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:

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.

To clarify, Infowars and Brietbart do not count as well.

At anyrate, in regards to Ahtman's link, I wonder of the SPLC took into account hate crimes committed against Trump supporters. I read through the first half or so of it, and didn't see anything mentioning them. While they may not be as prevalent, we know they are happening.

 djones520 wrote:
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.

I've read what you've said on this issue, but unfortunately I've also read what you've said on plenty of other issues. As such, I take my information from not djones520.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
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.

That's contentless. Reminds me of you guys chanting 'Bush derangement syndrome' whenever people listed the vast number of screw ups in the Bush administration. Now it's 'oh look you're just saying this because we said it about Clinton'. Just like with Bush, you don't get to dismiss it when it's true.

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
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.

I've read what you've said on this issue, but unfortunately I've also read what you've said on plenty of other issues. As such, I take my information from not djones520.

Your loss.

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
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.

I've read what you've said on this issue, but unfortunately I've also read what you've said on plenty of other issues. As such, I take my information from not djones520.

I will say, with having had 10 years in the army, djones is pretty spot on with DoD practices.... That said, Not many of us can speak of the DoS's practices, specifically, as mentioned earlier: how Sec. States such as Powell, Rice, Clinton and whoever else has held the job since the dawn of the internet age, are not held to the same standards and practices as other parts of government.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
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.

I've read what you've said on this issue, but unfortunately I've also read what you've said on plenty of other issues. As such, I take my information from not djones520.

I will say, with having had 10 years in the army, djones is pretty spot on with DoD practices.... That said, Not many of us can speak of the DoS's practices, specifically, as mentioned earlier: how Sec. States such as Powell, Rice, Clinton and whoever else has held the job since the dawn of the internet age, are not held to the same standards and practices as other parts of government.

DOS uses SIPR and higher classified systems, just like DOD does. This info is easily found on open sources. Their day to day stuff might be different, but the transfer of materials from classified systems to unclass will be exactly the same.

 whembly wrote:
...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.

You bet wrong. 100% wrong, completely false. Issues with the foundation were first raised in 2007, before Clinton began her run in the 2008 primary. That prompted the first declaration of donors, which showed funds coming from foreign governments. This is during the primary, before Clinton's position as Sec of State was even mentioned.

So yeah, Guiliani is exactly the same. Except it's not, of course, because the suggestion of impropriety only counts as evidence of corruption when its the other team doing it.

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

Compared to Kushner and Bannon, it's small fries. I mean, in any other admin it'd be a shockingly bizarre appointment, but this is Trump.

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

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.

To clarify, Infowars and Brietbart do not count as well.

At anyrate, in regards to Ahtman's link, I wonder of the SPLC took into account hate crimes committed against Trump supporters. I read through the first half or so of it, and didn't see anything mentioning them. While they may not be as prevalent, we know they are happening.

Yup, while I am pretty doubtful about most "BEAT UP BECAUSE THEY WERE WEARING A TRUMP HAT!!!!!!!!!" stories, as their peddlers are generally places known for making gak up on the fly when it is convenient for them, there's definitely been gak from both sides.

On the local side, the worse we've had was a Hillary sign that someone scrawled "I'll kill you" and "[female dog]" on it with sharpie, so all things considered not too bad.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

Actually, I argued that he should be prosecuted if he passed along TS information as well.

 djones520 wrote:
Your loss.

I've some how gotten this far without getting my information on US information security from partisans on a gaming forum, so I'll guess I'll just muddle on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I will say, with having had 10 years in the army, djones is pretty spot on with DoD practices.... That said, Not many of us can speak of the DoS's practices, specifically, as mentioned earlier: how Sec. States such as Powell, Rice, Clinton and whoever else has held the job since the dawn of the internet age, are not held to the same standards and practices as other parts of government.

I've no doubt he's got plenty of technical knowledge, but it's like those guys who drop in to defend Russia in all those threads about Russia dicking around with the Ukraine. These guys have knowledge, but you can't learn anything from them because their analysis and conclusions are so compromised by their pre-determined conclusions.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
...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.

