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.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
The president using an unsecured phone is not as bad as the secretary of state having a private email server- Whembly 2018

Report didn't say it was "unsecured"... only that its good policy to swap it out (ala burner phone).

But, you do you.

I know this question has been answered just by you posting and pretty much every single person on this forum, but do you actually read the articles you post or do you just read the headlines?

?? Did you? The article tries really hard to convey they're unsecured, when in reality they're furnished and manayged by the WhiteHouseIT & Communication team... buried in the story:

senior West Wing official said the call-capable phones “are seamlessly swapped out on a regular basis through routine support operations. Because of the security controls of the Twitter phone and the Twitter account, it does not necessitate regular change-out.”
...
The West Wing official refuted the idea that the presence of a camera and microphone on the president’s phone posed any risk, telling POLITICO, “Due to inherent capabilities and advancement in technologies, these devices are more secure than any Obama-era devices.”

So... did you read the whole thing?

EDIT: my issue, is that it's wrong for Trump to ignore his security team to swap out the phones, if true. Still... nothing like muh bathroom email server.

...... I am amazed that we are at a point of where But her E-mails is still a thing to protect Trump.

 ScarletRose wrote:

Still... nothing like muh bathroom email server.

So I'm curious, do you genuinely think repeating the same phrase in this tone is going to... what convince all those darn librals how wrong they are? Stick it to them? Troll for the sake of trolling?

Like seriously it seems like when idiotic condescension became the go-to right-wing tactic it pretty much cut the last strands between that echo chamber and reality.

It's pre-empting the arguments...

Like when liberals complain about Trump and end it with: but her emails... or even but Gorsuch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
The president using an unsecured phone is not as bad as the secretary of state having a private email server- Whembly 2018

Report didn't say it was "unsecured"... only that its good policy to swap it out (ala burner phone).

But, you do you.

I know this question has been answered just by you posting and pretty much every single person on this forum, but do you actually read the articles you post or do you just read the headlines?

?? Did you? The article tries really hard to convey they're unsecured, when in reality they're furnished and manayged by the WhiteHouseIT & Communication team... buried in the story:

senior West Wing official said the call-capable phones “are seamlessly swapped out on a regular basis through routine support operations. Because of the security controls of the Twitter phone and the Twitter account, it does not necessitate regular change-out.”
...
The West Wing official refuted the idea that the presence of a camera and microphone on the president’s phone posed any risk, telling POLITICO, “Due to inherent capabilities and advancement in technologies, these devices are more secure than any Obama-era devices.”

So... did you read the whole thing?

EDIT: my issue, is that it's wrong for Trump to ignore his security team to swap out the phones, if true. Still... nothing like muh bathroom email server.

...... I am amazed that we are at a point of where But her E-mails is still a thing to protect Trump.

eh? not even close to "protect" Trump.

Trump doesn't need protecting.

He's got to the point where if he shat on the high altar at Washington National Cathedral during a remembrance service for the US war dead, people would be able to find a way to excuse it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump doesn't need protecting.

He's got to the point where if he shat on the high altar at Washington National Cathedral during a remembrance service for the US war dead, people would be able to find a way to excuse it.

I mean, pooping on the altar is bad.... but it's not bathroom email server bad.

Thanks Obama.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/22/media/epa-cnn-associated-press-blocked/index.html

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
The president using an unsecured phone is not as bad as the secretary of state having a private email server- Whembly 2018

Report didn't say it was "unsecured"... only that its good policy to swap it out (ala burner phone).

But, you do you.

I know this question has been answered just by you posting and pretty much every single person on this forum, but do you actually read the articles you post or do you just read the headlines?

?? Did you? The article tries really hard to convey they're unsecured, when in reality they're furnished and manayged by the WhiteHouseIT & Communication team... buried in the story:

senior West Wing official said the call-capable phones “are seamlessly swapped out on a regular basis through routine support operations. Because of the security controls of the Twitter phone and the Twitter account, it does not necessitate regular change-out.”
...
The West Wing official refuted the idea that the presence of a camera and microphone on the president’s phone posed any risk, telling POLITICO, “Due to inherent capabilities and advancement in technologies, these devices are more secure than any Obama-era devices.”

So... did you read the whole thing?

EDIT: my issue, is that it's wrong for Trump to ignore his security team to swap out the phones, if true. Still... nothing like muh bathroom email server.

I like how you ignore the fact that he has gone at points 5 months without switching phones, but as you said " you do you" whembly

 feeder wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump doesn't need protecting.

He's got to the point where if he shat on the high altar at Washington National Cathedral during a remembrance service for the US war dead, people would be able to find a way to excuse it.

I mean, pooping on the altar is bad.... but it's not bathroom email server bad.

Or could you imagine if he had pooped in a womens' bathroom? He's thinking about the children!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Speaking of Trump, it seems he's trying to dig himself back out of his Korea hole he dug himself into after Kim said he would likely cancel the talks. Showing off his great negotiating skills Trump has gone "nuh uh, I'm cancelling first"

So...

