HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Bill USA » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 115 Next »

Bill USA

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PM
Number of posts: 5,545

About Me

Quotes I like: "Prediction is very difficult, especially concerning the future." "There are some things so serious that you have to laugh at them.” __ Niels Bohr Given his contribution to the establishment of quantum mechanics, I guess it's not surprising he had such a quirky of sense of humor. ......................."Deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresentation of another's position is a basic technique of (dis)information processing" __ I said that

Journal Archives

Meg Whitman, Calling Donald Trump a ‘Demagogue,’ Will Support Hillary Clinton for President

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/politics/meg-whitman-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0


Meg Whitman, a Hewlett Packard executive and Republican fund-raiser, said Tuesday that she would support Hillary Clinton for president and give a “substantial” contribution to her campaign in order to stop Donald J. Trump, whom she berated as a threat to American democracy.

“I will vote for Hillary, I will talk to my Republican friends about helping her, and I will donate to her campaign and try to raise money for her,” Ms. Whitman said in a telephone interview.

She revealed that Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic nominee, had reached out to her in a phone call about a month ago, one of the first indications that Mrs. Clinton is aggressively courting Republican leaders. While acknowledging she diverged from Mrs. Clinton on many policy issues, Ms. Whitman said it was time for Republicans “to put country first before party.”

Using remarkably blunt language, she argued that the election of Mr. Trump, whom she called “a dishonest demagogue,” could lead the country “on a very dangerous journey.” She noted that democracies had seldom lasted longer than a few hundred years and warned that those who say that “it can’t happen here” are being naďve.

(more)

NYT public editor writes about HRC's Fox interview, basically calls HRC a liar and cites 3 other M$M

sources & 1 internet site deciding she's a liar re what Comey said. The article summarized her statements in the FOX interview thus: "they appeared to be based on a selective and misleading interpretation of Comey’s remarks"


http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/hillary-clinton-fox-email-interview-liz-spayd-public-editor/


In the Fox appearance, Clinton was asked by Chris Wallace, the anchor, about previous statements she’s made when questioned on the email controversy, while he played tapes of her past remarks to the public.

“After a long investigation, F.B.I. Director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true,” Wallace said.

Clinton pushed back. “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people: that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails,” she said.

The Washington Post, NPR, NBC News and PolitiFact all challenged Clinton’s claims, saying they appeared to be based on a selective and misleading interpretation of Comey’s remarks. The Post awarded her “Four Pinocchios,” the worst truth-telling rating it gives, for statements it classifies as “Whoppers.”
(more)



I criticized Clinton's FOX interview approach - that is, a vague statement ("Well, Chris, I looked at the whole transcript of everything that was said, and what I believe is, number one, I made a mistake not using two different e-mail addresses. I have said that and I repeat it again today. It is certainly not anything that I ever would do again.")

rather than responding to Wallace's charge by specifically quoting Comey to contradict Wallace's selection from Comey's testimony before Congress. I'm sure her approach to the interview was something her advisors told her would be the best way to go - not to directly refute any accusations made or implied by Wallace.. I think the reaction of the media has shown my criticism was well founded. It would have been better for her to point out that Comey in answering questions from Matt Cartwright admitted the emails he referred to as "classified" or "containing classified data" did NOT in fact have the Classified headers/subject lines - as required by the governing regulation.


When chris Wallace said: "Well, let me just say -- he not only directly contradicted what you said, he also said in that hearing that you were extremely careless and negligent."

I suggested she respond more like this:

"Well, Chris, you forgot to play what Comey said when Matt Cartwright asked him about Classified Headings on the emails. Comey admitted that none of the emails he said had classified information in them - none of them had classified headers/subject lines for emails - on them - as is required by the governing regulation."

"Extremely careless?" Well then, I guess 300 career professionals in the Government who sent me those emails were careless and negligent. If 300 career professionals in the Government were 'careless and negligent' how valid or realistic is your definition of 'careless and negligent'? We know from the Dept of State IG report that there is widespread use of personal commercial email accounts for official business - as Colin Powell and Condi Rice used in the Bush administration.

Do you understand Chris, that all commercial email service providers have hundreds of cyber-security people who work to protect their systems from hackers and malware intrusions. In order to do their jobs, these people must have access to any and all emails and attachments thereto. They can examine any emails or attachments on their systems. And do you know Chris, that these individuals do not have government security clearances. Therefore, no one can say - with confidence - that any classified data in emails on commercial email accounts - has NOT been compromised.

Now, the system we set up was a government controlled server, managed by government IT people - who do have government security clearances. Thus, the system I used was more secure than using a personal commercial email account as Colin Powell and Condi Rice, for example, did. The security of my system, as Dir. Comey testified to, when he said they found no evidence of any hacking on that server. He said the FBI's software for finding malware did find malware in some emails of people who I communicated with in the Government. Now, if their malware detecting software could find malware in emails, it certainly is capable of finding malware on a server. People don't put malware on servers only to have it erase itself after a period of time. Anybody who puts malware on somebody's server wants that malware to remain there to send them updates on what is happening (e.g. emails sent & received) on that server. Now, during the time I was Sec of State, unfortunately, we know Government computer systems were hacked several times. But this did not happen, as Dir Come testified to, on my system.

