4 ms·

The certificate is dated October 31. Assuming Hillary had something similar waiting and ready, I wonder what it was...

ajross 10y ago
The Clinton campaign policy priorities were right there on the campaign web site. They were voluminous, and well thought-out, and written/backed by serious domain experts, and thoroughly ignored by everyone because emailz. Seriously contrast the stuff there with the pablum here, which boils down to junk like "education is important yo" and "we're going to eliminate excess regulation about, like, stuff". I weep.
- presidentender 10y ago
  The same was true in 2008, during the primaries. Clinton's site had actual policies, Obama's had hand-waving.
  - mulletbum 10y ago
    Any idea if there is an archive of it somewhere?
  - ethbro 10y ago
    It's all hand waving until it's on paper and going through the legislature's machinery, unless we're talking about executive actions.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Unfortunately those were the pubic positions not the private ones.
  - mixedCase 10y ago
    And ajross chose to ignore the private positions because they were in "the emailz". How fitting.
    - jjawssd 10y ago
      "the emailz" are more than just emails. national secrets and corruption have been exposed in the emails
    - ajross 10y ago
      You don't need to do this anymore. She lost. We're all suitably punished already. How about you spend your time making us LIKE your candidate instead, like for example explaining how Trump isn't going to enact racial cleansing or set environmental protection rulemaking back 20 years?
      - mixedCase 10y ago
        > You don't need to do this anymore. She lost. We're all suitably punished already. There's a lot to talk still about her e-mails and Podesta's; specially the latter's where we've found truly vomit-inducing stuff that demands an investigation. Law doesn't end with the elections, and that goes for both candidates, with President-elect facing the Trump U case later this month as well (for which I believe there was no wrongdoing, but it is up to the law to determine that). > like for example explaining how Trump isn't going to enact racial cleansing Okay I'm going to entertain your headcanon for a second here and ask you what led you to believe the guy is going to enact racial fucking cleansing. > or set environmental protection rulemaking back 20 years I disagree with many of his stances on the environment actually. But he's not going to tear down any nuclear plants and substitute them with coal either. Until China entertains the idea of going green you won't be solving any problems anytime soon by killing your economy for small gains. If anything's gonna get us anywhere regarding this problem, it's solar's constantly increasing ROI.
        ajross 10y ago
        OK, explain how he's not going to deport 11 million people, including many of my friends and neighbors. My son had a play date with one of these folks children just last week. If "ethnic cleansing" doesn't qualify, then pick your own terminology and TELL ME WHAT I SHOULD SAY TO MY KID ABOUT THIS. Seriously, and in genuine interest here: what do I say? Your friend is getting kicked out? His family are illegals and "we" don't want them? How do I explain this? For the record: I haven't. He hasn't heard the story elsewhere yet, and frankly I don't know what I'm going to say when he does.
csours 10y ago
strongertogether dot gov ?
- JonathonW 10y ago
  If strongertogether.gov were going to be the Clinton campaign's transition website, they didn't use SSL certificates from a registrar using a Certificate Transparency server that Google indexes. Hard to tell from CT logs if there was another website for a Clinton transition-- the existing search tools for CT logs aren't great (best I could do was to get a list of all unexpired *.gov certificates logged, which isn't helpful).
  - zb3 10y ago
    Found it! It was "together.gov", see https://crt.sh/?id=49224865 https://crt.sh/?id=49224865 DNS records are still up, but don't point to any IP though.
  - csours 10y ago
    How did you build that list? Do any of them contain the word together?

The Clinton campaign policy priorities were right there on the campaign web site. They were voluminous, and well thought-out, and written/backed by serious domain experts, and thoroughly ignored by everyone because emailz. Seriously contrast the stuff there with the pablum here, which boils down to junk like "education is important yo" and "we're going to eliminate excess regulation about, like, stuff". I weep.

presidentender 10y ago
The same was true in 2008, during the primaries. Clinton's site had actual policies, Obama's had hand-waving.
- mulletbum 10y ago
  Any idea if there is an archive of it somewhere?
- ethbro 10y ago
  It's all hand waving until it's on paper and going through the legislature's machinery, unless we're talking about executive actions.
cmdrfred 10y ago
Unfortunately those were the pubic positions not the private ones.
- mixedCase 10y ago
  And ajross chose to ignore the private positions because they were in "the emailz". How fitting.
  - jjawssd 10y ago
    "the emailz" are more than just emails. national secrets and corruption have been exposed in the emails
  - ajross 10y ago
    You don't need to do this anymore. She lost. We're all suitably punished already. How about you spend your time making us LIKE your candidate instead, like for example explaining how Trump isn't going to enact racial cleansing or set environmental protection rulemaking back 20 years?
    - mixedCase 10y ago
      > You don't need to do this anymore. She lost. We're all suitably punished already. There's a lot to talk still about her e-mails and Podesta's; specially the latter's where we've found truly vomit-inducing stuff that demands an investigation. Law doesn't end with the elections, and that goes for both candidates, with President-elect facing the Trump U case later this month as well (for which I believe there was no wrongdoing, but it is up to the law to determine that). > like for example explaining how Trump isn't going to enact racial cleansing Okay I'm going to entertain your headcanon for a second here and ask you what led you to believe the guy is going to enact racial fucking cleansing. > or set environmental protection rulemaking back 20 years I disagree with many of his stances on the environment actually. But he's not going to tear down any nuclear plants and substitute them with coal either. Until China entertains the idea of going green you won't be solving any problems anytime soon by killing your economy for small gains. If anything's gonna get us anywhere regarding this problem, it's solar's constantly increasing ROI.
      - ajross 10y ago
        OK, explain how he's not going to deport 11 million people, including many of my friends and neighbors. My son had a play date with one of these folks children just last week. If "ethnic cleansing" doesn't qualify, then pick your own terminology and TELL ME WHAT I SHOULD SAY TO MY KID ABOUT THIS. Seriously, and in genuine interest here: what do I say? Your friend is getting kicked out? His family are illegals and "we" don't want them? How do I explain this? For the record: I haven't. He hasn't heard the story elsewhere yet, and frankly I don't know what I'm going to say when he does.

csours 10y ago

strongertogether dot gov ?

JonathonW 10y ago
If strongertogether.gov were going to be the Clinton campaign's transition website, they didn't use SSL certificates from a registrar using a Certificate Transparency server that Google indexes. Hard to tell from CT logs if there was another website for a Clinton transition-- the existing search tools for CT logs aren't great (best I could do was to get a list of all unexpired *.gov certificates logged, which isn't helpful).
- zb3 10y ago
  Found it! It was "together.gov", see https://crt.sh/?id=49224865 https://crt.sh/?id=49224865 DNS records are still up, but don't point to any IP though.
- csours 10y ago
  How did you build that list? Do any of them contain the word together?