You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 08:50:43 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: So... Mitt Romney  (Read 15473 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #50 on: September 06, 2012, 02:55:00 PM »
They're denying that there was a break-in, but I'm not sure anyone realizes that there does not need to be a physical break-in for the information to have been stolen. If the information is stored on computers that have internet access, then they are vulnerable.

Furthermore, just from the teensy tiny bit of stuff I've learned so far in the course of obtaining my computer forensics certification alongside my M.S., I can think of about four ways off the top of my head for those files to have been stolen even if they weren't connected to the 'net. And none of them requires physically breaking in.

That's not even including the 'stupid' employee factor.. like taking home records.. or keeping a 'cloud drive' of client files so that work can be done anywhere.

Of course.. given enough time.. and knowledge of what encryption is used.. someone could brute force the encrypted files to see what is in them.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #51 on: September 06, 2012, 02:57:59 PM »
Depends on the encryption - some are, in fact, pretty unbreakable. You'll break the person responsible before you break the encryption.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #52 on: September 06, 2012, 03:02:56 PM »
Depends on the encryption - some are, in fact, pretty unbreakable. You'll break the person responsible before you break the encryption.

It comes down to this.. is is a commerical off the rack encryption used by the accountants.. or a encryption used by the hackers.

you're right though.. wrong encryption..and it will stay locked till quantum computing hits the market..

Offline AndyZ

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #53 on: September 06, 2012, 03:58:23 PM »
To clarify, not everyone considers it a choice of the lesser of two evils.  I realize some people are quite happy with one or the other.  Most of us, though, aren't.

He did a couple of interviews later on (one was on The View, don't remember the other) where he admitted that he was not as convinced as he had been, and that he was conflicted as to whose freedoms were impacted more, the child's or the mother's.  I really liked that.  He really does just care about preserving as many freedoms as possible.

And I am unsure whether or not I will vote for Romney.  I am considering Gary Johnson, who I know has no chance, but maybe seeing a few extra votes go his way will give libertarians more ammo in future campaigns.  Sadly, it makes little difference either way, as I am registered in Texas, and I think we all know who will win that state.  Still, if Romney and Obama were the *only* choices, I would vote Romney.  I don't care for any of his policies, though he seems to favor internet privacy more than Obama, but my main reason is that Romney hasn't had the chance to fuck us over yet.  Again, it isn't much, but I feel Obama abused his authority and my trust, so I will not vote for him on principle.  It's kinda like when I get horrible customer service from an internet provider and I switch to the only other company in the area.  I know it won't be better, but that company hasn't fucked me yet.

Also, regarding Romney, at least his lack of character in kinda right out in the open.  It irritates me every time I see a post about how cool Obama is.  At least we can all be disappointed in Romney together.  Also, while I do not care for Ryan's budget, I liked the fact that he at least tried to put something together that cut spending while everyone else just bickered.  In fact, I would take Biden over Obama and Ryan over Romney, kinda weird.

Still, Ron Paul is a damn fine man, and I can't fully explain how much it hurt to see him not make it.  Completely unrelated, I know, but it's important to remember that there are honest representatives out there, and that our current campaign laws and processes seem designed to ensure that they are weeded out.  I wasn't a huge McCain fan, either, but I think he had more character than Obama, and would feel less resentful of seeing McCain fans.  At least he actually did something noteworthy to earn his support base.

Done rambling.

There's a lot of things that I like about Ron Paul.  However, one of his big things is (I've heard) how he'll put pork into a bill and then vote against the bill when he knows it's already going to pass anyway.

I also respect the willingness to vote for a third party, but unless we can get a better voting system than single vote democracy or develop some method of getting out from the twin thumbs of two party rule, it seems meaningless to me.

As a third bit, I totally get the idea of one and done.  Only the really good presidents should get a second term, because they have no incentive for people to want to vote them in a third time.  I'm not saying to go back to the FDR days of allowing someone to run as many times as you want, but most politicians are only kept in check because the people can vote them out at any time.  How do you keep a politician from hosing things otherwise?

May have gotten off topic somewhat there.

Heads up.. he's literally the richest man to ever run for the Office of President. The estimates of his networth (personal) is upwards of 200 million and he's got a good chunk of ownership in companies like Bain and even less visible/tangibly trackable holding companies.

He's not a tool of the 400.. he's part of them.

Only if you don't take inflation into account.  George Washington alone was worth $525 Million.

He can't pay.. that is as good as saying that he has something to hide.. the only thing he can do is release ALL his tax returns like most candidates do anyway. He's played really TIGHT with his own returns. Had he matched the other GOP candidates or the President he'd have never gotten this sort of play done against him.

