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.

d-usa wrote:Food for thought:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/5d8zop/serious_people_who_have_met_or_dealt_with_donald/?st=ivljqry9&sh=0dadbb24

I really don't know what to expect. I mean, I know what to expect from a GOP controlled House and Senate. But I really don't know what to expect from a Trump White House.

I really meant my post from a few days ago, about not knowing what to make of the people he surrounds himself with. I'm hoping he is just giving them high profile positions as a reward for loyalty, while keeping his own policy plans in play (even if nobody knows what the policies actually are, they have to be better than what the people he puts there are likely to have).

I see him either crashing and burning in a flaming pile of white nationalist craziness, or becoming a decent President all things considering.

If he crashes and burns, I can see him being a one term president and a wave of Democrats taking the Senate and the White House in 2020 and maybe even a Democrat gain in 2018. If he turns out to be nothing like his campaign persona I can see him being a sitting president facing a serious primary challenge during 2020.

None of your options considers any success on the part of the GOP at all in the next four years. Not that I'm surprised, mind, but it would be nice to occasionally see some objectivity from the left.


What I'm thinking is that the CEOs and bigwigs that get their tax break will pass some (definitely not all, I'm not that naive) of their windfall downstream, for the same reason that Henry Ford made his automobiles cheap enough for his labor force to purchase them. If nobody is buying your stuff, it doesn't matter WHAT kind of tax break you get. And make no mistake, if a publicized tax break hits and no pass down is shown, that labor force is apt to look for employment elsewhere, which castrates that CEO's bottom line. They are smart enough to keep the masses content, just below happy, and keep their labor force. Doubly so if any sort of immigration enforcement happens.

 whembly wrote:
I'll admit that's a strange one...

And here it is folks. Clinton does it and according to Republicans it should disqualify someone from public office, lead to a criminal investigation, and create outrage when it doesn't lead to a prosecution. A Republican decides to do it and... it's "a strange one".

I know you're going to claim that Clinton received top secret info through her server, but if you think any person with high level access running off two email addresses won't lead to the same, you're kidding yourself. And end of the day the motive for Pence here is the same as the motive for Clinton, as it was for Powell before them - they want to avoid transparency laws.

The partisanship is just fething hopeless.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'll admit that's a strange one...

And here it is folks. Clinton does it and according to Republicans it should disqualify someone from public office, lead to a criminal investigation, and create outrage when it doesn't lead to a prosecution. A Republican decides to do it and... it's "a strange one".

I know you're going to claim that Clinton received top secret info through her server, but if you think any person with high level access running off two email addresses won't lead to the same, you're kidding yourself. And end of the day the motive for Pence here is the same as the motive for Clinton, as it was for Powell before them - they want to avoid transparency laws.

The partisanship is just fething hopeless.

Agreed... I mean, if the problem were well and truly that she had a private server during her time as SoS, then they would have created rules before she got there which prevented it.

 sebster wrote:
but if you think any person with high level access running off two email addresses won't lead to the same, you're kidding yourself.

If you'd paid attention to what myself, and other members who hold security clearances have told you guys, multiple times, about the levels of crimes that have to be committed for any classified data to end up on a non-secure system, you wouldn't go on about how easy this is.

 djones520 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
but if you think any person with high level access running off two email addresses won't lead to the same, you're kidding yourself.

If you'd paid attention to what myself, and other members who hold security clearances have told you guys, multiple times, about the levels of crimes that have to be committed for any classified data to end up on a non-secure system, you wouldn't go on about how easy this is.

All it takes is one person to send an email to the wrong address. That is hardly difficult to accomplish, no matter how many laws are broken by doing it.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'll admit that's a strange one...

And here it is folks. Clinton does it and according to Republicans it should disqualify someone from public office, lead to a criminal investigation, and create outrage when it doesn't lead to a prosecution. A Republican decides to do it and... it's "a strange one".