You bet wrong. 100% wrong, completely false. Issues with the foundation were first raised in 2007, before Clinton began her run in the 2008 primary. That prompted the first declaration of donors, which showed funds coming from foreign governments. This is during the primary, before Clinton's position as Sec of State was even mentioned.

Seb... that was raised during the '07 Democrat primary... you know, the one that she lost?

There were no reason for the GOP to bring it up then... she didn't get the nomination.

So yeah, Guiliani is exactly the same. Except it's not, of course, because the suggestion of impropriety only counts as evidence of corruption when its the other team doing it.

Let's make a deal.

IF it were discovered that Guilliani recieved donations or other pay to play schemes, I'll be here denouncing Guiliani and advocate for his investigation/indictment.

I'll expect you to defend Guiliani with the same ferver that you gave HRC.

Cool?

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

Compared to Kushner and Bannon, it's small fries. I mean, in any other admin it'd be a shockingly bizarre appointment, but this is Trump.

I agree... it'd be totally bizarre.

 whembly wrote:
Actually, I argued that he should be prosecuted if he passed along TS information as well.

Once again, what about acting to bypass transparency laws? Remember that was the original Clinton misconduct that led to further investigation? That doesn't count anymore?

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Actually, I argued that he should be prosecuted if he passed along TS information as well.

Once again, what about acting to bypass transparency laws?

Of course

Remember that was the original Clinton misconduct that led to further investigation? That doesn't count anymore?

Actually... the original misconduct was simply a "WTF?" from the Benghazi Committee when they discovered she was using her private email server.

 whembly wrote:
Seb... that was raised during the '07 Democrat primary... you know, the one that she lost?

There were no reason for the GOP to bring it up then... she didn't get the nomination.

It was raised in multiple conservative papers, and by conservative pundits. Because they were doing prep work on the presumed nominee. I mean, you're the guy who's oblivious to when the issue was raised, and now you're trying to tell me what went down? That's a bit cheeky.

Let's make a deal.

IF it were discovered that Guilliani recieved donations or other pay to play schemes, I'll be here denouncing Guiliani and advocate for his investigation/indictment.

I'll expect you to defend Guiliani with the same ferver that you gave HRC.

Cool?

Right now I'm defending Guiliani with the exact same fervor I gave Clinton - I am stating there is an implication of impropriety, that should have been avoided, but anything more than that will require further evidence. Funnily enough that's now your position too, it seems.

I agree... it'd be totally bizarre.

Donald Trump. There's so much wrong that hopeless Sec of State suggestion aren't even really worth talking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Actually... the original misconduct was simply a "WTF?" from the Benghazi Committee when they discovered she was using her private email server.

That's right. When Benghazi investigations were stalled because of accessing the private server, it became an issue of the private server having been used to avoid transparency, which led to recovery of all emails on the server, which led to emails that were classified being on the unsecured server.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Seb... that was raised during the '07 Democrat primary... you know, the one that she lost?

There were no reason for the GOP to bring it up then... she didn't get the nomination.

It was raised in multiple conservative papers, and by conservative pundits. Because they were doing prep work on the presumed nominee. I mean, you're the guy who's oblivious to when the issue was raised, and now you're trying to tell me what went down? That's a bit cheeky.

Seriously... when Obama won the nomination (and he won it early enough... it wasn't dragged out like this year), it was like Clinton didn't exist anymore.

We had enough to worry about this Obama dude.

Let's make a deal.

IF it were discovered that Guilliani recieved donations or other pay to play schemes, I'll be here denouncing Guiliani and advocate for his investigation/indictment.

I'll expect you to defend Guiliani with the same ferver that you gave HRC.

Cool?

Right now I'm defending Guiliani with the exact same fervor I gave Clinton - I am stating there is an implication of impropriety, that should have been avoided, but anything more than that will require further evidence. Funnily enough that's now your position too, it seems.

