly to a NIPR machine.
That means the people who were emailing her this data (you know, that stuff that was "alphebatized"), were knowingly removing data from a classified system and transferring it to a non-secure system, a DIRECT VIOLATION OF EVERY PROTOCOL WE HAVE.
djones520 wrote: But at anyrate, for the data to have ended up on Clinton's private server at home, that means it had to have been taken from a secure server, by removable media. It is literally impossible to send data from a SIPR machine, directly to a NIPR machine.
That means the people who were emailing her this data (you know, that stuff that was "alphebatized"), were knowingly removing data from a classified system and transferring it to a non-secure system, a DIRECT VIOLATION OF EVERY PROTOCOL WE HAVE.
but djones... going after the "small fish" to get the "big fish" who ordered the code red to send it to Clinton's NIPR system is like the Spanish Inquisition...
sebster wrote: Trump dismissing basic constitutional protections. Lying about his charitable giving. Directly lying to people about his investments. Lying about a $5.9 trillion hole in tax plan.
At this point I am genuinely unable to think of one plausible way he could be worse.
He could secretly be a Democrat, or worse, he could be a WOMAN. He could even be a woman Democrat.
He's never going to jail though. It's not like he sold a $5 bag of crack or something like that. People like that pretty much never go to jail, unless they kill someone, and often not even then.
He's in good company then with Clinton.
Indeed... they're both lacking some serious self-awareness...
When... there are very good reason to suspect Clinton's homebrew email server allowed American enemies access to classified national security information. That sure did help the enemy... no?
No, no, it didn't.
The possible next President palling up with the President of Russia, though, is another matter.
But in your world they are both on the same level, of course.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/20 20:30:45
He's never going to jail though. It's not like he sold a $5 bag of crack or something like that. People like that pretty much never go to jail, unless they kill someone, and often not even then.
He's in good company then with Clinton.
Indeed... they're both lacking some serious self-awareness...
When... there are very good reason to suspect Clinton's homebrew email server allowed American enemies access to classified national security information. That sure did help the enemy... no?
No, no, it didn't.
Aid And Comfort to the Enemy... that sounds awfully like treason.
The possible next President palling up with the President of Russia, though, is another matter.
But in your world they are both on the same level, of course.
Of course not. They both completely different.
But hey, you keep on putting her on that pedestal.
He's never going to jail though. It's not like he sold a $5 bag of crack or something like that. People like that pretty much never go to jail, unless they kill someone, and often not even then.
He's in good company then with Clinton.
Indeed... they're both lacking some serious self-awareness...
When... there are very good reason to suspect Clinton's homebrew email server allowed American enemies access to classified national security information. That sure did help the enemy... no?
No, no, it didn't.
Aid And Comfort to the Enemy... that sounds awfully like treason.
Except it wasn't, so often seems to happen you are spinning out a load of nonsense.
Gordon Shumway wrote: When there is good evidence to suggest the official servers got hacked (we know for sure they were, unlike with Clinton's whose server was possibly hacked but nobody really knows), what makes having a home server any worse? That it was maybe easier? That we can track the possible hacker easier with the official one? (Just spitballing here, The extent of my computers knowledge goes as far as Ctrl/alt/del when gak goes wrong). When the official one was hacked, It sort of begs the infamous question, "what difference, at this point, does it make?"
Non-confidential servers. Classified servers, there is no such evidence. Hacking those should be next to impossible, given that they aren't even on a network that is capable of being reached from an outside source.
That is why there is so much emphasis on ensuring no classified data gets put unto unclass systems.
Logically, that doesn't make sense. How do different military bases communicate? Dedicated land lines that nobody else has access to and are guarded and monitored their entire length? How do ships at sea communicate? If one system has to communicate with another over any significant distance, there will always be points of access.
Edit: and not every agency does it the same way anyway. My own agency used to have encrypted fax machines, but those faxes still went out over normal phone lines.
The military and *some* agency operate on independent network/internet than the "outside world" internet.
In networking parlance, that means they're air gapped.
But as soon as they touch our heathen network doesn't that automatically create a breach? Emails across networks, for example? Is what you are discussing here the end result of Gore's "creation of the Internet"? Are they separate physical lines altogether?
He's never going to jail though. It's not like he sold a $5 bag of crack or something like that. People like that pretty much never go to jail, unless they kill someone, and often not even then.
He's in good company then with Clinton.
Indeed... they're both lacking some serious self-awareness...
When... there are very good reason to suspect Clinton's homebrew email server allowed American enemies access to classified national security information. That sure did help the enemy... no?
No, no, it didn't.
Aid And Comfort to the Enemy... that sounds awfully like treason.
Except it wasn't, so often seems to happen you are spinning out a load of nonsense.
If you want to ignore the things she has said in order to safeguard your opinion of HRC... by all means.
But, when the leading presidential candidate called out her opponent giving "aid and comfort" to ISIS... that's some bombastic newsworthy speech... no?
