Patterico's Pontifications

7/19/2016

It’s Trump

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:40 pm



Everyone who had pie-in-the-sky dreams of a delegate revolt, give them up. It’s Donald Trump’s Republican party now.

UPDATE: Via Dana comes this. It’s about how I feel, to the extent that I can be bothered to care.

Facepalm.

68 Responses to “It’s Trump”

  1. Me, I don’t care. It’s not my party any more.

    Patterico (5c77c6)

  2. I reached “acceptance” long ago.

    Patterico (5c77c6)

  3. No, he’s the nominee.

    It’s not his party.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  4. Lemme ask you this, Patterico: Did you consider the GOP to be “John McCain’s party” for the four years following his loss to Obama? Did you consider the GOP to be “Mitt Romney’s party” from his 2012 nomination until today?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  5. Well, let us see just how many of the Dems who voted in open primaries for Trump will vote for him in the general.

    Bill H (971e5f)

  6. Political persuasions aside, a truly tragic moment in United States history.

    The only bigger ass than The Great White Dope in America today is stitched to the butt end of the King Kong exhibit at Universal Studios in Orlando.

    Apologies to the world community; we’re a better people than this.

    DCSCA (a343d5)

  7. Beldar, I hold you in the highest regard but nominating McCain and Romney were mistakes but they were not repudiation of basic principles in favor of a reality show con artist.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  8. DJT is the putative head of the party now. If he somehow prevails in November, he becomes the unquestioned head and with a victory, his approach will presumably be accepted as the best path forward for the party.

    Unrelated…it occurs to me that Melania never intended to commit plagiarism. Why on earth is her speech being reviled by any HRC supporter?

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  9. Pantsuit apologist

    mg (31009b)

  10. There will never be a party for whiny little world-has-passed-them-by bitchy Philistine shysters. They and their pantiless groupies number a couple million, tops.

    DNF (ffe548)

  11. As a longtime, and former Republican who voted for Reagan twice, I understand the facepalm.

    Mike (88372b)

  12. @ SPQR, who wrote:

    I hold you in the highest regard but nominating McCain and Romney were mistakes but they were not repudiation of basic principles in favor of a reality show con artist.

    Your esteem is returned, and I don’t disagree with what you just wrote one bit. It’s a dark, dark day, for the party and for the country.

    But the GOP is more than its current presidential nominee. At best, he’s the “GOP’s standard-bearer” — and yes, it nearly makes me puke to type that, but he can so claim, as the current cycle’s nominee. And he’ll be on the ballot in November.

    But if, as I fully expect, Clinton wins, then on the second Wednesday in November Donald Trump will go back to just being a punch-line. He hasn’t led some sort of movement or revolution. He’s been a cork floating on a wave of discontent, but he’s not channeling it, he’s not bringing in a wave of talented down-ballot Trumpkins who are going to continue his “legacy.” He is incapable of having a legacy, because he has no ideas, no principles.

    I don’t feel obliged to renounce the party even if I choose not to vote for its presidential nominee in this cycle. There’s a whole lot more to my personal politics, and to American politics at both the state and federal levels, than just the presidential election.

    So I don’t think it’s a mere quibble to insist that this is not “Trump’s party” in the sense that our host obviously meant — in the sense that the party as a whole can be identified fairly as being under his control or even his influence.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  13. Facepalms and whining aside, let’s pickup our marbles and get to work. At least we should have a secure border and if that is all we get–maybe it’s worth it. Let’s quit crying about this and work for a better outcome. The less we do the better chance Hillary has of winning.

    bald01 (f38852)

  14. @ the likewise-esteemed Ed from SFV, who wrote (#8):

    DJT is the putative head of the party now. If he somehow prevails in November, he becomes the unquestioned head and with a victory, his approach will presumably be accepted as the best path forward for the party.

    Yes, “putative” is a pretty important qualification, isn’t it? Jimmy Carter remained the “putative head” of the Democratic Party until 1984, having been its real head from November 1976 to November 1980.

