[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on 2016-December-19, 16:21, said:

I did vote for her. I do not feel the least insulted by what Bill said. I agree with what he said, although maybe not so much with your re-phrasing of what he said. As to HC being stupid, neither Bill nor I have said that. I do believe, and I said long ago, she handled the email matter very badly. And handled it badly from the very beginning. HC was a major party candidate for president. Huma Abedin was a top aide. Why, why, why on God's Green Earth would HA have been putting any HC emails about anything on AW's computer? Forget sexting. Imagine AW a perfect husband. Still! Could they not afford a computer for HA to store HC emails on? There was something about printing. HA's computer could not be configured to allow printing directly from her computer? If HA was to handle, or forward, or print, or whatever, email from HC, then HA needed a secure computer of her own, one set up to do whatever it is they wanted to do. The whole operation sounded like you might expect from the local PTA (no insult to PTAs intended here). Becky does stuff for a local book club. She uses her computer, not mine. Admittedly she does not have NSA level security apparatus on it. But it's for the book club. Let the Russkies hack it if they want to. I did not say "stupid", but I think she lacked good judgment. And really, I think that is a good part of what hurt her. People look at something like that and think "If she can't handle this problem effectively, should she be president?"

I repeat: The Dems need to start looking for their own mistakes.Or they couold just hire me to explain it all to them

I gather that Hil was snubbed by more "faithless" electors than Trump. Perhaps they too have that answer?

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-December-19, 16:21, said:

I did vote for her. I do not feel the least insulted by what Bill said. I agree with what he said, although maybe not so much with your re-phrasing of what he said. As to HC being stupid, neither Bill nor I have said that. I do believe, and I said long ago, she handled the email matter very badly. And handled it badly from the very beginning. HC was a major party candidate for president. Huma Abedin was a top aide. Why, why, why on God's Green Earth would HA have been putting any HC emails about anything on AW's computer? Forget sexting. Imagine AW a perfect husband. Still! Could they not afford a computer for HA to store HC emails on? There was something about printing. HA's computer could not be configured to allow printing directly from her computer? If HA was to handle, or forward, or print, or whatever, email from HC, then HA needed a secure computer of her own, one set up to do whatever it is they wanted to do. The whole operation sounded like you might expect from the local PTA (no insult to PTAs intended here). Becky does stuff for a local book club. She uses her computer, not mine. Admittedly she does not have NSA level security apparatus on it. But it's for the book club. Let the Russkies hack it if they want to. I did not say "stupid", but I think she lacked good judgment. And really, I think that is a good part of what hurt her. People look at something like that and think "If she can't handle this problem effectively, should she be president?"

I repeat: The Dems need to start looking for their own mistakes.Or they couold just hire me to explain it all to them

Why do we continue to look at Hillary and expect perfection? Compared to Donald Trump, the e-mail matter should not even register on the Richter Scale.

I'm not saying she was without fault or that she was even my first choice - all I'm saying is that it is ludicrous to continue to think that anything she could have done with her e-mail could not possibly have risen to the point where she was a poorer choice than Trump and to continue to think there is something there that would justify the vote for Trump is juvenile-like wishful thinking.

[jogs]

Why Trump won. My point of view.

WISC, MICH, OHIO and PENN.

Everyone expected Hillary to win these four states. Trump campaigned hard in these states. Trump criss-crossed back and forth many times in these states. Hillary ignored them. HRC was too busy fund raising in California and New York. She told layed off workers they will be retrained. High school grads over the age of fifty who lose their jobs can not and will not find jobs which pay as well as jobs they lost.

During the industrial age between 1945-85 those with a high school education did financially well. As the world transitioned into the info tech age this group has been left behind. The world strunk. Their jobs were outsourced to 3rd world countries which had less expensive workers. These blue collar workers include people who are white, black and Hispanic. Of course, posters on this board are all college grads and aren't left behind.
The democratic party took for granted the votes of blue collar workers from blue states. The republican party gave up trying for their votes. During the final two weeks up to the election the betting polls had Hillary favored by 68 to 75%. The political polls had her as high as 97%.
Trump campaigned and asked for blue collar workers to vote for him. Trump promised to save their jobs. Hillary promised to retrain them. Of course, Trump wont be able to save all the good paying jobs. He will be able to slow down the outsourcing. The democratic party colored this racist. So why would any high school grad vote for a party which obviously isn't interested in protecting their interest?