All I can do Chris, is report the facts to the public so they can make informed decisions. Is there anything wrong with making sure that people are aware of ALL the facts Chris? Or ha-ha-ha, is that a novel concept here at Fox??"



Following the DNC, Hillary Clinton now leads Donald Trump by 8 - and THIS is from NBC!!

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-clinton-support-spikes-following-democratic-convention-n621071
Following the Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton now leads Donald Trump by 8 points — 50 percent to 42 percent — up from a single-point difference last week, according to the latest NBC News|SurveyMonkey poll.

Election Update: Is Clinton’s Lead A Bounce Or A New Equilibrium? - Nate Silver

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-clintons-lead-a-bounce-or-a-new-equilibrium/


◾Clinton’s largest bounce in any national poll, as measured in comparison to another survey by the same pollster conducted with a full set of interviews after the Republican National Convention, is 13 percentage points. That comes from a CNN survey, which showed her turning a 5-point deficit into an 8-point lead.

~~
~~


There are some hints that Clinton’s post-convention lead over Trump will eventually settle in at about 7 percentage points, give or take a couple points. The biggest tip-off is that both the national polls and the state polls we’ve seen so far look similar to the ones we were seeing in June, when Clinton maintained a lead over Trump of about 7 points after wrapping up the Democratic nomination. Since Clinton and Trump were roughly tied after the GOP convention, a 7-point lead for Clinton would mean she’d gotten about a 7-point bounce, double the size of Trump’s.

FiveThirtyEight’s forecast models aren’t used to seeing a lot of 7-point overnight shifts, which rarely occur outside the conventions. (In recent elections, they’ve also rarely occurred during the conventions, with most convention bounces looking more like the modest one Trump got.) So the models may still need another day or two to catch up.

Our hyperaggressive now-cast, which describes the results of a hypothetical election held today, will be the quickest to adapt: It already shows Clinton with a 5.6 percentage point lead over Trump. Be wary of getting too attached to the now-cast, however. It is useful in situations like these, where you want a quick read on how a news event has affected the polls, but it can also jump around a lot on the basis of statistical noise or short-term aberrations in the polls.
(more)

question re post removal - is this different that a jury hide?


My question is: "is a post removal" different than a jury hide, where the 'alert' is subject to review by a jury of DU members.

I had a post removed and I appealed. Will there be a msg to me indicating when the appeal was decided upon? Have not seen anything like that yet.

on edit please note this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512337808

Very Cool! - Chopin - Nocturne Op. 9 No. 2 - with the sound of rain added

Hillary REALLY BLEW IT in the attack interview by Fox's Wallace....

I thought Hillary's response to Wallace's expected line of disinformation get's a failing grade. No I'll say, it was disaster.

I liked the relaxed demeanor she displayed but I certainly think you can remain relaxed and not accept distorted sound bytes as being representative of the truth. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that Comey admitted in the same hearing Wallace selected his sound-bytes from, that the emails in question did NOT have Classified Headers/Subject lines on them. And that these Headers are required if you are sending documents with classified information in them.

Wallace, as certainly could have been expected, played the part of the Comey hearing where Gowdy asked Comey to lie about classified information in the emails. Which Comey was happy to do:

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/07/31/hillary-clinton-on-tight-race-accusations-against-trump/

tape of Comey hearing:
REP. TREY GOWDY, R-S.C., CHAIR, BENGHAZI COMMITTEE: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails either sent or received. Was that true?

JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: That’s not true.

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said, "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material." Was that true?

COMEY: There was classified material e-mailed.



WALLACE: Well, let me just say -- he not only directly contradicted what you said, he also said in that hearing that you were extremely careless and negligent.

CLINTON: Well, Chris, I looked at the whole transcript of everything that was said, and what I believe is, number one, I made a mistake not using two different e-mail addresses. I have said that and I repeat it again today. It is certainly not anything that I ever would do again.


"what I believe is"??? Jesus Christ! Her advisors blew it!

.... I guess, in order for her to be more likeable they gave up on her merely presenting uncontrovertable facts - that is, if M$M doesn't mind the accused & demonized presenting relevant facts. She could have stated these facts without seeming too aggressive. (although, I don't see what's wrong with firmly contradicting rhetoric devices that are meant to confuse people.) I think it would have been much better if She had said something like the following:

"Well, Chris, you forgot to play what Comey said when Matt Cartwright asked him about Classified Headings on the emails. Comey admitted that none of the emails he said had classified information in them - none of them had classified headers/subject lines for emails - on them - as is required by the governing regulation."

"Extremely careless?" Well then, I guess 300 career professionals in the Government who sent me those emails were careless and negligent. If 300 career professionals in the Government were 'careless and negligent' how valid or realistic is your definition of 'careless and negligent'? We know from the Dept of State IG report that there is widespread use of personal commercial email accounts for official business - as Colin Powell and Condi Rice used in the Bush administration.

