|
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 July 28 2016 02:51 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 02:39 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 02:34 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:28 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 02:18 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:15 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 02:10 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:04 LegalLord wrote:
It's not the Russians' fault that the emails contain what they do. Spinning this as if it were is in fact blaming the Russians.
You're conflating blaming the Russians for the hack and blaming them for the content of the emails. On July 28 2016 02:04 LegalLord wrote:
My opinion of Obama is that he is not an FP president and he chose a pretty terrible advisor in Hillary Clinton. That is what it would be regardless of the Ukraine situation. Beside the point of whether you'd criticize him for being weak on Crimea. Blaming the Russians for the hack is an attempt to sidestep the issue of the contents of the hack. Foreign governments hacking your servers is neither unusual nor suspicious because everyone does it to everyone. Leaking the contents, a bit less so, but also not something all that out of the ordinary. Still no conclusive proof that it is Russia either. I gave you my thoughts on Obama's FP. That is hardly beside the point. I don't really think in terms of "weak or strong" but more in "foolish or well-planned" action. Stating a general opinion on Obama's FP is beside the point of a specific question on a specific issue. Both the contents of the hack and the hack itself can be big issues. You are clearly downplaying the latter. My general opinion is my specific opinion. The latter is an issue of the DNC and how fucking bad it is at protecting its own servers. I have mentioned this in the past and the hackee matters more than the hacker. LegalLord: Obama is not a FP president. I assess actions in terms of foolish or not foolish. LegalLord: The above clarifies whether I think Obama's reaction to Crimea was foolish or not foolish. Alrighty, so let's just answer this simply and specifically. Getting involved in Ukraine and encouraging the situation that led to the Crimean referendum was foolish and short-sighted. His response to the situation as it arose, was pretty garden variety for US FP: sanctions and posturing. He didn't start a war, which is a good benchmark for "not John Rambo McCain." He didn't do a good job of defusing the situation, but honestly I don't think that's a task that would happen within his presidency anyways, so I have little to comment about in that regard. I take it from you giving credence to the "referendum" that you think Putin's invasion wasn't that bad of a thing (after all, Obama got involved in Ukraine so we can't really blame Putin for invading). Now, Trump should let Russia have Crimea. I guess those are at least consistent positions, if surprisingly approving of Russia's ambitions w/r/t sphere of influence. I just hope you aren't adopting a Russia apologist stance to downplay the DNC hacking itself.
The referendum was about as legitimate as a hastily organized event like that can be. At the very least only a clueless moron would doubt that the result was the favored result of a straight majority of the entire (voting and nonvoting) population.
Anyone with at least a high school understanding of Russian history would realize that Russia was never going to give up Crimea, ever. If not for the Ukraine situation right now, Russia would have gotten it back through more diplomatic means, eventually. The US FP actors knew this and pushed forward anyways as a deliberate provocation. That sort of provocation is most consistent with the Wolfowitz Doctrine approach to foreign policy (preserve the US as the one and only superpower in the world) but it's ultimately short-sighted because no empire has ever been able to do that throughout all of human history, and it's a fool's errand to think this case will be any different.
|
On July 28 2016 02:57 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 02:52 IgnE wrote:On July 28 2016 02:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 28 2016 02:46 IgnE wrote:On July 28 2016 02:43 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 28 2016 02:40 IgnE wrote:On July 28 2016 02:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 28 2016 02:28 IgnE wrote:On July 28 2016 02:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 28 2016 02:24 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You are badly underestimating Trump if you don't think that this press conference or his comments were calculated. You routinely overestimate and rationalize Trump's narcissistic actions. Narcissism has it's own logic though. Trump can be doing what he feels he has to because he's a narcissist, and that something can also be a brilliant PR move, because narcissism thrives on publicity. This is exactly the point. Basically all of Trump's actions are short-sighted outbursts meant to preserve his own ego. Meanwhile, his hoard of followers (including most conservative posters here, e.g. xDaunt, Biology, Legal, etc.) will try to rationalize it any way they can so that the cognitive dissonance for one that sees themselves as rational or intelligent isn't so incredibly painful. Dauntless said it was "calculated" not that it was a cynically practical maneuver or unrelated to his narcissism. He knows what he's doing, even if he's not self-aware enough to know that he's motivated by his bottomless need for attention. He knows what he's doing because he has been promoting himself for his entire life. He's like a natural athlete who just knows how it "feels" to make the right moves on the sporting field, and you are complaining that he is beating Hillary when she puts so much more work into strategizing and theorizing about how to win the political game. Actually that's not what I'm doing at all, but feel free to continue to be wrong about my intentions. Whatever dude. Feel free to complain in shitposts about people not understanding you. Trump is reactionary and doesn't see more than 1 move ahead on the chessboard, but that doesn't mean he's just getting lucky. It says more about how bad Hillary is at the game that he is stomping her with purely reactionary, animal instinct. 1) I didn't say he was "lucky". 2) Trump isn't "stomping" Clinton. If you want to live in Republican fantasyland, you can continue to think that, but the rest of us will continue this discussion in the real world. Considering how objectively poor of a candidate Trump is compared to Clinton, "stomping" seems like an apt description. He is outplaying her with a far worse hand. If she wins it won't be because she is better at the game, it will be because she rolled double 6s multiple times in political backgammon. Because getting the media lights on himself is inherently a good thing and constitutes "stomping".
I think it also speaks volumes about both the election and our electorate that the entire campaign has been about how good or bad Clinton is because we consistently brush aside the quality (or lack thereof) that Trump has as a presidential candidate.