    Winning is a pretty big if. But if he prevails, I agree he’d acquire real political power in addition to the POTUS’ constitutional powers as Chief Executive: that does come with the job, whether the power is wielded well or poorly.

    I do not agree, however, that there’s any sense in which “his approach” will be “accepted as the best path forward for the party.” What do you mean by that? Will the party start imposing some sort of negative IQ test, or some sort of minimum con-man/liar credentials for all future nominees? Are we limited forever after to reality TV stars instead of demonstrated public servants? You’re giving Trump more credit than he possibly yet deserves, or than he’s shown any capability of managing to earn.

    Trump’s about nothing but Trump. He has no approach, except doing whatever pops into his head that he thinks at that moment will best promote Trump. And he says it just that way, talking about himself in the third person.

    He’s a really consequential and ugly barnacle on the GOP. But his cult of personality will die with him, and he’s old.

    He’s gotten the loan of the GOP’s nomination until Election Day, that’s about the size of his lasting impact on the GOP, unless he wins. But even then, I don’t agree that he would be in a position to dominate, or lay valid “claim” to, the GOP — certainly not to its state-wide structures — even during his presidency.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  15. The only bigger ### than The Great White Dope in America today is stitched to the butt end of the King Kong exhibit at Universal Studios in Orlando.

    Apologies to the world community; we’re a better people than this.

    DCSCA (a343d5) — 7/19/2016 @ 5:53 pm

    What do you think of someone who deliberately allows top secret extremely damaging information to be on an unsecured server in order to avoid having do disclose her emails? And continually lies about it even now? Or topples a government of a country which is now overrun with terrorists just to be able to claim some “accomplishment”? Or for political reasons keeps up a narrative (along with her entire party of course) that the police are terribly racist, which is getting them killed?

    Your posts actually remind me of the Trumpers.

    Gerald A (76f251)

  16. Actually, in intellectual property law terms, he’s probably getting a limited and revocable four-month licensing agreement from the GOP.

    He doesn’t even have the GOP in fee simple-revocable.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  17. The distinguished Beldar makes some typically excellent points.

    I was getting at the GOP completely and fully adopting the do/say anything approach to win any and all given days. Perception will utterly trump (pun intended) any principled considerations. If the GOPe gets away from this election with a majority in each house and owns the Executive? After all this?

    Absolutely everything will be situational and immediate. The shelf life of a given course of action will be however long it is useful to them. Nuclear option in the Senate to confirm an actual conservative to any court? These tools might just use that option to cram down dozens of Kennedys and Warrens.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  18. @15. “What do you think of someone who deliberately allows top secret extremely damaging information to be on an unsecured server in order to avoid having do disclose her emails? And continually lies about it even now? Or topples a government of a country which is now overrun with terrorists just to be able to claim some “accomplishment”? Or for political reasons keeps up a narrative (along with her entire party of course) that the police are terribly racist, which is getting them killed?”

    Not much, if you were paying attention. But the real win/win out of this for any and all is the castration of the conservative movement.

    DCSCA (a343d5)

  19. Not much, if you were paying attention.

    DCSCA (a343d5) — 7/19/2016 @ 6:57 pm

    So what has Trump done that can possibly exceed the remarkable record of Hillary? I haven’t even gone over her corruption which would take several paragraphs.

    Gerald A (76f251)

  20. We just heard a sort speech by Tiffany Trump after one by Chris Christie.

    Gerald A (76f251) — 7/19/2016 @ 6:35 pm <blockquote? What do you think of someone who deliberately allows top secret extremely damaging information to be on an unsecured server in order to avoid having do disclose her emails? This is one of these things that gets me. It wa not an insecure server. The server was not insecure because she cared about protecting her secrets. Any government secrets except those she deliberately gave away, were also protected.