[Winstonm]

jogs, on 2016-December-19, 18:33, said:

Why Trump won. My point of view.

WISC, MICH, OHIO and PENN.

Everyone expected Hillary to win these four states. Trump campaigned hard in these states. Trump criss-crossed back and forth many times in these states. Hillary ignored them. HRC was too busy fund raising in California and New York. She told layed off workers they will be retrained. High school grads over the age of fifty who lose their jobs can not and will not find jobs which pay as well as jobs they lost.

During the industrial age between 1945-85 those with a high school education did financially well. As the world transitioned into the info tech age this group has been left behind. The world strunk. Their jobs were outsourced to 3rd world countries which had less expensive workers. These blue collar workers include people who are white, black and Hispanic. Of course, posters on this board are all college grads and aren't left behind.
The democratic party took for granted the votes of blue collar workers from blue states. The republican party gave up trying for their votes. During the final two weeks up to the election the betting polls had Hillary favored by 68 to 75%. The political polls had her as high as 97%.
Trump campaigned and asked for blue collar workers to vote for him. Trump promised to save their jobs. Hillary promised to retrain them. Of course, Trump wont be able to save all the good paying jobs. He will be able to slow down the outsourcing. The democratic party colored this racist. So why would any high school grad vote for a party which obviously isn't interested in protecting their interest?

Quote

So why would any high school grad vote for a party which obviously isn't interested in protecting their interest?

Because re-training is the only hope for those folks.

Trump cannot deliver on a promise of restoring the past to the present. The biggest mistake made by Clinton was made by Bill when he neglected the effects of globalization on the Midwestern Democratic base - the retraining should have been part of NAFTA and been done years and years ago.

Now, we have to speak as adults with adult problems to solve - problems that cannot be solved quickly or easily - and this does not sit well with mid-westerners who still believe that there is a sky fairy who provides miracles.

That was Hillary's mistake. She talked to people as if they were adults. Trump talked to people as if they were idiots and they responded.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2016-December-19, 17:18, said:

Why do we continue to look at Hillary and expect perfection? Compared to Donald Trump, the e-mail matter should not even register on the Richter Scale.

I'm not saying she was without fault or that she was even my first choice - all I'm saying is that it is ludicrous to continue to think that anything she could have done with her e-mail could not possibly have risen to the point where she was a poorer choice than Trump and to continue to think there is something there that would justify the vote for Trump is juvenile-like wishful thinking.

I said I voted for her. Of course she is not perfect. Nor am I, nor anyone.

Bill's point was simple. She deleted and scrubbed because she did not want people reading what she, and others, had written.He did not mention Benghazi.
My point was simple.Her ineffective handling of the email problems cost her votes. Principally because it was so ineffective. Saying she was not perfect would be an understatement.

So Bill is being insulting and I am being juvenile. I am recommending a serious consideration of the possibility that Bill and I are correct. I am not claiming it to be the full story, but I do think these are pretty obvious truths, and acknowledging them is a good start.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-December-19, 19:30, said:

I said I voted for her. Of course she is not perfect. Nor am I, nor anyone.

Bill's point was simple. She deleted and scrubbed because she did not want people reading what she, and others, had written.He did not mention Benghazi.
My point was simple.Her ineffective handling of the email problems cost her votes. Principally because it was so ineffective. Saying she was not perfect would be an understatement.

So Bill is being insulting and I am being juvenile. I am recommending a serious consideration of the possibility that Bill and I are correct. I am not claiming it to be the full story, but I do think these are pretty obvious truths, and acknowledging them is a good start.

I apologize if I came across as insulting as that was not my intention. Let me ask another way. Have you ever been accused of something you did not do?

A quick story. In my freshman year in college, I was at a church college and was not fitting in well at all. Near the end of the first semester, I had gone home for the weekend and when I returned to the dormitory there had been a fire. One fine Xtian lad looked me in the eye and said, "I know it was you. I know you did it."

How do you combat that? When there is no answer good enough to overcome the bias, how do you fight back?

I tell this because I think Hillary found herself in that kind of situation - not just last year but over years and years, dating back to Bill Clinton's run for the Presidency. I remember when I lived in Las Vegas going to listen to this guy named Larry Nichols who supposedly worked for the Clintons in Arkansas and he offered up all sorts of ghastly stories of Clinton conspiracies that would have required Bill to be 1/2 Superman and 1/2 Vito Corleone.

