|
Post by froome on Nov 10, 2016 13:54:12 GMT
I'm confused. I thought Trump said the vote was rigged and he wouldn't accept it. Have I missed something?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 14:02:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Nov 10, 2016 14:11:46 GMT
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 10, 2016 14:20:37 GMT
While I don't like her I can feel a bit of sympathy on the basis that she has worked her whole life towards a goal and that when it was seemingly in her grasp it was snatched away at the final moment in a manner that must feel utterly humiliating. She also has some good reasons to feel bitter as the controversy over he e-mail server is honestly one of the most over blown political scandals ever and the way if has been portrayed is utterly ludicrous. Obviously many people have felt such disappointments in the past as it is the nature of politics and while I some certainly not going to shed tears for her I can empathise with her plight. Actually the person I feel most sorry for at the moment is Merrick Garland. He is a distinguished judge and by all accounts a fine man who had the an appointment that would have been the ultimate honour for a man of his profession dangled before him and through no fault of his own he was denied the chance to grasp the prize. Why would a very experienced politician with a great deal of precise advice, holding the sensitive role of Secretary of State which implies a massive amount of important information of which a proportion is very sensitive indeed, use a personal server system lacking the sophisticated scrutiny, protections and overview provided by the official systems, and despite repeated warnings and requests? Could it be that she had strong reasons to need to avoid scrutiny and achieve complete personal control because of the nature of some of the traffic through that server? If so what was the nature of that traffic and the need for ultimate secrecy? Contrary to what you might think the state department's IT systems are a bit crap. Here is a pretty comprehensive defence of her on the subject www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13500018/clinton-email-scandal-bullshitNow don't get me wrong, the GOP did a brilliant job of weaponising the subject and it bolstered the narrative of Clinton being untrustworthy. It was however a load of crap.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 10, 2016 14:25:13 GMT
Why would a very experienced politician with a great deal of precise advice, holding the sensitive role of Secretary of State which implies a massive amount of important information of which a proportion is very sensitive indeed, use a personal server system lacking the sophisticated scrutiny, protections and overview provided by the official systems, and despite repeated warnings and requests? Could it be that she had strong reasons to need to avoid scrutiny and achieve complete personal control because of the nature of some of the traffic through that server? If so what was the nature of that traffic and the need for ultimate secrecy? Contrary to what you might think the state department's IT systems are a bit crap. Here is a pretty comprehensive defence of her on the subject www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13500018/clinton-email-scandal-bullshitNow don't get me wrong, the GOP did a brilliant job of weaponising the subject and it bolstered the narrative of Clinton being untrustworthy. It was however a load of crap. Even if one were to buy into all of that (and I don't) explain why she stalled on turning over the emails and then went to considerable bother to have them deleted and the hard drives destroyed. Is that the act of a guilt free person?
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 10, 2016 14:36:54 GMT
My reading of the various data was that the "Democratic" vote just stayed at home. Or the swing vote couldn't be arsed to troop down to the polling centres. It was equally important that the educated suburban GOP vote stayed with Trump despite their contempt for him. The Clinton campaign was banking on that a lot of white upper middle class Republicans (especially women) would defect, and the polls confirmed this - and that this would off-set the drop in blue collar whites or slightly depressed turnout among Blacks. There was a substantial "shy Trump vote" in the suburbs. Clinton only got 1% more female votes than Obama and that was a big surprise. I would guess that a significant part of this was several GOP Senate candidates ran campaigns that complimented Trump's. If you look at Pennsylvania as one example you had Pat Toomey heavily focusing on the Philadelphia suburbs and bring out the traditional GOP suburban vote most of whom then also voted for Trump. Meanwhile Trump was turning rural and small town Pennsylvania and even deeper shade of red with most of his new voters there also backing Toomey. Both Trump and Toomey won by less than 2 points and I think that there is good case to be made that neither would have won without the inadvertent help of the other. Similar situation in Wisconsin with Johnson delivering the Milwaukee suburbs while Trump ran up the scores in the rural north. Obviously this isn't the whole story as Trump has seemingly won Michigan, albeit very narrowly, without such help from a Senate candidate.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 10, 2016 14:38:32 GMT
Even if one were to buy into all of that (and I don't) explain why she stalled on turning over the emails and then went to considerable bother to have them deleted and the hard drives destroyed. Is that the act of a guilt free person? Would you be happy to turn over all of your personal e-mails? I certainly wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 10, 2016 14:45:12 GMT
Why would a very experienced politician with a great deal of precise advice, holding the sensitive role of Secretary of State which implies a massive amount of important information of which a proportion is very sensitive indeed, use a personal server system lacking the sophisticated scrutiny, protections and overview provided by the official systems, and despite repeated warnings and requests? Could it be that she had strong reasons to need to avoid scrutiny and achieve complete personal control because of the nature of some of the traffic through that server? If so what was the nature of that traffic and the need for ultimate secrecy? Contrary to what you might think the state department's IT systems are a bit crap. Here is a pretty comprehensive defence of her on the subject www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13500018/clinton-email-scandal-bullshitNow don't get me wrong, the GOP did a brilliant job of weaponising the subject and it bolstered the narrative of Clinton being untrustworthy. It was however a load of crap. I have now read that link through very carefully and I must say that I find it well crafted and entirely unconvincing. All she needed was two smart phones! Big deal, Join the rest of the working world. Keep business away from the personal. That should have been sacrosanct. Who has not been told to keep the personal off the office computers? And she was Secretary of State for goodness sake. Get the aides and the personal secretary to keep it separate. Have a series of labelled laptops. This is just detail but easy to do and should have been done. Porterage, staffing and costs were hardly a constraint were they, for a Clinton. Don't accept it at all. This smells bad because it was bad. Is was not all about nothing.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 10, 2016 14:51:43 GMT
Even if one were to buy into all of that (and I don't) explain why she stalled on turning over the emails and then went to considerable bother to have them deleted and the hard drives destroyed. Is that the act of a guilt free person? Would you be happy to turn over all of your personal e-mails? I certainly wouldn't. Yes, Richard I would, as there would be little of any interest to a third party. And if I were Secretary of State and had be grossly neglectful of all the rules and all the prompts and advice given to me, I would feel under an obligation to do so promptly. I am astonished you defend these acts by a wilful woman who breached security, refused advice and took risks that were very serious.
