My theory on Trump is that this whole presidency campaign just started off as a bet down the pub with a friend after a few drinks. Which has escalated but is largely still the thing that holds it together and the reason behind it.
Hes of course not really a Republican. He suddenly becomes a Republican over night? No. Obviously not.
It's in a way more of a project. To prove of a point. Out of boredom or whatever.
He doesn't care about being the president.
That's why it's so easy for him to confidently say whatever he likes without holding back. That madness which separates himself from most genuine politicans, strongly appeals to certain groups.
It's bold statements.
The bloke is in his 70s.
He is just taking the piss and it's all an inside joke.
Some kind of psychological experiment between him and someone else that is probably old.
I'm convinced it is something like that too, just one day he decided "fuck it anyone can be president lets give it a crack, i have a shit load of money"
I'm convinced it is something like that too, just one day he decided "fuck it anyone can be president lets give it a crack, i have a shit load of money"
If only it were that funny. Trump said he would be the nominee that would not need to bow down to party donors because he could fund his own run for president. Yet is begging donors for money. He is Americas own Roland Duchatelet claiming back for any money he spends.
I'm convinced it is something like that too, just one day he decided "fuck it anyone can be president lets give it a crack, i have a shit load of money"
Another theory is that this is all about launching 'Trump TV' - it won't appeal to everyone, but the 35% solid Trump support gives him a very strong base. Bleating about the 'bias' of existing media sits nicely with that of course. Murdoch (i.e. Fox News) watching this very carefully I would think.
Not his problem though is it? The Mexicans are going to a) build it and b) pay for it ;-) . A small, small part of me hopes he wins just so I can see that whole scenario unfold where he has to go to Mexico to tell them what's what... Probably the funniest claim I have ever heard someone make politically, although dodging sniper fire in Bosnia to be fair haha.
For me this whole sorry mess of American politics makes me grateful that there isn't *quite* as much of a crazy cult of personality here, where a gameshow host can be running to be the ruler of the free world.
Who knows though, give it a few years and Alan Sugar could be running on a Labour ticket... You heard it here first.
I would love Trump just to shut up the Entertainment luvvies that all seem to back Clinton. Classic example was Tyra banks who basically said they should ignore the latest emails.
I would love Trump just to shut up the Entertainment luvvies that all seem to back Clinton. Classic example was Tyra banks who basically said they should ignore the latest emails.
They will forgive her of anything.
This too, whoever takes the "holier than thou" approach is doomed to fail.
I really think politicians etc need to learn from getting "luvvies" involved, it helped Brexit win, and if Trump wins, it would have helped him too. People do not like being told what to do by people with more money by them who aren't on the electoral ticket. Simple as that.
I would love Trump just to shut up the Entertainment luvvies that all seem to back Clinton. Classic example was Tyra banks who basically said they should ignore the latest emails.
They will forgive her of anything.
This too, whoever takes the "holier than thou" approach is doomed to fail.
I really think politicians etc need to learn from getting "luvvies" involved, it helped Brexit win, and if Trump wins, it would have helped him too. People do not like being told what to do by people with more money by them who aren't on the electoral ticket. Simple as that.
Sometimes silence is golden.
That's really not true in America. I know you put in the qualifier "not on the electoral ticket" but people in America are so obsessed with celebrities that once is currently polling around 42%. We've reached the final stage of just treating this country like a reality TV show by having a reality TV star just run for the highest office in the land.
I would love Trump just to shut up the Entertainment luvvies that all seem to back Clinton. Classic example was Tyra banks who basically said they should ignore the latest emails.
I would love Trump just to shut up the Entertainment luvvies that all seem to back Clinton. Classic example was Tyra banks who basically said they should ignore the latest emails.
They will forgive her of anything.
This too, whoever takes the "holier than thou" approach is doomed to fail.
I really think politicians etc need to learn from getting "luvvies" involved, it helped Brexit win, and if Trump wins, it would have helped him too. People do not like being told what to do by people with more money by them who aren't on the electoral ticket. Simple as that.