So, more to the point - what would you have had her do? Because she was Secretary of State she cannot have any personal secrets? If she doesn't want Fox News to twist every word into a conspiracy she should not eliminate personal e-mails?

Hillary is flawed. I understand. But this whole sub-thread started with Kaitlyn writing that Hillary must have been hiding something awful, Bill commented on MikeH's response, and I commented on Bill's take.

I personally think that anyone who seriously believes Hillary tried to hide something "bad" in her e-mails is being fed pablum by the anti-Hillary crowd's propaganda and fake news and has been influenced enough by it to believe her capable of such deceit.

If she had called Donald Trump a pig in an e-mail I wouldn't care but I would understand her wanting to be rid of it and not letting Fox get ahold of it; however, if she had a personal server connected to Moscow, I would care very much.

I'm all for finding the faults of the Democrats - continuing to support anti-Hillary propaganda does not lead to that end.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2016-December-19, 19:02, said:

That was Hillary's mistake. She talked to people as if they were adults. Trump talked to people as if they were idiots and they responded.

And what if it was the other way around?

Apparently one man's grim reality is another's flight of fancy.

[kenberg]

I will have to be brief, I am heavily involved in another problem right now. With regard to Hillary, or any high official: But I have a strong preference for not recording every utterance. Not of me, not of anyone. We should be allowed to say things in a badly phrased way, we should be allowed to say things that we later think are not right at all. So I strongly sympathize with her desire to control her email. From the beginning I have felt it certain that this was her intent. Unfortunately, everything gets logged these days.

But my point was that once there was a credible legal demand that she turn stuff over, the sensible response would have been, and I guess I am repeating myself, to make damn sure that this is done so completely and with such clarity that she could with confidence assert: You have everything. The stuff showing up on the Wiener computer should not have happened because a. it never should have been there in the first place and b. it should have been turned over. When it did happen, her aide should have been summoned and told "What was there about give them everything that you did not understand?". If the aide persisted in this idea that she had no idea how it got there, she should have been fired on the spot. minor problems become major problems because someone is not doing his/her job. At the top level this is not supposed to happen. It really looked like sloppy management. Sloppy was the part that struck me, and I suspect I am not the only one.

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on 2016-December-19, 21:37, said:

I will have to be brief, I am heavily involved in another problem right now. With regard to Hillary, or any high official: But I have a strong preference for not recording every utterance. Not of me, not of anyone. We should be allowed to say things in a badly phrased way, we should be allowed to say things that we later think are not right at all. So I strongly sympathize with her desire to control her email. From the beginning I have felt it certain that this was her intent. Unfortunately, everything gets logged these days.

But my point was that once there was a credible legal demand that she turn stuff over, the sensible response would have been, and I guess I am repeating myself, to make damn sure that this is done so completely and with such clarity that she could with confidence assert: You have everything. The stuff showing up on the Wiener computer should not have happened because a. it never should have been there in the first place and b. it should have been turned over. When it did happen, her aide should have been summoned and told "What was there about give them everything that you did not understand?". If the aide persisted in this idea that she had no idea how it got there, she should have been fired on the spot. minor problems become major problems because someone is not doing his/her job. At the top level this is not supposed to happen. It really looked like sloppy management. Sloppy was the part that struck me, and I suspect I am not the only one.

I suspect that the Comey business was a maneuver on his part, playing both ends against the middle. Saving face with his FBI cohorts and if Hil wins, he did nothing "wrong" while should Trump win by some fluke, he would be off the hook with the new President.... win-win for him. Cynicism when applicable can be very accurate.

[mikeh]

kenberg, on 2016-December-19, 21:37, said:

I will have to be brief, I am heavily involved in another problem right now. With regard to Hillary, or any high official: But I have a strong preference for not recording every utterance. Not of me, not of anyone. We should be allowed to say things in a badly phrased way, we should be allowed to say things that we later think are not right at all. So I strongly sympathize with her desire to control her email. From the beginning I have felt it certain that this was her intent. Unfortunately, everything gets logged these days.

But my point was that once there was a credible legal demand that she turn stuff over, the sensible response would have been, and I guess I am repeating myself, to make damn sure that this is done so completely and with such clarity that she could with confidence assert: You have everything. The stuff showing up on the Wiener computer should not have happened because a. it never should have been there in the first place and b. it should have been turned over. When it did happen, her aide should have been summoned and told "What was there about give them everything that you did not understand?". If the aide persisted in this idea that she had no idea how it got there, she should have been fired on the spot. minor problems become major problems because someone is not doing his/her job. At the top level this is not supposed to happen. It really looked like sloppy management. Sloppy was the part that struck me, and I suspect I am not the only one.

