Comparisons

“Mike Pence defended his use of a personal email account to conduct state business while he was Indiana’s governor, saying “there’s no comparison” between his situation and the controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server that rocked the 2016 presidential campaign.”
 
See Mike Pence on personal email use: ‘No comparison’ to Clinton
Obviously, Pence lacks CPU-power behind his thick skull if he thinks there’s no comparison with Clinton’s e-mail situation. Always helpful as I am I will provide a list of comparables below:

  • Both not only used private e-mail addresses but used the same account for personal/official messages.
  • Both had complicity in the deed by others who should have known better, like correspondents in government.
  • Both deleted private e-mails upon leaving office, sorted out by their lawyers, no less…
  • Both were careless about security although Clinton’s plan to keep the server in the basement was a little more secure than allowing AOL to browse the mail… and Pence was hacked…

On balance, I’d say that Hillary did the better job. At least she took a hammer to old devices, wiped drives and the like while Pence was hacked and real criminals held stuff for ransom. They could even have some goodies socked away to sell to the highest bidder when Trump and Pence put the screws to some ne’erdowells. Yes, Pence, what happens when Putin buys the e-mails between you and your mistresses? Off-shore banker? Hit-man you hired a while back? Are you going to bend over backwards for Putin? Oh, you and Trump are doing that already, I see.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.

This entry was posted in politics, technology and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Comparisons

  1. Ernesti says:

    China has now 20% bigger GPD-PPP than USA. But even more: their real economy is twice bigger than that of US. Only 28% of US GDP is nowadays real economy. In reality US real economy has not grown since Nixon cut the link between US dollar and gold in August 1971. Medium wages in US is also near the level of 1973. US Federal debt is $20 000 bn but total debt $67 100 bn. However US value added factory production is just $2 000 bn.

  2. Ernesti says:

    Must be nice to live a life of warmongering Hillary fanboy?

  3. Kurkosdr says:

    GDP, GDP per capita, wealth, number of $billionaires etc.

    So, those figures give you the right to tell another nation what they can afford?

    PROTIP: Greece had a high GDP per capital and wealth in the early 2000s relative to many other Mediterranean nations, so most Greeks thought they could afford to spend state money on… various things. Oh, how a bunch of liabilities can sink you in case of a sudden credit crunch. It all happened within months of the Lehmann collapse, despite being on the other side of the globe.

    So… USAians may just be more conservative in what they can afford as a nation, but I am sure that they are glad a Canadian senile old man wants to dictate what they can afford instead of letting them decide. Trying to psychologically pressure them with phrasing like “why are you hating refugees” and “you are afraid of women and children fleeing war” certainly helps (not).

  4. Kurkosdr wrote, “How can you know what another nation can afford? You don’t even live there.”

    GDP, GDP per capita, wealth, number of $billionaires etc.

  5. Kurkosdr says:

    Canada is nowhere near the limit of acceptance.

    What are you going to do in the possible scenario that the limit of acceptance is reached? You said that in such a case, people “would be admitted by arbitrary means like first come-first served or families with children or whatever.” Which means NOT admitting the ones who don’t meet those criteria aka NOT letting them in. Which means closing the border to those people not meeting the criteria. Which means telling all those “let them in” activists to sod off, right?

    In such a case, just be careful of any old Manitoban dudes calling you on “hating refugees” and of “afraid of women and children fleeing war”

    Canada has let in more Syrian refugees than USA… Think about that. A country 10X smaller in population fears not the same refugees Trumpists would ban forever.

    Canadians probably think they can afford it. Good for them, I guess.

    If USAians think they cannot afford it, can you call them on that? How can you know what another nation can afford? You don’t even live there.

  6. Kurkosdr wrote, “if or when your limit (of how many you can afford to accept) is exhausted, persumably you will stop letting them in, close the border and tell all those “let them in” activists to sod off, right?”

    Canada has let in more Syrian refugees than USA… Think about that. A country 10X smaller in population fears not the same refugees Trumpists would ban forever. Canada is nowhere near the limit of acceptance. There are waiting lists of sponsors.

  7. Kurkosdr says:

    At the far end people would be admitted by arbitrary means like first come-first served or families with children or whatever.

    Good, good… we have criteria. So, if or when your limit (of how many you can afford to accept) is exhausted, persumably you will stop letting them in, close the border and tell all those “let them in” activists to sod off, right?