    Chris Christie just said that she cared more about her secrets than the nation’s secrets. That’s true. But by the same token she wouldn’t want any secrets on her server to be stolen. She did endanger state.gov a bit by causing an anti-phishing spam filter to be disabled for a while because she refused to reveal her e-mail address.

    Hers was a small private system. And because it was small, it was not subject to the same vulnerabilities, as, say a GMail account.

    No back door password re-set using public information.

    No plausible “phishing” attacks because of the limited number of correspondents.

    Personal communication with the SYSOP.

    Someone trying to break-in by trying out passwords? The Sysop shuts down the system.

    Even when hackers get the e-mail address, they don’t even know what software it’s running.

    Any attempt to hack it cannot go unnoticed because it starts to overwhelm the system. And the same thing with any kind of stealing of information. Not enough thruput.

    Sammy Finkelman (372aad)

  21. Apologies to the world community; we’re a better people than this.

    DCSCA (a343d5) — 7/19/2016 @ 5:53 pm

    I has a sad for you. You should end it, it’s not worth living.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  22. Sammy Finkelman (372aad) — 7/19/2016 @ 7:11 pm

    It wa not an insecure server.

    I don’t know where you’re getting that from. I’ve read report after report that it was not secure. First of all, it was not on a secure network. Of course there was probably some anti-malware stuff on it but that’s not good enough.

    The server was not insecure because she cared about protecting her secrets.

    No. She didn’t want her emails to be a matter of public record. For that it it was only necessary that it was not in the possession of the State Dept. Of course there was some chance that someone could hack into it but given a choice between the two she preferred the possibility of it being hacked over not having possession of it.

    Gerald A (76f251)

  23. for now we should just savor the moment

    tomorrow the battle against stinkypig and all what she wants to do on america is upon us

    this never-ending road to calvary

    get a good night’s sleep patterico friends

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  24. “If I had a son, he’d look like Micah Johnson”

    — Barack Obama

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  25. @19. It doesn’t matter. The castration of the conservative movement is the positive outcome, regardless of who wins.

    @21. And miss Brady denied four starts? Never!

    DCSCA (a343d5)

  26. Shhhh! Doctor Carson.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  27. Yay!

    Denver Guy (21d3a4)

  28. Apologies to the world community; we’re a better people than this.

    DCSCA (a343d5) — 7/19/2016 @ 5:53 pm

    We should apologize to the world community for Obama. He’s sowed the seeds of a nuclear crisis in the Mideast a few years from now, due to his literally insane Iran deal.

    Gerald A (76f251)

  29. “Me, I don’t care. It’s not my party any more.”

    If I worked for, say, USAA, and they fired my ass for negligence or hostility to customers or lifetime underperformance, I’d probably look pretty stupid for answering insurance advice with NEVER USAA, IT’S NOT MY COMPANY ANYMORE!!!!

    “Apologies to the world community; we’re a better people than this.”

    When this man contemplates the final collective judgment of his life’s work, does he imagine, say, an American boy 20 years hence, growing up under the country and institutions he helped build? An American wife and mother, raising children under the American system? Anything representative of people who will face the actual consequences of today’s decision most thoroughly, and thus be most worthy of judging you?

    Heeeeeeeeeeell no, dawg, if the world community says it’s cool, then I can die happy!

    Dystopia Max (76803a)

  30. Patterico, you sound down and listless. Maybe if you took some teddy bears and soccer balls down to the illegals pouring over the border it would cheer you up.

    Better hurry though, there’s a wall a’commin’…

    LBascom (56f14c)

  31. And here’s another one. Send us a postcard when that wall’s built, LBascom. You know what’s going to be built, if in the million to one chance Trump is elected President? A lot of FHA and HUD housing with the contracts going to his companies which will continue to be run by his kids. That’s how his daddy made his money and Trump is still trying to be like his daddy.

    nk (dbc370)

  32. when you’re down and troubled and you need a helping hand and nothing no nothing is going right

    that must be really hard

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  33. I bet you’ve already made many Trump predictions that have made you look foolish in retrospect nk, you go girrl.