Associated Press reporter: I was shoved by security guards outside an event featuring embattled EPA chief Scott Pruitt

EPA blocks CNN and Associated Press journalists from attending Pruitt speech

Ostensibly "space concerns" prevented AP, CNN and other journalists from entering, but pictures inside showed there were spots and seats open...and this is like the 3rd or 4th incident with Press being turned away recently at Pruitt/EPA events.

Apparently everyone will be allowed in...after Pruitt has left

Nothing says democracy like hired goons intimidating journalists.

 Vaktathi wrote:
So...

Associated Press reporter: I was shoved by security guards outside an event featuring embattled EPA chief Scott Pruitt

EPA blocks CNN and Associated Press journalists from attending Pruitt speech

Ostensibly "space concerns" prevented AP, CNN and other journalists from entering, but pictures inside showed there were spots and seats open...and this is like the 3rd or 4th incident with Press being turned away recently at Pruitt/EPA events.

Apparently everyone will be allowed in...after Pruitt has left

I think it's ironic that this is simultaneously the least and most transparent Administration in a long time.

Least because the administration is hellbent on blocking media outlets and refusing to give out a coherent message.

Most because everyone keeps leaking everything anyway.

It's like a large military cess bladder which has been overfilled, and a Chinook helicopter is airlifting it out, but several holes have sprung in the fabric, and it's fire-hosing liquid gak and piss all over everything and everyone, and no-one can tell what is government policy, or lies, or the deep state, or White House insiders, or President Trump's official announcements.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's like a large military cess bladder which has been overfilled, and a Chinook helicopter is airlifting it out, but several holes have sprung in the fabric, and it's fire-hosing liquid gak and piss all over everything and everyone, and no-one can tell what is government policy, or lies, or the deep state, or White House insiders, or President Trump's official announcements.

Which also happens to fit the Russian maskirovka doctrine to a perfect T


Edit:
Oh goody
https://apnews.com/f2e5aa3856b44b4b823064834dfb819d

Going into the North Korea meeting, senior administration officials say, the president has been almost singularly focused on the pageantry of the summit —including the suspenseful roll-out of details. He has not been deeply engaged in briefing materials on North Korea’s nuclear program, said three people with knowledge of the White House efforts. They were not authorized to speak publicly.

Uhhhh guess that explains this...thingy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's like a large military cess bladder which has been overfilled, and a Chinook helicopter is airlifting it out, but several holes have sprung in the fabric, and it's fire-hosing liquid gak and piss all over everything and everyone, and no-one can tell what is government policy, or lies, or the deep state, or White House insiders, or President Trump's official announcements.

Don't keep it in like that.

Tell us how you really feel!

The Auld Grump

 Vaktathi wrote:


Edit:
Oh goody
https://apnews.com/f2e5aa3856b44b4b823064834dfb819d

Going into the North Korea meeting, senior administration officials say, the president has been almost singularly focused on the pageantry of the summit —including the suspenseful roll-out of details. He has not been deeply engaged in briefing materials on North Korea’s nuclear program, said three people with knowledge of the White House efforts. They were not authorized to speak publicly.

Uhhhh guess that explains this...thingy.

Spoiler:

WTF? That coin looks like some souvenir coin for a WWE grudge match or something, not potentially world-changing peace talks.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


Edit:
Oh goody
https://apnews.com/f2e5aa3856b44b4b823064834dfb819d

Going into the North Korea meeting, senior administration officials say, the president has been almost singularly focused on the pageantry of the summit —including the suspenseful roll-out of details. He has not been deeply engaged in briefing materials on North Korea’s nuclear program, said three people with knowledge of the White House efforts. They were not authorized to speak publicly.

Uhhhh guess that explains this...thingy.

Spoiler:

WTF? That coin looks like some souvenir coin for a WWE grudge match or something, not potentially world-changing peace talks.

Again, Trump is the only UNDEFEATED at Wrestlemania head of state.

Good thing they only put a year and not an actual date.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


Edit:
Oh goody
https://apnews.com/f2e5aa3856b44b4b823064834dfb819d

Going into the North Korea meeting, senior administration officials say, the president has been almost singularly focused on the pageantry of the summit —including the suspenseful roll-out of details. He has not been deeply engaged in briefing materials on North Korea’s nuclear program, said three people with knowledge of the White House efforts. They were not authorized to speak publicly.

Uhhhh guess that explains this...thingy.

Spoiler:

WTF? That coin looks like some souvenir coin for a WWE grudge match or something, not potentially world-changing peace talks.

Again, Trump is the only UNDEFEATED at Wrestlemania head of state.

Strictly speaking, all heads of state are undefeated at Wrestlemania.

