BruceVC

OK, what legitimate reason could she have for using a private server to conduct the business of the US State Dept, circumventing the oversight responsibilities of the Congress? Okay hear me out I dont know if I have told you but what I do for a living is I sell and consult around software that has several uses but primarily its used for eDiscovery and its used mostly in the financial sector. Since Enron all the companies in the USA in the financial sector and many others globally are legally required to be able to produce email and other types of data if there is an inquiry through the likes of the SEC So I do this for a living and I went back and reread Leferds post to get a better understanding of this whole event https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html There are in fact several things very wrong with this whole event and initially I didnt want to say anything as I didnt want to undermine or seem to criticize Hilary but then I thought I must be consistent and honest about something that I can see is a problem...what went on here would have failed any security test in the private sector . So a couple of points Its a major oversight that no one that she was emailing for years raised issues about why or how she was using a private email address because I would assume with all the hundreds of emails she sent surely someone from NSA or FBI shoukd have asked questions? Other people in the US government use private email but they also use there work address Hilary seemed to slip through the cracks You can use encryption without a certificate on a Blackberry so why didnt anyone just implement it Her deleting of emails shouldnt be an issue unless she was sending data to people outside the government ..I doubt this? Any email sent to anyone in the US government I assume would be captured by the same software departments like DOD use In summary I can completely understand Hilary not understanding the technology but its still a major issue her staff didn't address the security gaps....this would be an immediate dismissal offense in every customer I know

Dude that is classic Oh quick question, if you are looking for other legitimate reasons that Hilary could have used that email server I can list them But if you dont care its all good

How so? Heads of state are generally in charge of foreign affairs, where his charisma and strength of will would have been huge assets, as they were while he was in power, but the negative aspects, like removing term limits, disasterous economic policies, etc, wouldn't have been able to go through. Like if Mugabe had quit after 2 terms he might have been remembered fondly instead of as a dictator, Chavez will be remembered as the man who set Venezuela on the path to ruin. How would he avoided that if he was more right leaning? From what data I've seen, the dutch disease in Venezuela due to the petroeconomy would have happened regardless of Chavez and his economic policies. You misunderstood what I was saying. I meant if he was the head of state, and there was a separate, right leaning head of government. But you also may have a point. My bad, it's late and I'm drunk. Its not the personal attacks that was the issue, this was more of an annoyance but when he demonstrated he wasn't prepared to respect the rule of law and order this caused much Western investment to leave the country..Chavez didnt care because he was able to drive the economy purely from the oil and other resource exports A normal government would have diversified its economy and not been so reliant on only one sector to drive the economy..like Canada and its oil production Not really. Canada isn't/wasn't Venezuela and contrasting the two runs into various hurdles like education level of the work force and standard of living. Assuming that Venezuela was governed by someone with economic policy based around the ideas of say Milton Friedman instead of Chavez during his presidency, there's no guarantee that private industry would have performed much differently and diversified the economy. We are living in Global Capitalism after all, and with oil prices being what they were and the availability of imported goods it would have been feasible for Hypothetical Venezuela Companies to develop solely oil production infrastructure and neglect other industry the same way the Venezuelan state has. I want to say you have a very good understanding of certain broad economic principles and historical precedent, what are you studying again? With the oversupply of oil and the depressed oil price you will notice this has had a negative impact on all oil producing countries but for some it has been disastrous Countries like Nigeria. Russia and Venezuela are in recession yet Canada and South Africa have been hurt yet they not in a recession because for example South Africa has a strong and globally recognized financial sector, IT and Legal services, tourism and other sectors that contribute towards growth and GDP But we have real economic pressure on us for other reasons But in summary Im also agreeing with you because when you say Hypothetical Venezuela Companies focusing on oil thats what basically happened ...but when the oil price dropped what other sectors of the economy could Chavez rely on?

