Donald vs Hillary

segnosaur · September 1, 2016

It's not like donating money to it makes the Clinton's rich. So where is the quid pro quo?

It is a common tactic by the super rich in the US to set up foundations and then collect salaries for their role as "directors".

Clinton's tax records have been released, and show that the foundation is not the source of their wealth. (Most of their recent money has been earned through speaking fees and book royalties.) So, no big huge salary to the clintons.

Ah tax returns... like the things trump won't release. Some people are saying its because he donated to NAMBLA. I don't believe it. But people are talking about it. Smart people. The best people.

TimG · September 1, 2016

So, no big huge salary to the Clintons.

For now. It still does not change the fact that a donation to the Clinton Foundation is like a donation to the "Clinton Family Pension Fund".

Ah tax returns... like the things trump won't release.

I am not defending Trump. I just believe in being as accurate as possible.

bush_cheney2004 · September 1, 2016

Clinton warns that her strong leadership is needed to counter the "cyber threat", even as she battles through even more e-mail server mistakes. Doesn't everybody have their own private email server ?

Bonam · September 1, 2016

Clinton warns that her strong leadership is needed to counter the "cyber threat", even as she battles through even more e-mail server mistakes. Doesn't everybody have their own private email server ?

I did like 10 years ago. Now with the convenience of gmail, who needs a private server?

Edited September 1, 2016 by Bonam

segnosaur · September 1, 2016

Why no press conference?

Just out of curiosity, do you ever have an original thought of your own?

So, why no press conference... Perhaps because its an election campaign, and different candidates have different preferences in the way they choose to interact with the media. Yes, Clinton doesn't engage in the same sort of media exposure that Trump does, but that doesn't mean she has totally isolated herself.

A few points:

- While she hasn't had "press conferences", she has had various media scrums. Perhaps not as intensive, but the press have had chances to ask questions in an uncontrolled environment. (NPR has a list showing its happened around a dozen times)

- The article you quoted dismissed the interviews that Clinton has done by pointing out that not all were done by Journalists, and some may have had time limits. But that doesn't apply to all of her interviews, some of which have been done by serious journalists (according to NPR, only about 1/5th of her interviews have been by non-journalsts), and have been more extensive. And, she has questions directed at her that deal with many of the issues surrounding the Clinton Foundation

- I find it a bit humorous that the trump supporters would pick up on this issue. After all, the general accusation is that "The media is for hillary", yet here is a case where news organizations are criticising her. Perhaps the media isn't as biased as the Trump side is suggesting.

Oh, and by the way, while you're criticizing Hillary for avoiding press conferences, keep in mind that Trump regularly turns down requests for interviews from ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN. For the past month, he has appeared almost exclusively on Fox News, an environment that is extremely friendly to him. Why do you think that is? (See: http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/24/media/clinton-trump-no-interviews/)Oh, and he's revoked the press credentials for news organizations he doesn't like. (See: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/06/13/donald-trump-revokes-washington-post-press-credentials/). So what does that say about Trump's willingness to undergo media scrutiny?

Here's the big question... why exactly is it a big concern of yours? After all, a press conference (where questions are divided among multiple reporters) isn't exactly a reliable way to obtain information information, and much of what you might get are canned responses. I rather suspect that the only reason you and other Trump supporters (like the neo-Nazi sympathizers) really care is that its one of the very few ways that you think your candidate is better. After all, you can't claim he's more honest... Politifact has shown Trump lies more than Clinton. You can't say that he's more open... he hasn't released his tax returns, whereas Clinton has. You can't say he's in better health, since the release of his medical records was almost comical. You can't say his policies are better thought out, since so much of what he says is fluff.. empty headed ideals with no details behind them. So, you latch on to the one thing you think makes Trump look good (Hey look! press conferences). Even though it doesn't.

From: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/06/hillary-clinton-media-interviews-224096(~1 month ago)

In 24 hours, Clinton conducted interviews with four major news organizations — The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal — and five major television outlets, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox News. Each interview lasted about 15 minutes... (i.e. not the short 3-5 minute interviews she was accused of giving)

From: http://www.npr.org/2016/08/25/491311747/tallying-hillary-clintons-appearances-with-the-news-media

Clinton has entertained questions a dozen times in so-called gaggles with the reporters who travel with her....Clinton also participated in nine town-hall sessions from Jan. 1 to July 31, at which she took questions from journalists and members of the public.

So, doesn't sound to me like she's ducking the press.

segnosaur · September 1, 2016

So, no big huge salary to the Clintons.