    Just be careful of any old Manitoban dudes calling you on “hating refugees” and of “afraid of women and children fleeing war”

  8. Ivan wrote, “Jihadis would love that”.

    1. Jihadis are not all bad people. All Muslims are expected to do “jihad”: struggle, strive, accomplish stuff. For some it’s quitting smoking. A very few take up weapons and kill innocents. Perhaps Ivan meant “terrorists”. OK, but the odds of letting in a terrorist by my method are incredibly tiny, not too similar from the proportion of murderers in polite society. There are many millions of refugees and only a few hundred migrant terrorists. I will accept those odds.
    2. While it may make the news that the neighbours didn’t know, I’d bet Syrians can spot a murdering bastard from a kilometre away and let us Canadians know who’s rotten. The refugees are fleeing terrorists and certainly would not want any on the plane with their women and children.
    3. It may surprise Ivan to know that terrorists would much rather go to USA than Canada because it’s a warmer place and they hate USAians more.

    So, Ivan and USAians can go on hating. It will do Ivan and USAians harm, not us Canadians.

  9. Ivan says:

    Jihadis would love that, Bob.

  10. Kurkosdr wrote, “how do you decide who to let in and who not to let in? Are there any criteria?”

    If I were doing the job, I would send a fleet of 747s or similar plane with clerks and equipment suitable for checking people in and issuing them papers in flight. At the far end people would be admitted by arbitrary means like first come-first served or families with children or whatever. There’s no shortage so you could fill n wide-bodied jets rather quickly, deliver them to Canada and return, something like a reversed “Berlin air-lift”. If a quota is reached, just stop, or reconsider and raise the quota. The need is great. Canada has a waiting list of folks willing to adopt/assist/guide refugees because we are not anywhere near a natural limit but an arbitrary one.

  11. Kurkosdr says:

    *tumble weeds flying in the air*

    Still no sign of Pog on the horizon

    At least now we have a quick answer when Pog repeats some simplistic sound-bite such as “country X is afraid of women and children fleeing war” or “why do you hate refugees?”. The quick answer is:

    If the number of refugees who want to be let in your country is higher than the number your country can afford, how do you decide who to let in and who not to let in? Are there any criteria?

  12. Deaf Spy says:

    that’s the sound of Pog running out of arguments when confronted with a truth that’s incompatible with his ideology

    As long as it works for him or TLW, it works for everyone.

  13. Kurkosdr says:

    *chirp* *chirp*

    (that’s the sound of Pog running out of arguments when confronted with a truth that’s incompatible with his ideology)

  14. Kurkosdr says:

    In a previous decision, you said something about Canada being able to take in 1% of the Canadian population. Aka 350000 people. So… If 380000 people want to come in, you must not let in 30000 of them. How do you choose who to not let in?

    But you don’t have to be confined to the 350000. Just pick any number less than half of the Canadian population. If you choose to “let them all in” and this number is exceeded, how do you choose who to not let in? (Because you can’t afford it) are there any criteria of who to leave out for the case the people who want to come in are more than you can afford?

  15. Kurkosdr says:

    “USA can as well but Trumpists don’t want to do that for their own selfish, greedy, illogical reasons. ”
    What did Islam ever do to deserve such an act of generosity from the US and EU? From what I can tell, they tried to wipe us off the map, with the Ottomans reaching all the way to Austria, enslaving every Christian in their path before they were gradually pushed back to Asia Minor and the Middle East.

    ” We can afford it. ”

    So, you want to let them all in and bear the financial cost. And you think you can afford it. So, for how many people you can afford it?

    If the number of people who want to come in are not more than you can afford, it’s all good.

    If the number of people who want to come in is bigger than you can afford, how do you prioritise? Aka, who do you choose to not let in? (because you can’t afford to let everyone in) Are there any criteria you would apply?

  16. Kurkosdr wrote, “those you have to feed and house from your taxes.”

    We can afford it. USA can as well but Trumpists don’t want to do that for their own selfish, greedy, illogical reasons. In fact, Canadians sponsor refugees. It’s not all coming from the taxes. TLW and I, for instance, have taken immigrants in and provided a year or more of food and shelter as a normal thing. That’s happening today with Syrian refugees.

    Kurkosdr also wrote, ““deep Islam” countries like Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan are ignorant, due to the isolationist, theocratic education they get (if they any education).”

    Yeah right. You think extreme islamists would want to emigrate when they see “The West” as the “great Satan” etc. No. Those people accept war etc. as “God’s Will”. They don’t emigrate. It’s the folks who revel against such nonsense who do emigrate, people who value life and opportunity and education.

  17. Kurkosdr says:

    ” Many are professionals and start businesses to boost the economy. ”

    Many are not, and those you have to feed and house from your taxes.