I'll be honest I doubt I would like Viconia version 2 In fact I'm actually more convinced I wouldn't enjoy SoD

How so? Heads of state are generally in charge of foreign affairs, where his charisma and strength of will would have been huge assets, as they were while he was in power, but the negative aspects, like removing term limits, disasterous economic policies, etc, wouldn't have been able to go through. Like if Mugabe had quit after 2 terms he might have been remembered fondly instead of as a dictator, Chavez will be remembered as the man who set Venezuela on the path to ruin. How would he avoided that if he was more right leaning? From what data I've seen, the dutch disease in Venezuela due to the petroeconomy would have happened regardless of Chavez and his economic policies. This is a good question. You see in order for Chavez to push through his various left wing social reform programs he automatically made himself an enemy of the West. He nationalized several Western owned companies and constantly made personal attacks against Western leaders Its not the personal attacks that was the issue, this was more of an annoyance but when he demonstrated he wasn't prepared to respect the rule of law and order this caused much Western investment to leave the country..Chavez didnt care because he was able to drive the economy purely from the oil and other resource exports A normal government would have diversified its economy and not been so reliant on only one sector to drive the economy..like Canada and its oil production

How so? Heads of state are generally in charge of foreign affairs, where his charisma and strength of will would have been huge assets, as they were while he was in power, but the negative aspects, like removing term limits, disasterous economic policies, etc, wouldn't have been able to go through. Like if Mugabe had quit after 2 terms he might have been remembered fondly instead of as a dictator, Chavez will be remembered as the man who set Venezuela on the path to ruin. Good points raised I am very impressed with how you research certain African historical events like Apartheid Whats your interest in these events..most people dont care unless you South African I was pretty active on the Althistory wiki for a while, and I contributed to a bunch of articles on South Africa for the 1983: Doomsday timeline. The point of divergence was 1983, so Apartheid was still in effect. When the guy who was doing the Zimbabwe article bailed and his article was rejected, me and another guy moved on to that one too. So in order to get a realistic idea of how the timeline would have gone in those areas, I needed to research some of the history and the state of the area at the time. I'm also kind of interested in how the white minority rule decolonized states were so successful then collapsed after majority rule was granted. With many black leaders just doing terrible jobs I'm interested in why that is. Just in general I'm a history buff, I found I wasn't interested in various parts of history until I had to research the areas for articles on the wiki. I also played a game or two as Transvaal in Victoria 2, and research for the colonial period of my own alternate history timeline. I really think Alternate History would be an interesting teaching tool, as asking what would happen if things went differently makes you have to look hard at why things happened as they did. Okay that is very interesting, I can share some insights with you about the African continent from the 1960's and particularly Southern Africa Members of my family fought in the Rhodesian War (1974-1980 ) and then came to South Africa in 1980 and joined the South African military but for them it was about the war against Communism ...they werent racist (well as much as most white people living in Africa were ) Personally I have traveled and worked in about 20 African countries and I have spent the last 10 years studying the history of the region and understanding why certain political events occurred and also researching the history of the continent Is there something particular you want to know because it is very fascinating ? Yeah, from what I've seen, it seems like both Rhodesia and South Africa's exclusionary policies were more about fighting communism than outright racism. My understanding with Rhodesia was that they established educational requirements for running for office, which in practice meant only whites could run, but that they were also investing heavily in education, so it was only a matter of time before there were blacks who would fit the requirements, but communism offered "equality now" kinda thing. Its an interesting point and in some ways valid or at least worth discussing The reality was the Cold War was ongoing and Africa was the real proxy war background for 3 different forms of Communism\Socialism with the Cubans, the USSR and Red China against the West which in the African context involved the USA, UK and France Everyone was trying to get African leaders to support there ideology...no one really cared about African people, except for the Cubans who really believed in a better world through there view of socialism\communism You cant blame people like the USA or the UK because the threat of Communism was real and for them it was literally about the survival of there entire way of life Most African leaders also pretended to care about one ideology or the other but there primary interest was staying in power and enriching themselves. This was from the 1960-1980's ...so first important point is the African continent has had many bad leaders, its not the people So both the Rhodesian and SA government had a legitimate enemy in Communism and the West did allow there unsustainable governments to be able to govern there respective countries because Apartheid was the lesser of 2 evils But if the Cold War wasn't ongoing I doubt Apartheid would have lasted even 10 years...it was cruel and inhuman and no race should be able to do that to another race ( this applied to SA where Apartheid was much more institutionalized and enforced than what the Rhodesians tried to do to maintain power ) So yes on some levels in Rhodesia the education was excellent because the Rhodesian's didnt believe in the same outcome for black people that the Apartheid regime did But in SA Apartheid was about the overall marginalization of black South Africans so education despite what many people, including black South Africans, was never a focus

