|
A Man With A Plan posted:It's about split between "Pollacks taking are jobs!" and "Belgians taking are sovereignty!" I'd also add "Belgians are taking all of our money!"
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:04 |
|
|
Simplex posted:I'd also add "Belgians are taking all of our money!" For their delicious chocolate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
So, with the whole "Hillary used a PDA to order Drone Strikes" as the new chapter of the emailgateghazi-saga, I decided to ask my father what the hell was actually up with the whole thing. Specifically he is a CISO in a government Agency, has been a CIO, has been a webmaster, sys-admin, and most other computer and system security related title/job combos in the government since like the 70s. I know no one else who could have more experience with exactly what this is (As in literally out of all the people I personally know). So the TL;DR he gave me was a break down of how FISMA (Federal Information Security Management Act) actually works in the day to day for basic users and higher ups (including Cabinet level positions). You may have heard or read this act mentioned in the OIG report that was link previously, it's a major consideration when it comes to whether or not Clinton did any wrong and whether or not what she did is actionable. So here is how, as it was explained to me in very simple but flowery language, information security is supposed to work. 1) Thou shalt have a CIO. Every department, agency, regulatory agency, etc, whatever. If it's a stand alone entity it has to a CIO. The CIO is where the buck stops. When it comes to signing off on exceptions to FISMA and other security rules, it's up to the CIO to sign off on it. 2) Thou shalt have a CISO. You can have more than one, but you need at least one. The CISO generates a risk report based on what rules the end users want to ignore (because following all the rules of FISMA means you most likely cannot do your job if it involves a computer). Do you not want to do XYZ? Well the CISO figures out what the risks in that are. Then passes those risks onto the CIO to be approved. 3) Thou shalt have the Department of Commerce. Because reasons. These guys exist here to just tell the AO/DAA: "Yeah sure". They pass the buck. 4) Thou Shalt have a AO/DAA. The AO/DAA (Authorizing Officer/Designated Authorizing Authority), who is also a CIO, will...do the job of the CIO and sign off on approved ATOs (Authorization to Operate) because that's his job, but in this flow chart he is actually further down the list even though he's the head of the department. So if you want to do something and it's against FISMA, which it most likely is, you go to your CISO. You say "Hey, we need this router to get a bunch of new hires online, but the WEP isn't working right. So can you sign off on this so we can use it anyway". So the CISO sits down and figures out all the ways that's a bad idea, all the rules you're violating, and then passes that up to the CIO to be approved/denied. If it's approved things move forward. Now if there is a Hack, the big men with guns, badges, and warrants show up, an IT investigator (forget the actual name for this guy) goes through what happened and goes through the list of official FISMA rules and goes "HEY! You didn't follow this rule! The Router wasn't protected right!". To that you say "I was given approval from the CIO to do this" and show the documents. The men with badges now go to the CIO and ask "The gently caress!?". The CIO is now in trouble because he didn't follow FISMA rules. BUT! The next stage of the investigation is the FBI looking to see if this was done deliberately to facilitate said hack. They find nothing. But it was a criminal investigation. Now the punishment is simply having the funding revoked since the CIO did not spend the funding he was already given to adequately secure government systems. No one else gets in trouble, but they were all investigated. Now what does this mean for Hillary? Well let's go back to what McAlister posted (sorry about the spelling I can't remember ). 1) The server was already existing prior to her becoming SoS, 2) She did attempt to enter into compliance for the server and blackberry she uses when she took office, and 3) the server was only for the unsecured .gov email, as far as any investigation has shown she has followed the procedure for accessing and using secured information. AKA: Used the burn rooms and skifs in compliance with stated rules like leaving blackberrys/devices outside of secure access rooms, etc. Here is how that breaks down: - If Hillary was doing this the CIO is in charge of stopping her. Even if rebuffed on it the CIO is who is responsible. - Since Hillary did attempt to enter into compliance she is completely clear of any possible criminal charges. Hands