US Election 2016

[BruceVC]

 

 

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.

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 

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

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.

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.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Oerwinde

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

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.

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 ?  

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

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.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

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.

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.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

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 

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

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.

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.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

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.

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  

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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

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.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

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?

[Guard Dog]

I know what I'm getting Bruce for Christmas: http://hillaryactionfigure.com/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=hillary&utm_content=Male%2BDesktop+Feed%2B-%2B-

[BruceVC]

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

[Guard Dog]

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

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?

[Volourn]

" he did have his nation's best interests at heart "

 

No, he didn't. He was all about personal power. He enjoy completely destroying anyone who disagreed with him.  He ruined his country. If he had cared about his country he would have  worked to improve it not ruin it. Not for his own personal ego. He  is basically a Trump.

[BruceVC]

 

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

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 

 

 

•  

[Guard Dog]

 

 

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

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 

 

 

•  

 

• Yes they should have. That does not absolve her responsibility
• If this is widespread than it MUST be stopped. I certain you agree a government of a free country cannot be permitted to operate in secret. Not from itself at least.
• Once again that does not absolve her responsibility for her bad acts. Even assuming her motivations were innocent.
• I'll say it again, the e-mails and correspondence of the US State Department are the property of the US Government. It DOES NOT MATTER if her Blackberry was secure, if it was not using the State Departments server she was in the wrong.
•  It absolutely matters that she deleted them. How does that look? She is doing something wrong and when she is instructed to give the data to the FBI & DOJ she DELETES it? What are we supposed to read into that? That there was something in there she didn't want them to see? Something that incriminates her or someone else? Had she turned the whole thing over then I'd buy it was all just a mistake. Don't let it happen again and everyone moves on. But rather than do that she attempts to hinder the investigation? She is not stupid and it was not an accident. So that means a cover up, which means a conspiracy. What was in those messages she is so afraid of?
• So we are back to where we started. she is either completely evil, or completely incompetent. Neither is a desirable quality in a President. 

[Guard Dog]

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

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

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 

 

 

•  

 

• Yes they should have. That does not absolve her responsibility
• If this is widespread than it MUST be stopped. I certain you agree a government of a free country cannot be permitted to operate in secret. Not from itself at least.
• Once again that does not absolve her responsibility for her bad acts. Even assuming her motivations were innocent.
• I'll say it again, the e-mails and correspondence of the US State Department are the property of the US Government. It DOES NOT MATTER if her Blackberry was secure, if it was not using the State Departments server she was in the wrong.
•  It absolutely matters that she deleted them. How does that look? She is doing something wrong and when she is instructed to give the data to the FBI & DOJ she DELETES it? What are we supposed to read into that? That there was something in there she didn't want them to see? Something that incriminates her or someone else? Had she turned the whole thing over then I'd buy it was all just a mistake. Don't let it happen again and everyone moves on. But rather than do that she attempts to hinder the investigation? She is not stupid and it was not an accident. So that means a cover up, which means a conspiracy. What was in those messages she is so afraid of?
• So we are back to where we started. she is either completely evil, or completely incompetent. Neither is a desirable quality in a President. 

 

I'm agreeing this whole development is concerning...and by the way I'm saying her Blackberry wasn't secure until 2009

 

But it is more a failure of the security people at the Whitehouse...or she somehow was able to bypass protocol

 

For example at all  my customers, and I work at some global firms, its mandatory to have all security procedures implemented...you dont have a choice and it makes no difference if you the CEO 

 

In summary I dont want to judge this whole event by the standards we are suppose to adhere in the private sector ...I find it troubling that this event happened somehow so I  would have to see the actual White house   security whitepaper to understand more 

[Guard Dog]

Bruce you work with companies in the US so I'm sure you are familiar with the law called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. If you are let me ask you a question. Suppose the CFO of a company were sending business e-mails from a private e-mail account to people both inside and outside the company. Because of an irregularity the SEC had cause to look into that company and issues a subpoena for them. Rather than turn them over the CFO deletes them and destroys his HDD. Then the CEO of the company, who up to now has done nothing wrong, tries to cover it up.  

 

What would be the likely outcome of this scenario?

Edited May 7, 2016 by Guard Dog

[BruceVC]

Bruce you work with companies in the US so I'm sure you are familiar with the law called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. If you are let me ask you a question. Suppose the CFO of a company were sending business e-mails from a private e-mail account to people both inside and outside the company. Because of an irregularity the SEC had cause to look into that company and issues a subpoena for them. Rather than turn them over the CFO deletes them and destroys his HDD. The the CEO of the company, who up to now has done nothing wrong, tries to cover it up.  

 

What would be the likely outcome of this scenario?

Yes we have to work with all those laws...all of them 

 

But I did say this  earlier in  most cases this  would be a offense that would cause a person to be dismissed

 

And its not  even because of the legal steps someone like SEC may take because when corporations fail these audits its normally a fine they get 

 

All the companies in  Wall Street for example have very strict policies to ensure all emails are stored for internal or external governance reasons ....its protects them. The eDiscovery functionality is used  mostly for internal company reasons 

 

So if someone  like a CFO did what you suggested it would mean a serious break in the email chain-of-custody ..it would be unheard and almost impossible to do 

 

So yes this is serious but I cant make assumptions about what it means within the US department she works at

 

Now the deletion  of data does concern me so I just researched this, in the CNN article her lawyer said 

 "

But in his letter, Kendall said the federal law governing record retention requires that each federal employee individually decide what emails must be preserved.

"The manner in which Secretary Clinton assisted the State Department in fulfilling its responsibilities under the act is consistent with the obligations of every federal employee," Kendall wrote " 

 

 

Some companies do have  a similar policy because there is already an automated system in the back end capturing all email sent and received ..so its irrelevant what users  do but I have to say I'm surprised legally Federal employees have this ability to decide what should be preserved ?

[BruceVC]

http://patriotupdate.com/sanders-clinton-ticket-possibility/

 

 

Guys this will the best possible outcome for me and the Democrats ....Sanders joins the Hilary ticket   

Edited May 7, 2016 by BruceVC

[Volourn]

It just shows how pathetic politicians are.  The fact Sanders is willing to be her running mate when she has labeled him a rapists exist monster. is HILARIOUS. Not to mention all the trahsing he's done of her. And, if Clinton  goes with it and would show that she is not as pro woman as she claims since would be willing to work with  someone she claimed to be a sexist rapist monster. Then again, she is a woman who laughs at rape victims!

[BruceVC]

It just shows how pathetic politicians are.  The fact Sanders is willing to be her running mate when she has labeled him a rapists exist monster. is HILARIOUS. Not to mention all the trahsing he's done of her. And, if Clinton  goes with it and would show that she is not as pro woman as she claims since would be willing to work with  someone she claimed to be a sexist rapist monster. Then again, she is a woman who laughs at rape victims!

No it makes perfect sense, Clinton and Sanders share many similar views

 

 

Also Volo are you aware how many people  really....really dont want Trump to win. Hilary would have beaten him by herself I'm sure but if Sanders joins her then a Clinton victory is even  more assured

 

Remember we want a Democratic victory 

[Volourn]

I like how you completely miss the point of the post.

[ShadySands]

As a Sanders supporter I would not want him as the VP

 

I'd rather he use whatever pull he has at the convention to push his issues and possibly for a VP more in line with his values