I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[SEC_Chick]

I will note that on the right, the Schadenfreude over DWS is tempered with the realization that they could actually appoint a competent person now.

And today, Reince Priebus, without a hint of irony, floated the idea that Dem delegates should have the right to vote their conscience to remedy the lies exposed by the email leak. Bastard.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

What is it about a heat dome that makes the funk so damn funky? What am I even talking about? Check this shit out. Nite-Liters, Down and Dirty. And it is! Your Daily Dose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V68umXWWJAM

Here's some weird ass funk for Monday Daily Dose. Harold Alexander with Mama Soul:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3yHN1Q5oN0

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

HRC's surrogates have dismissed out of hand every suggestion her private server was hacked.

In fairness, they have plausible deniability. If it has been hacked, Putin is holding the goods for an October Surprise (or blackmail).

The biggest thing the server had going for it security-wise was that not that many people knew about it, including and especially hackers. There are annually thousands of attacks on my place of business (and probably everyone else's here) because the servers are known, and probably magnitudes more on State Department servers. Security through obscurity.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Zero? What did they do that made a difference?

As I was saying:

Viewed in isolation, that brouhaha doesn't have a lot of substance. So DNC staff talked smack about Bernie Sanders in emails. If that shocks you, it may be because you are under the misapprehension that the DNC is composed of highly professional operatives sworn to neutrality in contested nomination contests. Truth is, the DNC doesn't have a lot to do with the nomination contest (hence the endless complaints about one thing it did control, the debate schedule), and isn't any more neutral than any other assemblage of political junkies with pasts and futures that are intimately connected to the fates of politicians like Hillary Clinton. As for the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair, the surprising thing isn't that she took the fall for the embarrassing emails, but that she has survived until now. The 2014 midterm debacle, not that she had much to do with the results, would have been enough to croak most DNC chairmanships. The animosity she earned from Bernie Sanders supporters probably made her resignation a natural by-product of any post-convention unity drive; it's also not unusual for nominees to assign someone especially close to them to the party chairmanship at the beginning of the general-election campaign.

Ed Kilgore

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This is a very good piece about British politics and Brexit, and large parts of it explain the US as well.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Am I the only one amused by the fact that Hillary's campaign is blaming Russians for the hacking of the DNC, but the idea of them hacking her email servers is unpossible!?

Probably not. But you'll be happy to hear that Charlie Rose pressed John Podesta on that very point. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-pod...ocrats-monday/

I don't know enough about the subject to know whether it is possible to hack into a server without leaving any evidence of said hack. I think Director Comey said that it was when he announced that he was recommending no criminal charges be brought against HRC, but I've seen some infosec specialists say otherwise. And the accusations re Russian involvement in the DNC hack are based in part on forensic evidence left on the server.

Anyway.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I don't know enough about the subject to know whether it is possible to hack into a server without leaving any evidence of said hack.

Anyway.

I don't either, but it makes sense that wiping a server so as to make it impossible to recover deleted messages would also likely destroy any evidence a hacker may have left behind of such hacking.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I don't either, but it makes sense that wiping a server so as to make it impossible to recover deleted messages would also likely destroy any evidence a hacker may have left behind of such hacking.

Speaking of irony, are you aware of anyone who was upset about HRC's server who is also upset about the hacking of the DNC's server? In the former case, she might have been hacked; in the latter case, they actually were. And yet it would seem that many people aren't actually outraged about hacking per se. (Who woulda thought it?)

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Some of the reasons everyone hates Cruz aren't related to policy but process. His willingness to shut the government down, for example, despite the disaster shut downs have been for Republicans in the past, and to hold progress on any issue or appointment hostage, and his constant use of trantrums to stall the process to try to get his way.

He has been unique ineffective in all of this - what does he have to show? But it seems to build his popularity nonetheless, at the expense of making it impossible for anyone else to get anything done.

Ted Cruz's biggest problems are that nobody is as smart as him, as principled as him, or in any way is more important than him. He shut the government down because he was right and if the Congress wasn't going to do what he said, he was willing to sacrifice the whole country to get his way.

