Melange_Thief
New member
Turns out we just had to wait a couple days for the punchline:
Clinton campaign 'hacked' along with other Democratic groups
Clinton campaign 'hacked' along with other Democratic groups
-
Features
WTF? Trump "hopes" Russian Intelligence to find and release HRC's missing emails.
- Thread starter laughing dog
- Start date
barbos
Contributor
Yes, and there is almost no reason to believe anything Hillary says.
Show evidence.Or shut up.
fast
Contributor
Trump is a very honest person. He may not always fully express his thoughts, as he tends to be choppy, but context often disambiguates where his mind and heart is. Because of his high level of integrity, I'm open-minded to giving a little latitude when his off the cuff remarks do not withstand the analytics of the opposition.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Fast: I generally support your opinions. You have good takes. But I'm really struggling trying to digest this. How do you determine that Trump is trustworthy? That just kinda blows me away. His statement trying to tie Ted Cruz's father to the Kennedy assignation based on an article on the National Enquirer is unbelievable! But how about his lies regarding his support for the Iraq invasion, Bengazhi, fund raising for veterans, trump university, didn't know David Duke, and etc. I could just go on and on. All of these lies have been fully exposed by the politically neutral Fact Check. He is probably the most dishonest major candidate for either the republicans or the democrats in the last 100 years.
barbos
Contributor
I can't find any evidence which suggests she can be trusted.
Nice Squirrel
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2004
- Messages
- 6,083
- Location
- Minnesota
- Basic Beliefs
- Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
Then you hold an emotional or religious belief not a rational one.
laughing dog
Contributor
When someone constantly "misspeaks" either he is deliberating trying to deceive (i.e. lying) or he is simply bullshitting (i.e. does know or care whether it is true or not). Neither bespeaks of someone who has much integrity.
GenesisNemesis
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,895
- Location
- California
- Basic Beliefs
- Secular Humanist, Scientific Skepticism, Strong Atheism
It's not about being "open-minded". Trump has said enough batshit insane things that he cannot be trusted in any way whatsoever, and he can be easily considered to be mentally incompetent.
barbos
Contributor
That's ironic thing to say considering how much elections are about emotions. All I am saying I just don't trust that shit.
Trump is a clown and idiot, we know that. But Hillary just want to be a president and would do anything for that.
GenesisNemesis
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,895
- Location
- California
- Basic Beliefs
- Secular Humanist, Scientific Skepticism, Strong Atheism
Isn't Trump just wanting to be president and would do anything for that?
barbos
Contributor
I think he just wants to be on TV and figured out that running for POTUS gets you a lot of TV time.
I wish there was a better options than these two.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
Trump wants fame, attention and money, not necessarily in that order.
HRC is a public servant who wants to be president and understands more thoroughly than almost everybody what that means.
No equivalence here.
HRC is a public servant who wants to be president and understands more thoroughly than almost everybody what that means.
No equivalence here.
barbos
Contributor
And being public servants makes her better?
I don't know how much she understands but I know I thought it was bad idea to invade Iraq at the time. Same with Libya and Syria, Ok, Syria happened after Hillary left.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Trump supported the invasion as well. It's another example of a lie.
This post has to be satire.
barbos
Contributor
Sorry to burst your bubble but I am not a supporter of that individual.
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
Entangling the Russian hackers with the contents of the leak is unfortunate and counter-productive. Yes, Democrats should be pissed that DNC was taking sides against Sanders. But at the same time, the "leak" is not some whistleblower dumping the emails, it's a deliberate act of cyber warfare by a foreign nation (most likely... not that it can ever be proven beyond all doubt). These are two completely separate issues, but they are also very easy to use to try to deflect each other:
When someone raises an issue that DNC was taking sides, he or she can get rebuked with "Are you in cahoots with the Russians? Why do you let them interfere in our elections?"
When someone raises concern over Russian hacks, he or she gets rebuked with "What about the DNC dishonesty, don't attack the messenger!"
I for one think these lines of argumentation should be banned. When discussing the content of the leak, talk about the content. When discussing the hacking, talk about the hacking only.
Anyway, I wonder, if it is Russian hackers, why would it be restricted only to DNC or Hillary? Could it be that they have also hacked RNC or Trump's campaign emails (or at least tried), but have simply not chosen to reveal those. Independent hacking groups like Anonymous (if it exists) would probably release everything they can get their hands on, but state actors would know the value of keeping some things secret and releasing only the parts that benefits them. For example, the famous phone call where Victoria Nuland says "fuck Europe" was not released in its entirety, only the small part that might have hurt EU-US relations.
If Trump or RNC was hacked, and there are traces of it, would they make it public, or just cross their fingers and hope nothing gets released? Does it put Trump in a possible position of being blackmailed by Russia later on?
When someone raises an issue that DNC was taking sides, he or she can get rebuked with "Are you in cahoots with the Russians? Why do you let them interfere in our elections?"
When someone raises concern over Russian hacks, he or she gets rebuked with "What about the DNC dishonesty, don't attack the messenger!"
I for one think these lines of argumentation should be banned. When discussing the content of the leak, talk about the content. When discussing the hacking, talk about the hacking only.
Anyway, I wonder, if it is Russian hackers, why would it be restricted only to DNC or Hillary? Could it be that they have also hacked RNC or Trump's campaign emails (or at least tried), but have simply not chosen to reveal those. Independent hacking groups like Anonymous (if it exists) would probably release everything they can get their hands on, but state actors would know the value of keeping some things secret and releasing only the parts that benefits them. For example, the famous phone call where Victoria Nuland says "fuck Europe" was not released in its entirety, only the small part that might have hurt EU-US relations.
If Trump or RNC was hacked, and there are traces of it, would they make it public, or just cross their fingers and hope nothing gets released? Does it put Trump in a possible position of being blackmailed by Russia later on?
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
Duh, yeah. Being a public servant makes her more qualified. Particularly so when compared to a reality tv star.
I also have reservations about HRC's militarism. Not long ago in American politics, post 911, presidential contenders had to be militaristic. Kerry's waffling on Iraq hurt him in 2004. By 2008, Iraq was clearly a mistake, and though Obama won, he reinforced Afghanistan, expanded drone strategy, and appointed a republican SecDef, all moves designed to display his defense creds.
Will HRC seek to make her mark using the military overseas? I doubt it. After being elected, the next goal is being reelected. Public support for overseas ground campaigns is low. And speaking strategically as opposed to politically, what vital national interest of ours is being threatened anywhere?
TV and credit cards
Contributor
Why should we be so horror-struck when evidence is provided for what we suspect, wholly believe to be true? It's like catching your parents having sex. Yeah. The DNC was in the bag for Hillary. I'm sure there is some absolutely horrid things said about The Donald in GOP emails throughout the primary process.
The bitch of it all is Putin trying to affect the outcome of our elections to put that idiot in office. It would warm my cockles to no end if Obama put a hurtin' on that prick.
The bitch of it all is Putin trying to affect the outcome of our elections to put that idiot in office. It would warm my cockles to no end if Obama put a hurtin' on that prick.