She turned over everything that the subpoena required. Lost in all the noise and the chants of Lock Her Up is this basic fact. The subpoena, as I understand it, was for all government business related emails. Now, it is possible to suspect, with no evidentiary basis other than all the hate and lies thrown at her over other matters, that she deleted government emails, but the FBI had NO suspicion that such happened, at least not based on anything they said. Given that Comey was either incredibly naïve (and who the heck makes to FBI Director and is naïve?) or trying to hurt Clinton, I think it pretty reasonable to infer that the FBI knew damn well that there were no suspiciously deleted emails.

As for Weiner: wtf? There has been zero....zero....suggestion that there were ANY emails on his computer, from or to Clinton, that hadn't been disclosed or that should have been disclosed.

It just shows how devastating the FBI announcements were when one of the more level-headed posters on this site thinks that she had any control over what Weiner had, or that Weiner had anything that hadn't been disclosed or that she disobeyed a subpoena. It was a travesty: a triumph of the Big Lie by Trump and his surrogates, aided by the republican Director of the FBI

[mikeh]

billw55, on 2016-December-19, 15:20, said:

I do not claim that the content she (may have) desired to keep hidden had anything to do with Benghazi. Or with any other specific topic, publicly known or not. I only say that the logical reason for mass deletion is to conceal something - perhaps things that are innocuous but personal.

At times I have had thousands of emails piled up in the deleted items folder at my job. It never once occurred to me to go in and delete them all in mass and wipe the space. This is something that is done for a reason. I don't claim to know HRC's reason, or to know that it was malicious. But I do think there is a reason.

A staffer directed another staffer, several months before the subpoena, to delete a bunch of personal emails on a server that was, unwisely, being used for government business and personal business. The second staffer dropped the ball and didn't get around to it until after the subpoena, which was aimed at government emails, not personal ones. So either the former Secretary of State, a lawyer fully attuned to politics in Washington, committed a felony or this explanation is correct. So Hilary didn't even direct the deletion: a staffer did.

For a number of years I have been very reluctant to delete emails from my work account. I do delete some, but at last count I had over 15,000 emails in my inbox and about 8,000 in my set box. I doubt that I get more than a tiny fraction of the emails someone like Clinton gets, and I very much doubt that she had the time or the inclination to go back over her emails and scrub incriminating ones. Do you have any idea how long that would take?

Btw, once I delete emails, I will do a mass emptying of the deleted box and, frankly, don't understand why one would not. I don't put emails into the deleted box unless I want to delete them.

[Al_U_Card]

mikeh, on 2016-December-19, 23:39, said:

Btw, once I delete emails, I will do a mass emptying of the deleted box and, frankly, don't understand why one would not. I don't put emails into the deleted box unless I want to delete them.

Deleting just means that the "marker" for the file is removed. The data remains on the hard drive until it is over-written because that marker was keeping the data from being over-written.
Do you then "bleach" that space on your hard-drive so that recuperation of that deleted material, by any means, is impossible? If so, why?

[kenberg]

mikeh, on 2016-December-19, 23:29, said:

As for Weiner: wtf? There has been zero....zero....suggestion that there were ANY emails on his computer, from or to Clinton, that hadn't been disclosed or that should have been disclosed.

This glides past my point. I am not at alll arguing that HC should be jailed. I am not sure I should take the space to restate it but here it is:

When the trouble came up, her best approach, as a candidate, would have been to decide, announce and insist that this entire issue was to be fully dealt with immediately in the most open and cooperative way possible. This should have been done in a way that it would have been impossible for any emails of hers to arise as a issue later in the campaign. As a candidate, rather than as a lawyer, she wants the issued dead, totally dead. No resurrection. So that is what she should have done when the problem arose. Much earlier, she, or HA, needed to organize the office much better. Right now I am searching for a file on my computer that in some unexplained way seems to have disappeared. I can't explain where it went. And, for a while, after a hard drive crashed I was doing some work on Becky's, but the timing is wrong for that to be the explanation. But except that it will take a little work for me, nobody cares. The idea that the Secretary of State, or a Senator, or a presidential candidate, sets up her email files so that an aide stores them on her husband's computer is just weird.