How so? Heads of state are generally in charge of foreign affairs, where his charisma and strength of will would have been huge assets, as they were while he was in power, but the negative aspects, like removing term limits, disasterous economic policies, etc, wouldn't have been able to go through. Like if Mugabe had quit after 2 terms he might have been remembered fondly instead of as a dictator, Chavez will be remembered as the man who set Venezuela on the path to ruin. Good points raised I am very impressed with how you research certain African historical events like Apartheid Whats your interest in these events..most people dont care unless you South African I was pretty active on the Althistory wiki for a while, and I contributed to a bunch of articles on South Africa for the 1983: Doomsday timeline. The point of divergence was 1983, so Apartheid was still in effect. When the guy who was doing the Zimbabwe article bailed and his article was rejected, me and another guy moved on to that one too. So in order to get a realistic idea of how the timeline would have gone in those areas, I needed to research some of the history and the state of the area at the time. I'm also kind of interested in how the white minority rule decolonized states were so successful then collapsed after majority rule was granted. With many black leaders just doing terrible jobs I'm interested in why that is. Just in general I'm a history buff, I found I wasn't interested in various parts of history until I had to research the areas for articles on the wiki. I also played a game or two as Transvaal in Victoria 2, and research for the colonial period of my own alternate history timeline. I really think Alternate History would be an interesting teaching tool, as asking what would happen if things went differently makes you have to look hard at why things happened as they did. Okay that is very interesting, I can share some insights with you about the African continent from the 1960's and particularly Southern Africa Members of my family fought in the Rhodesian War (1974-1980 ) and then came to South Africa in 1980 and joined the South African military but for them it was about the war against Communism ...they werent racist (well as much as most white people living in Africa were ) Personally I have traveled and worked in about 20 African countries and I have spent the last 10 years studying the history of the region and understanding why certain political events occurred and also researching the history of the continent Is there something particular you want to know because it is very fascinating ?

Is Viconia an option?

How so? Heads of state are generally in charge of foreign affairs, where his charisma and strength of will would have been huge assets, as they were while he was in power, but the negative aspects, like removing term limits, disasterous economic policies, etc, wouldn't have been able to go through. Like if Mugabe had quit after 2 terms he might have been remembered fondly instead of as a dictator, Chavez will be remembered as the man who set Venezuela on the path to ruin. Good points raised I am very impressed with how you research certain African historical events like Apartheid Whats your interest in these events..most people dont care unless you South African

Its a little more complex than that, I like to take the exact same party with me. I enjoy the feeling of familiarity and interaction And because at the end of BG2:TOB there was that summary of what happened to all the characters playing something like SoD would lack that sense of excitement So in fact I would be annoyed if my original party members were dropped or not included But I would definitely play a BG3

Hang on. So you bought the game and now you're not going to play it because the ending has already been determined? No I haven't bought it yet Also I dont mean I know how SoD ends I mean I know how the final game ends in BG2 ...it probably sounds like a weird criticism but I just dont like prequels or chapters of a story that come out after the original saga

When are you going to play it? as I said, I'd be interested to know if you're going to do a run through the base game and then into SoD. As well as what companions you had in the base game and how you found the transition. eg. Depending on what companions you have, they disappear into thin air after the first dungeon in SoD. BG2 : TOB was the greatest RPG I have ever played but the issue I have with SoD is I dont like playing games where I know how its going to end So if SoD was set after BG2 then I would play it because the end is undetermined