I know you're going to claim that Clinton received top secret info through her server, but if you think any person with high level access running off two email addresses won't lead to the same, you're kidding yourself. And end of the day the motive for Pence here is the same as the motive for Clinton, as it was for Powell before them - they want to avoid transparency laws.

The partisanship is just fething hopeless.

Jesus... don't be so dense Sebster.

It's not a good look for Pence, but to go "Oh LOOK! IF a Republican does it, it must be OKAY!!".

Boooooooooring Seb.

Trying again.

It's not that it's okay if Republican also does it.

It's that you never seem to care even remotely as much if a Republican also does it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
but if you think any person with high level access running off two email addresses won't lead to the same, you're kidding yourself.

If you'd paid attention to what myself, and other members who hold security clearances have told you guys, multiple times, about the levels of crimes that have to be committed for any classified data to end up on a non-secure system, you wouldn't go on about how easy this is.

All it takes is one person to send an email to the wrong address. That is hardly difficult to accomplish, no matter how many laws are broken by doing it.

No... no it doesn't. It is impossible to send an email from a secure network to a non-secure network. I M P O S S I B L E.

The classified data had to, 1 be electronically removed from the secure system, by disc/thumb drive/etc... which EVERYONE KNOWS NOT TO DO, or 2, be transcribed from the secure system to a non-secure system which EVERYONE KNOWS NOT TO DO.

Hell, some of the content on her server still had the classification markings on them. This was willfully done. It is impossible to make mistakes with this stuff.

 djones520 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
but if you think any person with high level access running off two email addresses won't lead to the same, you're kidding yourself.

If you'd paid attention to what myself, and other members who hold security clearances have told you guys, multiple times, about the levels of crimes that have to be committed for any classified data to end up on a non-secure system, you wouldn't go on about how easy this is.

All it takes is one person to send an email to the wrong address. That is hardly difficult to accomplish, no matter how many laws are broken by doing it.

No... no it doesn't. It is impossible to send an email from a secure network to a non-secure network. I M P O S S I B L E.

The classified data had to, 1 be electronically removed from the secure system, by disc/thumb drive/etc... which EVERYONE KNOWS NOT TO DO, or 2, be transcribed from the secure system to a non-secure system which EVERYONE KNOWS NOT TO DO.

Hell, some of the content on her server still had the classification markings on them. This was willfully done. It is impossible to make mistakes with this stuff.

And yet I bet that people will still do it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
but if you think any person with high level access running off two email addresses won't lead to the same, you're kidding yourself.

If you'd paid attention to what myself, and other members who hold security clearances have told you guys, multiple times, about the levels of crimes that have to be committed for any classified data to end up on a non-secure system, you wouldn't go on about how easy this is.

All it takes is one person to send an email to the wrong address. That is hardly difficult to accomplish, no matter how many laws are broken by doing it.

No... no it doesn't. It is impossible to send an email from a secure network to a non-secure network. I M P O S S I B L E.

The classified data had to, 1 be electronically removed from the secure system, by disc/thumb drive/etc... which EVERYONE KNOWS NOT TO DO, or 2, be transcribed from the secure system to a non-secure system which EVERYONE KNOWS NOT TO DO.

Hell, some of the content on her server still had the classification markings on them. This was willfully done. It is impossible to make mistakes with this stuff.

And yet I bet that people will still do it.

Yes, like one Chelsea Manning. Look where they are.

Listen, I am explaining this from a position of expertise. I have held a security clearance for 15 years. I have worked on secure systems for that length of time. I have received the same level of training that everyone of the people who fubar'd that system received.

There are no mistakes when it comes to this. There is only willfully ignoring the rules, because if you are allowed access to this data, you KNOW how to handle it properly.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Agreed... I mean, if the problem were well and truly that she had a private server during her time as SoS, then they would have created rules before she got there which prevented it.

There were rules broken buddy.

 djones520 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
but if you think any person with high level access running off two email addresses won't lead to the same, you're kidding yourself.

