TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#128851: Jul 5th 2016 at 10:31:22 AM

That presumes the state department servers were in fact less secure. Were they?

The answer to that is probably classified at a level above your Security Clearance, Sir. smile

edited 5th Jul '16 10:32:04 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#128852: Jul 5th 2016 at 10:35:20 AM

The newer a system, the less likely people are to be able to crack it. The older something is (like those servers), the easier it is to be broken into because people have had time to work on breaking in. That's why we don't use technology from 20 years ago, the newer stuff is better.

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#128853: Jul 5th 2016 at 10:38:40 AM

@ smokeycut: Unless you're at the other end of the paradigm (like the computers that control US Nuclear Missiles) where the equipment is so old that the people that could hack the computers are dead and the file formats virtually extinct.

[down] Um, Capase? Piracy! [lol]

edited 5th Jul '16 10:39:54 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#128854: Jul 5th 2016 at 10:38:40 AM

@ smokeycut: Unless you're at the other end of the paradigm (like the computers that control US Nuclear Missiles) where the equipment is so old that the people that could hack the computers are dead and the file formats virtually extinct.

[down] Um, Capase? Piracy! [lol]

edited 5th Jul '16 10:39:54 AM by Greenmantle

Bense Since: Aug, 2010
#128855: Jul 5th 2016 at 10:39:17 AM

The newer a system, the less likely people are to be able to crack it. The older something is (like those servers), the easier it is to be broken into because people have had time to work on breaking in. That's why we don't use technology from 20 years ago, the newer stuff is better.
You are generalizing. "Newness" isn't the only factor that makes a server more difficult to crack.

A government server is generally speaking going to be more difficult to crack than a private server because governments spend a lot more effort, time, and money on making their server secure, not because they buy the latest and greatest.

My employer (a bank) doesn't use the latest version of any software or equipment, but they are certainly more secure than many private systems, because the bank has spent more and taken more effort to make it secure.

edited 5th Jul '16 10:40:27 AM by Bense

CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#128857: Jul 5th 2016 at 10:40:46 AM

[up] I don't know either — but I think we may have posted at the exact same moment and the Forum software couldn't take it.

Try again, Capase.

edited 5th Jul '16 10:42:19 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
CaptainCapsase from Orbiting Sagittarius A* Since: Jan, 2015
#128858: Jul 5th 2016 at 10:44:37 AM

Yeah, basically the point I was going to make that newer hardware doesn't necessarily make something more secure; the state department has people monitoring their servers more or less 24/7, Clinton's private email server didn't, and neither did those of her predecessors; this is a very real cybersecurity hole, and the fact that it's being used against Clinton for political purposes doesn't negate that.

edited 5th Jul '16 10:46:30 AM by CaptainCapsase

smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#128859: Jul 5th 2016 at 10:45:15 AM

Bense, I'm not quite sure where you're coming from here.

1) If Hillary is indicted, Trump is basically handed the presidency.

2) After a long investigation, it was decided Hillary shouldn't be brought up on charges.

3) Her usage of the private server caused no harm.

Why should she have been indicted? What's the benefit?

Bense Since: Aug, 2010
#128860: Jul 5th 2016 at 11:01:17 AM

Why should she have been indicted? What's the benefit?
She should have been indicted because we are supposed to be a nation that believes in rule of law. It's not the job of the FBI to decide that no harm was done because of her law breaking, or that it's a bad law that should be ignored anyway. When a law has been broken law enforcement is supposed to gather evidence and bring the suspect to trial, and then the jury decides if her reasons for breaking the law are justifiable. The FBI basically admitted that the law had been broken but wasn't willing to go any further.

What harm is done by this? Well, when a reasonable person starts to believe that a law breaker has a decent chance to be president because she has friends in high places they might start to believe that anyone outside the system becomes a better alternative.

In short, Trump is one of the harms. He wouldn't have anyone supporting him if it looked like the current system was working just fine.

PotatoesRock Since: Oct, 2012
#128861: Jul 5th 2016 at 11:03:44 AM

Shorter Point:

Think Afluenza.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#128862: Jul 5th 2016 at 11:11:05 AM

We ignore unreasonable or outdated laws all the time, often because it's actually easier than just getting rid of them.

edited 5th Jul '16 11:12:15 AM by LSBK

storyyeller More like giant cherries from Appleloosa Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
More like giant cherries
#128863: Jul 5th 2016 at 11:14:56 AM

'Yeah, basically the point I was going to make that newer hardware doesn't necessarily make something more secure; the state department has people monitoring their servers more or less 24/7, Clinton's private email server didn't, and neither did those of her predecessors; this is a very real cybersecurity hole, and the fact that it's being used against Clinton for political purposes doesn't negate that.