He'd be worse as President. Imagine 4 years of nothing but vetoes, no matter what party a bill comes from. That's Ted Cruz as President. Imagine Executive Orders to put Muslims in concentration camps a la the Japanese in WWII. That's President Cruz.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Speaking of irony, are you aware of anyone who was upset about HRC's server who is also upset about the hacking of the DNC's server? In the former case, she might have been hacked; in the latter case, they actually were. And yet it would seem that many people aren't actually outraged about hacking per se. (Who woulda thought it?)

I am upset about both and quite concerned about the influence of foreign nations on US elections and affairs (which is also why some Clinton Foundation activities are concerning). Hacking the DNC was a crime. Period. And I have no doubt that there is the same if not worse in the RNC. But if it were the Russians, the chances of prosecuting them are pretty low.

In any case, the DNC didn't harbor state secrets or drone intelligence or names of CIA assets. And they did not have a duty imposed by law to protect their emails. And they won't possess the nuclear codes if Hillary wins. So there's a pretty big difference between the situations as well. Hacking the DNC is for embarrassment and possible future blackmail. We won't know the extent that Hillary's emails may damage the US because so many of them (the ones she deleted when her lawyers only read the subject line and not the content to see if they were responsive, those several missing months that were never turned over, etc.) were never retained or provided to the proper authorities.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Speaking of irony, are you aware of anyone who was upset about HRC's server who is also upset about the hacking of the DNC's server? In the former case, she might have been hacked; in the latter case, they actually were. And yet it would seem that many people aren't actually outraged about hacking per se. (Who woulda thought it?)

The actual hackers were our enemies, and we wee doing what we could to stop. Whereas Hillary might be president; the enemy is us? Help you sort out the difference?

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Speaking of irony, are you aware of anyone who was upset about HRC's server who is also upset about the hacking of the DNC's server?

Uh, yes. And shaddup. Like the hackers provided the content of the emails. Typical Crooked Hillary-fan response - don't believe you're lyin' eyes and g-d damn those Russians. Should have sneaked another million under that "Reset" button.

In the former case, she might have been hacked

Dude.

in the latter case, they actually were. And yet it would seem that many people aren't actually outraged about hacking per se. (Who woulda thought it?)

Bull-fucking-shit. Everyone I know on various points of the "right" thinks hacking is a horrific crime and should be prosecuted as such.

That said...

SlaveNo(Schadenfreude)NoMore

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I don't either, but it makes sense that wiping a server so as to make it impossible to recover deleted messages would also likely destroy any evidence a hacker may have left behind of such hacking.

The FBI also made it very clear that her servers weren't just deleted, they were deliberately "wiped" such that forensic recovery of anything would be nearly impossible.


(AON, whoever came up with this W. Zevon re: line deserves an old skool POTY)

SlaveNo(Trump leads by 5 after Philly)More

[SlaveNoMore]

[Quote]....Pauline Kael...[Quote]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Pauline who?

Is publicly embarrassing yourself like this part of some 12-step program?

We were both really, really drunk last time we got together, but i didn't realize how bad it was.

I'll try to spend more time in small-minded, bigoted, dumbass areas of the country. Thanks for the advice!

Let's see. NYC (check) Brooklyn (check) Lawtalkers (check)

I think you have it sufficiently covered.

SlaveNo(Relax, have a cream soda)More

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore

The FBI also made it very clear that her servers weren't just deleted, they were deliberately "wiped" such that forensic recovery of anything would be nearly impossible.


(AON, whoever came up with this W. Zevon re: line deserves an old skool POTY)

SlaveNo(Trump leads by 5 after Philly)More

Thank you. The shit has, indeed, hit the fan.

BTW, McCain & Romney both had post-RNC leads (smaller for Gov Romney than for Sen McCain). Let's see what happens after the DNC. Big bounce a la Bubba in 1992 or no bounce a la Sen Kerry in 2004? Of course, the only number that matters is 270, so ...