    I even bet last year you were saying Trump was only running to help Hillary get elected.

    No problems though, being wrong as often as you have been is bound to make a person cynical. May be you’ll get lucky (unlikely) and Hillary will get elected, then you can be proud…

    LBascom (56f14c)

  34. “Melania Trump gives one speech and suddenly the Hillary Clinton voters are all about honesty, ethics and integrity.”

    Now that is some kind of power!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  35. Just sales resistance, LBascom. I’m not buying Trump’s snake oil. 13.6 million votes got him the nomination. He’ll need 50 million more to get the White House.

    nk (dbc370)

  36. the oil is so good! it fixes what ails you plus you get an america on the upswing!

    whereas with stinkypig what you get?

    stink

    and pig

    he’s perpendicular to fail, Mr. Trump is

    and me I appreciate that about him

    thank you india

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  37. #25 DCSCA,

    Oh, so you root against the patriots in the political sphere and against the Patriots on the football field? (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  38. Colonel, what is hilarious is that nothing Michelle O or Melania said is nothing that hasn’t been said a trillion times since the invention of speech. Now if Melania had said “for the first time I’m proud to be an American”, the idiots hyperventilating about plagiarism might have a point. As a is, the only lying point they have is under their hat.

    LBascom (56f14c)

  39. Failure to back the Iranian student uprising, the Russian reset, the Egyptian leadership fiasco, Libya, Benghazi, shipment of arms from Benghazi to the Syrian rebels then to ISIS, the mass exodus of ME refugees to Europe. These are the Hillary ‘accomplishments’.

    Pence might be the day to day operations manager. Trump, well, he could continue his reality series

    scott (2bad05)

  40. I even bet last year you were saying Trump was only running to help Hillary get elected.

    LBascom (56f14c) — 7/19/2016 @ 8:09 pm

    It’s still an open question whether that is the case now. I’m really not sure what an individual who has that goal would do differently than Trump.

    Sometimes I wonder if he’s part of a bet to see how foolish the voters are and he just keeps ramping up to see what they will excuse.

    We now have two liberal authoritarian democrats running in the general.

    But we should vote for the one because reasons.

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd (ddead1)

  41. Patrick Henry,

    We should back the one over the other because one is a lesser evil than the other.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  42. @ 30

    I didn’t know anyone still believed Trump would build a wall if elected. Wow.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  43. Get in the bus, no trumpers, Paul Ryan is driving off the cliff and he needs you hacks on board.
    God Bless.

    mg (31009b)

  44. Patrick Henry II:
    the reason is not hard to understand, if you don’t support Trump then Hillary wins, it’s just common sense like taking a knife and slitting the throats of 841 people so that someone else doesn’t kill 842 people, wouldn’t any reasonable person do that? Trump is the lesser (probably, but no guarantee) of two evils, and you have to be a willing participant in Trump’s evil in order to stop the marginally worse evil of Hillary.

    max (ba4dc9)

  45. Do your trumspseters pick up your ball and go home if you don’t get what you want?

    Steve57 (193d96)

  46. To ask is to answer.

    Steve57 (193d96)

  47. “Do your trumspseters pick up your ball and go home if you don’t get what you want?”

    Nah, I’m in it for the long haul, before I had any idea Trump would run for office or what his policies would be.

    Denver Guy (21d3a4)

  48. Steve, Isn’t that what many of the Cruz supporters already did? For people living in heavily red or blue states claiming “principles” is easy when they know their vote won’t really influence the outcome.
    It’s those that live in the battleground states where it really would be a principled act. If they actually flip it for Trump the blue state/red state whiners will owe a debt to the GOP voters in the battleground states for saving the party from stupid and ensuring 7 liberal justices on the SC.

