|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 02 2016 04:41 Vin{MBL} wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 04:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 02 2016 04:16 Naracs_Duc wrote:On June 02 2016 04:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 02 2016 03:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:54 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:36 Mohdoo wrote:
Doesn't every bit of history suggest the US government does a poor job at managing its security? Clinton's career, organization, everything, relies on her business dealings remaining confidential. You don't need to be corrupt to value privacy or have a distinct need for privacy.
For a shitty approximation, let's compare the NSA to Apple. Not a rigorous comparison by any means, but I think I am making my point. I imagine that being able to do whatever the hell you want to stay safe, as opposed to all the hoops the government has to jump through, makes things much easier. It's tough to assess how the US does overall because we don't hear much about the failings of other countries (which I understand to be substantial). As for Hillary, I certainly understand the desire for privacy on her end, but public office has its rules and limitations. And the stink with the Clintons (moreso than with basically any other politicians) all along has been that of corruption. Thus, the failure to be transparent is particularly damaging to Hillary's image given her history. There's a reason people don't make the same allegations (in terms of degree) against the Bushes or the Obamas that they make against the Clintons. Did you miss like 7 years of Trump saying over and over that Barry Soetoro wasn't born in the United States, had faked his transcript, that nobody remembered him at school and that he needed Barry's high school friends to come forwards and confirm that they went to school with him. Trump made a huge, huge deal of lack of transparency from Obama, above and beyond all rationality. Of course people say that Obama isn't transparent because his administration has basically rewritten the playbook on being opaque. But my point is that Obama isn't associated with corruption in the same way that the Clintons are. I certainly have written a shitton about Obama's faults, but corruption isn't one that I'd put at the top of the list like I would with Hillary. What's the piece of evidence of Hillary being corrupt? I'm genuinely interested. The main evidence so far is that she's not an old white guy. That's what it seems to me. But maybe xDaunt has some piece of information? You can argue about Clinton "lack of authenticity" (if that kind of media rubbish is of any interest for you) or that she changes her mind (she did a few times), or that she lied about her emails (damn that sounds serious), but saying she is corrupt needs backing from facts. I guess if the Rep didn't find anything better than her email server to go full hysterical, there mustn't be all that much out there. Still curious. At the very least the email issue shows her placing personal interests ahead of the American people.
What? What in the world do her emails show us about that?
|
At the very least Trump is dealing with his "disqualifying things" a lot better and has a stranglehold on the media, while Hillary hasn't had a press conference in 2016 yet.
|
On June 02 2016 04:49 Sermokala wrote:
At the very least Trump is dealing with his "disqualifying things" a lot better and has a stranglehold on the media, while Hillary hasn't had a press conference in 2016 yet.
I wouldn't say Trump is dealing with his disqualifying problems at all. It is that his voters don't care.
|
United States43971 Posts
On June 02 2016 04:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 04:49 Sermokala wrote:
At the very least Trump is dealing with his "disqualifying things" a lot better and has a stranglehold on the media, while Hillary hasn't had a press conference in 2016 yet. I wouldn't say Trump is dealing with his disqualifying problems at all. It is that his voters don't care.
Or actively approve of them. "He says the racist things we're all thinking!"
|
On June 02 2016 04:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Still curious.
No, you're not. This post below says all we need to hear about the degree of good faith with which you're approaching the conversation:
On June 02 2016 01:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 00:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 00:08 Rebs wrote:On June 01 2016 23:54 xDaunt wrote:On June 01 2016 23:34 Vin{MBL} wrote:This email has been public for a few months. I think the better evidence they have is when the server was under attack from hackers multiple times and they failed to report it to the dept. Can be considered "gross negligence" by any resonable person. I generally agree with that. Still, the problem for Hillary is that she's been caught in yet another lie. ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAgh-LUUsAAlY71.jpg) + Show Spoiler + Presuming that the Bush administration did something wrong, it's a moot point when you're not caught. Hillary's problem is that she's been caught. That sounds horrible. Trump is lying about every time he opens his mouth, and when Bush administration lied, it was to engage the country in an illegal disastrous war. But hey, emails! Do you realize you are obsessed about something no one with a straight mind gives a damn about? This email thing is a non issue, and you seem to think that it's the single most important thing in this race. No one cares, and no, it's not a good argument to make Hillary "crooked". Find a better scandal, or start discussing actual policy, like the wall your champion wants to build, the ban on all muslims, the default of American debt, the use of torture and killing on civilian or the denial of global warming. That worries be a tiny bit more than what server Hillary used. But in desperation......