Sometimes silence is golden.
That's really not true in America. I know you put in the qualifier "not on the electoral ticket" but people in America are so obsessed with celebrities that once is currently polling around 42%. We've reached the final stage of just treating this country like a reality TV show by having a reality TV star just run for the highest office in the land.
I started my last post by saying that a gameshow host is currently in with a chance of being President!
Experience is everything, I know you live in the USA, so hearing what you have to say is very interesting. Although we share the same language, the US and UK really are not all that close culturally, and you are right to point out differences, so thanks for that. It seems like maybe we have only just fallen out of love with "experts" whereas the US fell out of love with them generations ago, and its all about "entertainment". You've made me more convinced than I have ever been now that Trump really has a genuine chance, I think I might take the day after the election off work to stay up and watch this...
We are much more like the French *spits*, Dutch, and Germans than we are the Americans, if only they all spoke English... ;-)
I would love Trump just to shut up the Entertainment luvvies that all seem to back Clinton. Classic example was Tyra banks who basically said they should ignore the latest emails.
They will forgive her of anything.
This too, whoever takes the "holier than thou" approach is doomed to fail.
I really think politicians etc need to learn from getting "luvvies" involved, it helped Brexit win, and if Trump wins, it would have helped him too. People do not like being told what to do by people with more money by them who aren't on the electoral ticket. Simple as that.
Sometimes silence is golden.
That's really not true in America. I know you put in the qualifier "not on the electoral ticket" but people in America are so obsessed with celebrities that once is currently polling around 42%. We've reached the final stage of just treating this country like a reality TV show by having a reality TV star just run for the highest office in the land.
I started my last post by saying that a gameshow host is currently in with a chance of being President!
Experience is everything, I know you live in the USA, so hearing what you have to say is very interesting. Although we share the same language, the US and UK really are not all that close culturally, and you are right to point out differences, so thanks for that. It seems like maybe we have only just fallen out of love with "experts" whereas the US fell out of love with them generations ago, and its all about "entertainment". You've made me more convinced than I have ever been now that Trump really has a genuine chance, I think I might take the day after the election off work to stay up and watch this...
We are much more like the French *spits*, Dutch, and Germans than we are the Americans, if only they all spoke English... ;-)
Interesting times and all that.
So I should say I don't think Trump will win, and in the end I think it's going to be a pretty lopsided win for Hillary. My point was more that we haven't fallen out of love with celebrities "telling us what to do" in the same way that I think there was that perception with Brexit.
As far as falling out of love with "experts" and that happening some time ago, it's quite an astute observation. It's almost to a point where it's really hard to point to "political experts" that are not either part of the Democratic or Republican machines. That said, there are some exceptions. NPR's political coverage is quite good at "here is what happened today/this week, here is how it could impact the race." And then there is FiveThirtyEight who are slaves to polling numbers, and who have used bad predictions for Brexit and the UK election as guidelines to get better at US elections (though they've always been good at US elections).
It's a weird landscape right now. You have a real distrust of "the media" amongst a lot of the country. Amongst conservatives it's because it's seen as a liberal, elitist, Jew run media. For people like myself (and I won't lie, I fall into the liberal, elitist, Jew camp and started in journalism), it's because it seems that all the media does is report on the horse race. "This is what the Clinton campaign said today, this is what the Trump campaign said today, this is what their surrogates are saying in our studio right now." And they are, to some extent, disconnected from how some Americans live.
Anyway, you can look forward to more of this in the my post-election posts that will be the size of novels .
Let's say something really incriminating is found, better to be found out now than have a President impeached.
FBI were dammed if they did and dammed if they didn't. Personally I wouldnt trust the current DOJ impartiality anyway.
But it won't be found now, it won't be found until well after the election is over, so nothing should have been said. At the moment it far too early for anybody to have any idea what's in the emails, if they even effect Clinton or not (they're not email's she sent, and they don't know if she received any of them yet).
