The American (USA) 2016 presidential elections thread?

[Banditbandit]

Fox news

Yes - I too thought it was funny ..

[pritch]

Why, because you're stupid fucking fascist?
The shits going to hit the fan.

What shit? What fan? I saw that Trump tweet calling Twitter's shadow banning illegal. The clown knows nothing of the US Constitution which he swore to uphold and protect. The First Amendment covers the right to free speech, basically the right to criticise the government, particularly for the press. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how Twitter decides to act, they are not part of the government..

I don't, however, expect you to understand any of that. Trump is an ignoramus, but compared to you he is indeed a stable genius. You have a unique gift though, you have it in your power to raise the avarege IQ of posts on Kiwibiker. You could do that by simply fucking off.

[husaberg]

And I shall disprove that statement in a minute...

Only you don't, all you say further comfirms you are not actually getting that the state department has clear rules now and it seems trumps own administration is not following them.
Regardless of whether you think you know more about what the state departments policies and rules should be you don't make the rules of the state departments.

Was that a cloud based email platform? Such as Outlook.com, Office365 or Gmail? Or was it a poorly setup local Exchange server which didn't have the correct Permissions for users?

And therein lies the difference - Cloud platforms are by default Secure, now you can grant impersonate permissions within Office365 for example, but that requires a conscious action on the part of the user/administrator.

Whereas a private server has all sorts of pitfalls that a lazy/inept configuration can cause.

As i have said now 6 times the rules off the state department are real clear now. No state department emails on non state department server. all the rest of what you say is irrelevant.
Ezpecially considering that despite your protestations that her server was not secure, When it turns out it actually was.

Active Directory, Microsoft Exchange - two separate technologies. For example - did you know what by default, a domain user will automatically get an email address for their domain login (which is most likely .state.govt) - now, with Exchange policy, you can make that address so that it's not routeable externally.

Again who is it who loads the information for the user i will spell it out for you, its not the user
Note she never hid the email address she was using, it was not hid behind any naming conventions at all. Nor was it succesfully hacked according the FBI, but others were that exposed emails from her that wiki leaks published.
note this from wiki leaks if you don't think it was perfectly clear and obvious to anyone she corrosponded with she was not using the .state server you are completely wrong.

But nothing new there. All your clumsy attempts to make it out to be something else have failed so why stop now.

I'm referring to the IG Report - and it shows that senior staff within the FBI had a definitive bias and that they had a conflict of interest between their personal political beliefs and the investigation they were carrying out.

You you are referring to official reports, but only when it suits you. while ignoring all information in official investigations when it doesn't,
They have a name for that, its called steveing.....

A quick review of Spycraft shows the 2 most common causes of Spies getting caught:

1: The Spy makes a mistake (complacency, over-confidence etc.)
2: A Double agent outs them.

Email logs are almost always something that gets looked at after the fact - namely when an investigation has been raised or suspicion has been aired.

au contraire The most common spying and espionage these days is performed electronically and remotely by malware and phishing.

If you actually want to prevent it. its far more effective to look at the potential targets weak areas, than wait until after they are victims.
You seem to forget where are talking about the US government here, not a nationwide shoe store.
If you don't think the US state department takes security seriously now due to this incident you are a bit dim.

[husaberg]

Fox news

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0ba3595964399

President Donald Trump on Monday touted a “Fox & Friends” report that the previous administration spied on him during the election ― an idea that has been widely debunked.

As Trump congratulated “Fox & Friends” on its “amazing reporting,” he was ignoring analysis from his own intelligence officials that there’s no evidence such surveillance occurred.

[jasonu]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0ba3595964399

Have you ever seen it? Fox news is a total joke.

I used to watch MSNBC, Rachel Maddow in particular but lately she has also jumped on the 'slag Trump and the Republican party no matter what' wagon. If he invented a cure for cancer they (and certain cunts on here) would still find a way to say he is shit. It has all gotten very old and boring.

[TheDemonLord]

Only you don't, all you say further comfirms you are not actually getting that the state department has clear rules now and it seems trumps own administration is not following them.
Regardless of whether you think you know more about what the state departments policies and rules should be you don't make the rules of the state departments.

I'm talking purely in terms of IT security and IT policy.

As i have said now 6 times the rules off the state department are real clear now. No state department emails on non state department server. all the rest of what you say is irrelevant.
Ezpecially considering that despite your protestations that her server was not secure, When it turns out it actually was.

I didn't say it was insecure, I said that there was no way to prove or verify it's security.

I did say that the fact 30,000 odd emails were able to be permanently deleted means that the Backup, Audit and Security practices were not sufficient.

Again who is it who loads the information for the user i will spell it out for you, its not the user
Note she never hid the email address she was using, it was not hid behind any naming conventions at all. Nor was it succesfully hacked according the FBI, but others were that exposed emails from her that wiki leaks published.
note this from wiki leaks if you don't think it was perfectly clear and obvious to anyone she corrosponded with she was not using the .state server you are completely wrong.

I don't think you understand the point I'm making, since your rebuttal has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

But nothing new there. All your clumsy attempts to make it out to be something else have failed so why stop now.