|
I must admit, I expected Trump to be doing significantly better right now. He could be moving to the left and doing so much more than he is right now. I don't think he's out of tricks, but he is making it look that way.
My stupid prediction: The day Clinton is crowned queen of the democratic party, Trump announces his plan to make superdelegates "illegal".
|
On June 02 2016 04:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 04:55 Gorsameth wrote:On June 02 2016 04:49 Sermokala wrote:
At the very least Trump is dealing with his "disqualifying things" a lot better and has a stranglehold on the media, while Hillary hasn't had a press conference in 2016 yet. I wouldn't say Trump is dealing with his disqualifying problems at all. It is that his voters don't care. Or actively approve of them. "He says the racist things we're all thinking!"
“I sort of don’t approve all the racist stuff going on at these rallies, but there is no chance it will have a real negative impact on my life. Plus it is just words and free speech allowed. I really just want him to bring the jobs back and make this country great again.”
On June 02 2016 05:00 Mohdoo wrote:
I must admit, I expected Trump to be doing significantly better right now. He could be moving to the left and doing so much more than he is right now. I don't think he's out of tricks, but he is making it look that way.
My stupid prediction: The day Clinton is crowned queen of the democratic party, Trump announces his plan to make superdelegates "illegal".
Your faith in his long term planning skills is pretty impressive. The man has no plan and isn’t going left. I don’t think he knows what left is or how to go in that direction. He was asked earlier today about the vote on the UK leaving the EU and he had no idea what they were talking about.
|
That's one thing I never understood about Trump: when exactly was America "great" - as in better than today?
|
On June 02 2016 05:00 Mohdoo wrote:
I must admit, I expected Trump to be doing significantly better right now. He could be moving to the left and doing so much more than he is right now. I don't think he's out of tricks, but he is making it look that way.
My stupid prediction: The day Clinton is crowned queen of the democratic party, Trump announces his plan to make superdelegates "illegal".
I'm disappointed that he didn't actually go through with debating Bernie, but I don't think that he has made any real missteps yet. I definitely liked his press conference where he went after some of the journalists. I think that he mostly wants to lie in the weeds for a little bit longer while Bernie continues to battle to Hillary. In the meantime, Trump will just keep doing things here and there to steal headlines.
|
United States43971 Posts
On June 02 2016 05:04 opisska wrote:
That's one thing I never understood about Trump: when exactly was America "great" - as in better than today?
There are good, honest, working white men who sometimes have to sit at the back of a bus. It never used to be that way.
|
On June 02 2016 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 04:41 Vin{MBL} wrote:On June 02 2016 04:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 02 2016 04:16 Naracs_Duc wrote:On June 02 2016 04:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 02 2016 03:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:54 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:36 Mohdoo wrote:
Doesn't every bit of history suggest the US government does a poor job at managing its security? Clinton's career, organization, everything, relies on her business dealings remaining confidential. You don't need to be corrupt to value privacy or have a distinct need for privacy.
