|
pathetic little tramp posted:So there's some arab kid on UCLA's campus shooting the place up - do our probably 15 mass shootings before November favour Trump or Clinton? Not sure where you got "Arab Kid" from, everywhere I'm seeing is saying "white male".
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
Trump should run on a platform of Single Payer Guncare. Free guns for every citizen. Mandatory guns. You get: A handgun, A Shotgun, and a Rifle. You are supplied with 500 rounds of ammo for each every year. Delivered like the phone book. Also nationalize the gun industry and force NIST to establish the "standard gun model" that all firearms will be based around. Mandatory open carry as well. Of all the guns at once. Change the flag to a literal carpet of fully loaded and primed cartridges.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:
The gently caress is wrong with you?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
nah
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Is it not a conflict of interest? What would be the conflict of interest?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Jesus Christ. Also RE: Trump attacks. Keep in mind that we haven't even begun to see the opposition research attacks. On top of that Trump has disallowed his people from doing their own oppo research on himself. So any attack Clinton digs up, and there's going to be plenty, will have little to no damage control plans for then. He's going to be blindsided daily and left swinging at air.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:... wait, what? Really? -REALLY-? Why have none of his handlers tackled him and gone 'no you loving dolt'? Because then you're out on your ear. The man is not going to take direction. At least not on certain topics, and his image is on the top of that list. His image is 100% of his worth. He exists to be seen as a rich, high living, bougy motherfucker. He cannot stand the thought of someone generating an unauthorized and curated profile of himself, to the detriment of his own interests. Prester Jane and I think jomentum said it last month but the trump campaign is
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
^^fucker!^^nachos posted:Is there a source for this? I'd like to read it first hand nachos posted:Is there a source for this? I'd like to read it first hand http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/trump-said-no-opposition-research-vetting It's specifically about his early campaign, so things may have changed, but there's been no indication of that yet. Not that it would necessarily be a news story. But the fact that a major party candidate refused to have himself professionally vetted by his own people speaks volumes about how he is planning on running things. Even if he later goes back and does it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
So now there's a "tell all" book coming out about the Clinton White House (again, 16 years later) by a Secret Service agent who says his detail was being posted outside the Oval Office. Oh yeah it's all about how "sickening" the Clintons are. And how much ALL of the Secret Service detested guarding Hillary. So get ready for the right wing-o-sphere to be full of stuff from that book for about a month until nothing comes of it. As you could expect the reporting on it reads like someone took a Nixon biography and ctrl+f, replaced Nixon with Clinton throughout it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Pretty sure that dude already wrote one book along those lines. Is it actually a new one? Dunno, this "new" one is by a guy named Gary J Byrne.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Antti posted:In that case the thing I am missing is a complete lack of scruples. Also that dude has to have strong connections somewhere up the line. Considering the vastly illegal stuff he's done and having faced no consequences.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Right, exactly. Yeah, but the way you're describing this makes it seem like you think it's a bad thing. "Look at that rear end in a top hat. Learning from his mistakes and striving to not make them again. Smug prick."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Internet Kraken posted:Have Trump's eyes always been this puffy? pretty much. At least going off of how political cartoonists have been drawing him for the last year or so.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I feel like we're talking about different situations. Between friends you can be honest and open and discuss things in good faith with your guard down, but you can't treat that as the norm. I think your mental image of honest discourse is horribly contaminated by the internet.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
It's a weird feeling for me, seeing the GOP in such disarray. Growing up I started being aware of politics and just what Dems and GOP were about when Bush was coming into power. Before that it was the odd Clinton reference on Animaniacs. IT seemed like the GOP were the kings of staying on message and putting forth a unified front. So after 8 years of Obama and now the Orange Plague, it's kinda odd to see them just collapse.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
zoux posted:They ain't dead yet. Not dead no. But their ability to hold a narrative seems to be gone. Between the Freedom Caucus, Business wing, Fox News, Brietbart/Alt-right news, and now the Trump camp it seems like the collective identity of what being "republican" means is gone. They're still going to be winning house/senate for a few more cycles, but that's just from momentum and gerrymandering.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:You call Ryan apologizing for Trump and supporting him "collapse"? zoux posted:I've read the GOP's obituary many times before. I'm talking more about their ability to hold a coherent narrative, than the actual party being dissolved.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRWbIoIR04c
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:
Whoever can grind up the poor the cheapest get's the Soylent contract.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
