WikiLeaks: Google's Eric Schmidt Collaborates With Clinton Campaign Team to Use the Cloud as Voter Information Aggregation Tool

[stconquest]

30 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Can you name which ones you consider "bad things" then? Because yes I consider shit like Saudi Arabia donating to the Clinton Foundation directly and the Goldmand Sach speeches worst but I wouldn't say, to quote myself, this is "Dindu Nuffin!" either.

Why would I want to do that... in this thread?  ...so much shit in here

 

22 minutes ago, Michael McAllister said:

 

I do not believe this particular email chain is the worst offender, but it does show the power structure between the tech industry and government.  Other emails are certainly far worse but are not appropriate for this forum.

 

What I see is a part of a prospective business dealing.  You go up to a company rep and ask:  If I want to do "this" with your company what would it entail and how much would it cost.

 

An email like this is what you might get back.

 

There is much worse in the releases.  This is not even relevant to corruption.  Maybe in some contextual way, but we don't have that here in this email.

 

[maulemall]

Quote

 

Even though you did earn your healthcare by serving that doesn't change the fact that it's still a single payer funded system operated by a government agency.

 

We can disagree.

 

His salient point was that I was a conservative who believed in single payer and used the fact that I earned and prepaid on my insurance to make his incorrect assumption.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, stconquest said:

Why would I want to do that... in this thread?

Suddenly you're all super respectful of the CoC but hey at least I didn't get the usual "Educate yourself shitlord" response when this comes up. 

[stconquest]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

Suddenly you're all super respectful of the CoC but hey at least I didn't get the usual "Educate yourself shitlord" response when this comes up. 

huh?

[Michael McAllister]

Just now, wrathoftheturkey said:

Come on. Google isn't the government, they don't have the rights to do this stuff

Well, if you flip that on its head, the US government theoretically does not have the right to snoop on private conversations without a warrant.  The Patriot Act says otherwise.

1 minute ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

no. Electronic does not mean IOT

Unauthorized access of online databases is quite common these days.  The integrity of the vote is one of the most important things to a free and open society.  Putting so much of this data in the cloud seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

[maulemall]

Just now, wrathoftheturkey said:

 

 

 

 

Ah, don't you love unsubstantiated claims with a complete disregard for nuance?

 

While we're on the subject, US politics is shit, but not for the reason you'd think. Fiscal conservatives have valid points regarding the inefficiency of government, and that government can create more problems than it solves, and that tax cuts, while theoretically less effective for the economy, still present a strong moral alternative to changes in government spending. The problem is that their sole representation in government is by people who think Climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the chinese and that natural disasters are god's punishment for gay marriage.

 

You're pissed at HRC? This is the price you pay for not having a reasonable opposition party

I was going to try to read all that but he still doesn't defend just come after me.

 

Instant loss .

[Michael McAllister]

5 minutes ago, maulemall said:

We can disagree.

 

His salient point was that I was a conservative who believed in single payer and used the fact that I earned and prepaid on my insurance to make his incorrect assumption.

 

I assumed you were in favor of single-payer because you like your government healthcare coverage.  Nothing wrong with that.

[Thunderpup]

14 minutes ago, Michael McAllister said:

 

So if a congressman gets a ton of money from Lockheed Martin or GE, where is the incentive to provide better healthcare?  If you're old and broken, those companies can just push you aside and recruit younger soldiers.

I am struggling to find the connection between special interests and the VA.  Special interests, such as corporate donors, only really affect policy in the industries they operate in.  A Senator getting a large donation from lockheed isn't going to be compelled to automatically screw over the VA because the VA has nothing to do with Lockheed. 

 

The problem with the VA is bureaucracy plane and simple. People argue, usually Democrats, that the problem with the VA is a lack of funding.  However their budget has more than doubled over the past few years and even other democrats are saying that throwing yet more money isn't going to fix things.  

A prime example of it being a leadership problem is when the VA researched into the possibility on converting patient records into electronic.  After a few months of "research" they concluded it was not possible.

That endeavor cost 1 billion dollars. 1 billion and they have nothing physical to show for it at all. Just a "nope". 

 

3 minutes ago, maulemall said:

We can disagree.

That is correct, but it doesn't change the outcome. 

[maulemall]

38 minutes ago, Michael McAllister said:

 

I assumed you were in favor of single-payer because you like your government healthcare coverage.  Nothing wrong with that.