For a shitty approximation, let's compare the NSA to Apple. Not a rigorous comparison by any means, but I think I am making my point. I imagine that being able to do whatever the hell you want to stay safe, as opposed to all the hoops the government has to jump through, makes things much easier. It's tough to assess how the US does overall because we don't hear much about the failings of other countries (which I understand to be substantial). As for Hillary, I certainly understand the desire for privacy on her end, but public office has its rules and limitations. And the stink with the Clintons (moreso than with basically any other politicians) all along has been that of corruption. Thus, the failure to be transparent is particularly damaging to Hillary's image given her history. There's a reason people don't make the same allegations (in terms of degree) against the Bushes or the Obamas that they make against the Clintons. Did you miss like 7 years of Trump saying over and over that Barry Soetoro wasn't born in the United States, had faked his transcript, that nobody remembered him at school and that he needed Barry's high school friends to come forwards and confirm that they went to school with him. Trump made a huge, huge deal of lack of transparency from Obama, above and beyond all rationality. Of course people say that Obama isn't transparent because his administration has basically rewritten the playbook on being opaque. But my point is that Obama isn't associated with corruption in the same way that the Clintons are. I certainly have written a shitton about Obama's faults, but corruption isn't one that I'd put at the top of the list like I would with Hillary. What's the piece of evidence of Hillary being corrupt? I'm genuinely interested. The main evidence so far is that she's not an old white guy. That's what it seems to me. But maybe xDaunt has some piece of information? You can argue about Clinton "lack of authenticity" (if that kind of media rubbish is of any interest for you) or that she changes her mind (she did a few times), or that she lied about her emails (damn that sounds serious), but saying she is corrupt needs backing from facts. I guess if the Rep didn't find anything better than her email server to go full hysterical, there mustn't be all that much out there. Still curious. At the very least the email issue shows her placing personal interests ahead of the American people. What? What in the world do her emails show us about that?
Using a less secure personal email server, either for convenience (as she has said) or to avoid FOIA requests needlessly put US security at risk if her server had been hacked.
|
On June 02 2016 05:00 Mohdoo wrote:
I must admit, I expected Trump to be doing significantly better right now. He could be moving to the left and doing so much more than he is right now. I don't think he's out of tricks, but he is making it look that way.
My stupid prediction: The day Clinton is crowned queen of the democratic party, Trump announces his plan to make superdelegates "illegal".
We're still like half a year out, he's not going to play all his cards at once. It's about pacing. That's the short explanation.
|
On June 02 2016 05:15 Vin{MBL} wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2016 04:41 Vin{MBL} wrote:On June 02 2016 04:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 02 2016 04:16 Naracs_Duc wrote:On June 02 2016 04:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 02 2016 03:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:54 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:47 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:36 Mohdoo wrote:
Doesn't every bit of history suggest the US government does a poor job at managing its security? Clinton's career, organization, everything, relies on her business dealings remaining confidential. You don't need to be corrupt to value privacy or have a distinct need for privacy.
For a shitty approximation, let's compare the NSA to Apple. Not a rigorous comparison by any means, but I think I am making my point. I imagine that being able to do whatever the hell you want to stay safe, as opposed to all the hoops the government has to jump through, makes things much easier. It's tough to assess how the US does overall because we don't hear much about the failings of other countries (which I understand to be substantial). As for Hillary, I certainly understand the desire for privacy on her end, but public office has its rules and limitations. And the stink with the Clintons (moreso than with basically any other politicians) all along has been that of corruption. Thus, the failure to be transparent is particularly damaging to Hillary's image given her history. There's a reason people don't make the same allegations (in terms of degree) against the Bushes or the Obamas that they make against the Clintons. Did you miss like 7 years of Trump saying over and over that Barry Soetoro wasn't born in the United States, had faked his transcript, that nobody remembered him at school and that he needed Barry's high school friends to come forwards and confirm that they went to school with him. Trump made a huge, huge deal of lack of transparency from Obama, above and beyond all rationality. Of course people say that Obama isn't transparent because his administration has basically rewritten the playbook on being opaque. But my point is that Obama isn't associated with corruption in the same way that the Clintons are. I certainly have written a shitton about Obama's faults, but corruption isn't one that I'd put at the top of the list like I would with Hillary. What's the piece of evidence of Hillary being corrupt? I'm genuinely interested. The main evidence so far is that she's not an old white guy. That's what it seems to me. But maybe xDaunt has some piece of information? You can argue about Clinton "lack of authenticity" (if that kind of media rubbish is of any interest for you) or that she changes her mind (she did a few times), or that she lied about her emails (damn that sounds serious), but saying she is corrupt needs backing from facts. I guess if the Rep didn't find anything better than her email server to go full hysterical, there mustn't be all that much out there. Still curious. At the very least the email issue shows her placing personal interests ahead of the American people. What? What in the world do her emails show us about that? Using a less secure personal email server, either for convenience (as she has said) or to avoid FOIA requests needlessly put US security at risk if her server had been hacked.
