Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[spamking]

Not really. Is there any real argument that one candidate having not been careful enough with information security in the past (with no comparison to the practices of the other candidate) is the most impactful issue in a presidential campaign? That seems totally indefensible from an objective perspective.

If you can't get on board with that line being different as I described or aren't able to see that how someone in her position at the time secured/handled information security is important . . . I'm not sure what's left to discuss.

That doesn't excuse the possibility that another candidate handled it better or worse . . . I also don't think that particular issue was the one with the most impact. It was likely the last straw for many people though.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If you can't get on board with that line being different as I described or aren't able to see that how someone in her position at the time secured/handled information security is important . . . I'm not sure what's left to discuss.

That doesn't excuse the possibility that another candidate handled it better or worse . . . I also don't think that particular issue was the one with the most impact. It was likely the last straw for many people though.

You're missing the point. It's not that information security isn't "important" according to some arbitrary standard of importance; it's that there's no way to argue that it's *more* important than all other issues combined--that is, that it's as important as the MSM acted as if it was. Further, to the extent that information security is important, wouldn't you think the media would feel an obligation to ask the candidates about their intentions in that area and compare them?

The whole thing is silly, though, because everyone knows that the short-lived obsession with the issue didn't reflect anyone's true beliefs about it. It was just a partisan takedown attempt by Republicans that the media felt obligated to go along with to show how unbiased they are (because the MSM is terrified of accusations of bias by Republicans and has no similar fear of liberals). If it wasn't obvious at the time (which is absolutely was, as everyone knows), it should be obvious by the collective yawning regarding far worse breaches of protocol by the current administration.

 

[spamking]

You're missing the point. It's not that information security isn't "important" according to some arbitrary standard of importance; it's that there's no way to argue that it's *more* important than all other issues combined--that is, that it's as important as the MSM acted as if it was. Further, to the extent that information security is important, wouldn't you think the media would feel an obligation to ask the candidates about their intentions in that area and compare them?

Were the other candidate's systems hacked? Did they suffer similar leaks? That particular question wasn't even considered a need until this issue with HRCs systems.

The whole thing is silly, though, because everyone knows that the short-lived obsession with the issue didn't reflect anyone's true beliefs about it. It was just a partisan takedown attempt by Republicans that the media felt obligated to go along with to show how unbiased they are (because the MSM is terrified of accusations of bias by Republicans and has no similar fear of liberals). If it wasn't obvious at the time (which is absolutely was, as everyone knows), it should be obvious by the collective yawning regarding far worse breaches of protocol by the current administration.

So enough of the appropriate folks aren't complaining about or reporting on these breaches of protocol?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Were the other candidate's systems hacked? Did they suffer similar leaks? That particular question wasn't even considered a need until this issue with HRCs systems.

You're confused. Clinton didn't have any systems that were hacked. You're mixing up the DNC hacks with the story about Clinton using a private address. That action of hers made her more likely to be hacked than if she used the SD address, but there's no evidence that she was in fact hacked.

So enough of the appropriate folks aren't complaining about or reporting on these breaches of protocol?

Have you seen a constant stream of large-font headlines on the NYT front pages about breaches of information-security protocol lately? You're not arguing that the Trump administration's poor information-security practices are getting the same attention that less-bad ones by Clinton got from the MSM, are you?

 

[ultramanhyata]

Have you seen a constant stream of large-font headlines on the NYT front pages about breaches of information-security protocol lately? You're not arguing that the Trump administration's poor information-security practices are getting the same attention that less-bad ones by Clinton got from the MSM, are you?

Imagine if Clinton had ordered a State Department online security director not to respond to a subpoena and testify to congress concerning her server the way Trump has ordered WH personnel security director Kline not to testify concerning Kushner's security clearances.

 

[andnowweknow]

Trump in response to Joe Biden entering the race...

"I am a young, vibrant man"

Actually, you're 75 lbs over weight and over 70 years old and you eat McDonald's on the reg.

 

[Trotsky]

EDIT

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

How has no one made a music video of Trump seeing "Anaconda" by Nikki Minaj?

MY ANACONDA DON'T
MY ANACONDA DON'T
MY ANACONDA DON'T
WANT
NONE
UNLESS
YOU
GOT
BUNS, HUN

@Fawlty @PolishHeadlock2 you guys seem like the types with the talent to make that happen. Kind of like this one with the Talking Heads:

Also, link to Anaconda video for anyone that wants to have to leave work to make love into a sock:

Lol I'm not a shooper

@EOW are you still around

 

[spamking]

You're confused. Clinton didn't have any systems that were hacked. You're mixing up the DNC hacks with the story about Clinton using a private address. That action of hers made her more likely to be hacked than if she used the SD address, but there's no evidence that she was in fact hacked.

Are you lumping in the hacking of Clinton's campaign servers and the DNC network hack? Were Clinton's campaign servers hosted on the DNC network when hacked?

Have you seen a constant stream of large-font headlines on the NYT front pages about breaches of information-security protocol lately? You're not arguing that the Trump administration's poor information-security practices are getting the same attention that less-bad ones by Clinton got from the MSM, are you?

Outside of this Op-Ed from October . . . I'm not looking for that particular info every day . . .

 

[Jack V Savage]

Are you lumping in the hacking of Clinton's campaign servers and the DNC network hack? Were Clinton's campaign servers hosted on the DNC network when hacked?

??? I'm saying that you confused the story about Clinton using her own account to do some State Department work with the hacking story. Her account wasn't hacked (though note that immediately after Trump publicly asked Russia to hack it, they did make attempts).

Outside of this Op-Ed from October . . . I'm not looking for that particular info every day . . .

Yeah, so you have one Op-Ed about it, vs it being far and away the most covered issue in the news pages in 2016. Obviously the extreme difference in attention shows that the alleged hysteria about information security in 2016 was not on the level.

 

[Whippy McGee]

Imagine if Clinton had ordered a State Department online security director not to respond to a subpoena and testify to congress concerning her server the way Trump has ordered WH personnel security director Kline not to testify concerning Kushner's security clearances.

Imagine if Trump destroyed the documents requested and then wiped the servers they were housed on. Finally, he took a hammer to devices used and did not comply with the subpoena. That would be against the law... yes? But, don't worry... we could give Trump's staff complete immunity and never have them testify or be interviewed.

 

[Whippy McGee]

Joe Biden's entire campaign is based on a lie. I bet that warms the Leftists hearts.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Imagine if Trump destroyed the documents requested and then wiped the servers they were housed on. Finally, he took a hammer to devices used and did not comply with the subpoena. That would be against the law... yes? But, don't worry... we could give Trump's staff complete immunity and never have them testify or be interviewed.

The difference between me and you is that I don't ever defend Clinton. While you, on the other hand, know Dear Leader can do no wrong.

 

[Whippy McGee]

The difference between me and you is that I don't ever defend Clinton. While you, on the other hand, know Dear Leader can do no wrong.

The difference between me and you is that your are not honest and make shit up about other people.

The Orange Ogre is not close to perfect and chalk full of mistakes. I just have this issue with Leftists lying all the time. I'm a Libertarian / Conservative. I don't give a shit about Trump personally or the Republican Party.

 

[ultramanhyata]

The difference between me and you is that your are not honest and make shit up about other people.

The Orange Ogre is not close to perfect and chalk full of mistakes. I just have this issue with Leftists lying all the time. I'm a Libertarian / Conservative. I don't give a shit about Trump personally or the Republican Party.

Yeah, that's why you totally avoided commenting on the fact I related - that Trump has ordered Kline not to respond to the subpoena - and instead pivoted to Hillary's security breaches. You're a sham.

 

[Victor Maitland]

 

[Whippy McGee]

Yeah, that's why you totally avoided commenting on the fact I related - that Trump has ordered Kline not to respond to the subpoena - and instead pivoted to Hillary's security breaches. You're a sham.

The Orange Ogre, or any president that just went through the "Trump Russia Collusion" bullshit should tell such a partisan congress to go fuck themselves on anything in that arena, or on any other fishing expedition they want to take. He turned over 1.4 million documents immediately upon request and had ALL of his staff available for interviews. He took ZERO Executive Privileged throughout the event. Those are facts. His presidency was seriously derailed and attacked from Day #1. I voted for the Ted Cruz in the primaries and for Gary Johnson in the General. I don't need Leftists bent on bullshit telling me it's raining when they are pissing on the nation's collective leg.

You guys want to build support for Trump. Keep up with your dishonest bullshit.

 

[Fawlty]

I'm not necessarily saying he's playing you. I'm just saying his answer is crafty because the other options are:
1) Lie and say he could just do X
2) Be honest and say it isn't likely to happen
but he choose a hybrid
3) Be honest with what he could do and not mention how nearly impossible it would be for it to work
How do you think you can get money out of politics?

"And I'm under no illusion that it's possible overnight to get that reform" were the words that immediately followed his criticism of Citizens United and the possibility that only an amendment could accomplish reform, in the Town Hall. So, he is being honest about what that means, and he's also very quick to admit it.

I appreciate the softball and would love it if people keep lobbing them his way!

 

[Trotsky]

@Jack V Savage do you think it's at all objectionable to title a tweet/story "Buttigieg skyrockets to top of new poll; is neck and neck with Biden" to describe the following distribution of vote shares: Bernie Sanders 30%, Biden 18%, Buttigieg 15%? (It's from a The Hill article btw).

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Jack V Savage do you think it's at all objectionable to title a tweet/story "Buttigieg skyrockets to top of new poll; is neck and neck with Biden" to describe the following distribution of vote shares: Bernie Sanders 30%, Biden 18%, Buttigieg 15%? (It's from a The Hill article btw).

No, doesn't sound objectionable. More info would be necessary if you really wanted to build a case against it. Specifically, what's new in the poll? I admit that I haven't been following quite closely enough to know, but my assumption from that tweet would be that the big change was Buttigieg gaining a lot of ground.