I said I was thankful not that I liked it. The misunderstanding could well be my fault but to clear it up I would prefer that I had the option to pick my own Dr.

 

38 minutes ago, Thunderpup said:

I am struggling to find the connection between special interests and the VA.  Special interests, such as corporate donors, only really affect policy in the industries they operate in.  A Senator getting a large donation from lockheed isn't going to be compelled to automatically screw over the VA because the VA has nothing to do with Lockheed. 

 

The problem with the VA is bureaucracy plane and simple. People argue, usually Democrats, that the problem with the VA is a lack of funding.  However their budget has more than doubled over the past few years and even other democrats are saying that throwing yet more money isn't going to fix things.  

A prime example of it being a leadership problem is when the VA researched into the possibility on converting patient records into electronic.  After a few months of "research" they concluded it was not possible.

That endeavor cost 1 billion dollars. 1 billion and they have nothing physical to show for it at all. Just a "nope". 

 

That is correct, but it doesn't change the outcome. 

I don't disagree with anything you say.

[Michael McAllister]

1 minute ago, Thunderpup said:

I am struggling to find the connection between special interests and the VA.  Special interests, such as corporate donors, only really affect policy in the industries they operate in.  A Senator getting a large donation from lockheed isn't going to be compelled to automatically screw over the VA because the VA has nothing to do with Lockheed. 

 

The problem with the VA is bureaucracy plane and simple. People argue, usually Democrats, that the problem with the VA is a lack of funding.  However their budget has more than doubled over the past few years and even other democrats are saying that throwing yet more money isn't going to fix things.  

A prime example of it being a leadership problem is when the VA researched into the possibility on converting patient records into electronic.  After a few months of "research" they concluded it was not possible.

That endeavor cost 1 billion dollars. 1 billion and they have nothing physical to show for it at all. Just a "nope". 

 

The connection is that funds for these other interests have to come from somewhere.  This usually means reducing funding from things like education and healthcare in order to offset corporate tax cuts.

[Thunderpup]

3 minutes ago, Michael McAllister said:

 

The connection is that funds for these other interests have to come from somewhere.  This usually means reducing funding from things like education and healthcare in order to offset corporate tax cuts.

That chart, to the uninitiated, would make it look like the government only really spends money on the military and almost nothing on everything else.

 

However that is only the "discretionary" spending, and does not include the mandatory spending.  Below has both and shows the total spending for the US government during the same year, and it is by the same people that made your chart.

 

[maulemall]

if you want to be honest

[maulemall]

Just now, wrathoftheturkey said:

lol how'd Congress take that?

You got in right before me ...

They swallowed it whole looks like.

[Michael McAllister]

2 minutes ago, Thunderpup said:

That chart, to the uninitiated, would make it look like the government only really spends money on the military and almost nothing on everything else.

 

However that is only the "discretionary" spending, and does not include the mandatory spending.  Below has both and shows the total spending for the US government during the same year, and it is by the same people that made your chart.

 

 

The reason I chose the discretionary spending chart is because it gives an idea of how legislators currently in Congress allocate the money, whereas total spending includes spending predicated on decisions from previous administrations.

[maulemall]

4 minutes ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

I mean that's pretty true, we spend more than the next six (i think? maybe more) largest miitaries do combined

Really? Do you have actual numbers on Russia and China?

[Squirrel724]

3 hours ago, Michael McAllister said:

I've donated to candidates this election, so will third parties be able to hand this information off to Google at their leisure?  Given that a number of states use electronic voting machines, will Google somehow have access to this information?

It isn't information being passed to Google, it is Google looking at your search history and what sites you visit. It is like ADsense except instead of looking at whether you should get ads for computer parts or cars it is looking at your stance on different political issues. Its targeted ads for ideas instead of products.

[Thunderpup]

4 minutes ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

I mean that's pretty true, we spend more than the next six (i think? maybe more) largest miitaries do combined

True, but as a % of GDP our military spending is ranked around 5th.  

1 minute ago, Michael McAllister said:

 

The reason I chose the discretionary spending chart is because it gives an idea of how legislators currently in Congress allocate the money, whereas total spending includes spending predicated on decisions from previous administrations.