considering the colossal screwups the government has done, which involved HORRIBLE breaches of security; it's not so clear a private server would be riskier. As was mentioned very recently in this thread.
|
On June 02 2016 05:24 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 05:15 Vin{MBL} wrote:On June 02 2016 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2016 04:41 Vin{MBL} wrote:On June 02 2016 04:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 02 2016 04:16 Naracs_Duc wrote:On June 02 2016 04:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 02 2016 03:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:54 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2016 03:47 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
It's tough to assess how the US does overall because we don't hear much about the failings of other countries (which I understand to be substantial). As for Hillary, I certainly understand the desire for privacy on her end, but public office has its rules and limitations. And the stink with the Clintons (moreso than with basically any other politicians) all along has been that of corruption. Thus, the failure to be transparent is particularly damaging to Hillary's image given her history. There's a reason people don't make the same allegations (in terms of degree) against the Bushes or the Obamas that they make against the Clintons. Did you miss like 7 years of Trump saying over and over that Barry Soetoro wasn't born in the United States, had faked his transcript, that nobody remembered him at school and that he needed Barry's high school friends to come forwards and confirm that they went to school with him. Trump made a huge, huge deal of lack of transparency from Obama, above and beyond all rationality. Of course people say that Obama isn't transparent because his administration has basically rewritten the playbook on being opaque. But my point is that Obama isn't associated with corruption in the same way that the Clintons are. I certainly have written a shitton about Obama's faults, but corruption isn't one that I'd put at the top of the list like I would with Hillary. What's the piece of evidence of Hillary being corrupt? I'm genuinely interested. The main evidence so far is that she's not an old white guy. That's what it seems to me. But maybe xDaunt has some piece of information? You can argue about Clinton "lack of authenticity" (if that kind of media rubbish is of any interest for you) or that she changes her mind (she did a few times), or that she lied about her emails (damn that sounds serious), but saying she is corrupt needs backing from facts. I guess if the Rep didn't find anything better than her email server to go full hysterical, there mustn't be all that much out there. Still curious. At the very least the email issue shows her placing personal interests ahead of the American people. What? What in the world do her emails show us about that? Using a less secure personal email server, either for convenience (as she has said) or to avoid FOIA requests needlessly put US security at risk if her server had been hacked. considering the colossal screwups the government has done, which involved HORRIBLE breaches of security; it's not so clear a private server would be riskier. As was mentioned very recently in this thread.
I just imagined some underling saying that and how hard they would get laughed at for presenting that as an argument for having a private server.
|
On June 02 2016 05:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 05:04 opisska wrote:
That's one thing I never understood about Trump: when exactly was America "great" - as in better than today? There are good, honest, working white men who sometimes have to sit at the back of a bus. It never used to be that way.
We used to be able to own other human beings and call them whatever we wanted.
tbh I think hes refering to the 60-80's when people went around thinking that they were at constant threat of becoming radioactive glass in a matter of minutes.