For now. It still does not change the fact that a donation to the Clinton Foundation is like a donation to the "Clinton Family Pension Fund".

I am not defending Trump. I just believe in being as accurate as possible.

You claim that you're not defending trump, but you published an unsubstantiated allegation that makes Clinton look bad. (And one by the way that makes no sense... the Clintons are already well off financially due to speaking fees and book royalties. They wouldn't need to take money from the Clinton foundation. Nor would they actually be able to. Its a charitable organization (one that is very highly rated)... its books are open. If Clinton started to sue it as their own retirement fund, contributions would disappear.

bush_cheney2004 · September 1, 2016

You claim that you're not defending trump, but you published an unsubstantiated allegation that makes Clinton look bad.

Like Trump, Clinton has managed to make herself look bad without any help from others. Defenders from Canada won't change her polled negatives.

segnosaur · September 1, 2016

Like Trump, Clinton has managed to make herself look bad without any help from others.

Actually Trump makes Trump look bad. (All the media has to do is report what he says and does.)

Much of what makes Clinton look bad was fabricated, either by Republicans (for example, having multiple hearings in order to try to pin Bengazi on her) or by the alt-right (Fox News' "Hillary is Sick" allegations.)

I'm not saying Clinton is perfect, or that she hasn't made mistakes, but any candidate who undergoes the type of scrutiny and false allegations that she has would look bad. Heck, if Jesus came down to earth and registered as a Democrat, Fox News and the Republican party would probably accuse him of being soft on terror, and dishonest because "You don't know who is father is".

sharkman · September 1, 2016

You have nothing. Not a shred of evidence to support any of this array of innuendo created by FOX news. Nothing whatsoever on her health. Nothing on Benghazi. Nothing on the Clinton Foundation. And nothing on emails. There's nothing there, just innuendo. When you actually start asking for details among the breathless, wide eyed yelling about 'Lock her up!" and how she caused Benghazi everyone sort of shuffles their feet, looks over their shoulders and starts whistling.

Every month new emails are released in a well-orchestrated campaign to keep the issue alive, but no one can point to any harm caused or to any case in history where someone in government who mistakenly sent emails with a classified designation that wasn't encrypted was ever even charged with anything.

The Republicans held what, eight thousand separate investigations into Benghazi in hopes of pinning something on her. What did they come up with? Nothing.

The Clinton Foundation is her husband's presidential retirement project. It supports medical treatment, clean water, etc. projects around the world. It's not like donating money to it makes the Clinton's rich. So where is the quid pro quo? Nobody ever gets that far. All they try to do is make a connection between a few people who donated to this foundation getting tickets to a speech or getting to meet someone. Big deal.

Health? Nothing but Breitbart crap, sleazy innuendo.

Meanwhile we have Trump spending his life screwing people, screwing investors, screwing partners, screwing suppliers, screwing anyone who trusted him and joined his so-called university, screwing hopeful young models at his modelling agency, and lying about every single aspect of his life. He's a sleazy, narcissistic demagogue whose proposals, vague as they are, are mostly impossible, would heavily damage the US economy, and would profit only, well, him and other rich people.

Good grief man. She didn't cause Benghazi. The point is she did nothing while it happened. Those are plain simple facts. Then she went and said it was caused by a video on youtube. Don't tell me you believe that too?

I'm not sure if this is a weak attempt at trolling or are you really in denial? I guess the FBI saying she lied doesn't count? Never mind, if you want to believe what comes out of her mouth, then have at it.

Edited September 1, 2016 by sharkman

sharkman · September 1, 2016

Clinton warns that her strong leadership is needed to counter the "cyber threat", even as she battles through even more e-mail server mistakes. Doesn't everybody have their own private email server ?

LOL, there are so many hypocrisy moments with her, it's quite sad. Championing sexual harassment issues when her husband made a mockery of the oval office, saying strong leadership is needed to protect national interests when an ambassador was murdered on her watch, she's the gift that keeps giving. BTW, I've lost any respect I that remained for PBS, CBS, CNN, etc., watching them behave like lap dogs instead of watch dogs.

dre · September 1, 2016

I did like 10 years ago. Now with the convenience of gmail, who needs a private server?

Well... you certainly don't want to send any sensitive email through gmail. You either need a private server, or you need to subscribe to a real secure email service. But yeah, I use it to for most stuff.

Bonam · September 1, 2016

Well... you certainly don't want to send any sensitive email through gmail. You either need a private server, or you need to subscribe to a real secure email service. But yeah, I use it to for most stuff.