It's a clear case of the FBI director trying to influence the election and he'd better hope that the Republicans keep hold of the senate and congress otherwise he could be facing jail time.
Let's say something really incriminating is found, better to be found out now than have a President impeached.
FBI were dammed if they did and dammed if they didn't. Personally I wouldnt trust the current DOJ impartiality anyway.
But it won't be found now, it won't be found until well after the election is over, so nothing should have been said. At the moment it far too early for anybody to have any idea what's in the emails, if they even effect Clinton or not (they're not email's she sent, and they don't know if she received any of them yet).
It's a clear case of the FBI director trying to influence the election and he'd better hope that the Republicans keep hold of the senate and congress otherwise he could be facing jail time.
To be honest, I think he's driven more by a sense of self-righteousness than anything.
There was also this article which I posted the other day which paints Comey as trying to be responsive, and honor the promises he made, to the Republican congress when saying he would update them should anything in the investigation change. He made that pledge in July when announcing there would be no charges. The problem is, his job is not to update or inform the congress. As the above points out, it is to investigate and either charge or clear people. So he is outside of his purview here.
That said, I do not think this will change the eventual outcome for president, though it could have an impact down the ballot if Clinton doesn't do as well as she would have before this news.
Let's say something really incriminating is found, better to be found out now than have a President impeached.
FBI were dammed if they did and dammed if they didn't. Personally I wouldnt trust the current DOJ impartiality anyway.
But it won't be found now, it won't be found until well after the election is over, so nothing should have been said. At the moment it far too early for anybody to have any idea what's in the emails, if they even effect Clinton or not (they're not email's she sent, and they don't know if she received any of them yet).
It's a clear case of the FBI director trying to influence the election and he'd better hope that the Republicans keep hold of the senate and congress otherwise he could be facing jail time.
It's clear the FBI have tried to influence the election, why else would you put this story out so close? And it's clear all of these women claiming sexual assaults have been stage managed by the Democrats, to the extent where I question if they are truthful at all.
It's clear that Hillary Clinton is a crook, the email scandal proves that she is a danger to the safety and future of the USA. It is clear that Trump has the kind of demeanour that means he can't possibly be the leader of the free world.
It is clear that Hillary has illnesses that means she shouldn't be President, she is frail. It is clear Donald is an absolute loon.
It clearly depends on your political leanings what you choose to give weight to on the above. There's enough crap to stick to both of them, if you have a predisposition to want to vote on way or the other.
Having read what I have written above, I can't believe these 2 are candidates.
We've heard lots about the candidates for president, but how do their running mates compare? I haven't seen much coverage here about them, and I wonder whether they would be moderating influences on the candidates themselves.
Hilary Clinton is a politician, wow, she has done some dodgy stuff.
Donald Trump is not a politician, wow, he has done some dodgy stuff. And also I've heard he really thinks that the US will build a wall across the Mexican border that Mexico will pay for.
I can't believe a person like Gary Johnson has managed to get as much popularity as he has done considering his antics in recent interviews. His latest interview with a Guardian journalist displays a serious lack of composure for someone running in this election when asked a simple question about his tax policy. I can imagine that the "what's Allepo?" question will haunt him for the rest of his political life.
Let's say something really incriminating is found, better to be found out now than have a President impeached.
FBI were dammed if they did and dammed if they didn't. Personally I wouldnt trust the current DOJ impartiality anyway.
But it won't be found now, it won't be found until well after the election is over, so nothing should have been said. At the moment it far too early for anybody to have any idea what's in the emails, if they even effect Clinton or not (they're not email's she sent, and they don't know if she received any of them yet).
It's a clear case of the FBI director trying to influence the election and he'd better hope that the Republicans keep hold of the senate and congress otherwise he could be facing jail time.
It's clear the FBI have tried to influence the election, why else would you put this story out so close? And it's clear all of these women claiming sexual assaults have been stage managed by the Democrats, to the extent where I question if they are truthful at all.