If you'd paid attention to what myself, and other members who hold security clearances have told you guys, multiple times, about the levels of crimes that have to be committed for any classified data to end up on a non-secure system, you wouldn't go on about how easy this is.

All it takes is one person to send an email to the wrong address. That is hardly difficult to accomplish, no matter how many laws are broken by doing it.

No... no it doesn't. It is impossible to send an email from a secure network to a non-secure network. I M P O S S I B L E.

The classified data had to, 1 be electronically removed from the secure system, by disc/thumb drive/etc... which EVERYONE KNOWS NOT TO DO, or 2, be transcribed from the secure system to a non-secure system which EVERYONE KNOWS NOT TO DO.

Hell, some of the content on her server still had the classification markings on them. This was willfully done. It is impossible to make mistakes with this stuff.

You proceed from a false assumption: that all of the data was ever on a classified network to begin with to be removed from.

 d-usa wrote:
It's not that it's okay if Republican also does it.

It's that you never seem to care even remotely as much if a Republican also does it.

Please notify me when Pence start handling classified emails on fething yahoo.com.

Cool?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
but if you think any person with high level access running off two email addresses won't lead to the same, you're kidding yourself.

If you'd paid attention to what myself, and other members who hold security clearances have told you guys, multiple times, about the levels of crimes that have to be committed for any classified data to end up on a non-secure system, you wouldn't go on about how easy this is.

All it takes is one person to send an email to the wrong address. That is hardly difficult to accomplish, no matter how many laws are broken by doing it.

No... no it doesn't. It is impossible to send an email from a secure network to a non-secure network. I M P O S S I B L E.

The classified data had to, 1 be electronically removed from the secure system, by disc/thumb drive/etc... which EVERYONE KNOWS NOT TO DO, or 2, be transcribed from the secure system to a non-secure system which EVERYONE KNOWS NOT TO DO.

Hell, some of the content on her server still had the classification markings on them. This was willfully done. It is impossible to make mistakes with this stuff.

You proceed from a false assumption: that all of the data was ever on a classified network to begin with to be removed from.

Sure, items that were classified TS at the time of transmittal were sitting on NIPR networks. If you believe that, I've got some beach front property in Nebraska to sell you.

Anybody can type up anything on any computer. Avoid the petty and insultingly dismissive remarks.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Anybody can type up anything on any computer. Avoid the petty and insultingly dismissive remarks.

What I find petty and insulting is the complete dismissal of my points, so people can throw out outlandish idea's.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's not that it's okay if Republican also does it.

It's that you never seem to care even remotely as much if a Republican also does it.

Please notify me when Pence start handling classified emails on fething yahoo.com.

Cool?

Please notify me when you care about the rules, not about who brakes them.

Cool?

No, you were making an explicit statement that literally every piece of classified data she had absolutely had to originate from a classified network. This is patently untrue.

I patiently await months of Whembly complaining and calling for pences job

 Ustrello wrote:
I patiently await months of Whembly complaining and calling for pences job

As soon as he sends classified materials from yahoo.com you will see that, I guess.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's not that it's okay if Republican also does it.

It's that you never seem to care even remotely as much if a Republican also does it.

Please notify me when Pence start handling classified emails on fething yahoo.com.

Cool?

Please notify me when you care about the rules, not about who brakes them.

Cool?

I don't care who breaks them. Throw the goddamn book at Pence for all I care.

But the fact remains, the Clinton gak and Pence gak are not compariable.

 djones520 wrote:
He may not be able to pull us out of those agreements, but he can take steps to help keep US manufacturing in the US.

Most of it would require working with Congress, as it will all take legislation to do, but lowering tax rates for companies that keep manufacturing jobs here. I'm sure a balance can be found for revenue where you keep costs for a company comparable, in comparison to the revenue brought in by several thousand new jobs.