Do you understand Chris, that all commercial email service providers have hundreds of cyber-security people who work to protect their systems from hackers and malware intrusions. In order to do their jobs, these people must have access to any and all emails and attachments thereto. They can examine any emails or attachments on their systems. And do you know Chris, that these individuals do not have government security clearances. Therefore, no one can say - with confidence - that any classified data in emails on commercial email accounts - has NOT been compromised.

Now, the system we set up was a government controlled server, managed by government IT people - who do have government security clearances. Thus, the system I used was more secure than using a personal commercial email account as Colin Powell and Condi Rice, for example, did. The security of my system, as Dir. Comey testified to, when he said they found no evidence of any hacking on that server. He said the FBI's software for finding malware did find malware in some emails of people who I communicated with in the Government. Now, if their malware detecting software could find malware in emails, it certainly is capable of finding malware on a server. People don't put malware on servers only to have it erase itself after a period of time. Anybody who puts malware on somebody's server wants that malware to remain there to send them updates on what is happening (e.g. emails sent & received) on that server. Now, during the time I was Sec of State, unfortunately, we know Government computer systems were hacked several times. But this did not happen, as Dir Come testified to, on my system.

All I can do Chris, is report the facts to the public so they can make informed decisions. Is there anything wrong with making sure that people are aware of ALL the facts Chris? Or ha-ha-ha, is that a novel concept here at Fox??"



... these things could have been pointed out without sacrificing the calm demeanor she showed in the face of outrageous charges Wallace was making ala Comey's astonishing, extra-legal speculations.


Trump claims - are you sitting down?- he sacrifices as much as fallen soldiers

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/30/trump-insults-military-claiming-sacrifices-fallen-soldiers.html


Donald Trump has insulted veterans by comparing his business success to those who have sacrificed their lives in battle for their country.

Video:http://abcnews.go.com/video/embed?id=41016122



Trump responded Army father Khizr Khan, who lost his son in combat, saying that he had sacrificed nothing for his country by equating his making money to deaths of fallen soldiers.

In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Trump said, “Who wrote that? Did Hillary’s script writers write it? I think I’ve made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard….I think I’ve made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard. I’ve created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, built great structures. I’ve had tremendous success. I think I’ve done a lot.”

Trump claimed that he helped get the Vietnam War Memorial built and that he has raised millions of dollars for vets.
(more)

Donald Trump’s Call for Russia to Hack the U.S. Might Be a Felony

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/27/donald-trump-s-call-for-russia-to-hack-the-u-s-might-be-a-felony.html

“Russia, if you're listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” from emails that Hillary Clinton turned over to the State Department, Trump said in a lengthy press conference in Doral, Fla. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens. That will be next. Yes, sir.”

~~
~~

Trump was apparently referring to emails from Clinton’s private email server that she didn’t turn over to the State Department because they involved personal matters.

Trump’s incendiary comments came on the heels of the theft and leak of emails from the Democratic National Committee, an operation that, as The Daily Beast first reported, U.S. official believe was carried out by the Russian government and may have been designed to help Trump in the polls.

Trump appeared to urge a U.S. adversary suspected of criminal activity essentially to go further and attack his opponent. The comments drew ire from across the national security community.
(more)


What's Going on With Putin and Trump and Why It's a Big, Big Deal

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/what-this-is-really-about

I was just talking to David Kurtz about this and he noted that coverage of the Russia/Trump story has been simultaneously so cursory and outlandish that anything short of ironclad confirmation of Trump's being a Russian spy will seem like a big come-down and hardly worth noting. I have been talking to various cybersecurity experts today to try to get a handle on just what level of confidence we should have in the claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers and then leaked the email cache to Wikileaks to upend the Democratic convention. As David notes, the Russian hacking part of this is so cartoonish and out there that it's simply hard to know what to make of it, other than the fact that Trump is himself such a cartoonish figure that perhaps it all matches up.

So I thought I'd take a moment to explain what I see as a sober, one-step-at-a-time explanation of what questions need to be answered and explored.

For me you start with a series of highly disturbing and dangerous comments by Trump about Russia and NATO. As I noted a couple weeks ago, our relative peaceful and prosperous world is far from the natural or only possible order of things. Things can get bleak very quickly, especially when you're stupid. Trump's comments are far more than highly questionable foreign policy ideas. He seems unable to understand high level geopolitics as anything more than a protection racket with him running for American mob boss. Even if Trump is no more than ignorant, impulsive and stupid, these are highly disturbing intimations of a Trump presidency that should have everyone across the political spectrum taking note and re-evaluating what sort of situation we're dealing with.

But that's not all there is. On top of that you have very high level advisors to Trump who have been deeply immersed in the Putin world of dirty politics and energy concessions that characterizes Putin's Russia and the post-Soviet successor states. Those associations might simply be unsavory if the candidate were an experienced political figure or surrounded by knowledgable advisors. Neither is the case.
(more)

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 115 Next »