It's clear that Hillary Clinton is a crook, the email scandal proves that she is a danger to the safety and future of the USA. It is clear that Trump has the kind of demeanour that means he can't possibly be the leader of the free world.
It is clear that Hillary has illnesses that means she shouldn't be President, she is frail. It is clear Donald is an absolute loon.
It clearly depends on your political leanings what you choose to give weight to on the above. There's enough crap to stick to both of them, if you have a predisposition to want to vote on way or the other.
Having read what I have written above, I can't believe these 2 are candidates.
There's lots of reasons to call Clinton a crook, but the email scandal isn't really one. It's manufactured by the republicans to a certain extent. Yes she used a private email server, but then again so did all her recent Republican predecessors. It wasn't called a threat to the nation then, so it's highly hypocritical of the republicans to now try and make out that using a private mail server is some massive threat to the country.
But this has been the tactic all alone. 4 US embassy workers died in Benghazi, and it's Killory this and Killory that. 200 US embassy workers died in the 8 years of various Bush appointed foreign secretaries, but nobody mentions that for some reason. The whole Hillary is a killer narrative is driven by the republicans and their favoured media supporters.
For what it's worth Queensland, I'll admit that you've made one or two good points so far;
- The US is quite effective at curtailing the power of its president from what I gather, I think the example about Obama being unable to carry out certain actions has been given already in this thread. Combined with appointing knowledgable people as advisers, I suspect Trump wouldn't be as bad as people are saying.
- There is no way that Hilary should be running for president. Her conduct has been nothing short of criminal, and the contents of the leaks surrounding her have been quite worrying. I suspect much of her success is primarily because she's against someone who is rather controversial.
The problem is though, the first point is essentially saying that anyone could be president - when you undress it, you realise that either you or I could be president with knowledgable advisers and a system to ensure damage limitation. By that basis, Hillary would also be competent and the position of President is rather pointless - with the exception of making a few soundbites after tragedy.. (Something I'm not sure Trump would be good at, but with a decent speechwriter then of course he would... But then we go back to the fact that anyone can do anything with the right support.)
Do you really think the Republican conduct would look any better were certain nations/organisations trying to sabotage their campaign though? I suspect they have just as many skeletons in their closet, and I doubt the contents of their emails would make them look like poster boys for democracy and abiding by the rules.
It's like that old saying: it's only illegal if you get caught. Now for some peculiar reason there seems to be far more digging and intrusions in to the Democratic campaign.. Do you not feel uneasy at all knowing that - recently atleast - Trumps campaign seems to have relied upon a lot of leaked material that has been gained illegally, and potentially with backing from a foreign nation seeking to interfere with a US election.
This is where it gets murky. Someone is purposefully disrupting the Hillary campaign - in the weird notion of "transparency" - but refusing to do so with Trump's campaign.. That's the antithesis of democracy, and one could argue that after all the revelations that Hillary is actually "better the devil you know".
What criminal act are we talking about here? I've discussed at length, as someone who works in cybersecurity, what she's done and why it's not particularly criminal.
There is this notion driven by a large section of people in opposition to her in public positions that she is a criminal. We have more insight into the inner-workings of her campaign and her previous job than any other candidate in the modern era. I don't like her alignment with Wall Street banks, obviously. I think she can be very opportunistic in her public and policy stances (gay marriage, Iraq war). I think she has taken loads of money from loads of donors.
But before you condemn that, partilcularly the latter, I highly recommend looking in to how campaigns are financed in the States. They are financed, to the hundreds of billions of dollars level (presidential races), by private donations. This is true to varying levels of every election process in federal and state governments. It's shit. I want elections to be publicly funded. I've wanted this for 15 years. Not just when people I agree with more win, but always. But it is not criminal. In fact, it is more legal now than it literally ever has been thanks to the ruling of Citizens United handed down by the Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts who said in the decision that corporations have the same rights as people, and thus can contribute as much to elections as possible. The same is true for the "pay for play" aspect of the Clinton Foundation. EVERYONE in Washington DC has charities or campaigns that people can donate to. The defense of this is money buys access, not influence. I think access is bad enough. I hate this in our system. But it is still not criminal.