Again, my comments here have purely been about IT security and IT policy (with some inferences)

You you are referring to official reports, but only when it suits you. while ignoring all information in official investigations when it doesn't,
They have a name for that, its called steveing.....

I've not ignored any official investigation. The IG report shows that at a senior level, FBI personnel weren't being unbiased. This happened after the reports you are referring to. Timelines happen to be a thing.

au contraire The most common spying and espionage these days is performed electronically and remotely by malware and phishing.

If you actually want to prevent it. its far more effective to look at the potential targets weak areas, than wait until after they are victims.
You seem to forget where are talking about the US government here, not a nationwide shoe store.
If you don't think the US state department takes security seriously now due to this incident you are a bit dim.

Completely Different Attack Vectors - this is where you are conflating things for which you clearly don't have the in-depth knowledge to differentiate between.

a Phishing attack is inbound - is dealt with by using a combination heuristics and rules on your inbound mail filtering system AND by having clear security guidelines for staff.
Malware is a running process on the machine - is dealt with by using a continuous scanning tool, file level fingerprints/hashes.

[husaberg]

I'm talking purely in terms of IT security and IT policy.



I didn't say it was insecure, I said that there was no way to prove or verify it's security.

I did say that the fact 30,000 odd emails were able to be permanently deleted means that the Backup, Audit and Security practices were not sufficient.



I don't think you understand the point I'm making, since your rebuttal has nothing to do with the point I'm making.



Again, my comments here have purely been about IT security and IT policy (with some inferences)



I've not ignored any official investigation. The IG report shows that at a senior level, FBI personnel weren't being unbiased. This happened after the reports you are referring to. Timelines happen to be a thing.




Completely Different Attack Vectors - this is where you are conflating things for which you clearly don't have the in-depth knowledge to differentiate between.

a Phishing attack is inbound - is dealt with by using a combination heuristics and rules on your inbound mail filtering system AND by having clear security guidelines for staff.
Malware is a running process on the machine - is dealt with by using a continuous scanning tool, file level fingerprints/hashes.

No you can talk of anything you like, but dont attempt to pass it off a a reply to something i have pointed out to you multiple times as being the US state departments rules.
I will go for 7th and final time.
You are not actually responding to what is in the quotes. You are just trying to put your own spin in it. A spin that has nothing to do with what i have written.
As i know you are smart enough to understand what is written. Unlke Steve.
i can only take it that you are attempting to change the reference.
So feel free just keep spouting the same old crap that has nothing to do with the actual point i made, Because i have lost total interest in anything you say.

[husaberg]

Have you ever seen it? Fox news is a total joke.

I used to watch MSNBC, Rachel Maddow in particular but lately she has also jumped on the 'slag Trump and the Republican party no matter what' wagon. If he invented a cure for cancer they (and certain cunts on here) would still find a way to say he is shit. It has all gotten very old and boring.

Yeah i have seen it it is a joke, but the point i was making is your President thinks its actually credible.
Then again he cant figure out what words mean either in prepared speeches, would/wouldn't is pretty obvious to most people.
I am pretty sure Trump watches it for the abundance of the T&A rather the the quality of the Q&A.

[pritch]

I trust y'all are aware another dude has attacked Donald Trump's star of Hollywood's walk of fame with a pick axe. So today it was guarded by two "Russians".

They'd need to be well hydrated to stand there in that kit.

[yokel]

What shit? What fan? I saw that Trump tweet calling Twitter's shadow banning illegal. The clown knows nothing of the US Constitution which he swore to uphold and protect. The First Amendment covers the right to free speech, basically the right to criticise the government, particularly for the press. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how Twitter decides to act, they are not part of the government..

I don't, however, expect you to understand any of that. Trump is an ignoramus, but compared to you he is indeed a stable genius. You have a unique gift though, you have it in your power to raise the avarege IQ of posts on Kiwibiker. You could do that by simply fucking off.

Did he say what law was broken?
Trump is an "ignoramus"??
Is that what the talking heads on the idiot box and all the deranged leftists lead you to believe?
Trump is crushing it, and he will continue to do so.

But they will try to put a spanner in the works, looks like they're failing so far.

[pritch]

Nine angry/panicked tweets today and counting, he knows we know he’s guilty, and he knows they’re coming for him.

As a matter of interest, what colour is the sky on your planet?

[TheDemonLord]

No you can talk of anything you like, but dont attempt to pass it off a a reply to something i have pointed out to you multiple times as being the US state departments rules.
I will go for 7th and final time.
You are not actually responding to what is in the quotes. You are just trying to put your own spin in it. A spin that has nothing to do with what i have written.
As i know you are smart enough to understand what is written. Unlke Steve.
i can only take it that you are attempting to change the reference.
So feel free just keep spouting the same old crap that has nothing to do with the actual point i made, Because i have lost total interest in anything you say.

You are rebutting something I've not said - Whilst it may be a breach of current US state policy (which I've not said anything in reference to) in pure IT Security terms - a cloud based email service is more secure than a private server that is not properly configured.

The evidence for the improper configuration is that a large amount of data was able to be permanently deleted.