Otherwise.. the only other move is hope the Secret Service gets everyone involved the theft before they can release the key. Ironically the key could come out as part of the court case.

http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns?OpenDocument

With Romney releasing two years, that's more than Clinton had released as of the 1992 election.  Also more than FDR released during his presidency (ye donut).

Stupid question: if Clinton only gave 1992 as the earliest year, he wouldn't have had those ready as of the election, right?  So he literally never did give any before the election, right?

This is just the crazy talking, but I'd actually prefer that a president was rich before getting into the office, as opposed to getting rich during or after thanks to all the special arrangements and legalized bribes so common to politics.

Maybe I just don't get what the big deal is about tax returns, but then, I never got it about the birth certificate either.  If you believe that Obama doesn't have one, isn't a standing president going to have more than enough power and influence to fake one?

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #54 on: September 06, 2012, 04:23:23 PM »
At the risk of beating a dead horse (which some seem to get a perverse joy out of), the reason the birth certificate was significant originally is because the Constitution states that:  No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. (Article 2, Clause 5)

Of course, once it was shown, it should have been over and done with.

Offline AndyZ

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #55 on: September 06, 2012, 04:36:24 PM »
No no, I totally get that.  I don't get why people would believe that the standing president wouldn't be able to fake one.  If he wasn't born in Hawaii, whoever covered it up long enough for him to get into office would have to continue covering things to save their own butts.

For a brutal analogy, imagine a world without a Witness Protection program, in which Billy X witnesses someone die, and police think that the mafia killed the person.  Billy X claims that it was purely an accident.  The police know that even if it wasn't an accident, Billy X won't talk, because if he did, the mafia would kill him.

People not only believe that Obama could become president with no one raising a stink about his birth certificate via some big conspiracy, but also believe that after it's all said and done and he's already president, he couldn't pull a few strings and get one filed through the same methods that got him elected?

I appreciate your clarification, though.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #56 on: September 06, 2012, 04:40:15 PM »
No no, I totally get that.  I don't get why people would believe that the standing president wouldn't be able to fake one.  If he wasn't born in Hawaii, whoever covered it up long enough for him to get into office would have to continue covering things to save their own butts.

For a brutal analogy, imagine a world without a Witness Protection program, in which Billy X witnesses someone die, and police think that the mafia killed the person.  Billy X claims that it was purely an accident.  The police know that even if it wasn't an accident, Billy X won't talk, because if he did, the mafia would kill him.

People not only believe that Obama could become president with no one raising a stink about his birth certificate via some big conspiracy, but also believe that after it's all said and done and he's already president, he couldn't pull a few strings and get one filed through the same methods that got him elected?

I appreciate your clarification, though.

Let me sum up why it's a nonissue: his mother is an American citizen, therefore he is.  And last time I checked that meant till the child gave up citizenship he or she was assumed to be a Citizen.

Offline MasterMischief

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #57 on: September 07, 2012, 08:49:42 PM »
To clarify, not everyone considers it a choice of the lesser of two evils.  I realize some people are quite happy with one or the other.  Most of us, though, aren't.

How do you know most are not?

Online Vekseid

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #58 on: September 08, 2012, 04:51:59 AM »
It comes down to this.. is is a commerical off the rack encryption used by the accountants.. or a encryption used by the hackers.

you're right though.. wrong encryption..and it will stay locked till quantum computing hits the market..

Quantum computing can, at best, halve the key-length of full true encryption. Quantum attacks are done on public/private encryption methods, where one side can encode something with a public key that only someone with the private key can decode. This would e.g. give someone access to the server here, if they found the port, guessed the wheel username, and guessed the root password. It would not permit them the ability to decrypt any encrypted files they stole, however.


Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #59 on: September 08, 2012, 12:58:22 PM »
Quantum computing can, at best, halve the key-length of full true encryption. Quantum attacks are done on public/private encryption methods, where one side can encode something with a public key that only someone with the private key can decode. This would e.g. give someone access to the server here, if they found the port, guessed the wheel username, and guessed the root password. It would not permit them the ability to decrypt any encrypted files they stole, however.

True. I forgot about that. So Veks, hoax or real?

Offline Zakharra

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #60 on: September 08, 2012, 02:36:56 PM »
 I can't imagine it really helping either party and possibly damaging the Democratic Party since that's the one that has been mostly calling for the release of the tax returns. If it's true, it makes one wonder who stole the files and what party they are.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #61 on: September 08, 2012, 03:03:35 PM »
I can't imagine it really helping either party and possibly damaging the Democratic Party since that's the one that has been mostly calling for the release of the tax returns. If it's true, it makes one wonder who stole the files and what party they are.