I'm just saying the implication of impropriety seemed weaksauced in the sense that, no one could've know that Rudy would be SoS, let alone that Trump would be the next President, to the degree that these foreign connections expected some favorable treatment.

This smells like, "whoa... dude, Rudy is doing the EACT same thing whembly... WHY AREN'T YOU BURNING gak DOWN Now?!?!?!??!".

My eye balls... are bouncing on the floor for me rolling them too much.

But I'll say this - IF Rudy becomes SoS and it's shown that he recieved money from foreign actors to some nebulous entity that he controls... you damn right I'll channel Col. Jessup and order the fething Code Red.

I agree... it'd be totally bizarre.

Donald Trump. There's so much wrong that hopeless Sec of State suggestion aren't even really worth talking about.

Dude... SoS is an extremely important decision.

If it's Bolten or Rudy: expect a very agressive foreign policy.

If it's Sen Cotten: expect a very reserved, isolation approach.

 whembly wrote:
If it's Bolten or Rudy: expect a very agressive foreign policy.

IOW, that whole "Trump won't start any wars, Clinton will start a war with Russia" thing becomes a joke.

 whembly wrote:
Seriously... when Obama won the nomination (and he won it early enough... it wasn't dragged out like this year), it was like Clinton didn't exist anymore.

What? The 2008 Democratic primary is famous for being close. The contest reached June before Obama got enough delegates, and then he only got there with superdelegates, as the popular vote was within 1% (and Obama actually lost the popular vote, this seems to be something of a theme for Clinton).

Anyhow, your argument about Clinton is weird. Basically you said that while conservatives started out with concerns about the Clinton Foundation and foreign donors, you stopped them when she wasn't the political target any more, only to start them again when she became a political target again. That doesn't disprove the point that conservatives were concerned about them before she was Sec of State, and it basically proves that it was always an attack made for political reasons.

We had enough to worry about this Obama dude.

Yes, I remember how scary it was that he was a socialist extremist who was a muslim who had a scary preacher and terrorist connections and wasn't going to make white people pay reparations.

I wonder what stuff you guys will make up in 4 years time?

I'm just saying the implication of impropriety seemed weaksauced in the sense that, no one could've know that Rudy would be SoS, let alone that Trump would be the next President, to the degree that these foreign connections expected some favorable treatment.

As I posted way back when, rich people give money to politicians they are close with. This lends a sympathetic ear when the time comes. This is what those chinese dudes were doing when they used a backdoor method to put a million in Jeb!'s warchest. It's likely what those foreign government's were doing when they put money in the Clinton Foundation. And it's exactly what they were doing when they gave money to Giuliani - they didn't know Trump would win, they certainly didn't know Giuilani would be given Sec of State, but they knew he was an inside guy in the Republican party and with Trump. And that's how it works.

My outrage now is the same as it was for Clinton - yes it ain't good, but the only thing we can sensibly stop is actual corruption. The Republicans found no accusation in Clinton's conduct, they just made accusations. Now, amazingly, the same people aren't throwing around wild speculation on Clinton.

The reason why is obvious.

Dude... SoS is an extremely important decision.

Obviously. But in the dumpster fire that is Trump's transition team, having a guy who's actually got a history of some good work poorly matched to the suggested role is pretty small. I mean he's got an actual, honest to anti-semite for Chief of Staff.


*As AG he took on NY mobsters, and as mayor he had some good success reforming the city, though things like stop and frisk obviously were miles too far.

 sebster wrote:
I mean he's got an actual, honest to anti-semite for Chief of Staff.

But remember, it's about the economy, not white supremacist ideology gaining a pretense of legitimacy. Trump just said all that awful racist stuff to make a big show, he wouldn't actually do anything about it. All this criticism about his chief of staff must be liberal lies and an attempt to draw attention from Trump's plan to bring back our jobs!

Is Bannon really an Anti-Semite? I keep seeing the accusations, but there's nothing supporting it. His colleges, who admit he was an donkey-cave says he supports Israel, and it would seem that the accusation originated from his Ex-wife, but we only have her word for it.