down. She was not deliberately attempting to circumvent FISMA rules for the purpose of compromising security. And single 30 second meeting with the CIO of her asking "Can we secure and connect my mail server for work?" suffices. (if documented) ((it is documented)). - Even if approval for bringing her server/blackberry into compliance was denied it is up to the CIO to stop her from accessing it and using it for work related activities. That's literally the CIO's Job. Caveat: That's if the CIO was aware of the situation. But: That is a weak stipulation since it is your job to know as CIO and The CIO(s) in question did know. Final point about the Drone blackberry approvals: My father says there is a trump card to FISMA loosely known by "Beans, Blankets, and Bullets". Sometimes in a different order, sometimes with Bombs instead of Bullets. Basically: If it involves the Military and specifically the Military completing a mission then all rules are out. That's why you don't have soldiers calling in troop movements in emergency situations on unsecured lines getting in trouble with the FBI and some Military CIO, beyond just basic decency. So those drone approvals could have been sent by Western Union for all anyone cares. Hope you found this extra bit of inside info from someone whose literal job it is/was to do this exact thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Clinton up on Trump in new state poll Look at that loving state. Just look at it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Anyone in Kansas who votes for a Republican for anything ever again really does deserve to burn in their state's hell fire. One of my favorite things about the past few years politically are the trajectories of California and Kansas. Maybe it's because Kansas wasn't conservative enough?!?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Clinton up on Trump in new state poll As a former Kansan, it's great. I think one of the big parts is that Trump has pissed off the true Evangelicals, of which Kansas has plenty. And it wasn't all that long ago that we had a (very centrist) democratic governor. I still think Trump will eventually win the state but it's another potential loss when he needs every EV he can get, even if only 4 of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Clinton up on Trump in new state poll Look, just because Kansas, Texas, and Utah all have Clinton leads is no reason to think that she has a snowball's chance in hellhahahahaha oh god this is going to be such a wonderful rout. I hope to God it is, because I think if Clinton can win with a ten-point margin or better we'll finally reverse the '80's and see Democrats start to assert their leftness while Republicans run for the center. Then global climate change and Skynet will destroy us all, but it will have been at least a nice year or two.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Is the Brexit actually polling well enough to worry about? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
So this is something I've been wondering about for a while, there seems to be a long term trend in US politics where we have a fair amount of debt but we seem to have no loving money to spend on anything. Our roads and bridges are crumbling, our higher education no longer receives much state backing, and now I just heard on the radio that public schools are seeing the worst funding situation that they have ever seen. Meanwhile we seem to have a lot more debt than we have in recent history. I get that we're probably taking in less tax revenue then we have in previous times but is that the whole story? It seems like every single part of our budget at every level is nonstop austerity yet fiscally we're still in a lovely situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:So this is something I've been wondering about for a while, there seems to be a long term trend in US politics where we have a fair amount of debt but we seem to have no loving money to spend on anything. Our roads and bridges are crumbling, our higher education no longer receives much state backing, and now I just heard on the radio that public schools are seeing the worst funding situation that they have ever seen. Meanwhile we seem to have a lot more debt than we have in recent history. One of the biggest lies in politics is that the National debt actually means anything serious. Well, it means something and ideally you'll work to decrease it gradually over time. But to have it, and even increase it, can be a good thing. But dumbasses think of the country's budget as if its a checkbook and conservatives do their best to reaffirm that notion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