I dont think there is such a thing as a " SJW Game " ....what exacty would that entail. Imagine someone developing a game where the main hero is a Dwarf, transgender, Muslim with extreme Communist leanings and the objective is to rescue Anita from the clutches of this insidious organisation called the Bigotry Boys (BB) I haven't played this game yet ....you guys have put me off it

Thats what I thought....you cant name any

What's been happening in Venezuela the last few decades is quite complex, and certainly what's been going on to hurt Venezuela is a bit more than Chavez's policies.There's been little in the western media about the nation other than to demonize Chavez. One should ask themselves why Chavez (or anyone for that matter ever) is demonized. That said, Chavez wasn't perfect (ie: he was a socialist and I'm no fan of socialism) but he did have his nation's best interests at heart much more than almost any current western leader does. That counts for more than a little in a world where most nations' leaders (and most major candidates who ever run to be leader) are at the end of puppet strings of globalist bankers, et al. Oh, I liked Chavez. I probably would have voted for him back in the day had I been Venezuelan. After seeing the Oliver Stone documentary on all the Chavista leaders being elected across South America in protest against US influence I really thought he was a good guy, and he very well may have been. But the policies he put in place have lead to a complete economic collapse in Venezuela, and its looking like hyperinflation. My turn to the right has only happened recently, but seeing Venezuela fall so far is one of the reasons I did so. Had Chavez been the head of state with a more right leaning head of government handing domestic issues I think he definitely would have been remembered fondly. Oerwinde the issue with leaders like Chavez is he relied on the high Oil price for a decade or so to drive social transformation programs and his own interpretation of socialism But it was an illusion, a facade. Its the same reality that Putin faces....any country must diversify its economy. You can cannot just rely on commodity exports

LOL. I'm not in a huff at all. Sounds like you are. Also, as I said which you obviously missed, I wouldn't list a whole heap of games not relevant to BG because you know, that would be irrelevant. And not responding to me? So it's okay for you to respond to me when I'm responding to others but when I do it to you... you're saying I'm all in a huff. Hiro forget any previous comments, cant you just name a couple of SJW games? There must be so many now

Correct. Now here is the problem. As the Secretary of State every e-mail she sends in the performance of her duties becomes the property of the United States Government the instant she hits "send". Every correspondence involving the business of the United States is subject to oversight by the Congress and appropriate law enforcement agencies, as well as FOI requests once the appropriate time has passed. But the e-mails on her private server that she has ADMITTED she used for the business of the United States are beyond the reach of the agencies of the government that they BELONG to. And when she was directed to produce those messages, she deleted them. http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/hillary-clinton-personal-email-server/ Do you see the problem here Bruce? The reason she used a private e-mail server to do the business of the United States was so she could do so in secret. What do you suppose she was trying to hide? She is not stupid. She knows who her e-mails belong to. Good Lord it was explained to me on my first day of work at my job that every e-mail I send, every study I write, every notebook page I put my pen to immediately becomes the property of the State of TN. If the lowest ranking engineer from the TDEC understands this don't you think the Secretary of State of the United States does? So, what us she trying to hide? Because there can be no other logical explanation. Now, the classified information thing I told you to forget a moment ago... add that back in. Now where are we? Okay I see your concern, its not unreasonable

Clearly Vals measurement of a good leader is someone who drives the economy of country into the ground .....makes sense

Well there are numerous reasons for having your own email server, for example if you wanted to use a gmail or yahoo account and not use the resources of a company you work for you could use a private server or you can setup your own private domain with your own SMTP address...and you would want to do this because it could be personal emails not government emails you sending What are your reasons ? You are evading or misunderstanding my question. Why do you think Hillary Clinton used a private e-mail account to conduct State Department business? She has admitted she has done this much. Why do YOU think she would do that? Well she may have just been familiar with using her private address, yes in principle she should use her government email to discuss anything related to the department but if someone gets an email from Hilary Clinton from her private email why wouldn't they respond normally ? So it could have been a bad habit A person could also use a private email if they want less accountability around what they want to say or any instructions or discussions they may have and they dont want an official email trail or monitoring. Obviously any email sent from an official US email server would be under scrutiny