The FBI was able to recover a large number of the deleted emails and have an extensive investigation found nothing criminal. After a thorough investigation lead by Republicans in Congress into Benghazi they found nothing criminal in their investigation that cost more than what was originally allotted for the 9/11 investigation. There were no charges brought, let alone no criminal conviction.
By the way I write this with love to you LR, because you're always smart, articulate, and well reasoned in your opinions, whether we agree (which is most of the time) or disagree. To be honest the whole "criminal" think is something I gloss over. There's a fair amount I gloss over in this election process because I literally cannot handle all of it, because we've seen so much of the worst of my country in one sitting. So I tend to just be like "oh yeah Hillary Clinton criminal stuff yeah that's a thing." But it's not. And it's part of what I wrote about maybe a week or two ago in terms of "this election has created a false dichotomy." Hillary Clinton is absolutely a "politics as they current are" candidate. But the man she is up against represents a far darker part of American society (and I really hate DC politics, I cannot stress this enough). This is my way of saying there may be a bit of bile in this post that isn't necessarily directed toward you it's just a subject that gets my back up a bit .
Apologies for the delayed reply @SDAddick (and @Leroy Ambrose as I see you picked up on it too), I feel like I lit a touchpaper and conveniently ignored the result. I must say, that my own use of "criminal" was pretty throw-away and there was very little behind it.
With regards to the email server: I'm sure we'll both agree that, if not criminal, then running her own mail server was a bit silly. I'd argue it was negligent at the very least, albeit on behalf of her staff. You can't blame the woman for the aptitude of her tech guys though.
Wasn't the primary issue that it was used to convey diplomatically sensitive (i.e Top Secret) material.. Possibly to those without the correct levels of vetting? Surely if you kept a private email server, as someone with the requisite knowledge, but used it to transfer sensitive work related data, and it subsequently got compromised then you'd find yourself in hot water?
In the UK I expect it would be a breach of the Official Secrets Act, and even in the corporate world you're looking at breaching basic governance standards (i.e ISO27001) and subsequently a very quick dismissal. I'll admit that I may need to go back a few pages and see what you originally said though, as I dip in and out of this thread randomly. So I'll reiterate: if not criminal, then most definitely a sackable offence for most people. I did notice that the FBI are re-examining the case recently though?
However, I do think it's worth pointing out that those who claim to take the most issue with the mail server, and seem to argue that it was a massive security issue, do not seem to think it was a big enough security issue to condemn the leaking of the contents..
Don't worry about any bile though, not that I noticed any! I can imagine this is a thoroughly depressing/frustrating time in the US at the moment. I've even noticed that I've been avoiding Twitter recently as I get wound up by a lot of the drama, accusations, hostility and general bullshit that I see!
Here's where I see the problem with all the 'Hillary is a criminal' frothery. It's all shit, given oxygen by lunatics who, sadly, get the same amount of airtime and respect from people as those actually knowledgeable on the subject. Like SD, I work in cybersecurity - have done for something like ten years after serving my time as a regular IT wonk. What she did is no different, in substance to what Colin Powell did whilst in office. Most people wouldn't know what a 'private email server' even is, let alone the subtleties of difference between running your own, and using a private email address from another provider.
The lack of listening to 'experts' in this day and age is highly worrying. It harkens back to the middle ages, where people of intelligence weren't seen as worthy of listening to and were instead mocked by the masses. Witness the shambles around Wakefield, where the media drummed up a panic over a completely non scientific, thoroughly ridiculed paper, subsequently discovered to be tainted by outside funding. They painted a picture of Wakefield being a lone crusader against the big pharmaceutical companies, when in reality he was nothing more than a charlatan, a shill for other business interests. This led to a drop in herd immunity against easily eradicable illnesses like measles, mumps and German measles - and as a result, those diseases - with real consequences, have made a comeback
People like Michael Gove with his "people have had enough of experts" make me sick. The media in general is atrocious. The US election highlights it like nothing else - but the insidiousness of it is constant.