I can see why someone would make that decision, but that would only be viable if discretionary spending occurred in a vacuum.  Since mandatory spending automatically allocates a lot of funding toward the target of our discussion, healthcare, then that more than anything else would affect how pro-active they are to increase funding.  Why bother when it's already being handled?


 

[maulemall]

7 minutes ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

http://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison 

Most data seems to be from this independent source https://www.sipri.org/ so to cite additional sources would be redundant as they all say the same thing (except the Heritage Foundation, but they're hella biased and designed to give Republicans support to give to their voters)

Wow ... That's some really out there source

 

donations from the pgp group

• Altarum Institute - $35,000
• American Enterprise Institute - $200,000
• Center for Practical Bioethics (AKA Coalition to Transform Advanced Care) - $250,000
• Clinton Global Initiative - $750,000
• Committee for Economic Development - $250,000
• Concord Coalition - Approx. $1.3 million
• Corporation for the Advancement of Policy Evaluation/Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) - $35,000
• Fund for Public Advocacy - $50,000

• American Enterprise Institute - $200,000
• America Speaks - $1,660,603
• Bipartisan Policy Center - $400,000
• Center for American Progress - $555,919
• Comeback America Initiative - $3,100,000
• Committee for Economic Development - $303,616
• Concord Coalition - Approx. $1.6 million spread over several grants for several different projects
• Economic Policy Institute - $200,000
• Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute - $200,000
• The Heritage Foundation - $200,000
• New America Foundation (AKA Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget) - $800,000
• Nuclear Threat Initiative - $1,000,000
• Henry L. Stimson Center - $500,000

kinda makes you wonder about thier agenda

[maulemall]

Just now, wrathoftheturkey said:

Sorry, it's the DATA that's important, You have NBC http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/military-spending-cuts/u-s-military-spending-dwarfs-rest-world-n37461 and Business Insider http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-defense-budget-is-massive-2015-8 both saying the same thing, even though they're on the other side of the spectrum than PGP (who's funded by the Heritage foundation for crying out loud, how far right can you get?)

sorry dude I don't think you or they have a clue as to what Russia and China spend and you and they never will.

[Michael McAllister]

1 minute ago, Thunderpup said:

I can see why someone would make that decision, but that would only be viable if discretionary spending occurred in a vacuum.  Since mandatory spending automatically allocates a lot of funding toward the target of our discussion, healthcare, then that more than anything else would affect how pro-active they are to increase funding.  Why bother when it's already being handled?

 

Fair enough.  Cost is an issue.  State expenditures for drugs are relatively high.  There are initiatives in a number of states that try to address this issue.  In California, for example, Prop 61 will enable Medi-Cal to negotiate drug prices at the same rates as the VA.

[maulemall]

Just now, wrathoftheturkey said:

https://www.sipri.org/news/2016/sipri-presents-latest-military-expenditure-data-un-headquarters I mean, the UN seems to buy it, but sure, you're the military expert

 you see until you brought up the UN you were doing OK..

[tlink]

2 hours ago, samcool55 said:

...Both can be dealt with very easily, a single bullet is enough, not nice i know.

 

I always thought in the US people there like their guns so much because if there is ever a very bad gov, they can shoot them down.

No idea if it's true but if it is, well maybe some US citizens are going to enforce that rule O_o

Who knows....

i bet you're on the same NSA watchlist now as me, maybe they will talk about us at coffee break  

[maulemall]

1 minute ago, Michael McAllister said:

 

Fair enough.  Cost is an issue.  State expenditures for drugs are relatively high.  There are initiatives in a number of states that try to address this issue.  In California, for example, Prop 61 will enable Medi-Cal to negotiate drug prices at the same rates as the VA.

You would be doing yourseld a disservice to try to get the same costs as the VA.

The VA only uses Generic meds.

It took Years to get us the Hep C pill to cure Hep C. Literally 3 to 4 years.

It cost the VA $50.00 a pill while the government sold them to foreign nations for less than $9.00..

I went through some crap because the meds I took for my pericarditis cost $9.00 each. It had to be approved by 2 doctors and a pharmacist. 

[Michael McAllister]

5 minutes ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

@Michael McAllister dude this thread got off topic hella fast

 

I can request that a mod lock it, if you prefer.

[maulemall]

5 minutes ago, tlink said:

i bet you're on the same NSA watchlist now as me, maybe they will talk about us at coffee break  

just don't type 3 percenter...