I do get that debt isn't as big of an issue as people make it out to be but at some point we were actually investing in this poo poo while not running up a huge tab, what happened? Is it entirely explained by lower tax rates?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Also we could balance it tomorrow by cutting defense and raising taxes on the rich
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Thanks to everyone that has been providing links and details on the Clinton email stuff. Some of the links were obvious, but it was a good reminder of some generally reliable sources. I was wondering if anyone considered what the long-term ramifications on the GOP party might be if they end up doing a large majority of the campaigning for Trump. I think that could actually be a huge boon for them in future elections. Generally, it appears that the big campaign apparatus is spun up by the candidate. And in fact, the primary acts as a sort of trial for the candidate to practice creating that campaign apparatus. If the GOP spins up and controls that apparatus, then it has a bigger chance of continuing to exist as a part of their architecture and institution. I'm envisioning the midterm election in 2018 starting up, but this time the GOP has all of those orgs and infrastructure already in place to run the campaign. It gives them a large advantage. For the 2020 election it potentially gives them some leverage over their presidential candidate because they now have campaign apparatus that the candidate needs. It could even lead to the party tilting the primary scales with their own campaign influence. Feel free to knock holes in this theory as it could be completely stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
Everblight posted:Also we could balance it tomorrow by This is actually all that's required... not that I don't agree with cutting defense as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
downout posted:Thanks to everyone that has been providing links and details on the Clinton email stuff. Some of the links were obvious, but it was a good reminder of some generally reliable sources. If the GOP goes all in on Trump and he gets Mondale'd it will take them decades to recover.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:This is actually all that's required... not that I don't agree with cutting defense as well. Also, we have enough money for our infrastructure and education. The GOP just doesn't consider these things deserving of proper funding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Clinton up on Trump in new state poll Lovin it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
As much as we'd all like to see a few blood-red Republican states turn for the presidential election, it will be for that one elction and only for the predisdent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
downout posted:Thanks to everyone that has been providing links and details on the Clinton email stuff. Some of the links were obvious, but it was a good reminder of some generally reliable sources. So I don't know about the rest of your question, as far as going forward, but with the premise I'll take a shot. For the most part the Political Parties already have campaign apparatuses in place. The have fundraising networks, PACs, and most importantly: Connections. Governors, Senators, State senate/House, People who are in charge of permits for things like public rallies, etc. But for the GOP this cycle they have a new obstacle: Their actual candidate. Just Google "Trump Fundraising", you'll see how bad a situation they're in. Donors aren't donating like they were expected too. So far Trump only has about 60 million raised since Jan 2015, and now he's going on the attack saying he won't need money. The man is actively undermining the GOP's efforts to elect him by constantly playing to the idea that he's "shaking up" the election. So the GOP will be in the driving seat, but they can only do so much per FEC laws. They can't literally run his whole campaign for him, can't just dump all their funds into his election coffers, and they're restricted in certain ways when it comes to communicating with him (for example: Technically PACs and Candidates aren't supposed to communicate. Technically). Donald Trump really does need to have a competent campaign that works with the GOP campaign. Right now he doesn't and what he does have works against them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Star Man posted:As much as we'd all like to see a few blood-red Republican states turn for the presidential election, it will be for that one elction and only for the predisdent. True, BUT this buys time for the unstoppable demographic changes to really take hold. And since the Republicans are going full fascist this cycle they will never be able to work with it. So in 2024 states like Arizona and Georgia will be going blue on their own accord. And Texas won't be far behind...