I don't think they are a party this seems more like a shakedown or scam if they are fakes. I mean IF there is something Romney wants to hide it works and they pay BUT if he campaign calls their bluff it would be. Easy to do. He just releases however many years of returns to match what the president has put out. It, to me, is a win win, he shuts up his critics and shuts the blackmailers down. All he has to now is fix any potential ID theft hazards and he is done.

Offline MasterMischief

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #62 on: September 08, 2012, 07:42:05 PM »
I think there is something potentially damaging in there that he does not want us to see.  They had a beautiful opportunity to make Harry Reid look like a snotty child and they passed it up.  They would not have unless they really have something to hide.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #63 on: September 08, 2012, 07:57:30 PM »
I think there is something potentially damaging in there that he does not want us to see.  They had a beautiful opportunity to make Harry Reid look like a snotty child and they passed it up.  They would not have unless they really have something to hide.

Or he feels that it no ones damn business, imagine the peons wanting to know he skirts the tax codes?  Just kidding, I doubt there is any criminal acts in there but there might be thing he doesn't want the media looking into. Some of the holding companies he has invested in are too transparent and he might just want to keep the actual size of his fortune obfuscated a bit more.

Offline MasterMischief

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #64 on: September 08, 2012, 08:00:27 PM »
No, I do not think there is anything criminal.  It would be a hard sell to the undecided that taxes need to be lowered if he is not paying any already.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #65 on: September 08, 2012, 08:19:09 PM »
No, I do not think there is anything criminal.  It would be a hard sell to the undecided that taxes need to be lowered if he is not paying any already.

I do wonder how much of his net worth is 'owned' by companies he's invested in. I don't think it's anything more than he and his campaign planners see no plus to showing more than he has.

Online Vekseid

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #66 on: September 09, 2012, 05:09:57 AM »
True. I forgot about that. So Veks, hoax or real?

No idea. Romney's not going to win either way.

I do wonder how much of his net worth is 'owned' by companies he's invested in. I don't think it's anything more than he and his campaign planners see no plus to showing more than he has.

Bain Capital owns Clear Channel, which I find more disturbing than anything.

There's been some argument that he's been withholding tax returns until the last possible moment for a gotcha effect. I'm doubting that - I don't think he'd get any benefit from showing a 14% tax rate on a multi-million dollar rentier income when most Americans doing actual work pay more than that.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #67 on: September 09, 2012, 08:33:42 AM »
That is kind of scarey, clear channel has a HUGE footprint in some very specific ways.  I wsh I was confident as you about his chances though. As it is, he loses, he'll have another 4 years to try again, he can afford it.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #68 on: September 09, 2012, 10:08:46 AM »
But, that also means that the Dems have another four years.  I've been seeing a lot of backlash against the radical right as it is, and if that translates into election results, then Obama might have a favorably inclined Congress for the next go-round.

Offline MasterMischief

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #69 on: September 09, 2012, 10:23:00 AM »
But, that also means that the Dems have another four years.  I've been seeing a lot of backlash against the radical right as it is, and if that translates into election results, then Obama might have a favorably inclined Congress for the next go-round.

Oh I could hope.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #70 on: September 09, 2012, 10:25:18 AM »
But, that also means that the Dems have another four years.  I've been seeing a lot of backlash against the radical right as it is, and if that translates into election results, then Obama might have a favorably inclined Congress for the next go-round.

If that translastes into a 'return to reason' by the GoP and the unwinding of nearly 20 years of steadily more insane and rigidly foolish 'our way or the highway' crap.. I welcome it. It's be nice to not be a RINO anymore.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #71 on: September 09, 2012, 06:33:07 PM »
Otherwise.. the only other move is hope the Secret Service gets everyone involved the theft before they can release the key. Ironically the key could come out as part of the court case.

Actually, there seems to be a third option:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/08/hustler-magazine-offers-1-million-for-a-different-type-of-exposure/?

I'm not a huge fan of Larry Flynt, but I must admit I'm amused.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #72 on: September 09, 2012, 06:45:12 PM »
Actually, there seems to be a third option:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/08/hustler-magazine-offers-1-million-for-a-different-type-of-exposure/?

I'm not a huge fan of Larry Flynt, but I must admit I'm amused.

He is making more off the publicity than he'd paid for the ad space OR having to pay the million. I got to give him credit for being savvy about that.

Offline HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #73 on: September 09, 2012, 08:11:56 PM »
If that translastes into a 'return to reason' by the GoP and the unwinding of nearly 20 years of steadily more insane and rigidly foolish 'our way or the highway' crap.. I welcome it. It's be nice to not be a RINO anymore.

I wouldn't be surprised if they took it as 'not right wing enough' and went even further out there.

Offline WildCat

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #74 on: September 09, 2012, 08:29:21 PM »
I wouldn't be surprised if they took it as 'not right wing enough' and went even further out there.
Some will. Some all ready are. *sigh*