Looking at the IG report, it shows that previous investigative efforts and reports were headed by people who had political biases and were vocal about these and made statements that show their work was not of an unbiased nature.

The rest comes down to you making lay-person assumptions about details, whereas I happen to have 10+ years real world experience in this area and can make inferences (based on experience) on those details.

[Viking01]

Nine angry/panicked tweets today and counting, he knows we know he’s guilty, and he knows they’re coming for him.

As a matter of interest, what colour is the sky on your planet?

Answer to your second question first : Blue (with a little
high cloud).

Seems like Donald has been busy tweeting as you said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...n-polls-747473

but just out of curiosity, exactly what law(s) is/are it that
Trump has been proven (or seen) to have broken ?

I'm not defending the person. I may not like him nor some of
what he has done to date, but before I go paint my "Impeach
Trump" placard and consider marching in the streets, I'd like
to understand just what crime(s) he has committed (apart
from his hair style).

There has certainly been plenty of "noise " in the US media. But
I'm struggling to find any real "substance".

He has been accused of sexual misbehaviour (unbecoming of a
President), but he would not the first. A number of them - say
from FDR Roosevelt days onwards - would be "guilty". Were his
accusers seriously offended at the time, or have they now seen
some financial opportunity ?

Did he accept some bribes, or negotiate some illegal loans (to
support his business empire) ?

He has chosen to talk with Putin, but yet again, it seems that
every US President since FDR Roosevelt days also chose to talk
with their Russian counter-part. Most of them also talked of
"peace", and some even followed up by agreeing to and signing
arms treaties restricting proliferation of nuclear weapons.

He has helped to promote an increase in NATO membership within
Eastern European countries, and deployment of missiles to keep
Putin in check.

He has supported the sale of conventional weapons to all USA's
"current friends". And he has made sure that the US has been
involved in one or two small Middle Eastern wars (just enough
to keep demand stimulated, as well as the Russians distracted).

He has tried to persuade the Chinese they should "play the trade
game" by US rules, even if they don't like the rules. And he has
also given those hapless Europeans a "serve", so that they now
feel compelled to offer the US some better business terms.

He has even sweetened the deal for the US 1% along the way
by providing them some decent tax cuts. And pump up the US
stock market.

It seems that he's done all that a "traditional US President"
could be expected to do (whether Red or Blue).

So, I'm struggling to see what his liberal US "haters" are
getting so worked up about.

Is the argument over "how" it is being done ? Or is he doing
"too good a job" ?

This is obviously a tough crowd to please.

Maybe some-one could clarify the situation for me ?

[pritch]

I sarted thinking about a reply: the number of indictments, the number of people behind bars, and the fact that Trump's campaign chief goes on trial this week.
But no, I can recognise a 'sealion' when I see one.

[yokel]

Answer to your second question first : Blue (with a little
high cloud).

Seems like Donald has been busy tweeting as you said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...n-polls-747473

but just out of curiosity, exactly what law(s) is/are it that
Trump has been proven (or seen) to have broken ?

I'm not defending the person. I may not like him nor some of
what he has done to date, but before I go paint my "Impeach
Trump" placard and consider marching in the streets, I'd like
to understand just what crime(s) he has committed (apart
from his hair style).

There has certainly been plenty of "noise " in the US media. But
I'm struggling to find any real "substance".

He has been accused of sexual misbehaviour (unbecoming of a
President), but he would not the first. A number of them - say
from FDR Roosevelt days onwards - would be "guilty". Were his
accusers seriously offended at the time, or have they now seen
some financial opportunity ?

Did he accept some bribes, or negotiate some illegal loans (to
support his business empire) ?

He has chosen to talk with Putin, but yet again, it seems that
every US President since FDR Roosevelt days also chose to talk
with their Russian counter-part. Most of them also talked of
"peace", and some even followed up by agreeing to and signing
arms treaties restricting proliferation of nuclear weapons.

He has helped to promote an increase in NATO membership within
Eastern European countries, and deployment of missiles to keep
Putin in check.

He has supported the sale of conventional weapons to all USA's
"current friends". And he has made sure that the US has been
involved in one or two small Middle Eastern wars (just enough
to keep demand stimulated, as well as the Russians distracted).

He has tried to persuade the Chinese they should "play the trade
game" by US rules, even if they don't like the rules. And he has
also given those hapless Europeans a "serve", so that they now
feel compelled to offer the US some better business terms.

He has even sweetened the deal for the US 1% along the way
by providing them some decent tax cuts. And pump up the US
stock market.

It seems that he's done all that a "traditional US President"
could be expected to do (whether Red or Blue).

So, I'm struggling to see what his liberal US "haters" are
getting so worked up about.

Is the argument over "how" it is being done ? Or is he doing
"too good a job" ?

This is obviously a tough crowd to please.

Maybe some-one could clarify the situation for me ?

The Russian collusion delusion conspiracy theory is a weird one, based on nonsignificant events some might call an "nothing burger"



What really happened was the Clinton campaign colluding with the civil service/deep state.

Check out @FoxNews’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/1...196247552?s=09

Donald Trump was obviously well aware of what they were up to post election.