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Any extra money they spend in states that should be locked up is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Crain posted:So, with the whole "Hillary used a PDA to order Drone Strikes" as the new chapter of the emailgateghazi-saga, I decided to ask my father what the hell was actually up with the whole thing. Specifically he is a CISO in a government Agency, has been a CIO, has been a webmaster, sys-admin, and most other computer and system security related title/job combos in the government since like the 70s. I know no one else who could have more experience with exactly what this is (As in literally out of all the people I personally know). Any probations for concern trolling about emails should just have a link to this post for the punishment reason. It's wonderful. Shimrra Jamaane posted:One of the biggest lies in politics is that the National debt actually means anything serious. Several trillion of that is due to Bush's wars, for starters. Then you have the usual dumb military bloat like the F-35 which is another trillion (and counting) wasted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Star Man posted:As much as we'd all like to see a few blood-red Republican states turn for the presidential election, it will be for that one elction and only for the predisdent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:If Hillary wins in Kansas I would put even odds on the Democrats re-taking the House. If Hillary wins Kansas, it's going to be because enough people left the bubble for president blank or voted third party or write-in. Nothing else down ticket is going to change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Crain posted:So I don't know about the rest of your question, as far as going forward, but with the premise I'll take a shot. For the most part the Political Parties already have campaign apparatuses in place. The have fundraising networks, PACs, and most importantly: Connections. Governors, Senators, State senate/House, People who are in charge of permits for things like public rallies, etc. But for the GOP this cycle they have a new obstacle: Their actual candidate. Just Google "Trump Fundraising", you'll see how bad a situation they're in. Donors aren't donating like they were expected too. So far Trump only has about 60 million raised since Jan 2015, and now he's going on the attack saying he won't need money. The man is actively undermining the GOP's efforts to elect him by constantly playing to the idea that he's "shaking up" the election. Yeah, I get that Trump is sabotaging their efforts in this election. But from what I've been reading the GOP is having to spin up a campaign organization that is managed by the party. Even if it's not successful, which is doubtful because it's pretty late in the cycle, they will still would build that underlying infrastructure and could potentially maintain it in a mothballed state until 2018. And this potentially wouldn't be the normal campaign apparatus that the parties have; it would be all of the infrastructure of a presidential campaign but owned by the party instead. I think that would be a major change from how parties coordinate with their presidential candidates' campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'm actually curious about this, is there any precedent covering whether dead people have any right to privacy? Certain aspects of PII are releasable when the individual referenced is either dead or 100+ years old in records (where it's safe to assume that they're probably dead). Not all of it, but some. I have an incredibly niche relationship/understanding of the privacy protections of dead individuals, so your mileage may vary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Any probations for concern trolling about emails should just have a link to this post for the punishment reason. It's wonderful. I saw a good post somewhere the other day that pointed out that when people talk about the debt it's under the framing of "each U.S. citizen owes 43K" or something like that. But that completely ignores that if doing the math in that manner, then that citizen also owns part of the roads, land, buildings, etc that make up the U.S. It seems obvious, but for some reason that never dawned on me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:If Hillary wins in Kansas I would put even odds on the Democrats re-taking the House. Hillary has a better chance at winning 400-450+ EVs than the Democrats retaking the House. The House is Gerrymandered as gently caress and heavily in the GOP's favor. The best shot the Democrats have at retaking the House in the next decade or so is to get a SCOTUS majority that agrees Gerrymandering is a thing that needs to be struck down and then make sure a court case ends up in their lap so that they can do exactly that while forcing the states to use a system similar to California so that we don't end up with situations like in NC where a majority vote for Dems but the GOP take a super majority of seats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Hillary has a better chance at winning 400-450+ EVs than the Democrats retaking the House. The House is Gerrymandered as gently caress and heavily in the GOP's favor. As long as Hillary wins the SCOTUS is secure for a generation. It'll be a 5-4 liberal majority to begin with and god willing Kennedy will retire and Thomas will drop dead within 8 years making it a 7-2 majority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