If you're dealing with top secret stuff then using the appropriate government servers assigned to you by whatever organization you're a part of would be the thing to do. If you're dealing with confidential information for an employer, use the email service the employer assigned to you. For anything else, gmail is more than secure enough. In fact, it's probably more secure than almost any government or corporate server, but those organizations like to have control over their own stuff even if it is less secure and more expensive than what they can get from google. As for something a private individual would set up on a server in their basement... it's never gonna be particularly secure, if a determined and skilled hacker wanted your info, they could get it.

segnosaur · September 1, 2016

Good grief man. She didn't cause Benghazi. The point is she did nothing while it happened.

She was secretary of state. Not God or superman. What exactly did you expect her to do? Fly around the earth and reverse time in order to prevent the problems before they happened?

And it is incorrect to say she "did nothing". I do remember reading about reports indicating she was putting in late nights at the time of the attack.

Then she went and said it was caused by a video on youtube. Don't tell me you believe that too?

Clinton was indeed wrong about the attacks being due to a youtube video. But, when a major event like that occurs, the real facts are not often known for several days. At the same time, there were protests in various middle east countries over the video. Some confusion and an incorrect conclusion that the video also played a part in Bengazzi is certainly understandable.

From: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/09/what-did-hillary-clinton-tell-families-people-who-/

For the sake of argument, let’s say Clinton had told the families something about the video: Would she have been telling them something she knew to be false? Not necessarily. A clear picture of whether there had been protests in Benghazi didn’t come together until Sept. 15, a day after Clinton met with the families, according to multiple Senate investigation reports.

...

Even absent protests in Benghazi, some intelligence says the video played some motivational role, providing a rallying call for opportunistic attackers, according to congressional investigations.

Argus · September 1, 2016

It is a common tactic by the super rich in the US to set up foundations and then collect salaries for their role as "directors". This allows their assets to grows tax free while providing a steady stream of income for life. The bigger the foundation the bigger the salaries that can be drawn. So while I agree 100% with your point that all politicians offer personal meetings with large doners, I also think it is wrong to say that donations to the Clinton Foundation do not benefit the Clinton's directly.

That common tactic you talk of presumes the foundation isn't giving away almost all its money to people who have no connection with the wealthy family involved. And the Clintons didn't need any salary from the foundation given how much they were collecting in speaking fees. None of the Clintons draw a salary from their foundation. And as this story from Factcheck.org points out, the Clinton Foundation is a public foundation, not a private one, and rather than simply passing money out in grants it does most of the work itself.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

dre · September 1, 2016

If you're dealing with top secret stuff then using the appropriate government servers assigned to you by whatever organization you're a part of would be the thing to do. If you're dealing with confidential information for an employer, use the email service the employer assigned to you. For anything else, gmail is more than secure enough. In fact, it's probably more secure than almost any government or corporate server, but those organizations like to have control over their own stuff even if it is less secure and more expensive than what they can get from google. As for something a private individual would set up on a server in their basement... it's never gonna be particularly secure, if a determined and skilled hacker wanted your info, they could get it.

Actually gmail is pretty much the least secure type of email system out there. There is only one way to do secure email communication and that is with E2E. Mail to services like google can be encrypted with TLS/SSL but the problem is google has your key and they simply unencrypt all your email and scan it. That means their employees can read it, a government can ask for it, or they could sell it, or they could have a security breach of their own.

In an E2E system the provider does not have the key. Its impossible for them to decrypt your messages unless they had a few billion years to decrypt each message, and its also impossible for them to turn over anything but your encypted bytes to a third party and that third party cant decrypt it either.

If you want secure email use E2E combined with something like diffie-helmen. Or use ProtonMail which is an E2E mail service developed by a bunch of bored physicists a CERN.

Argus · September 1, 2016

Good grief man. She didn't cause Benghazi. The point is she did nothing while it happened. Those are plain simple facts. Then she went and said it was caused by a video on youtube. Don't tell me you believe that too?

I'm not sure if this is a weak attempt at trolling or are you really in denial? I guess the FBI saying she lied doesn't count? Never mind, if you want to believe what comes out of her mouth, then have at it.