Except, of course, Jerry "the King" Lawler, and I'm very skeptical about the legitimacy of his claim to the throne.

 feeder wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


Edit:
Oh goody
https://apnews.com/f2e5aa3856b44b4b823064834dfb819d

Going into the North Korea meeting, senior administration officials say, the president has been almost singularly focused on the pageantry of the summit —including the suspenseful roll-out of details. He has not been deeply engaged in briefing materials on North Korea’s nuclear program, said three people with knowledge of the White House efforts. They were not authorized to speak publicly.

Uhhhh guess that explains this...thingy.

Spoiler:

WTF? That coin looks like some souvenir coin for a WWE grudge match or something, not potentially world-changing peace talks.

Again, Trump is the only UNDEFEATED at Wrestlemania head of state.

Strictly speaking, all heads of state are undefeated at Wrestlemania.

Except, of course, Jerry "the King" Lawler, and I'm very skeptical about the legitimacy of his claim to the throne.

but only Trump is 1-0. being undefeated at 0-0 is not the same.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
We should be hearing the results of United States V Carpenter very soon, which are going to have some pretty major ramifications for the 4th amendment. I am hoping (And think likely) that the Supreme Court will rule in Carpenter's favor.

If they dont rule in Carpenter's favor, it essentially means that carrying a cell phone effectively means no warrant is required to track your whereabouts.

I have a feeling I know where this is going to end up, and I am not enthused.

I did a fair amount of research on this, and just going by some of the rulings of late by various appeals courts, and some of the past 4th amendment cases that we have seen I do feel like they will rule in favor of Carpenter. Even Gorsuch seemed to be on board with this from when they were hearing arguments.

Refusing to hand over a secure phone to be checked by IT is bad information security, but saying it's not the same as an intentional attempt to evade the FOIA is pretty accurate.

I think Whembly alluded to this earlier, but....

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/

The Generic Ballot seems to be tightening between Dems and Rs. That Blue Wave in the Mid-terms may not be coming, and we are again seeing how effective the Rs are at turning out the base and controlling the narrative (especially to their base).

Interesting times..... but I can easily see the Dems failing to get traction in the next election.

I look forward to seeing the Democrats once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, as is their wont.

I would only be surprised if the Dems failed to pick up the Senate. House is gerrymandered pretty hard, because, ya know, feth representing the people.

Historically, and with the seats that are up in the senate. they actually have a better shot at the house than the Senate.

 d-usa wrote:
Historically, and with the seats that are up in the senate. they actually have a better shot at the house than the Senate.

Indeed. They're actually at good risk of losing seats in the Senate. There are 35 seats up for the reelection, 26 are Democrats. They may only need to pick up 2 seats to get the majority, but in order for that to happen they'll have to both keep all 26 seats they currently have AND flip 2 of the Republican seats. Quite a few of the incumbent Democrat seats are in red states.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Historically, and with the seats that are up in the senate. they actually have a better shot at the house than the Senate.

Indeed. They're actually at good risk of losing seats in the Senate. There are 35 seats up for the reelection, 26 are Democrats. They may only need to pick up 2 seats to get the majority, but in order for that to happen they'll have to both keep all 26 seats they currently have AND flip 2 of the Republican seats. Quite a few of the incumbent Democrat seats are in red states.

Hm, I didn't realize the situation was that unfavorable. Still, judging by how well Dems have been doing in special elections in red states...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Historically, and with the seats that are up in the senate. they actually have a better shot at the house than the Senate.

Indeed. They're actually at good risk of losing seats in the Senate. There are 35 seats up for the reelection, 26 are Democrats. They may only need to pick up 2 seats to get the majority, but in order for that to happen they'll have to both keep all 26 seats they currently have AND flip 2 of the Republican seats. Quite a few of the incumbent Democrat seats are in red states.

Hm, I didn't realize the situation was that unfavorable. Still, judging by how well Dems have been doing in special elections in red states...

Yeah... they have a daunting task to take the Senate.

The House? Man... who knows... I don't know if there is going to be a "blue wave"... but, democrats really don't need one to win the House.

I personally see democrats taking one senate seat or breaking even

The odds aren’t horrible. But then again, they are the democrats.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's like a large military cess bladder which has been overfilled, and a Chinook helicopter is airlifting it out, but several holes have sprung in the fabric, and it's fire-hosing liquid gak and piss all over everything and everyone, and no-one can tell what is government policy, or lies, or the deep state, or White House insiders, or President Trump's official announcements.

As you know from the UK politics thread, I'm always keeping an eye on the EU, but for once, I'm on the EU side.


Why? Because even the EU don't know what the feth is going on in Washington.


Here's an example that should worry American dakka members: when the EU tried to contact Washington over the Iran deal and the previous 'trade wars,' with Europe


there's been such a high turnover of middle management in the State Department and important posts unfilled, that the EU were left scratching their heads.

Who do we talk to? Was the cry from Europe.


Donald Tusk, who is EU top brass, was pretty scathing of the shambles in Washington.


Tusk is normally mild-mannered and diplomatic, but it makes you wonder what the hell is happening on Trump's watch if even Tusk is getting exasperated.