Also, isn't Trump's son in law and daughter Jewish, and doesn't he want to foster good relations with Israel? How is that anti-semitic behavior? It does not seem logical.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Is Bannon really an Anti-Semite? I keep seeing the accusations, but there's nothing supporting it. His colleges, who admit he was an donkey-cave says he supports Israel, and it would seem that the accusation originated from his Ex-wife, but we only have her word for it.

Also, isn't Trump's son in law and daughter Jewish, and doesn't he want to foster good relations with Israel? How is that anti-semitic behavior? It does not seem logical.

Bannon has been dogged by accusations of racism of all kinds for many years. To be fair to him I don't think there are any recorded moments of him saying anything to the effect outright, but he keeps very... untasteful company.

And honestly. Can we stop using support/lack of support for Israel as a measure of racism? It's grown tiresome. Hitler wanted all the Jews to move somewhere else for a little while before he decided it was easier to just kill them, and lots of Americans thought "well now that this slavery thing is over we should ship all these black folk back to Africa where they came from, never mind what they want."

 LordofHats wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Is Bannon really an Anti-Semite? I keep seeing the accusations, but there's nothing supporting it. His colleges, who admit he was an donkey-cave says he supports Israel, and it would seem that the accusation originated from his Ex-wife, but we only have her word for it.

Also, isn't Trump's son in law and daughter Jewish, and doesn't he want to foster good relations with Israel? How is that anti-semitic behavior? It does not seem logical.

Bannon has been dogged by accusations of racism of all kinds for many years. To be fair to him I don't think there are any recorded moments of him saying anything to the effect outright, but he keeps very... untasteful company.

And honestly. Can we stop using support/lack of support for Israel as a measure of racism? It's grown tiresome. Hitler wanted all the Jews to move somewhere else for a little while before he decided it was easier to just kill them, and lots of Americans thought "well now that this slavery thing is over we should ship all these black folk back to Africa where they came from, never mind what they want."

Both of your examples involve forcing people about of the country into another land. They did not involve helping an existing country.
Would the KKK want to help Ethiopia?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


Both of your examples involve forcing people about of the country into another land. They did not involve helping an existing country.
Would the KKK want to help Ethiopia?

The point was that one can easily reconcile racist sentiment with supporting a place for all the people you don't like to be so they aren't near you.

Racism is not solely defined by the "kill/suppress them all" mentality.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Would the KKK want to help Ethiopia?

That depends, does the KKK have a prophecy about how the race war that will bring about white utopia will begin in Ethiopia? Is Ethiopia seen as the last white ally standing in defense against the even blacker enemies in the region? Because a lot of the extremist right-wing Christian support for Israel comes from some weird "end times" prophecy stuff and/or using Israel as a military shield against its Muslim neighbors (and therefore defending US interests in the region). It's not that they especially like Israel or the Jews, it's that Israel serves a useful purpose to them.

I love that you can post a link that objectively shows a rise in the worst elements going after other Americans and the response is "Well I'm sure both sides do it" when that doesn't even address the problem but ignores the reality of it.

The number of Trump supporters being attacked isn't on the rise nor is it equal. The article doesn't say that there are no idiots of all stripes but a certain type of our idiots is on the rise and the best response seems to be to bury our heads and 'whataboutism'.

It is fething sad that Americans are under attack and the number that want to hand wave it away instead of recognizing the problem is probably part of the stupidity that lead us to this problem in the first place. This isn't right versus left or liberal versus conservative it is the worst fething elements going on a spree and, apparently, a good amount of Americans that want to pretend it isn't happening and make excuses.

It is a goddamn shame. People argue for coming together but won't even go against fething neo-nazis and the like.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/trump-jumps-shark?utm_term=.byX9xxv218#.ufV788rLzM

When Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull called Donald Trump last Thursday, he was one of the first world leaders to speak to the new US president-elect.