What did you want her to do, pick up a machinegun and head over there? If the Republicans could have pinned her refusing to help, or ordering that nobody help when someone could have, they would have. They couldn't. Nor did the FBI say she lied. Find me a cite. Here's one for you.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fbi-director-confirms-under-oath-that-hillary-clinton-never-lied-about-her-email-and-broke-no-laws/25481/

Bonam · September 2, 2016

Actually gmail is pretty much the least secure type of email system out there. There is only one way to do secure email communication and that is with E2E. Mail to services like google can be encrypted with TLS/SSL but the problem is google has your key and they simply unencrypt all your email and scan it. That means their employees can read it, a government can ask for it, or they could sell it, or they could have a security breach of their own.

In an E2E system the provider does not have the key. Its impossible for them to decrypt your messages unless they had a few billion years to decrypt each message, and its also impossible for them to turn over anything but your encypted bytes to a third party and that third party cant decrypt it either.

If you want secure email use E2E combined with something like diffie-helmen. Or use ProtonMail which is an E2E mail service developed by a bunch of bored physicists a CERN.

Yeah and the server your email is sitting on is sitting in your basement with an admin account password of "password". Great security there. Yes, end to end encryption is the technically most secure method. But the security flaws come from the implementation. The security of using a service like gmail is that sure, maybe their employees can read it, but they can also read about 80 trillion other emails that are sent every year. What are the chances they'll read yours?

Ask yourself, what is more secure: a grain of sand in the desert, or a locked box in a locked room?

Edited September 2, 2016 by Bonam

?Impact · September 2, 2016

Actually gmail is pretty much the least secure type of email system out there. There is only one way to do secure email communication and that is with E2E.

Apples and Oranges. gmail is a delivery and security mechanism. E2E is only a security mechanism, you still need delivery.

bush_cheney2004 · September 2, 2016

What did you want her to do, pick up a machinegun and head over there?

Clinton could have done her job and addressed the known security threat before it happened.

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received emails from her top aides warning about dangerous security conditions in Benghazi, Libya, in the run-up to the terrorist attack that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans there in 2012, documents disclosed on Friday show.

..Victoria Toensing, attorney for Greg Hicks, the deputy chief of the Libya mission, said on Friday that Mr. Stevens’ pleas for additional security staff went unheeded.

“The State Department repeatedly rejected the pleas of two U.S. ambassadors asking for more security in Libya,” Ms. Toensing said. “Instead, Department of State hierarchy reduced security in the summer of 2012, from 38 to nine personnel. Responsibility for the deaths of four Americans lies with the department.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-benghazi-emails-to-be-released-by-state-department-1432309888

dre · September 2, 2016

Apples and Oranges. gmail is a delivery and security mechanism. E2E is only a security mechanism, you still need delivery.

That might be why I explained that and supplied the name of a service that uses E2E

taxme · September 2, 2016

Well lets get one thing straight, off the hop. Trump sucks. There is no getting around his ego and his mouth, and how he rose to become the Rep candidate is beyond me. But you seem to be in denial about Clinton. She lied her ass off about Benghazi, and she lied her ass off to the FBI. She lied her ass off about her emails and continues to do so, lying continually about the Clinton Foundation and her health issues as well.

Now I know that Clinton lemmings around here will support her no matter what she does, and no doubt have all the talking points cued up regarding all of the above. But you're not a lemming, and you don't brainwash yourself with all of the hard left extremist sites out there. You do know that she lies her ass off whenever needed, right?

All of our Canadian politicians are not much better than Hillary. They all kiss the behind of political correctness, and the elite, and all think like Hillary does and what the media tells them to say or do. The problem with Trump is that he is just to politically incorrect for the establishment elite to stomach. They keep puking their guts out because they cannot control or own him.

dre · September 2, 2016

Yeah and the server your email is sitting on is sitting in your basement with an admin account password of "password". Great security there. Yes, end to end encryption is the technically most secure method. But the security flaws come from the implementation. The security of using a service like gmail is that sure, maybe their employees can read it, but they can also read about 80 trillion other emails that are sent every year. What are the chances they'll read yours?

Ask yourself, what is more secure: a grain of sand in the desert, or a locked box in a locked room?

Google decrypts every single email sent. Every single one. They wont say exactly what they do with it, but they use the content of your email to make money however they can.

Heres what they say in the TOU.

Our automated systems analyse your content (including emails) to provide you personally relevant product features, such as customised search results, tailored advertising, and spam and malware detection. This analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, and when it is stored.

They take your emails and try to extract marketable products from them. For example... if sent an email to your friend about a sensitive medical condition they could share that with a third party that sells products related to your condition. That third party will then pay google to display contextual advertisements to you, that appear not only on google itself but the millions of other websites that display google ads.