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,269
|
Post by Jack on Nov 10, 2016 14:52:28 GMT
Both Nigel Farage and Sarah Palin are being seriously mooted as possible members of the next United States administration. I guess anyone writing that sentence a few months ago would have looked around for the men in white coats. Bloody foreigners. Going over there, stealing their jobs.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 10, 2016 14:58:27 GMT
I have now read that link through very carefully and I must say that I find it well crafted and entirely unconvincing. All she needed was two smart phones! Big deal, Join the rest of the working world. Keep business away from the personal. That should have been sacrosanct. Who has not been told to keep the personal off the office computers? And she was Secretary of State for goodness sake. Get the aides and the personal secretary to keep it separate. Have a series of labelled laptops. This is just detail but easy to do and should have been done. Porterage, staffing and costs were hardly a constraint were they, for a Clinton. Don't accept it at all. This smells bad because it was bad. Is was not all about nothing. I agree that it was a bad idea to have the private e-mail server but I think you are reading way too much into it. If you were going to use a private e-mail system to deliberately hide things then one of the first things you would do would be to use to use the state department's own system for the majority of stuff and have your private one for the things you wanted keeping secret. If this was done for clandestine reasons it makes little to no sense at all.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 10, 2016 14:59:09 GMT
Would you be happy to turn over all of your personal e-mails? I certainly wouldn't. Yes, Richard I would, as there would be little of any interest to a third party. And if I were Secretary of State and had be grossly neglectful of all the rules and all the prompts and advice given to me, I would feel under an obligation to do so promptly. I am astonished you defend these acts by a wilful woman who breached security, refused advice and took risks that were very serious. But it looks as if actually nothing serious was on the emails. That doesn't mean she wasn't extremely careless and I think arrogant in not following the rules.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 10, 2016 15:03:13 GMT
Would you be happy to turn over all of your personal e-mails? I certainly wouldn't. Yes, Richard I would, as there would be little of any interest to a third party. And if I were Secretary of State and had be grossly neglectful of all the rules and all the prompts and advice given to me, I would feel under an obligation to do so promptly. I am astonished you defend these acts by a wilful woman who breached security, refused advice and took risks that were very serious. Disliking someone is not a sound basis for viewing everything that they do in the worst possible light. Cases should be judged on their merits. Far from refusing advice she actually took advice from a predecessor and there is no real basis to say that should "took risks that were very serious".
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,269
|
Post by Jack on Nov 10, 2016 15:07:54 GMT
I fear that Carlton is going to start shouting "Lock her up!" in a minute.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,395
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Nov 10, 2016 15:11:42 GMT
(Italics: Other candidates were above 5%.)
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 10, 2016 15:19:17 GMT
Interesting ..... Texas, Georgia and Arizona still heading towards the Democratic camp, Iowa and Ohio heading the other way, safe areas becoming safer, most marginal areas still marginal
|
|
|
Post by David Ashforth on Nov 10, 2016 16:56:05 GMT
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,269
|
Post by Jack on Nov 10, 2016 17:04:10 GMT
If you phone in sick monthly with your mental health issues, requiring yet another "welcome back" meeting, then you are just too hard work. I take it you've never suffered with a mental health issue?
|
|
|
Post by mrhell on Nov 10, 2016 17:18:43 GMT
A 53% turnout is not the sign of a healthy democracy. Add to that the number who aren't registered and those prevented from voting such as those with criminal convictions and we could be talking less than half. And we are heading in the same direction. Turnout has settled for the time being at 62% or thereabouts. I think that should be a concern. Isn't turnout calculated differently in the USA being a % of the adult population rather than the eligible electorate?
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 10, 2016 17:20:51 GMT
A 53% turnout is not the sign of a healthy democracy. Add to that the number who aren't registered and those prevented from voting such as those with criminal convictions and we could be talking less than half. And we are heading in the same direction. Turnout has settled for the time being at 62% or thereabouts. I think that should be a concern. Isn't turnout calculated differently in the USA being a % of the adult population rather than the eligible electorate? With registering to vote being voluntary, but also possible on the day of the election in some states, the 'electorate' in the sense of those registered to vote is an elastic figure. The voting age population is used as a proxy although not all of those would actually be eligible to vote - non-citizens, disqualified felons etc.
|
|