See my post above, I used the "criminal" word in an attempt at understanding QA's point of view.
As for Colin Powell, he used a personal email address and a secondary phone line IIRC, but was he actually running his own mail server? As you mention, using a private email address is immensely different than installing and configuring your own mail server and taking responsibility for it's maintenance and patching.
I'm purely looking at this from a tech point of view, but I'm fairly certain that your comments about "experts" is a bit unfair: from what I can see, the general consensus in the infosec community is that whoeever was responsible for that machine was negligent. That's personally my own view too.
Comments
Hes of course not really a Republican. He suddenly becomes a Republican over night? No. Obviously not.
It's in a way more of a project. To prove of a point. Out of boredom or whatever.
He doesn't care about being the president.
That's why it's so easy for him to confidently say whatever he likes without holding back.
That madness which separates himself from most genuine politicans, strongly appeals to certain groups.
It's bold statements.
The bloke is in his 70s.
He is just taking the piss and it's all an inside joke.
Some kind of psychological experiment between him and someone else that is probably old.
I'm happy me and the writers think alike.
politico.com/story/2016/10/voter-intimidation-democrats-rnc-230352
Trump seems to get stuff to stick to Clinton, whereas it's so hard to get stuff to stick to him, probably all the fake tan.
I'd written him off a couple of weeks ago, but now, who knows. More of a Chelsea v Sunderland than Chelsea v Charlton.
For me this whole sorry mess of American politics makes me grateful that there isn't *quite* as much of a crazy cult of personality here, where a gameshow host can be running to be the ruler of the free world.
Who knows though, give it a few years and Alan Sugar could be running on a Labour ticket... You heard it here first.
Classic example was Tyra banks who basically said they should ignore the latest emails.
They will forgive her of anything.
I really think politicians etc need to learn from getting "luvvies" involved, it helped Brexit win, and if Trump wins, it would have helped him too. People do not like being told what to do by people with more money by them who aren't on the electoral ticket. Simple as that.
Sometimes silence is golden.
Also, here's a good article outlining the note sent from FBI Director Comey to Congress:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-officials-warned-fbi-that-comeys-decision-to-update-congress-was-not-consistent-with-department-policy/2016/10/29/cb179254-9de7-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html
FBI were dammed if they did and dammed if they didn't. Personally I wouldnt trust the current DOJ impartiality anyway.
Experience is everything, I know you live in the USA, so hearing what you have to say is very interesting. Although we share the same language, the US and UK really are not all that close culturally, and you are right to point out differences, so thanks for that. It seems like maybe we have only just fallen out of love with "experts" whereas the US fell out of love with them generations ago, and its all about "entertainment". You've made me more convinced than I have ever been now that Trump really has a genuine chance, I think I might take the day after the election off work to stay up and watch this...
We are much more like the French *spits*, Dutch, and Germans than we are the Americans, if only they all spoke English... ;-)
Interesting times and all that.
As far as falling out of love with "experts" and that happening some time ago, it's quite an astute observation. It's almost to a point where it's really hard to point to "political experts" that are not either part of the Democratic or Republican machines. That said, there are some exceptions. NPR's political coverage is quite good at "here is what happened today/this week, here is how it could impact the race." And then there is FiveThirtyEight who are slaves to polling numbers, and who have used bad predictions for Brexit and the UK election as guidelines to get better at US elections (though they've always been good at US elections).
It's a weird landscape right now. You have a real distrust of "the media" amongst a lot of the country. Amongst conservatives it's because it's seen as a liberal, elitist, Jew run media. For people like myself (and I won't lie, I fall into the liberal, elitist, Jew camp and started in journalism), it's because it seems that all the media does is report on the horse race. "This is what the Clinton campaign said today, this is what the Trump campaign said today, this is what their surrogates are saying in our studio right now." And they are, to some extent, disconnected from how some Americans live.