So wtf may apply, but not as you intend. My reaction was "Hillary's emails were stored by HA on AW's computer and then she forgot? WTF? Is this any way for a major figure to run an office?"

I know you are a lawyer, I am a mathematician. Sometimes people say to me "You don't seem like a mathematician." They mean it as a complement and, really, I take it as such. Much of the defense of Hillary's email problem sounds like a legal defense. A legal defense is fine if a person is in court. If mathematics is needed, hire me. If a legal defense is required, hire you. If you are running for president, a different approach is needed.

While I am on this last point, I realized that part of my dislike of DT is that he sounds like a real estate person. Just as I mean no offense to lawyers or mathematicians, I mean no offense to real estate people. But a few years back we were helping someone with a house purchase. We went to see a house where the ad said wall to wall carpeting. The only carpeting was on the stairs. Bill Clinton might say "It depends on what the meaning of 'wall' is". A lawyer might say "Well, there is a wall at the side of the stairs and a wall at the top of the stairs, so this is wall to wall carpeting". The real estate guy's answer when I pointed this out was, essentially, "So? What's your point?" I am working on a mathematician's answer. I think "Oops, sorry, I will see to it that the ad is fixed" would be nice.

[Al_U_Card]

A quick refresher on the e-mail deletion, from the excellent analysis by Steve M.


The preservation order included a provision that ought to have turned off the 60 day policy that Mills had ordered as well as further deletions. The Benghazi Committee issued a subpoena the following day for documents pertaining to Benghazi.
Williams and Connolley do not appear to have notified Platte River of the preservation order until March 9, nearly a week later, when, according to the FBI report, Mills sent Platte River an email to which a notice from Kendall was attached. The language of Kendall’s notice was not disclosed in the FBI documents and it is therefore not possible to determine whether the notice exactly tracked the requirements of the order from the Committee.
Prior to notifying Platte River of the preservation order on March 9, Mills had already initiated contact with Platte River by email and telephone, including an attempt to inventory pst files on the PRN server, Pagliano Server and various backups on or about March 5. The FBI 302s document multiple different pst files related to the Hillary archive, all of which appear to have been extant at the time of Mills’ contact with Platte River on or about March 5, including the following files mentioned in the FBI 302s: “HRC archive – complete.pst”; “hrcarchive@clintonemail.com – HRC archive.ost”; “export.pst”; “HRC.gov.email.Archive.pst”; “HRC.gov.emails.pst” and “HRC gov emails.pst”. Doubtless, there were others. Pst files then existed on both the server and backup. The FBI 302s also noted the existence of a pst file for Huma’s yahoo and gmail accounts (“huma-gmail-yahoo.pst”), but did not discuss the pst file for Huma’s clintonemail account.
On March 5, there were three emails to Platte River about the Clinton server. The sender of the emails is not identified in the FBI 302s, but it seems likely that Mills was involved in one or more of the March 5 emails.
Platte River work tickets revealed that PRN employees traveled to the Equinix facility in New Jersey on March 7-8 to examine the predecessor server and backup then in storage at Equinix (Pagliano Server), following which they “confirmed” to Mills that there were no pst files remaining on the server. This server was later turned over by Kendall to the FBI on August 12, 2015.
On March 9, Mills sent an email to Platte River and employees, including Combetta, in which preservation instructions from Kendall were attached. In his February 2016 interview, Combetta denied knowledge of the preservation order, but in a subsequent interview in May 2016, Combetta admitted knowledge of the preservation request, saying that he interpreted it “as meaning he should not disturb CLINTON’s email data on the PRN server”.
Platte River work tickets show that Combetta did further work for Mills on March 10 and 12. Combetta’s implausible explanation to the FBI was that “MILLS did not have an account on the Server and he could not recall what work he might have done for MILLS” and that “MILLS occasionally contacted [Combetta] with problems related to her personal email account, so the work tickets may have been of that nature”.
On March 19, the Benghazi Committee formally requested that the Clinton server be turned over to an independent third party for examination of the supposedly “non-work-related” emails.
On March 25, Mills and/or Kendall sent two emails to Platte River and had a conference call with Platte River. According to the 302 for Combetta’s February 2016 interview, one of the March 25 emails referred to “backups”, a reference which Combetta purported not to recall. This reference was omitted from the FBI report itself. The FBI 302 went on to state that Combetta was advised by his attorney not to “answer any questions related to conversations with KENDALL based on [his] protections under the Fifth Amendment”. In his May 2016 interview (after receiving an immunity agreement), Combetta stated that “he could not recall the content of the call or the reference to backups in the email”. In the FBI Report itself, Combetta’s refusal to answer questions on his discussions with Mills and Kendall was incorrectly described as a refusal based on assertion of attorney-client privilege, but the interview notes attributed the refusal in the February interview to invocation of the 5th Amendment and lack of recollection in the May interview.
Platte River server logs show that on March 25 (presumably subsequent to the conference call with Mills and Kendall), the Platte Admin account was used to modify multiple mailboxes associated with Hillary’s emails (H, HDR29, and HRC Archive), with the HRC Archive mailbox being completely removed from the Exchange server. The changes on March 25 were described in the 302 as follows:
[Combetta] believed he had an ‘oh ***** moment and removed the HRC Archive mailbox. He also changed the mailbox retention policy from 30 days to 1 day, and cleaned the mailbox database because MILLS previously requested in late 2014 or early 2015 he change the retention policy for CLINTON and ABEDIN’s existing and ongoing email to 60 days. He removed the HRC Archive mailbox manually because all content in the mailbox was older than 60 days. [Combetta] changed the deleted items retention policy from 30 days to 1 day to ensure no email outside of the 60 days remained on the server and executed the Clean-MailboxDatabase command to clean whitespace within the database, similar to running a disk defragmentation. [Combetta] also enabled Circular Logging, but did not recall why he did so in this instance. He typically enabled it when importing email because Microsoft Exchange logs contain email that hasn’t been committed to a database. Circular Logging reduces the log file size by forcing Exchange to commit data to the database immediately,
Two days later (March 27), Kendall sent a letter to the Benghazi Committee, in which he made the surprising announcement that none of Hillary’s emails from her tenure at State Department remained on either the server or backup (thereby rendering moot their request for examination of the server):