    ” Being a refugee doesn’t mean “poor and ignorant”. ”

    Not necessarily, but many of them, particularly from “deep Islam” countries like Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan are ignorant, due to the isolationist, theocratic education they get (if they any education). If you think those people can speak English or that they can work at jobs beyond the most menial, you are lying to yourself Sir. Some of them are illiterate in their own languages. Do you think people illiterate in their own languages should be “let in” too? Answer.

    ” Further, refugees do learn the language pretty rapidly, quickly enough to find a job in a year or so ”

    So, if you “let them in”, you have to feed and house them for a year while they learn the language. From your taxes. Why? Why not limit immigration to legal immigration, aka to immigrants who can find a job quickly instead of a year? That’s what H1-B and H2-B is about.

    ” Taking in refugees is an act of generosity ”

    But not an obligation. It’s OK if people want to do it, but you can’t blame them if they don’t want to do it.

    “Taking in refugees is an act of generosity but it’s also an investment with good returns. No one succeeds without taking risks.”

    Limiting immigrants to legal ones (aka H1-B, H2-B and the like), aka immigrants who do not need welfare for a year or other significant amount of time while they learn the language is much lower risk and higher ROI. There is no obligation on the part of US citizens to accept any immigrants beyond that.

  18. Kurkosdr wrote, “Doesn’t matter how “ambitious” they are, if they don’t speak the local language or at least speak English and don’t have some kind of university degree, the chances of them finding a job in the new country anytime soon are quite honestly pretty slim.”

    Nonsense. Refugees are welcome here. Many are professionals and start businesses to boost the economy. Being a refugee doesn’t mean “poor and ignorant”. Further, refugees do learn the language pretty rapidly, quickly enough to find a job in a year or so and their children are even faster. Many of these children do quite well in school and are hard to tell apart from native Canadians within a couple of years. Taking in refugees is an act of generosity but it’s also an investment with good returns. No one succeeds without taking risks.

  19. Kurkosdr says:

    ” That’s baseless fear. Europe and Canada take in a lot of refugees and that problem is rarely seen. ”

    Bahaha… Continue please.

    ” Refugees tend to be self-selected ambitious people, not drains on the economy. ”

    Doesn’t matter how “ambitious” they are, if they don’t speak the local language or at least speak English and don’t have some kind of university degree, the chances of them finding a job in the new country anytime soon are quite honestly pretty slim. Which means the local population will have to feed and house them for a considerable time till they find a job. Why should they? Is their government the world’s UNICEF and the world’s Red Cross at the same time? It’s OK if they want to be that, but you can’t really blame them for not wanting to be that.

    Which is the reason Angela Merkel wants to send the immigrants back, and Sweden is talking about a “humanitarian break”. The financial cost is just too high.

  20. Kurkosdr says:

    ” The reason Greece is in such a mess is not because they took in refugees but that they are much closer to the source of the problem and USA is not doing its fair share to help out ”

    Our previous right wing government did a fairly good job of keeping the illegal immigrants outside of Greece and neither Greece nor the US had to burden the cost of feeding them and housing them, and it was all good. Then the leftard came and simply let them in without considering the consequences of doing so (hint: cost of feeding and housing them).

  21. Kurkosdr wrote, “I think US citizens are afraid of the financial cost of supporting them after they let them in, because if they choose to not support those women and children fleeing war financially ’till find a job they ‘ll most likely end up homeless, and the US has enough homeless people already.”

    That’s baseless fear. Europe and Canada take in a lot of refugees and that problem is rarely seen. Refugees tend to be self-selected ambitious people, not drains on the economy.

  22. Kurkosdr wrote, “Why should US citizens suffer a similar financial burden? Is the US obligated to be the world’s UNICEF and the world’s red cross at the same time?”

    The reason Greece is in such a mess is not because they took in refugees but that they are much closer to the source of the problem and USA is not doing its fair share to help out. Canada, which is 10X smaller than USA in population has taken a similar number of Syrian refugees and Trump plans to cut that further. Stupid. Sad. Short-sighted.

  23. ram says:

    Since every American government official is going to have all their electronic communications read and recorded by the NSA anyway, they should just cut to the chase and have their email handled by the NSA on NSA managed servers. Any high level official that does otherwise is an idiot and should not hold that office.

  24. Kurkosdr says:

    To give you a sense of how “letting women and child fleeing war in” can quickly sink a country’s finances, Greece will soon be obligated to give unemployment benefits to jobless illegal immigrants, it’s going to happen within the following months (as per EU’s minimum guaranteed income directive) when Greece can’t even fully fund the minimum guaranteed income for its own citizens.

    Our leftist government happily “let them in” to put on a humanitarian mask and gain some quick PR points, but it’s the Greek citizens who have to feed and house those jobless “women and children fleeing war” and in some month’s time even provide them with unemployment benefits aka “minimum guaranteed income”.