downout posted:Yeah, I get that Trump is sabotaging their efforts in this election. But from what I've been reading the GOP is having to spin up a campaign organization that is managed by the party. Even if it's not successful, which is doubtful because it's pretty late in the cycle, they will still would build that underlying infrastructure and could potentially maintain it in a mothballed state until 2018. And this potentially wouldn't be the normal campaign apparatus that the parties have; it would be all of the infrastructure of a presidential campaign but owned by the party instead. I think that would be a major change from how parties coordinate with their presidential candidates' campaigns. The only issue I can see that prevents a solid campaign apparatus from really being kept around is that you can't put the people you need in stasis for 4 years. The biggest part of a campaign is having the people who know what the gently caress to do. Now there are people who live on that cycle of "election>other work>election", but they don't all always come back. The closest thing to a real advantageous campaign apparatus that can be stored away is something like Obama's GOTV program/app. I think it was called Orca, or maybe that was Romney's copy cat app since Obama's was porpoise? I dunno. But that's not a campaign, you still need people to use it, and people to train people to use it. I just don't see the GOP's new efforts being used as a real cornerstone for a stand alone campaign system. Anything left over is going to be cannibalized and moved somewhere else where it can do work for the next 4 years, which is really what any political part would would. Having usable resources just sitting around is a waste.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Hillary has a better chance at winning 400-450+ EVs than the Democrats retaking the House. The House is Gerrymandered as gently caress and heavily in the GOP's favor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
How about this: what are the chances that the Democrats will win the popular vote in the House, even if they don't actually take the House? And, if they do win the popular vote, by what margin might they win it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Dems are lucky that this time around there is a presidential election in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Star Man posted:If Hillary wins Kansas, it's going to be because enough people left the bubble for president blank or voted third party or write-in. Nothing else down ticket is going to change. I definitely agree with Hillery only winning KS because of no votes or 3rd party. However, with the current upheaval of school funding and lovely budgets, I can see enough people coming around for the downticket right now. Thing is, with the months to go till the GE, most are going to forget these issues and vote per usual KS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Dems are lucky that this time around there is a presidential election in 2020. Or unlucky. Coat tails for an incumbent aren't as strong (and that assumes people are up to yet another Democratic presidency), and the lovely gerrymandering goes all the way to the state legislatures. We might not see a good chance at a Democratic house until 2032 or even 2042. EDIT: Kilroy posted:How about this: what are the chances that the Democrats will win the popular vote in the House, even if they don't actually take the House? And, if they do win the popular vote, by what margin might they win it? Democrats won 1.4m more votes than Republicans in 2012, taking almost 49% of the aggregate vote. And yet Republicans still managed to hold 54% of all House seats. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Jun 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:How about this: what are the chances that the Democrats will win the popular vote in the House, even if they don't actually take the House? And, if they do win the popular vote, by what margin might they win it? Chances are pretty high. They did in both 2008 and 2012, and didn't lose by that much in 2014
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I do get that debt isn't as big of an issue as people make it out to be but at some point we were actually investing in this poo poo while not running up a huge tab, what happened? Is it entirely explained by lower tax rates? We spend a LOT on the military, and a lot on tax exemptions. Our nominal tax rates are fairly high but anyone with a decent accountant doesn't pay anything. But yes. When Leave it to Beaver was on the air, we had a top tax rate of 90%.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:So this is something I've been wondering about for a while, there seems to be a long term trend in US politics where we have a fair amount of debt but we seem to have no loving money to spend on anything. Our roads and bridges are crumbling, our higher education no longer receives much state backing, and now I just heard on the radio that public schools are seeing the worst funding situation that they have ever seen. Meanwhile we seem to have a lot more debt than we have in recent history. In 2008 both tax revenue and GDP dropped when the housing crisis occurred, but spending remained constant (since it is mostly military, social security, and medicare), causing that graph (referenced to GDP) to spike upwards. It has leveled back off due to austerity spending cuts to many other government services (which you've noticed as the country falling apart and everything becoming lovely), but the upwards slope of debt/GDP started in 1981 when Reagan significantly cut the top marginal tax rate. It was an experiment that has failed and we desperately need to raise it again. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
fishhooked posted:I definitely agree with Hillery only winning KS because of no votes or 3rd party. However, with the current upheaval of school funding and lovely budgets, I can see enough people coming around for the downticket right now. Thing is, with the months to go till the GE, most are going to forget these issues and vote per usual KS. My pessimistic view is that a Republican senator could stab a voter to death and the voter would forget that the Republican harmed them in between thrusts of the knife.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:04 |
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Or unlucky. Coat tails for an incumbent aren't as strong (and that assumes people are up to yet another Democratic presidency), and the lovely gerrymandering goes all the way to the state legislatures. We might not see a good chance at a Democratic house until 2032 or even 2042.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 03:56
|
|