|
On June 02 2016 05:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 05:24 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2016 05:15 Vin{MBL} wrote:On June 02 2016 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2016 04:41 Vin{MBL} wrote:On June 02 2016 04:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 02 2016 04:16 Naracs_Duc wrote:On June 02 2016 04:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 02 2016 03:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2016 03:54 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Did you miss like 7 years of Trump saying over and over that Barry Soetoro wasn't born in the United States, had faked his transcript, that nobody remembered him at school and that he needed Barry's high school friends to come forwards and confirm that they went to school with him. Trump made a huge, huge deal of lack of transparency from Obama, above and beyond all rationality. Of course people say that Obama isn't transparent because his administration has basically rewritten the playbook on being opaque. But my point is that Obama isn't associated with corruption in the same way that the Clintons are. I certainly have written a shitton about Obama's faults, but corruption isn't one that I'd put at the top of the list like I would with Hillary. What's the piece of evidence of Hillary being corrupt? I'm genuinely interested. The main evidence so far is that she's not an old white guy. That's what it seems to me. But maybe xDaunt has some piece of information? You can argue about Clinton "lack of authenticity" (if that kind of media rubbish is of any interest for you) or that she changes her mind (she did a few times), or that she lied about her emails (damn that sounds serious), but saying she is corrupt needs backing from facts. I guess if the Rep didn't find anything better than her email server to go full hysterical, there mustn't be all that much out there. Still curious. At the very least the email issue shows her placing personal interests ahead of the American people. What? What in the world do her emails show us about that? Using a less secure personal email server, either for convenience (as she has said) or to avoid FOIA requests needlessly put US security at risk if her server had been hacked. considering the colossal screwups the government has done, which involved HORRIBLE breaches of security; it's not so clear a private server would be riskier. As was mentioned very recently in this thread. I just imagined some underling saying that and how hard they would get laughed at for presenting that as an argument for having a private server.
it's not an argument for having a private server; it's an argument that the personal server was not necessarily less secure; an admittedly fine distinction which was not at all clear in my post.
|
The server was set up by the state department, right? Not some sever she purchased and then had a contractor set up?
|
On June 02 2016 05:37 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2016 05:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 02 2016 05:24 zlefin wrote:On June 02 2016 05:15 Vin{MBL} wrote:On June 02 2016 04:48 Mohdoo wrote:On June 02 2016 04:41 Vin{MBL} wrote:On June 02 2016 04:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 02 2016 04:16 Naracs_Duc wrote:On June 02 2016 04:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 02 2016 03:59 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Of course people say that Obama isn't transparent because his administration has basically rewritten the playbook on being opaque. But my point is that Obama isn't associated with corruption in the same way that the Clintons are. I certainly have written a shitton about Obama's faults, but corruption isn't one that I'd put at the top of the list like I would with Hillary. What's the piece of evidence of Hillary being corrupt? I'm genuinely interested. The main evidence so far is that she's not an old white guy. That's what it seems to me. But maybe xDaunt has some piece of information? You can argue about Clinton "lack of authenticity" (if that kind of media rubbish is of any interest for you) or that she changes her mind (she did a few times), or that she lied about her emails (damn that sounds serious), but saying she is corrupt needs backing from facts. I guess if the Rep didn't find anything better than her email server to go full hysterical, there mustn't be all that much out there. Still curious. At the very least the email issue shows her placing personal interests ahead of the American people. What? What in the world do her emails show us about that? Using a less secure personal email server, either for convenience (as she has said) or to avoid FOIA requests needlessly put US security at risk if her server had been hacked. considering the colossal screwups the government has done, which involved HORRIBLE breaches of security; it's not so clear a private server would be riskier. As was mentioned very recently in this thread. I just imagined some underling saying that and how hard they would get laughed at for presenting that as an argument for having a private server. it's not an argument for having a private server; it's an argument that the personal server was not necessarily less secure; an admittedly fine distinction which was not at all clear in my post.
"What difference, at this point, does it make!?"
No, but seriously, why does that matter at all?
|
On June 02 2016 05:04 opisska wrote:
That's one thing I never understood about Trump: when exactly was America "great" - as in better than today?
The United States has traditionally been a beacon of hope and leadership for the western world. From their indepence and their constitution (basically copied trough latin america), to inventing the modern world, to defeating the Nazis and the Soviet Union perhaps?. Not perfect, but magnitudes above the alternatives.
|
On June 02 2016 05:41 Plansix wrote:
The server was set up by the state department, right? Not some sever she purchased and then had a contractor set up?
It was set up by one of Clinton staffers so kinda?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