On Thursday, it emerged Australia, which has a longstanding diplomatic and military alliance with the US, was only able to get through to Trump because the prime minister cold-called him on his personal mobile phone, through a number provided by champion Australian golfer Greg Norman.
Norman, who has a personal friendship with the newly elected president formed through his deep association with golf, was reportedly approached by Australia’s ambassador to the US Joe Hockey in the immediate aftermath of the shock election.

Norman, whose nickname is the “great white shark”, is a two-time British Open champion and now lives in Florida.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Hockey got Trump’s private mobile phone number and forwarded it to the Australian PM, who then cold-called the president-elect.
The prime minister has previously praised Trump for being a “deal maker” and said the two had a “warm” 15-minute phone call about the US-Australia alliance last week.
Trump had earlier seized on a New York Times report that detailed how US allies were left to cold-calling him in Trump Tower.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/798862483255652352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

I have recieved and taken calls from many foreign leaders despite what the failing @nytimes said. Russia, U.K., China, Saudi Arabia, Japan,

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/798864532433211392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Australia, New Zealand, and more. I am always available to them. @nytimes is just upset that they looked like fools in their coverage of me.

So in this bold new era it seems golfers are key to the defense of the world.


.. there's probably a bunker joke or 3 -- maybe tied into the scottish gold course farce -- that could be made here but I'm actually thinking it might be time to stock up on canned good instead.

LordofHats wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Is Bannon really an Anti-Semite? I keep seeing the accusations, but there's nothing supporting it. His colleges, who admit he was an donkey-cave says he supports Israel, and it would seem that the accusation originated from his Ex-wife, but we only have her word for it.

Also, isn't Trump's son in law and daughter Jewish, and doesn't he want to foster good relations with Israel? How is that anti-semitic behavior? It does not seem logical.

Bannon has been dogged by accusations of racism of all kinds for many years. To be fair to him I don't think there are any recorded moments of him saying anything to the effect outright, but he keeps very... untasteful company.

And honestly. Can we stop using support/lack of support for Israel as a measure of racism? It's grown tiresome. Hitler wanted all the Jews to move somewhere else for a little while before he decided it was easier to just kill them, and lots of Americans thought "well now that this slavery thing is over we should ship all these black folk back to Africa where they came from, never mind what they want."

So... we're allowed to call him anti-semitic based on unconfirmed accusations but can't use his supporting Isreal as support that he maybe isn't anti-semitic because maybe he just wants to export all the Jews?

I have no idea if the guy is racist or not, but I'm also not willing to take "oh his ex-wife said so during divorce proceedings".

It seems that he is definitely a nationalist, but that doesn't automatically make him racist. If he's a white nationalist, sure, and if there's evidence of that I'm happy to accept it as a valid argument.

Ahtman wrote:It is a goddamn shame. People argue for coming together but won't even go against fething neo-nazis and the like.

The thing is, people don't trust the extremely leftist media to report fairly and they're already sick of being called racist because they voted for Trump. People don't know whether Trump supports are more responsible or anti-Trump supporters are more responsible because you're only going to hear the ones the media decides to report and no one on the right trusts them.

You also have the very distinct possibility that some of the graffiti and comments come from democratic supporters who are simply upset. I'm not saying that's what's happening, but to me the LOGICAL thing to do is be sceptical of each individual case until enough facts are known.

Absolutely people should be fighting against racism where it rears its head. But having a chat on a website about toy soldiers isn't fighting racism so I'm more than happy to spend a bit more time being analytical rather than reactionary. It's up to the people in that local community and the people in positions of influence to stand up and decry these actions and when possible put the fethers in jail regardless of whether they're wearing a red shirt a blue shirt or a white hood.

Obama was on the news, and he said that Angela Merkel was his closest international 'buddy.'

Our former Prime Minister, David Cameron, must be crying to himself in a corner. He tried so hard to get Obama to like him

Why do Americans have to be so cruel?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So... we're allowed to call him anti-semitic based on unconfirmed accusations but can't use his supporting Isreal as support that he maybe isn't anti-semitic because maybe he just wants to export all the Jews?