Its can be a really useful feature! You might find a special medicine that will help with your condition because of it. But it sure as hell aint security.

Edited September 2, 2016 by dre

betsy · September 2, 2016

Just out of curiosity, do you ever have an original thought of your own?

Eh? Because I quoted a news item - which btw, was brought up on tv with two news people grilling Kane about that!

That's how I found out, btw.....and I googled about it.

So what do you mean by original thought? Make up my own story? :lol:

So, why no press conference... Perhaps because its an election campaign, and different candidates have different preferences in the way they choose to interact with the media. Yes, Clinton doesn't engage in the same sort of media exposure that Trump does, but that doesn't mean she has totally isolated herself.

A few points:

- While she hasn't had "press conferences", she has had various media scrums. Perhaps not as intensive, but the press have had chances to ask questions in an uncontrolled environment. (NPR has a list showing its happened around a dozen times)

- The article you quoted dismissed the interviews that Clinton has done by pointing out that not all were done by Journalists, and some may have had time limits. But that doesn't apply to all of her interviews, some of which have been done by serious journalists (according to NPR, only about 1/5th of her interviews have been by non-journalsts), and have been more extensive. And, she has questions directed at her that deal with many of the issues surrounding the Clinton Foundation

- I find it a bit humorous that the trump supporters would pick up on this issue. After all, the general accusation is that "The media is for hillary", yet here is a case where news organizations are criticising her. Perhaps the media isn't as biased as the Trump side is suggesting.

Oh, and by the way, while you're criticizing Hillary for avoiding press conferences, keep in mind that Trump regularly turns down requests for interviews from ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN. For the past month, he has appeared almost exclusively on Fox News, an environment that is extremely friendly to him. Why do you think that is? (See: http://money.cnn.com...no-interviews/)Oh, and he's revoked the press credentials for news organizations he doesn't like. (See: http://blogs.wsj.com...-credentials/). So what does that say about Trump's willingness to undergo media scrutiny?

Here's the big question... why exactly is it a big concern of yours? After all, a press conference (where questions are divided among multiple reporters) isn't exactly a reliable way to obtain information information, and much of what you might get are canned responses. I rather suspect that the only reason you and other Trump supporters (like the neo-Nazi sympathizers) really care is that its one of the very few ways that you think your candidate is better. After all, you can't claim he's more honest... Politifact has shown Trump lies more than Clinton. You can't say that he's more open... he hasn't released his tax returns, whereas Clinton has. You can't say he's in better health, since the release of his medical records was almost comical. You can't say his policies are better thought out, since so much of what he says is fluff.. empty headed ideals with no details behind them. So, you latch on to the one thing you think makes Trump look good (Hey look! press conferences). Even though it doesn't.

From: http://www.politico....terviews-224096(~1 month ago)

In 24 hours, Clinton conducted interviews with four major news organizations — The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal — and five major television outlets, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox News. Each interview lasted about 15 minutes... (i.e. not the short 3-5 minute interviews she was accused of giving)

From: http://www.npr.org/2...-the-news-media

Clinton has entertained questions a dozen times in so-called gaggles with the reporters who travel with her....Clinton also participated in nine town-hall sessions from Jan. 1 to July 31, at which she took questions from journalists and members of the public.

So, doesn't sound to me like she's ducking the press.

That's the same line given by Kane - that she's given interviews - but the news people pointed out, that's not the same!

CNN called her out!

Hillary Clinton called out by CNN for not having press conferences

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_t11jMXU0E

WHEN?

She's ducking! And she's got a huge reason to.

After 255 Days Of Hillary Dodging The Press, Bob Woodward Wonders About 'Transparency'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3-wimcaXDU

If not, why won't she oblige, once and for all, put this matter to rest?

Edited September 2, 2016 by betsy

BubberMiley · September 2, 2016

That's the same line given by Kane - that she's given interviews - but the news people pointed out, that's not the same!

CNN called her out!

Hillary Clinton called out by CNN for not having press conferences

Since you're parroting Trump's talking point of the week, can you explain the difference between making yourself available to the press for questions, which Hillary has done many times, and having a press conference?

Argus · September 2, 2016

Clinton could have done her job and addressed the known security threat before it happened.

Gee, maybe the Republican congress shouldn't have cut funding for State Department security, huh?

The Benghazi hearings didn't find anywhere that Clinton herself denied extra security for Benghazi, that such requests never got to within two levels of her. And your cite is behind a paywall.