Gordon Shumway wrote: When there is good evidence to suggest the official servers got hacked (we know for sure they were, unlike with Clinton's whose server was possibly hacked but nobody really knows), what makes having a home server any worse? That it was maybe easier? That we can track the possible hacker easier with the official one? (Just spitballing here, The extent of my computers knowledge goes as far as Ctrl/alt/del when gak goes wrong). When the official one was hacked, It sort of begs the infamous question, "what difference, at this point, does it make?"
Non-confidential servers. Classified servers, there is no such evidence. Hacking those should be next to impossible, given that they aren't even on a network that is capable of being reached from an outside source.
That is why there is so much emphasis on ensuring no classified data gets put unto unclass systems.
Logically, that doesn't make sense. How do different military bases communicate? Dedicated land lines that nobody else has access to and are guarded and monitored their entire length? How do ships at sea communicate? If one system has to communicate with another over any significant distance, there will always be points of access.
Edit: and not every agency does it the same way anyway. My own agency used to have encrypted fax machines, but those faxes still went out over normal phone lines.
The military and *some* agency operate on independent network/internet than the "outside world" internet.
In networking parlance, that means they're air gapped.
But as soon as they touch our heathen network doesn't that automatically create a breach?
Correct. Any non-Clintonian person doing that would be in gak load of trouble.
Emails across networks, for example? Is what you are discussing here the end result of Gore's "creation of the Internet"? Are they separate physical lines altogether?
Sorta. The government secured networks (SIPR) only talks to other secured (SIPR) devices. You can't simply open up your email on SIPR devices and send an email to public yahoo/AOL/google/outlook account.
Most of these devices are in SCIF or something of the like locations.
In any case... if information was extracted (manually by CD burning/thumbdrive coply/manually transcribed) from the SIPR devices and re-entered in unclassified communication systems... that's called a security spillage.
That's a big fething deal.
The technical jargon is that the military/DoD/others agencies uses SIPRnet. SIPRnet is NOT the internet... they're two completely different networks that don't talk to each other.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/09/20 21:01:28
So, doesn't that crossover happen pretty much every day all the time? Think about the computer illiterate people (who are above you and otherwise pretty intelligent people-you work in hospital it, you know what I am saying). They are well trained at what they do. They aren't well trained at what you do. Wouldn't it be conceivable that an old woman in a position of power, has an it guy who says, hey, I can set up your email for you? Is it secure? Sure. Okay. Look at the crap you have to deal with daily, and they are trained PHDs with no lack of intelligence. How many times have you told them to just try resetting their computer? My mom was a pretty smart woman, a VP at a bank. She had no idea how to use her home computer, her email (other than what the it guy at the bank taught her) and she was still pretty darn good at her job.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/20 21:25:29
Gordon Shumway wrote: So, doesn't that crossover happen pretty much every day all the time? Think about the computer illiterate people (who are above you and otherwise pretty intelligent people-you work in hospital it, you know what I am saying). They are well trained at what they do. They aren't well trained at what you do. Wouldn't it be conceivable that an old woman in a position of power, has an it guy who says, hey, I can set up your email for you? Is it secure? Sure. Okay. Look at the crap you have to deal with daily, and they are trained PHDs with no lack of intelligence. How many times have you told them to just try resetting their computer? My mom was a pretty smart woman, a VP at a bank. She had no idea how to use her home computer, her email (other than what the it guy at the bank taught her) and she was still pretty darn good at her job.
No. It doesn't happen every day. Secure machines aren't just kept wherever. You don't just walk around, find one, log in, and do whatever. If you are on it, you know what it is. You don't mistakenly transfer this stuff. You just don't.
Everything indicates she received training. Department of State made a press release specifically saying she received the training.
sebster wrote: Trump dismissing basic constitutional protections. Lying about his charitable giving. Directly lying to people about his investments. Lying about a $5.9 trillion hole in tax plan.
At this point I am genuinely unable to think of one plausible way he could be worse.
He could secretly be a Democrat, or worse, he could be a WOMAN. He could even be a woman Democrat.
You know, I'm getting tired of this snide gak. You want to call people sexist do it. Offer some fething evidence for it first though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/20 21:54:23
but djones... going after the "small fish" to get the "big fish" who ordered the code red to send it to Clinton's NIPR system is like the Spanish Inquisition...
or something...
Truly, your logic is unrivaled. I mean, all you have to do is completely ignore the meat, damn the gravy,
you will never accept any answer that doesn't give you that verdict, even when an exhaustive months long investigation says otherwise in plain ink because it will always be "they didn't investigate hard enough."
and everything everyone else says is just meaningless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Offer some fething evidence for it first though.
He's not calling people sexist. He's simultaneously mocking the "Trump is a Democratic plant" conspiracy, and the ludicrousness that people really think Clinton's carelessness with an email server is somehow so much worse than the giant list of insanity that is his entire campaign.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/20 22:02:16
So all the hoopla a couple pages back about the Clinton Foundation being "Pay to Play", whatever that means, sounds like putting quarters in an arcade cabinet
Yet Trump uses his charity, which he hasnt donated to himself since 2009, to pay legal settlements
Sounds worse than speaking to a large donator for a large donation
3000
4000