zoux posted:They got the training wheels on for tonight. God what I wouldn't give to have someone heckle him over the teleprompters.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Oh, not from inside his camp. I mean by party leaders and donors and lobbyists who have an interest in not tanking their races all the way down to the bottom and handing control of all their state legislatures over in addition to congress. I 100% buy into the idea that he truly believes his own hype and is telling lobbyists/Party Leaders to go gently caress themselves and to fall in line. I really doubt even the hands that hold the money can tell him what to do. Not because he's actually good business leader/whatever it was that he said during the primary, but because he's a petulant child who cannot abide having anyone try to stand up to him.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Although I kind of agree, he probably also hasn't ever pissed powerful people off to such a degree while being unable to back out and still claim to have some sort of moral high ground. They're all stuck in this very public deal and he's torching their brand in a spectacular fashion. Oh absolutely. I just think he's dumb enough to try and tell the GOP elites to gently caress off.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Narciss posted:As if the man could be any more based, here is an article by James (((Rosen))): Good job with that Neo-Nazi signalling on the Author's name. Remind us again how you're able to argue in good faith.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
snip
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
"We're going to have fantastic trade deals, We're going to start making money and creating jobs" Aka we'll out sweatshop China. I guess West Virginia will get a Battle of Matewan for the new century.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I was hoping this speech would be a bit better. Oh well, I'm sure the convention speech will be pretty good. Three uninterrupted days of guttural laughter emanating from somewhere beyond this plane of existence. EDIT: Thought you were talking about Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Why is Cruz laughing He'd prefer to inflict the pain, but it tickles him all the same coming from another.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Also, Every state flag is wrong, and here is why HAha, what's he say about Maryland? ... OH gently caress THAT GUY IT'S MEDIEVAL HERALDRY! Uncultured swine.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
That's not how the hierarchy in the government works. It's nothing like a CEO telling IT lacky #5 to just get him a new computer even though there's a waiting list. She can exert that kind of control on her personal staff, but she can't fire the CIO anymore than she could fire a janitor who mops the the state department floors. Even though the CIO is below the SoS as far as overall "prestige" they are parallel in effect. So yes, the CIO is responsible for ensuring that the systems under his/her purview are being used and maintained to FISMA standards. Dead Reckoning posted:When you're talking about improper disclosures of classified information, compliance with departmental IT policies are the least of your problems. [Citation Needed] Crain fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Jun 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 20:23
|
|
at the idea that the CIO was supposed to intervene to stop her from doing anything foolish, even if she blew the CIO off. That sort of defense is available if you're an IT flunky at the embassy in Ulaanbaatar, not when you're the Secretary of State and the CIO's boss.
|
Nessus posted:Who was the guy who said Trump supporters masturbated to anime? No one ever said he was wrong, just... no one ever figured that would be something uttered on tv wrt a Presidential Election.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Single payer GunCare for all. No exception. You will be provided with and accept 1 Rifle, 1 Shotgun, and 1 Handgun. Ammo delivered yearly with the phone book for all three. Mandatory carry of all 3 at all times. Replace the Flag with a literal carpet of live cartridges. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
PST posted:Well drat, Trump commentary on how this proves he's right by the end of the day then. Noon.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
Electric Bugaloo posted:Alternatively, the NYT said that the club bills itself as "Orlando's Latin Hotspot" and that it hosts "Upscale Latin Saturdays" so there's a possibility that this could end up looking very bad for the Trump set once all the facts come out. Yeah when I hear "Gay Latinos attacked in Orlando Club" I think "Someone from Jacksonville took a roadtrip" before Islamic Terrorism.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
fknlo posted:They've already hinted at it being Islamic terrorism, so buckle in! Well I've heard it two different ways now. Both Domestic Terror and Islamic Terror have been stated/hinted at. So I'm done till like, monday next week when maybe someone's figured something out.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Sorry that I'm not more specific but I didn't note the names/titles of these people, but one officer with the OPD specifically said it was being investigated as "domestic terrorism," then the next one after him said that they didn't know if it was domestic or "foreign." At this point there's a lot of confusion and until they clarify, which they'll hopefully be able to do at 9:30, we really don't know. Oh yeah no I'm not blaming you or anything. It's just that after the UCLA shooting where people were reporting this huge assault, then it turned out the dude was dead after shot #2, I'm going to just balk at the first sign that no one on scene has figured anything out. Which I should have always done really since no one ever knows anything in situations like this till days later. Kurtofan posted:Domestic terror can be Islamic. Fair enough.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Let's spin the wheel of shooters and see what motive comes up. Evangelical infuriated by godless heathens? Wannabe ISIS with easy access to firearms? White supremacist building the wall ahead of time on the club's Latin night? Only if it's options 1 or 3.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
Radbot posted:I'm glad strict gun control prevented the Paris attacks from happening Single payer GunCare. Mandatory guns for every single human within the borders of The United States of America. Mandatory open AND concealed carry. Loaner guns handed out at border crossings and Airport customs line. Ammunition delivered yearly along with the phone book. Replace all Flags with a carpet of live cartridges.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 14:31
|
|