    The best thing about this election year is that it is bringing mostly chaos to the electorate and it should cause people who aspire to elected office in future elections to actually pay attention to all the voters – not just the elitists in both parties who “know what is best”.

    vor2 (494009)

  49. The best thing about this election year is that it is bringing mostly chaos to the electorate and it should cause people who aspire to elected office in future elections to actually pay attention to all the voters – not just the elitists in both parties who “know what is best”.
    Dead on, vor2

    mg (31009b)

  50. Re 14.: “I do not agree, however, that there’s any sense in which “his approach” will be “accepted as the best path forward for the party.” What do you mean by that? Will the party start imposing some sort of negative IQ test, or some sort of minimum con-man/liar credentials for all future nominees?”

    That is precisely the point which so many seem to be blind to. We’ve already seen that a con-artist can successfully fool enough primary voters to win the Republican nomination. There was no need to show any track record of conservative principles, or even any awareness of them. This is not speculation, it is not theory, it is demonstrated fact. For some reason, many seem to think that this can never happen again. Based on what? Has history shown any lack of the Putin/Stalin/Mussolini/Hitler/H. Long type of ambitious, successfully manipulative demagogues? Is there some prediction of a shortage in the future? It should be clear to anybody with their eyes open that the next primary will abound with similar charlatans, now that it is proven how well it works.

    At this point, there is only one way to forestall this inevitable descent into the pure democracy/mob gullibility/authoritarian demagoguery that the founding fathers spent so much effort in trying to prevent. That is to make sure it doesn’t pay. Anybody who has ever read a history book, or those who care about constitutional American principles, must do everything in their power to defeat Trumpism in November. If it becomes explicitly clear that Trump style fraud can never win in a general election, that is the one and only way to remove the incentive to repeat it. For my part, I am going to do whatever one person can to defeat the Orange Messiah on election day- reminding the gullible and ignorant repeatedly of how they were conned, exposing the double talk and shameless fraud of this imposter, whatever else works. Trumpism delenda est.

    Other writers have expressed this far better than I can, with more facts and detail. From back in February, here’s one example:
    http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/24/ill-take-hillary-clinton-over-donald-trump/

    Luke Stywalker (33d1c7)

  51. And in related news:

    ———————————-

    “CLEVELAND — It was reported late in the second day of the GOP convention that a large number of Republican National Committee staffers were stricken with the norovirus. Most commonly associated with the sorts of gastrointestinal crises aboard cruise ships that attract wall-to-wall CNN coverage, the norovirus is known for inducing bouts of “explosive diarrhea and vomiting,” according to various news reports. ….. ”

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2016/07/20/gop-convention-has-become-a-stomachchurning-affair-n2194916
    ———————————-

    Draw your own conclusions.

    Luke Stywalker (33d1c7)

  52. If it becomes explicitly clear that Trump style fraud can never win in a general election, that is the one and only way to remove the incentive to repeat it.

    The trouble is that the only way for this to happen is to establish that Clinton-style lawlessness can win, and therefore will be repeated. And that’s almost as bad.

    Milhouse (5a188d)

  53. Most people think that Trump will nominate judges that are at least somewhat conservative, like Kennedy. Paul Meringoff at Powerline believes that. I have yet to hear any convincing argument to the contrary. The only argument disputing that is that he complimented his sister who’s a liberal judge, but complimenting your sister is hardly evidence of anything. Trump clearly understands the Second Amendment hangs on the next SCOTUS appointment. I don’t think he understands what else is at stake but as a practical matter, he doesn’t need to.

    Gerald A (76f251)

  54. We are living in a country where the low-info voter dominates the polls, and the party best situated to keep them in line is the one favored by the mass media.

    Idiotcracy has arrived.

    Steve Malynn (4bc33a)

  55. #50 Luke Stywalker,

    It’s patently absurd to promote Hillary Clinton as the candidate who will save us from future Constitutional crises.
    Trump may have engaged in shady business practices which violate New York state statutes, but Hillary already has shredded the Constitution, as well as federal law.
    Exposing national security documents to hackers is light years more problematic than Trump’s shady business practices.

    Your hysteria over “pure democracy” and “mob rule!!!!” is just hysteria. I would prefer that Rubio, Cruz, Fiorina, Walker, or Jindal was our nominee.
    But Trump won the primaries fair and square because enough primary voters see a fighter, rather than a gentleman like Mitt Romney who failed to properly defend himself when Candy Crowley engaged in shenanigans during the presidential debate.

    You may be okay with Hillary nominating several Supreme Court justices, but a lot of people are not. BLM and other Alinsky street mobs will be given aid and comfort by a President Hillary, and a lot of us are not too keen on four more years of what we’ve seen during the past four weeks.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  56. YOU’RE SAYING THERE’S A CHANCE: New from Nate Silver: “Election Update: Clinton’s Lead Is As Safe As Kerry’s Was In 2004.”

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/239180/

    Colonel Haiku (bba461)

  57. It was not an insecure server.

    Gerald A (76f251) — 7/19/2016 @ 7:19 pm

    I don’t know where you’re getting that from.

    I’ve read that it was insecure and probably hacked again and again, but I’ve never seen any reason to believe that, nor that Bill or Hillary Clinton would tolerate the possibility of their server being hacked, nor that the Clintons are not good at keeping things confidential.

    It had more security than that of state.gov, where, by the way, she deliberately undermined the anti-spam software for a while – or of commercial e-mail accounts, and was secure from prosecutors, subpoenas, internal government investigations like those conducted by Inspector Generals, Congressional committees, and Freedom of Information Requests as well!

    Hillary Clinton also took the precuation of making sure the State Department had no Inspector General during her entire tenure – the longest period of time any government agency that is supposed to have an Inspector General has gone without an Inspector ever since here were Inspector Genrals, since the last half of the Carter Administration.

    I’ve read report after report that it was not secure.

    And I’ve never seen any reason to believe any of that.

    For all the talk, Gucdifer I or Guccifer II, or any other source, has never released anything that acame from Hillary Clinton’s server, nor are there any signs that Putin has it. They hacked the DNC, yes, but not clintonemail.

    First of all, it was not on a secure network. Of course there was probably some anti-malware stuff on it but that’s not good enough.

    Yes, I’ve read that moronic argument, too. Do you think standard ways are the only work protect a server? They don’t even work 100% of the time!

    Do you not realize there are some “natural” protections Clintoemail had, that nobody else had? It did not have the vulnerabilities many other systems have for the reasons I’ve stated:

    1) There was no password recovery back door. To recover or reset a password, the user called up the SYSOP personally. Password reset is a big way many email accounts are hacked.

    2) If anyone tried a brute force password attack, it would be detected and the system shut down, and it was.

    3) The system had a limited number of users, and nobody would click on a message from a bank or anything else like that, so it was not vulnerable to phishing attacks. Hillary Clinton almost certainly did not lick on unexpected messages. If somebody, let’s say, did, it would be instantly detectable that this was a phony message. If for some reason a user was indeed fooled, they’d get unfooled when they emailed someone back. This is maybe hacking detection rather than prevention, but the FBI a successful hack was never detected.

    4) Any hacker who discovered the email address, through hacking other people,who communicated with Hillary Clinton who weer not using clintonemail.com would still not know what kind of software was installed at clintonemail.com and would not know what Torjan horse to include in a phishing message.

    5) Nobody (apparently) used extremely simple passwords.

    The server was not insecure because she cared about protecting her secrets.

    No. She didn’t want her emails to be a matter of public record. For that it it was only necessary that it was not in the possession of the State Dept. Of course there was some chance that someone could hack into it but given a choice between the two she preferred the possibility of it being hacked over not having possession of it.

    If that was the case, she would have a commercial e-mail service, like Gmail, or Yahoo, rather than her own private server, which she went to great deal of trouble to set up, or rather Bill Clinton had already gone to a great deal of trouble around 2001, and now they were separating the e-mail for Hillary’s use from that of Bill’s.