I said nothing of the sort.

Those are two distinct points. That the best evidence of Bannon's racism seems to be little more than hersey/guilt by association*, and that support/lack thereof for Israel is a really crappy measure for one's opinion on Jews. Henry Ford was a raging antisemite and he still gave some money to Jewish charities (likewise Walt Disney was not an antisemite, but giving money to Jewish charities, and a fair bit at that, has never save him from the accusation). One does not exclude the other per se, and the first point is about Bannon while the second is that I've grown increasingly tired of this tripe where how much one supports Israel is the benchmark for how much one supports Jews.

*The later would at most mean he's willing to overlook racism for whatever other goal he holds, which people can criticize him for but criticism should be in appropriate context.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
they're already sick of being called racist because they voted for Trump.

Except the article never says that Trump supporters are racists. It specifically talks about how racist and bigoted acts are on the rise, and that the people that are doing it are using this as an excuse.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
People don't know whether Trump supports are more responsible or anti-Trump supporters are more responsible

We know exactly who is responsible, it isn't a mystery. The police aren't confused on this point really. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

This isn't the left pretending to be the KKK*, this isn't the right pretending to be the KKK*, this is actually the fething KKK*. Saying we should fight racism then making it about politics, rationalizing it, and excusing it don't really go together.


*Or neo-nazis or white power idiots, pick your poison, and it is poison.

 djones520 wrote:

 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.

You realize, about the server, you sort of disprove yourself. If it is impossible to move data that is secure to non-secure outside of a thumb drive or physically re-typing, then we can only assume that Clinton's server must have been secure for secure data to move to it.

But that isn't even really the point...because no one seems to have an issue with the server but that fact thta it was "un-secure". Best data shows that state was hacked 3 times while clinton was the sec state. Best data shows clinton's sever was never hacked.

Maybe people should say "thank you for using a more secure system than the state department!"?

ender502


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
and they're already sick of being called racist because they voted for Trump.

Ah, now I see the disconnect. I don't think you get it. They are racist because they voted for Trump. They can pretend they're not. But they are. They can point to their "black friend" to prove they aren't. They can say they aren't a KKK guy or a nazi. It doesn't change the fact that Trump's whistle was always a call for the nostalgic past where factories were booming and the white man was on the undisputed king of the mountain.

How else can you have someone publicly lauded by a former grand wizard of the KKK and still get elected. Forgiving racism and saying "not a big deal" is no different than putting on a hood and burning a cross. Just less effort.

People can be as racist as they want. That's their perogative. But be honest about it. It'll make you feel better.

ender502

 Ahtman wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
they're already sick of being called racist because they voted for Trump.

Except the article never says that Trump supporters are racists. It specifically talks about how racist and bigoted acts are on the rise, and that the people that are doing it are using this as an excuse.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
People don't know whether Trump supports are more responsible or anti-Trump supporters are more responsible

We know exactly who is responsible, it isn't a mystery. The police aren't confused on this point really. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

This isn't the left pretending to be the KKK*, this isn't the right pretending to be the KKK*, this is actually the fething KKK*. Saying we should fight racism then making it about politics, rationalizing it, and excusing it don't really go together.


*Or neo-nazis or white power idiots, pick your poison, and it is poison.

There have always been racists, bigots, bullies and criminals in society and always will be. They always have some excuse or rationale behind their acts. It is unfortunate that such crimes are on the rise. There's nothing I can do to change that, I don't commit crimes and haven't seen anyone commit hate crimes so I haven't been in a position to directly confront or stop any. Condemning such acts on Internet forums isn't going to make a difference either. Are the authorities treating the attacks seriously? Are the police investigatin and prosecutors prosecuting? If they are then we'll be fine. The KKK and nephew nazis don't pose an existential threat to the US and they no longer have widespread support in local and state govts so they are pursued and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Don't be an alarmist.