There are potentially some things that can be done. Lowering tax rates has little value, if there is a business case to offshore manufacturing, then the typically the saving is large enough that a saving on tax will make bugger all difference. All you end up doing is gifting money to businesses that were staying anyway, which leaves you without money to give to other businesses to get them to stay. What does work is working with new companies to provide them with infrastructure and new subsidies to start up new businesses, like Tesla's big battery factory. And also improving infrastructure generally, and making sure there's a trained workforce available.

But that stuff is difficult, and generally requires years of planning and development of business and government relationships. And these days there's also the unfortunate issue that even when you expand manufacturing, you don't actually create many jobs, because it is so highly automated these days. As has been said endlessly in the last few years, vastly more manufacturing jobs have been lost to robots than foreign workers.

What Trump has is a promise to do something about manufacturing, which he has so far indicated is going to be solved by dismantling global trade. Which was easy rhetoric, but also completely wrong. Which leaves us with concluding that either Mr Trump doesn't know the realities of manufacturing these days, or he knows but is happy to lie about it either way.

In either case, why would that make anyone conclude that he had a real plan to fix manufacturing, but was keeping it secret while he prattled on about how bad trade was? I mean, if he had a real plan to fix this, why would he keep it secret? I think the pretty clear conclusion, one that most people ought to have made about 12 months ago, is that manufacturing under Trump will not be any different.

But hey, as I said earlier I'm happy to test this. BLS produces a number of manufacturing jobs every month, so if we track that from Trump's first year, and see where it is at each month after that, we'll be able to measure if Trump has done anything and if it is working.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Come back to me if they continue to donate while Giuliani holds a cabinet position. K?

And here we see the argument that foreign donations are acceptable if they're made before the person is in office. Note that Republicans were attacking the Clinton Foundation before she was made Sec. of State. And of course, the idea that there's a distinction between 'hey give me some cash and you can get access' is no different to 'hey give me some cash and you can get access when I'm in power' is total fething nonsense.

This isn't to say Guiliani has done anything wrong, of course. But the same standards of evidence before accusation that can now apply to him should have applied to Clinton. They didn't, of course, because Republicans are always happy to make up bs about Democratic presidential candidates.

Hate incidents on the rise since Trump's win

I am shocked. Just shocked.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Come back to me if they continue to donate while Giuliani holds a cabinet position. K?

And here we see the argument that foreign donations are acceptable if they're made before the person is in office. Note that Republicans were attacking the Clinton Foundation before she was made Sec. of State. And of course, the idea that there's a distinction between 'hey give me some cash and you can get access' is no different to 'hey give me some cash and you can get access when I'm in power' is total fething nonsense.

This isn't to say Guiliani has done anything wrong, of course. But the same standards of evidence before accusation that can now apply to him should have applied to Clinton. They didn't, of course, because Republicans are always happy to make up bs about Democratic presidential candidates.

...and here's some bs.

I'm willing to bet, that Republicans in general really didn't care about foreign donations to Clinton Foundation prior to her SoS tenure.

Hell... ironically, the Obama administration were concerned about it... she had to sign a memorandum of understanding to disclose any foriegn donations.

However, if Guiliani becomes SoS, yes... his prior work with foreign government *is* concerning.

Again... doesn't anything think it's weird that he may become SoS? He doesn't strike me as a diplomat.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
As a bit of a seque from the popular vote vs EC discussion, I thought the following analysis was interesting. It is written as somewhat of a post mortem on Obama's legacy in regards to his influence on various elections at both the federal and state level.

Interesting piece. I think it needs to be seen in a greater context. Anyone remembering 2006 and 2008, when Republicans had just suffered historic rejections at the ballot box will know they had a choice to return to the centre, or push further to the right. They chose to push further right, and since then elections have been very kind to Republicans, especially state level and mid-terms.

Democrats are now facing a similar issue, and will be offered a similar choice. With Clinton having been defined (largely through nonsense) as the political centre, there are now large calls for Democrats to move to position much further to the left.