    Why should US citizens suffer a similar financial burden? Is the US obligated to be the world’s UNICEF and the world’s red cross at the same time? Do US citizens have an obligation help non-US citizens with their taxes? The answer is no to all questions. They might want to, but you can’t blame them if they don’t want to. It’s the right of US citizens to choose to only help US citizens with their taxes.

  25. Kurkosdr says:

    fearing women and children fleeing war

    Ahem… I think US citizens are afraid of the financial cost of supporting them after they let them in, because if they choose to not support those women and children fleeing war financially ’till find a job they ‘ll most likely end up homeless, and the US has enough homeless people already. So… the US takes the more financially prudent stance of “you find a job in the US first, and then we let you in so we won’t have to financially support you” aka the H1-B visa program. In plain English, the US needs some kind of guarantee you won’t end up a jobless person seeking welfare to survive after they let you in.

    You do realise that the US has no obligation to become a refugee camp for every country that has problems, because at any given moment, there are several countries that are either in a state of war or have problems in general, and doing so would strain the finances of the US as a nation greatly? You do? Glad I am speaking to a reasonable person that knows Economics 101.

    This means you also support the idea that the US doesn’t have to accept every woman and child fleeing war, unless they can prove they have found a job in the US, because letting them in first and then *hope* they ‘ll find a job soon (and stop needing welfare) is a major unnecessary risk for the US as a nation.

  26. Ivan says:

    ISTR Pence reverted that programme but I cannot find a link on the web…

    Their standardized test system was down for weeks causing budget problems with schools that were forced to add weeks to the school year because of the shit system they were forced to implement. Reverting that was a good thing.

    And yes, Bob, Pence using private email is different from Killary. Pence wasn’t sending Top Secret memos out.

  27. Kurkosdr wrote, “still using AOL mail in 2013”.

    The last time I did much with AOL, a school’s desktop had an “AOL” thingy which tried to create an account on AOL. Not knowing much about MacOS, I went around to 24 computers deleting the damned thing. Then there was some merger with Time-Warner that didn’t amount to much… Pence has never impressed me. Every time I see his image on TV or the web I am reminded of a skull, something cold and empty. I can see that he might still have AOL lurking in the recesses of a cave somewhere.

    Back in 2006, “More than 20,000 Indiana students are now Linux-enabled under a state grant program to roll out low-cost, easy-to-manage workstations, which are running various flavors of the open-source operating system.” In 2013, Pence wrote a bill to have schools follow the whims of business. That didn’t work for me. I graduated from a vocational high school and a trade college and never took up a trade for long.

    Indiana found rolling out GNU/Linux in schools was much easier than Munich, etc. At first they just installed computers and observed students had zero problems using them. The teachers had to switch from all paper to mostly computer and also using servers. ISTR Pence reverted that programme but I cannot find a link on the web…

  28. Ivan wrote, “A Canadian and a Greek were on a blog talking about American politics…”

    USA is dangerous. It should be watched:

    • “leader of the Free World”,
    • “USA has never lost a war”,
    • “greatest nation of Earth”, and
    • “we need to spend $54billion more on defence”

    come to mind. USA lacks leadership/vision/that kind of thing. That Trump could fill that vacuum is horrific. We should not allow USA to lead us anywhere or utter such lies without critique or we deserve the sorry future we will get doing that.

    USA is against universal healthcare, sharing, accepting refugees, and other norms of modern societies. USA is leading the world down a rat-hole. USA lost the war of 1812, thank Goodness. If USA were the greatest nation on Earth, one would think they would not have to interfere with other governments to the extent of coups and assassinations. I think USA is one of the most paranoid nations on Earth, fearing women and children fleeing war and universal healthcare and spending more than any other country on idle weapons.

    So, I watch what USA is doing. There’s not much I can do to protect Canada, Freedom and Earth from USA but I can at least boycott Wintel and big oil. Fortunately, he’s older than I and may well leave Earth sooner. This is the year we shall see whether USAian “checks and balances” actually work because they are stretched so thinly.

  29. Ivan says:

    It’s like a bad joke up in here. A Canadian and a Greek were on a blog talking about American politics…

    I think you need a Frenchman to weigh in.

  30. Kurkosdr says:

    A bible-thumping luddite old fart still using AOL mail in 2013. He couldn’t be more stereotypical even if he tried.

    That said, Hilary used the private server to hide stuff (she didn’t want everyone else to know what she was giving to the Saudis in return for all those cash she had been receiving from them). Pence used the AOL account because he doesn’t know his elbow from his butt when it comes to “those lil’ doohickeys with screens and blinky lights and all kinds of bells n’ whistl’s”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *