Can someone explain to me.... (regarding Trump)

[*bfine32*]

(11-15-2016, 01:43 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If something is unsecured it isn't necessarily compromised.  Just like if I crossed a large, open danger area during broad daylight, I'm not compromised if the enemy doesn't see me. 

First of all you have no idea if the enemy saw you, but you compromised yourself when you left your hide.
Secondly, use whatever word you want for "to expose (something) to risk or danger". IMO Hillary did that when she transmitted classified data on her private server; apparently you disagree.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-15-2016, 01:43 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If something is unsecured it isn't necessarily compromised.  Just like if I crossed a large, open danger area during broad daylight, I'm not compromised if the enemy doesn't see me. 

Marine Reserves Major Jason Brezler sent 1 classified email over an unsecure network. As far as we know, he wasn't compromised, but he is in the process of being discharged. Is that fair?

Hillary sent classified emails to not only people that did not have the proper clearance, but stored them on her personal server. FBI Says an account on her server was hacked.

Throw in WikiLeaks, apparently someone hacked her server and got some of those emails (according to Hillary, it was the Russians).

(11-15-2016, 01:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yet no mention of Pence fighting to keep his secret.

He's waiting for a subpoena, so he can delete half and have them bleached.
Gotta do it the right way.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-15-2016, 02:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First of all you have no idea if the enemy saw you, but you compromised yourself when you left your hide.  
Secondly, use whatever word you want for "to expose (something) to risk or danger". IMO Hillary did that when she transmitted classified data on her private server; apparently you disagree.

This is one of your more hilarious arguments.

How do you get to a hide?  Magic wand?  Pixie dust?  Barbara Eden's Jeanie?  Scotty beams your ass in there? Sauron's One Ring? Cloak of invisibility?  Somehow you have to move from Point A to Point B which exposes you to risk or danger no matter what movement technique you use.  So by your definition of compromised, I would be compromised with the very first step I took towards my objective.  

If I sent you a coded message and the enemy intercepted it, but couldn't decode the message; the message isn't compromised.  If I sent you an encrypted message and the enemy intercepted it, but couldn't decrypt the message; the message isn't compromised.  By your definition of compromised, any message being sent (whether encrypted, encoded, whatever) is at risk and therefore compromised.  Right now, all the information on every government and military server is at risk of being hacked and therefore compromised.  Every government and military email is at risk of being hacked and therefore compromised.  But, inexplicably, you can't tell me a specific government secret which has been compromised.  It is absolutely hilarious the lengths you will go to defend a position you've already lost no matter how petty the argument.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-15-2016, 02:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Marine Reserves Major Jason Brezler sent 1 classified email over an unsecure network. As far as we know, he wasn't compromised, but he is in the process of being discharged. Is that fair?

Hillary sent classified emails to not only people that did not have the proper clearance, but stored them on her personal server. FBI Says an account on her server was hacked.

Throw in WikiLeaks, apparently someone hacked her server and got some of those emails (according to Hillary, it was the Russians).


He's waiting for a subpoena, so he can delete half and have them bleached.
Gotta do it the right way.

According to bfine, the mere act of sending the email puts it "at risk" and therefore compromised.  If you claim it wasn't compromised, then you explain it to him.

[*bfine32*]

(11-15-2016, 02:41 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: This is one of your more hilarious arguments.

How do you get to a hide?  Magic wand?  Pixie dust?  Barbara Eden's Jeanie?  Scotty beams your ass in there? Sauron's One Ring? Cloak of invisibility?  Somehow you have to move from Point A to Point B which exposes you to risk or danger no matter what movement technique you use.  So by your definition of compromised, I would be compromised with the very first step I took towards my objective.  

If I sent you a coded message and the enemy intercepted it, but couldn't decode the message; the message isn't compromised.  If I sent you an encrypted message and the enemy intercepted it, but couldn't decrypt the message; the message isn't compromised.  By your definition of compromised, any message being sent (whether encrypted, encoded, whatever) is at risk and therefore compromised.  Right now, all the information on every government and military server is at risk of being hacked and therefore compromised.  Every government and military email is at risk of being hacked and therefore compromised.  But, inexplicably, you can't tell me a specific government secret which has been compromised.  It is absolutely hilarious the lengths you will go to defend a position you've already lost no matter how petty the argument.

Okey Doke, I see this is going down an all too familar path. As I said use whatever word you want for "put at risk".

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-15-2016, 03:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Doke, I see this is going down an all too familar path. As I said use whatever word you want for "put at risk".

Okey doke, back to the original question you avoided. Name one government secret which has been compromised. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-15-2016, 03:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Okey doke, back to the original question you avoided. Name one government secret which has been compromised. 

Well admitted I wasn't on the FBI's investigative committee; so I cannot (and if I did know, would not) share a specific with you. I can; however, quote from the findings:

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

So she put 36 Secret and 8 (8 at a minimum) Top Secret messages at risk (compromised). As I said pages ago. this is not disputed. What can be disputed is did anyone hack into these emails.

Oh and apparently the definition of the word Compromise can be disputed.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-15-2016, 11:49 AM)Dill Wrote: Yes, I will cop to that. And I chose the devil that knows what she is doing over the racist who doesn't--the guy who just asked for top secret security clearance for his children.

Colin Powell also used private email as secretary of state and I still have a TON of respect for the guy.

At least Trump is asking for the Security Clearance ahead of time.

Do not bring Powell into this, he clearly stated that yes, he used his personal server for most communications, how ever he did not use it for classified info, he logged into a secure PC and accessed it from there.

[BmorePat87]

Didn't take long for a request as to what policies or decisions are earning Trump the label "racist sexist homophobic bigot" to turn into a debate about Hillary.

Sorry, Weezy.

[*bfine32*]

(11-15-2016, 04:19 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Didn't take long for a request as to what policies or decisions are earning Trump the label "racist sexist homophobic bigot" to turn into a debate about Hillary.

Sorry, Weezy.

Actually it took less time for to slur the citizens that voted for him. I have no idea why a counter to this assertion would require an apology.

Perhaps we could apologize for bringing the common man into the discussion, as I saw no one bring up hillary's actions when the conversation was contained to Trump's actions. It was actually quite a civil discussion.

[GMDino]

(11-15-2016, 07:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: The problem I have with some of these stories is that once the media (all media kids...not just the "lamestream" media) grabs on to a thing it gets the front page.  So these may have always been going on and mostly ignored as background noise or they could be new based on current events.

Still...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/racist-post-michelle-obama-causes-backlash-162317880.html

Hate quoting myself by here's the followup from the "lady" who made the post about "an Ape in heels"

[*wildcats forever*]

(11-15-2016, 05:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: Hate quoting myself by here's the followup from the "lady" who made the post about "an Ape in heels"

Never saw an ape with any kind of shoes on, even in all of the best zoos. But I did see a guy with kinda hairy toes wearing spiked flip-flops once on a Florida golf course. And I always looked forward to never recalling that particular visual .....
Thanks Pam. Made my day. 

[BmorePat87]

(11-15-2016, 04:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually it took less time for to slur the citizens that voted for him. I have no idea why a counter to this assertion would require an apology.

Perhaps we could apologize for bringing the common man into the discussion, as I saw no one bring up hillary's actions when the conversation was contained to Trump's actions. It was actually quite a civil discussion.

Sorry, I forgot that you were contributing really deep stuff like post #4 "We need National Safe Places." prior to Zona not slurring Trump voters. Please, don't let me stop you, the poster who regularly chimes in on threads to complain about people not addressing the OP, from not addressing the OP three pages in.

Carry on. 

[BmorePat87]

Stop letting this guy derail threads. Just ignore his zero substance posts.

[BmorePat87]

(11-15-2016, 12:19 PM)Dill Wrote: I though that was Jews, no wait. You're right. He WANTED Jews counting his money. It's what they are good at, right?

To be fair, this was second hand from a book by a former casino manager of his. I'd focus on the actual things he has said, which are not much better. 

This is basically the crux of Zona's argument. These things are just not a deal breaker for his voters. Some rationalize their votes and others dismiss comments are not racist (sometimes because they believe them to be true). We're not being told "Oh, this 70 year old man who has spent the last 30 years saying awful things and, even weeks ago, was saying awful things about people, will eventually cool off." while watching him pick Stephen Bannon be his right hand man. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-15-2016, 06:37 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Sorry, I forgot that you were contributing really deep stuff like post #4 "We need National Safe Places." prior to Zona not slurring Trump voters. Please, don't let me stop you, the poster who regularly chimes in on threads to complain about people not addressing the OP, from not addressing the OP three pages in.

Carry on. 

It has been explained to you once; however, I did not expect you to look at it with an open mind. The post was a reply to someone using their exact logic; then there became a whole thing about me using the wrong word. 

These things work better when you try harder to mask your bias. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-15-2016, 03:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well admitted I wasn't on the FBI's investigative committee; so I cannot (and if I did know, would not) share a specific with you. I can; however, quote from the findings:

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

So she put 36 Secret and 8 (8 at a minimum) Top Secret messages at risk (compromised). As I said pages ago. this is not disputed. What can be disputed is did anyone hack into these emails.

Oh and apparently the definition of the word Compromise can be disputed.

And none of those messages were marked classified at the time they were sent or received.  If I emailed you unmarked classified information, how would you know?

(11-15-2016, 02:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First of all you have no idea if the enemy saw you, but you compromised yourself when you left your hide.  

Most combat patrols don't even involve a hide, but apparently you believe all those patrols are compromised because they aren't in their hide.  The definition of the word isn't in dispute, it's just that anyone who believes a unit is compromised because they aren't in their hide was promoted at least two pay grades above their ability level.

[*bfine32*]

(11-15-2016, 08:30 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 1) And none of those messages were marked classified at the time they were sent or received.  If I emailed you unmarked classified information, how would you know?


2) Most combat patrols don't even involve a hide, but apparently you believe all those patrols are compromised because they aren't in their hide.  The definition of the word isn't in dispute, it's just that anyone who believes a unit is compromised because they aren't in their hide was promoted at least two pay grades above their ability level.

1) Now we change our stance. I would most likely know classified information from the content or perhaps it had a "c" beside the paragraph. We are trained in cyber-awareness. 

2) This is you first mention of a Combat Patrol and a combat patrol is not compromised if they leave a hide as their mission is to engage in combat. Now a Reconnaissance Patrol that crossing an open area has compromised itself and will take measure to mitigate this situation. 

But enough about my pay grade and the meaning of the word compromise. I do not wish to compromise myself to further scorn and ridicule  from Pat. You're fine though, he will not critique your posting content so please continue with your content that is germane to the subject at hand. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-15-2016, 09:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1) Now we change our stance. I would most likely know classified information from the content or perhaps it had a "c" beside the paragraph. We are trained in cyber-awareness. 

Only three emails contained ( c ) and none of them were the ones which contained the secret or top secret information.  In testamony, the State Department spokesperson said two of the three were inapproriately marked ( c ) (confidential), and didn't comment on the third email because he didn't have any information regarding that email.

I haven't changed my stance at all.  I asked you another question which you failed to answer as usual other than to state you would "most likely know."  I haven't been able to tell my wife classified information, but if I wasn't told the information was classified I wouldn't have known it was classified.

Quote:2) This is you first mention of a Combat Patrol and a combat patrol is not compromised if they leave a hide as their mission is to engage in combat. Now a Reconnaissance Patrol that crossing an open area has compromised itself and will take measure to mitigate this situation. 

Look here . . .

(11-15-2016, 01:43 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If something is unsecured it isn't necessarily compromised.  Just like if I crossed a large, open danger area during broad daylight, I'm not compromised if the enemy doesn't see me. 

Where did I specify it was a recon patrol?  Even recon patrols have to cross danger areas.  Including large danger areas depending upon MTETT.

 

Quote:But enough about my pay grade and the meaning of the word compromise. I do not wish to compromise myself to further scorn and ridicule  from Pat. You're fine though, he will not critique your posting content so please continue with your content that is germane to the subject at hand. 

[Fan_in_Kettering]

The American people staged an intervention on November 8, 2016. You don't need a graduate degree in political science to see the federal government was completely out of control, drunk on power, and handing Hillary Clinton and the big spenders on the left the key to the hotel minibar was about to make the situation worse in a hurry.

Every four years for the last hundred years the politicians merely rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic. "Okay, this time I'll be president, you can be Secretary of State, and next time I'll let you be the president." The same people with the same ideology took different positions and the ship still headed toward the iceberg. No one thought to change course to avoid impending disaster...

...until 2016. It took an outsider, Donald Trump, in a tugboat to nudge the Titanic into an alternate course to avoid the iceberg. The first nudge on election day was gentle but as his administration gets to work, there will be ripping of bandages from festering wounds but the end result will be healing.