The article you posted will be one of many posted about how democrats have to change direction given what's happened in the last decade, since the highs of 2006. As I predicted a while ago, it seems pretty inevitable that the party will push further to the left. And why not? There are hardly any undecideds who reliably turn up to vote, and even fewer Republicans who would ever switch their vote, no matter what you offered. These guys voted for Trump, they're committed for life at this point.

So what we'll see is that instead of having one partisan party, you'll have two. Have fun with that, America.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Declare China a currency manipulator under appropriate legislation. Watch the fun begin.

That's an interesting, albeit contraversial approach to take... if it was 2010. China has been selling USD for 6 years now, in an effort to appreciate the yuan and avoid capital flight.

This point has been raised hundreds of times in the last year, and yet you still seem entirely oblivious to it. It's more than bit frustrating at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, No. Otherwise those millions of illegal immigrants would leave on their own seeking work elsewhere.

You should maybe go and look at the net migration figures between the US and Mexico in the last decade, because that's exactly what is happening.

The 'big idea' of a service based economy is disintegrating around us because it's basically an illusion. It always has been, but as it looses gas, it becomes more and more apparent. Heck, I had a guy with a PhD doing data entry as a GS 4, for crying out loud. He actually accepted the position. He didn't stay, I grant, but atm I can walk down a row of cubicles and pull out four people with a masters in IT or a related field, a material engineer and an aeronautics engineer, a former airforce pilot, an aircraft mechanic, and three bureaucrats. And a Historian. None of whom are making over GS 5 and all are doing unskilled labor doing data entry.

You've missed how it works. No-one decided that it would be nice to have a service based economy. The service based economy is the recognition of what was happening as a result of basic market forces.

Now I do agree that giving lots of people high levels of education hasn't delivered a high skill job for all of them, but then that was never the point (although some people oversold it as such). It was always about making sure that there was enough of a skilled workforce to attract all possible high skills industries, to give as many people as possible high paying jobs.

It isn't an ideal solution, of course, but it is the solution we have for the world we live. The alternative, such as hoping for the return of manufacturing jobs through Trump magic is just plain old not very sensible.

 Ahtman wrote:
Hate incidents on the rise since Trump's win

I am shocked. Just shocked.

Did you hear about the Democrats that nearly strangled a 70 year old man to death for wearing a Trump hat?

In Calgary.

 LordofHats wrote:
As a non-lawyer, my understanding is that cases require a claim of harm. I don't think you can make one until a vote has actually been cast. Some "maybe doing something perhaps who knows" can't really cause anyone harm.

Fair enough. I mean it's a pipe dream anyway, and from what you've pointed out it's also a terrible idea for lots of reasons. I was just looking for one way to make it a pipe dream that could maybe be less of a terrible idea by removing the constitutional uncertainty. Still a fun idea though

Mitochondria wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Hate incidents on the rise since Trump's win

I am shocked. Just shocked.

Did you hear about the Democrats that strangled a 70 year old man to death for wearing a Trump hat?

I'm sure you will have fascinating and non-reddit sources for this story.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Agreed... I mean, if the problem were well and truly that she had a private server during her time as SoS, then they would have created rules before she got there which prevented it.

Of course, what Clinton did was bad. No argument there, the point was always that it was a minor breach that caused no actual harm.

Pence, of course, also shouldn't be strung up for doing it. But people wanted Clinton strung up, and my oh my is it easy to see what the difference is.

 whembly wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Agreed... I mean, if the problem were well and truly that she had a private server during her time as SoS, then they would have created rules before she got there which prevented it.

There were rules broken buddy.

You know that I was talking about the fact that she carried on a practice that Powell did... but he's on your team, so... you don't really care (and, your article points out that HE was in violation of said rules as well)

Which was exactly my point: Republicans were cool with their guy breaking some rules, but the sky is absolutely falling if the other guy does it.