What happened to the OPM then? I'm not saying that her server was secure (it probably wasn't), but government bureaucrats don't have all that much expertise in cyber security either.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
smokeycut Since: Mar, 2013
#128864: Jul 5th 2016 at 11:15:29 AM

Law enforcement did gather evidence, and they decided not to suggest any charges. They did their job, and I guess we'll just have to live with that then.

edited 5th Jul '16 11:15:37 AM by smokeycut

Bense Since: Aug, 2010
#128865: Jul 5th 2016 at 11:15:37 AM

As a side note, the FBI recommendation is just that - a recommendation. Technically it is up to the Attorney General whether she will be indicted.

In fact I wonder if the AG would have been making an announcement today that she wasn't going to prosecute if she hadn't just been tainted by disclosure of her private meeting with Mr. Clinton. Now instead we have the FBI recommendation providing political cover for her to do it a few news cycles down the road.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#128866: Jul 5th 2016 at 11:17:53 AM

My suspicion is that the decision was motivated by the lack of clear cut evidence of criminal activity that could be pinned on anyone specifically.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Silasw A procrastination in of itself from A handcart to hell (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
A procrastination in of itself
#128867: Jul 5th 2016 at 11:20:14 AM

Yeah in the end it's up to the AG, and the AG deciding that it's not worth it to prosecute for something that's technically illegal happens all the time, that's what the AG is for in part, filltering out the pointless crap that folks shouldn't actually be prosecuted for on a technicality.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#128868: Jul 5th 2016 at 11:20:48 AM

It's actually a pretty fundamental part of U.S. law that the government has a lot of latitude in deciding which cases to prosecute. For one thing, it's the reason things like plea bargains and witness immunity can exist. For another, it's the reason why we haven't gone with Donald Trump's plan to deport every illegal immigrant in the country.

edited 5th Jul '16 11:21:56 AM by RavenWilder

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#128869: Jul 5th 2016 at 11:27:56 AM

[up] This.

Every crime committed by every person in the U.S. cannot be prosecuted; there are insufficient resources to even attempt such a thing. The rule of law relies on its deterrent value: the threat of being caught and punished dissuades most people from breaking laws, at least overtly and egregiously.

Speed limits are an example of a kind of law that doesn't work for its ostensible purpose: most people drive faster than the posted limits. However, enough people are ticketed for breaking the laws that they restrict themselves to a safe range over those limits, both as a form of emergent behavior to keep traffic moving smoothly and as a sort of tacit consensus. "If we all drive somewhere between +5 and +10, everyone's safe and most people don't get ticketed."

The use of private email servers by people at State is illegal, but nobody bothered to stop them for the most part because the existing systems are so antiquated that they actively hinder the execution of government business. In truth, Congress bears much of the blame for this because it refuses to appropriate funds to upgrade those systems. So the situation is murky enough that any high-level prosecution looks, politically, like a scapegoat to hide the basic dysfunction underneath. Clinton is the exception that proves the rule, even when you set aside the partisan hatred for her by the GOP.

edited 5th Jul '16 11:28:46 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
thatguythere47 Since: Jul, 2010
#128870: Jul 5th 2016 at 12:06:53 PM

And as stated previously, she is admittedly not the first secretary of state to do this. I'd say it's akin to smoking pot (in most states, in general, yada yada) in that a lot of cops don't bother to prosecute because really, why bother? Sure it's technically illegal and in theory can be a problem but if no issues arise it just seems like you're punishing someone because you can.

That republicans keep hammering her about having a private email server but not any particular email or string of them suggests that if she had been caught for anything else vaguely illegal like, say, having sex with an intern they would be going just as hard on her.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?
TheHandle United Earth from Stockholm Since: Jan, 2012 Relationship Status: YOU'RE TEARING ME APART LISA
United Earth
#128871: Jul 5th 2016 at 12:10:30 PM

[up][up]Dude, how many black boys got life in jail for getting caught smoking pot thrice?

edited 5th Jul '16 12:10:52 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#128872: Jul 5th 2016 at 12:16:12 PM

[up]Because the prosecution of those offenses is blatantly racially biased. The analogy between that and the harassment of Hillary Clinton over the emails is apt.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Memers Since: Aug, 2013
#128873: Jul 5th 2016 at 12:17:59 PM

The big thing is they would have to prosecute several sec of state, including republicans. The White House supposedly just passes policies like this down from administration to administration.

Bense Since: Aug, 2010
#128874: Jul 5th 2016 at 12:18:36 PM

Yes, the prosecutors have wiggle room on who they decide to charge. So why is the FBI making a determination?

Director Comey: "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now." So in similar circumstances he might well be making a recommendation that the person would be indicted, but he's not going to make a recommendation that this specific person be indicted.

The Attorney General already said a few days ago, at the same time she said she wouldn't recuse herself from the case because she had a private meeting with the suspect's husband, that she would accept the recommendation of the FBI. How convenient.

Also convenient, the NYT reported yesterday that Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say that if she is elected, she may retain Loretta Lynch as Attorney General. Get the message, Loretta?

Hodor2 Since: Jan, 2015

Total posts: 417,856
Top