No the two examples are not suppose to be similar but the principle is similar So despite my criticism of Trump much of the really negative things he has says I can't say " he knew this was going to happen " ...its the same as I can say about Clinton " you cannot say she intentionally broke the law "

Well there are numerous reasons for having your own email server, for example if you wanted to use a gmail or yahoo account and not use the resources of a company you work for you could use a private server or you can setup your own private domain with your own SMTP address...and you would want to do this because it could be personal emails not government emails you sending What are your reasons ?

Geez, can you move the goal posts any further? So If I list a whole list of SJW games released in 2016 not related to BG, that somehow proves my point? Not that I would do that because it's irrelevant to BG. Just like all the games you listed aren't relevant to BG. I would love to see your list of SJW games?

Yeah that would be a little controversial if the FBI chief resigned ....imagine if he just vanished, that would be even worse

Yeah, the whole article is worthless spin. Unnamed, anonymous US officials say "no evidence that Hillary wilfully broke the law" is not the same as "no evidence that Hillary broke the law, at all". Pro Clinton people will say there won't be charges right up until the point the issue is actually decided publicly, that's just the nature of being pro Clinton. "Willfully broke the law" sounds like lawyer-speak. You can probably twist and turn it depending on the level of accountability involved. Well the article cannot be considered " worthless spin " if the FBI decides she has no charges to face, in fact to suggest the legal outcome of this whole incident is just spin is a pointless comment because the whole outcome was " would she be charged " But also guys of course there is a difference between someone who knows they breaking the law and someone who may not be aware that there behavior is illegal ? It reminds me of the numerous times I have said things like " Trump is responsible for the level of violence and protests at his rallies ".....but I cannot say with certainty that Trump actually expected this outcome and many of you guys feel he should not feel responsible at all So back to Hilary, I dont believe she thought she was doing anything illegal, I'm not sure if any of the FBI findings will become available for public scrutiny so this entire debate is very subjective as it really depends on how you view her So then if we have no way to see the real evidence then surly we need to trust the FBI has investigated this case and made a fair finding 1. I'll wait for the report to be concluded and an official announcement from FBI. 2. As i have pointed out before, it doesn't matter when an elected official or someone holding public office does something willfully or not. They are accountable either way and that's when the lawyers step in. And if the lawyer steps in and the legal process finds them innocent....do we now accept that? So who is the final arbiter when it comes to apparent wrong doings by any politicians ?

Yeah, the whole article is worthless spin. Unnamed, anonymous US officials say "no evidence that Hillary wilfully broke the law" is not the same as "no evidence that Hillary broke the law, at all". Pro Clinton people will say there won't be charges right up until the point the issue is actually decided publicly, that's just the nature of being pro Clinton. "Willfully broke the law" sounds like lawyer-speak. You can probably twist and turn it depending on the level of accountability involved. Well the article cannot be considered " worthless spin " if the FBI decides she has no charges to face, in fact to suggest the legal outcome of this whole incident is just spin is a pointless comment because the whole outcome was " would she be charged " But also guys of course there is a difference between someone who knows they breaking the law and someone who may not be aware that there behavior is illegal ? It reminds me of the numerous times I have said things like " Trump is responsible for the level of violence and protests at his rallies ".....but I cannot say with certainty that Trump actually expected this outcome and many of you guys feel he should not feel responsible at all So back to Hilary, I dont believe she thought she was doing anything illegal, I'm not sure if any of the FBI findings will become available for public scrutiny so this entire debate is very subjective as it really depends on how you view her So then if we have no way to see the real evidence then surly we need to trust the FBI has investigated this case and made a fair finding