    Of course you could say Gmail is suspectible to subpoenas, while her server was not, because if she was subpoenaed she could delete all the copies, while she could not hope Google would do that, and that’s the reason she preferred her own server, and she and Bill didn’t care about hackers, but only prosecutors and the like. Still, I think they are very concerned about anything being made public, and that’s more likely by a hacker, than by the government. Storing something on a truly insecure server would not serve their interests.

    This was much less hackable than Gmail for basic structural reasons. All the common methods by which GMail is hacked just wouldn’t work there.

    Sammy Finkelman (372aad)

  58. * but the FBI says a successful hack was never detected, although the system did not mechanically record as much as other systems would.

    So maybe they were hacked, and they lied about it? There’d be too many e-mail messages concerning the hack, and remember, some deleted e-mail was recovered.

    I think it’s just stuff and nonsese to say Hillary Clinton;s server was hacked, or was easy to hack into. Yes, maybe if you had discovewredthe secret e-mail account, and knew the software, you could insert a Trojan horse into a phishing message, but you probably couldn’t succeed in getting that Trojan horse used, and certainly nit in having its use go undetected.

    In addition to all its other “natural” protections, the system had limited thruput.

    Sammy Finkelman (372aad)

  59. Sammy Finkelman (372aad) — 7/20/2016 @ 7:13 am

    I’ve never seen any reason to believe that, nor that Bill or Hillary Clinton would tolerate the possibility of their server being hacked.

    Yeah right.

    I guess you’re right that they wouldn’t deliberately allow it to be hacked, which is about as irrelevant a point as I can imagine.

    nor that the Clintons are not good at keeping things confidential.

    You mean lying? What exactly are you referring to?

    It had more security than that of state.gov, where, by the way, she deliberately undermined the anti-spam software for a while – or of commercial e-mail accounts, and was secure from prosecutors, subpoenas, internal government investigations like those conducted by Inspector Generals, Congressional committees, and Freedom of Information Requests as well!

    How can you possibly know what security either state.gov or her server had? You would have to have detailed knowledge of both to make a statement like that.

    Gerald A (76f251)

  60. Sammy,

    Please tell me you’re joking.
    Why do you suppose that Hillary’s IT guy took the Fifth?

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  61. Suppose for a moment everything Sammy said is accurate.
    It still leaves us with this:
    Hillary thought it important to hide her doings, to the greatest extent possible, from the American people:. And she viewed the possibility that criminals and foreign intelligence services gain access to her emails as less problematic than we the public (or our authorized agents) gaining access.

    kishnevi (ceb37f)

  62. #61 kishnevi,

    Hillary trusts Vladimir in Moscow, Russia more than she trusts Joe Blow in Moscow, Idaho.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  63. the reason is not hard to understand, if you don’t support Trump then Hillary wins, it’s just common sense like taking a knife and slitting the throats of 841 people so that someone else doesn’t kill 842 people, wouldn’t any reasonable person do that? Trump is the lesser (probably, but no guarantee) of two evils, and you have to be a willing participant in Trump’s evil in order to stop the marginally worse evil of Hillary.

    max (ba4dc9) — 7/20/2016 @ 1:09 am

    Because I see it differently. Its choosing between 841 people having their throats slit with a machete or with a sword. I reject making that choice at all.

    We can survive Clinton. We did with Obama. We can probably survive Trump, though I doubt it. Either way, we will be worse off. So reject choosing.

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd (ddead1)

  64. My hope is that
    (a) Trump wins the election,
    (b) After the first month or two, he gets bored with the whole thing, declares victory, and steps down.
    (c) President Pence.

    (And at least Trump didn’t pick one running mate I thought was a possibility — Bernie Sanders.)