[billw55]

mikeh, on 2016-December-19, 23:39, said:

A staffer directed another staffer, several months before the subpoena, to delete a bunch of personal emails on a server that was, unwisely, being used for government business and personal business. The second staffer dropped the ball and didn't get around to it until after the subpoena, which was aimed at government emails, not personal ones. So either the former Secretary of State, a lawyer fully attuned to politics in Washington, committed a felony or this explanation is correct. So Hilary didn't even direct the deletion: a staffer did.

For a number of years I have been very reluctant to delete emails from my work account. I do delete some, but at last count I had over 15,000 emails in my inbox and about 8,000 in my set box. I doubt that I get more than a tiny fraction of the emails someone like Clinton gets, and I very much doubt that she had the time or the inclination to go back over her emails and scrub incriminating ones. Do you have any idea how long that would take?

Btw, once I delete emails, I will do a mass emptying of the deleted box and, frankly, don't understand why one would not. I don't put emails into the deleted box unless I want to delete them.

Yes, this explanation is plausible.

More recently, our IT department set retention periods on email folders. Deleted is two months, so I no longer accumulate large numbers. Sent items are one year, currently mine says 4004.

The other thing that occurs to me is that deleting emails and scrubbing the server might not work very well. Every single email will also exist elsewhere, in somebody's sent folder, etc. Surely the FBI must have looked for the "missing" emails in this manner. I wonder what they found.

[jogs]

Winstonm, on 2016-December-19, 19:02, said:

Because re-training is the only hope for those folks.

Would you hire a retrained 50+ senior rather than a younger employee? I think not.

Quote

Trump cannot deliver on a promise of restoring the past to the present.

Trump is attempting to slow the process down. Trump can't save all the jobs. HRC isn't interested in saving any of the jobs.


Still HRC would have won if she had campaigned in the swing states. Trump showed those states he cared. HRC didn't care. She thought she was entitled to their votes.

[Al_U_Card]

jogs, on 2016-December-20, 08:59, said:

Would you hire a retrained 50+ senior rather than a younger employee? I think not.


Trump is attempting to slow the process down. Trump can't save all the jobs. HRC isn't interested in saving any of the jobs.


Still HRC would have won if she had campaigned in the swing states. Trump showed those states he cared. HRC didn't care. She thought she was entitled to their votes.