Anyway, you can look forward to more of this in the my post-election posts that will be the size of novels
It's a clear case of the FBI director trying to influence the election and he'd better hope that the Republicans keep hold of the senate and congress otherwise he could be facing jail time.
Here is a really good op-ed from a former Reagan and Bush41 DAG:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/comeys-mistaken-quest-for-transparency/2016/10/30/fa3ab440-9ea4-11e6-8832-23a007c77bb4_story.html?utm_term=.30309ba46b75
There was also this article which I posted the other day which paints Comey as trying to be responsive, and honor the promises he made, to the Republican congress when saying he would update them should anything in the investigation change. He made that pledge in July when announcing there would be no charges. The problem is, his job is not to update or inform the congress. As the above points out, it is to investigate and either charge or clear people. So he is outside of his purview here.
That said, I do not think this will change the eventual outcome for president, though it could have an impact down the ballot if Clinton doesn't do as well as she would have before this news.
It's clear that Hillary Clinton is a crook, the email scandal proves that she is a danger to the safety and future of the USA. It is clear that Trump has the kind of demeanour that means he can't possibly be the leader of the free world.
It is clear that Hillary has illnesses that means she shouldn't be President, she is frail. It is clear Donald is an absolute loon.
It clearly depends on your political leanings what you choose to give weight to on the above. There's enough crap to stick to both of them, if you have a predisposition to want to vote on way or the other.
Having read what I have written above, I can't believe these 2 are candidates.
Donald Trump is not a politician, wow, he has done some dodgy stuff. And also I've heard he really thinks that the US will build a wall across the Mexican border that Mexico will pay for.
Well done Mexico.
But this has been the tactic all alone. 4 US embassy workers died in Benghazi, and it's Killory this and Killory that. 200 US embassy workers died in the 8 years of various Bush appointed foreign secretaries, but nobody mentions that for some reason. The whole Hillary is a killer narrative is driven by the republicans and their favoured media supporters.
With regards to the email server: I'm sure we'll both agree that, if not criminal, then running her own mail server was a bit silly. I'd argue it was negligent at the very least, albeit on behalf of her staff. You can't blame the woman for the aptitude of her tech guys though.
Wasn't the primary issue that it was used to convey diplomatically sensitive (i.e Top Secret) material.. Possibly to those without the correct levels of vetting? Surely if you kept a private email server, as someone with the requisite knowledge, but used it to transfer sensitive work related data, and it subsequently got compromised then you'd find yourself in hot water?
In the UK I expect it would be a breach of the Official Secrets Act, and even in the corporate world you're looking at breaching basic governance standards (i.e ISO27001) and subsequently a very quick dismissal. I'll admit that I may need to go back a few pages and see what you originally said though, as I dip in and out of this thread randomly. So I'll reiterate: if not criminal, then most definitely a sackable offence for most people. I did notice that the FBI are re-examining the case recently though?
However, I do think it's worth pointing out that those who claim to take the most issue with the mail server, and seem to argue that it was a massive security issue, do not seem to think it was a big enough security issue to condemn the leaking of the contents..
Don't worry about any bile though, not that I noticed any! I can imagine this is a thoroughly depressing/frustrating time in the US at the moment. I've even noticed that I've been avoiding Twitter recently as I get wound up by a lot of the drama, accusations, hostility and general bullshit that I see!
As for Colin Powell, he used a personal email address and a secondary phone line IIRC, but was he actually running his own mail server? As you mention, using a private email address is immensely different than installing and configuring your own mail server and taking responsibility for it's maintenance and patching.
I'm purely looking at this from a tech point of view, but I'm fairly certain that your comments about "experts" is a bit unfair: from what I can see, the general consensus in the infosec community is that whoeever was responsible for that machine was negligent. That's personally my own view too.
"New ABC poll suggests Trump has a one-point lead nationwide, 46% to 45% for Clinton."