    Karl Lembke (e37f42)

  65. Patrick Henry,

    I realize that as a liberal, you probably don’t perceive the Obama Years to be the disaster that they’ve been.
    … but they’ve been pretty disastrous.
    And Hillary would just be an extension of that.
    So that’s why many of us object to a Hillary presidency.

    By the way, when you reject making a choice … you’re actually making a choice.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  66. I don’t think he’ll get bored and step down, but I hold out hope that he will be impeached and removed. D senators would have no problem voting to convict him, even in the unlikely event that he did nothing wrong, while they wouldn’t vote to convict Clinton if she shot someone in broad daylight on 5th Avenue, to quote somebody or other.

    Milhouse (5a188d)

  67. 60. Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 7/20/2016 @ 7:47 am

    Sammy,

    Please tell me you’re joking.

    When I said:

    It had more security than that of state.gov…and was secure from prosecutors, subpoenas, internal government investigations like those conducted by Inspector Generals, Congressional committees, and Freedom of Information [Act] Requests as well! it was a joke, but it was also not a joke.

    I noted that she was also responsible for a little reduction in security at state.gov (but that’s not why it was more secure)

    Why do you suppose that Hillary’s IT guy took the Fifth?

    Well, not because the server was hacked, or because he was responsible for secrets being put on the server.

    It was because he broke the law in any number of small ways in setting up the server. For one thing, He was simultaneously on the State Department payroll and on the Clintons’ payroll, and he did not disclose his outside source of income as he was supposed to.

    http://heavy.com/news/2016/03/bryan-pagliano-hillary-clinton-state-department-private-email-server-immunity-justice-fbi/

    In 2009, he joined her State Department team as an IT specialist, but continued to work for the Clintons as a private consultant to their family, and was personally paid by the Clinton family.

    Pagliano did not disclose the job or salary on State Department financial disclosure forms, an act that internal documents show could lead to a $10,000 fine or imprisonment. His immunity deal likely prevents these outcomes.

    So Hillary Clinton had an IT guy there whose loyalty was to her, and not to the government.

    He may also have violated the Federal Records Act, tampered with records, and so on. Hillary’s e-mail address was not recorded in the proper place. He did all kinds of things. Maybe he even accessed and made changes to some state.gov computers without proper authorization.

    At some point he may have arranged for hdr22@clintonemail.com to get whitelisted and kept out of state.gov spam without it ever being recorded anywhere that that was her address. And for a few weeks or a few months before that the state.gov spam filer was disabled. Hillary neither wanted to give away her e-mail address nor use a state.gov one for communicatioons to people in the State Department.

    The server could have been almost entirely secure had he done two more things of the sort that are are done now by banks. He probably did something in the way of the first one, but probably didn’t do the second.

    1) Put in password requirements making the password impervious to a dictionary or simple formula attack. There were probably some requirements for the password – Hillary’s and Chelsea’s and Huma Abedin’s and Cheryl Mills’ was probably not 123456 or dadada like that of Mark Zuckerberg.

    2) Allow connections only from registered devioes. I’m not sure even banks were doing that in 2009 or 2010. Now the thing with a bank’s one is, a new device could be approved by answering security questions. If they had done that on clintonemail.com, you would have had to talk to the SYSOP in person, which is much better security.

    Sammy Finkelman (372aad)

  68. 61. kishnevi (ceb37f) — 7/20/2016 @ 7:54 am

    Suppose for a moment everything Sammy said is accurate.

    It still leaves us with this:

    Hillary thought it important to hide her doings, to the greatest extent possible, from the American people:.

    Yes.

    And she viewed the possibility that criminals and foreign intelligence services gain access to her emails as less problematic than we the public (or our authorized agents) gaining access.

    Well, that would assume that they would have an easier time doing that on her private server. No, they didn’t get anything except what she told them. She did tell them – she must have done something with all these responses to Sidney Blumenthal’s memoes that she was asking people all over the U.S. government to write. She was helping someone field test propaganda.

    Sammy Finkelman (372aad)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3216 secs.