Obama was elected promising "hope and change". Little did we suspect that it was that he hoped we would accept what he wanted to change (by appointment and executive order).
Will Trump "make America great again"? According to precedent, it depends on what the word "great" means....and to whom. If previous greatness refers to individual prosperity with no loss of individual freedoms, that would be a step back in the right direction.

[hrothgar]

jogs, on 2016-December-20, 08:59, said:

Trump is attempting to slow the process down. Trump can't save all the jobs. HRC isn't interested in saving any of the jobs.

Here's an alternative view

Trump lies a LOT. He lies when he says he cares. He lies when he says that he has a plan to fix anything. He lies when he says that the jobs are coming back.
Moreover, there are a whole bunch of folks stupid enough to believe these lies...

For better or worse (it looks like for worse) Clinton didn't pander to rural whites.

Quote

Still HRC would have won if she had campaigned in the swing states. Trump showed those states he cared. HRC didn't care. She thought she was entitled to their votes.

I don't think that the issue is that Clinton didn't care.
She took some things for granted that she shouldn't have.
All in all, she didn't run as strong a campaign as I would have hoped and expected.

[Winstonm]

jogs, on 2016-December-20, 08:59, said:

Would you hire a retrained 50+ senior rather than a younger employee? I think not.


Trump is attempting to slow the process down. Trump can't save all the jobs. HRC isn't interested in saving any of the jobs.


Still HRC would have won if she had campaigned in the swing states. Trump showed those states he cared. HRC didn't care. She thought she was entitled to their votes.

I went back to school at age 51 and retrained for a new career. I trained in that career not because it was a first choice but because that is where the jobs were. I had no problem obtaining work beginning at age 52.

Trump's claims are outlandish propaganda meant to impress - he is only interested in promoting himself and the Trump brand. To believe him capable of caring about others is to lack knowledge of narcissists.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-December-20, 07:12, said:

This glides past my point. I am not at alll arguing that HC should be jailed. I am not sure I should take the space to restate it but here it is:

When the trouble came up, her best approach, as a candidate, would have been to decide, announce and insist that this entire issue was to be fully dealt with immediately in the most open and cooperative way possible. This should have been done in a way that it would have been impossible for any emails of hers to arise as a issue later in the campaign. As a candidate, rather than as a lawyer, she wants the issued dead, totally dead. No resurrection. So that is what she should have done when the problem arose. Much earlier, she, or HA, needed to organize the office much better. Right now I am searching for a file on my computer that in some unexplained way seems to have disappeared. I can't explain where it went. And, for a while, after a hard drive crashed I was doing some work on Becky's, but the timing is wrong for that to be the explanation. But except that it will take a little work for me, nobody cares. The idea that the Secretary of State, or a Senator, or a presidential candidate, sets up her email files so that an aide stores them on her husband's computer is just weird.

So wtf may apply, but not as you intend. My reaction was "Hillary's emails were stored by HA on AW's computer and then she forgot? WTF? Is this any way for a major figure to run an office?"

I know you are a lawyer, I am a mathematician. Sometimes people say to me "You don't seem like a mathematician." They mean it as a complement and, really, I take it as such. Much of the defense of Hillary's email problem sounds like a legal defense. A legal defense is fine if a person is in court. If mathematics is needed, hire me. If a legal defense is required, hire you. If you are running for president, a different approach is needed.

While I am on this last point, I realized that part of my dislike of DT is that he sounds like a real estate person. Just as I mean no offense to lawyers or mathematicians, I mean no offense to real estate people. But a few years back we were helping someone with a house purchase. We went to see a house where the ad said wall to wall carpeting. The only carpeting was on the stairs. Bill Clinton might say "It depends on what the meaning of 'wall' is". A lawyer might say "Well, there is a wall at the side of the stairs and a wall at the top of the stairs, so this is wall to wall carpeting". The real estate guy's answer when I pointed this out was, essentially, "So? What's your point?" I am working on a mathematician's answer. I think "Oops, sorry, I will see to it that the ad is fixed" would be nice.

I read up on this "Weiner" question last night and according to U.S. News and World Report Ms. Weiner printed documents for Hillary from the home computer because it was much faster than the office setup, and Hillary preferred hard copies to reading computer screens. The computer used was a shared home laptop. The only things the F.B.I. "found" were copies/forwards of e-mails that Hillary sent from her office for printing.

So, those e-mails were not purposefully "stored" on the Weiner computer.