Every single time anything negative about Trump comes up, conservatives just rush to make the discussion about how bad Clinton is. The default discussion isn't about the merits of one vs. the other, it's about "is Clinton so bad that we can ignore all of the Trump faults that we take for granted?".
|
Now that U.S. authorities are confident Russian intelligence agencies are behind the hack of Democratic Party emails, political operatives and cybersecurity experts tell NBC News they are bracing for an "October Surprise" -- a release of even more potentially damaging information timed to influence the outcome of the presidential election and the course of the next administration.
The big question isn't whether more information will be disclosed, they say, but how destructive it might be to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and to broader U.S. foreign policy efforts.
Democratic Party and Clinton campaign officials are now doing an urgent "damage assessment" to determine what kind of information might have been stolen and the impact its release might have on a tight presidential race.
"That is a nightmare scenario, and let's hope we don't see that as an October Surprise -- emails from Hillary Clinton's server that have either been in the press or worse, the classified ones that no one in the public has seen," said retired Adm. James Stavridis, who as the former Supreme Allied Commander for NATO is familiar with Russian information operations.
"I think it is a nightmare for all of us because it shows the degree to which our systems have been penetrated by Russian hackers potentially operating under the rubric of the Russian government," said Stavridis, who was vetted as a possible Clinton running mate.
Julian Assange, whose WikiLeaks organization leaked more than 19,000 DNC emails last Friday, has promised to leak more in an effort to damage Clinton.
Source.
|
On July 28 2016 02:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 02:51 zeo wrote:On July 28 2016 02:43 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2016 02:39 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 02:34 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:28 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 02:18 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:15 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 02:10 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:04 LegalLord wrote:
It's not the Russians' fault that the emails contain what they do. Spinning this as if it were is in fact blaming the Russians.
You're conflating blaming the Russians for the hack and blaming them for the content of the emails. On July 28 2016 02:04 LegalLord wrote:
My opinion of Obama is that he is not an FP president and he chose a pretty terrible advisor in Hillary Clinton. That is what it would be regardless of the Ukraine situation. Beside the point of whether you'd criticize him for being weak on Crimea. Blaming the Russians for the hack is an attempt to sidestep the issue of the contents of the hack. Foreign governments hacking your servers is neither unusual nor suspicious because everyone does it to everyone. Leaking the contents, a bit less so, but also not something all that out of the ordinary. Still no conclusive proof that it is Russia either. I gave you my thoughts on Obama's FP. That is hardly beside the point. I don't really think in terms of "weak or strong" but more in "foolish or well-planned" action. Stating a general opinion on Obama's FP is beside the point of a specific question on a specific issue. Both the contents of the hack and the hack itself can be big issues. You are clearly downplaying the latter. My general opinion is my specific opinion. The latter is an issue of the DNC and how fucking bad it is at protecting its own servers. I have mentioned this in the past and the hackee matters more than the hacker. LegalLord: Obama is not a FP president. I assess actions in terms of foolish or not foolish. LegalLord: The above clarifies whether I think Obama's reaction to Crimea was foolish or not foolish. Alrighty, so let's just answer this simply and specifically. Getting involved in Ukraine and encouraging the situation that led to the Crimean referendum was foolish and short-sighted. His response to the situation as it arose, was pretty garden variety for US FP: sanctions and posturing. He didn't start a war, which is a good benchmark for "not John Rambo McCain." He didn't do a good job of defusing the situation, but honestly I don't think that's a task that would happen within his presidency anyways, so I have little to comment about in that regard. If were are going to get into that, we have to remember that congress cut Obama's legs out from under him when they voted against his proposal for air strikes in Syria after Assad used chemical weapons. Every political observer at the time cited that moment when Russia knew NATO nations had zero interest in conflict of any type. If Putin believed that the US and NATO would have sent troops into assist the Ukraine, he never would have made that play. This meme again, its pretty well known by now the UN found that it was the rebels that used Sarin gas, here is a shit ton of sources in the spoiler below: + Show Spoiler + Man, you really go good work. Are you paid by the post? Also the only source in that that is worth looking at says “maybe”.
Since this statement from Carla Del Ponte and the UN nobody seems to mention the gas attacks again or it really isn't seen as an issue in the Syrian war.
Again, its not my fault you don't take the time to find out the facts (or at least what the UN says are facts in this case).
|
On July 28 2016 02:57 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 02:51 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:39 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 02:34 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:28 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 02:18 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:15 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 02:10 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:04 LegalLord wrote:
It's not the Russians' fault that the emails contain what they do. Spinning this as if it were is in fact blaming the Russians.
You're conflating blaming the Russians for the hack and blaming them for the content of the emails. On July 28 2016 02:04 LegalLord wrote:
My opinion of Obama is that he is not an FP president and he chose a pretty terrible advisor in Hillary Clinton. That is what it would be regardless of the Ukraine situation. Beside the point of whether you'd criticize him for being weak on Crimea. Blaming the Russians for the hack is an attempt to sidestep the issue of the contents of the hack. Foreign governments hacking your servers is neither unusual nor suspicious because everyone does it to everyone. Leaking the contents, a bit less so, but also not something all that out of the ordinary. Still no conclusive proof that it is Russia either. I gave you my thoughts on Obama's FP. That is hardly beside the point. I don't really think in terms of "weak or strong" but more in "foolish or well-planned" action. Stating a general opinion on Obama's FP is beside the point of a specific question on a specific issue. Both the contents of the hack and the hack itself can be big issues. You are clearly downplaying the latter. My general opinion is my specific opinion. The latter is an issue of the DNC and how fucking bad it is at protecting its own servers. I have mentioned this in the past and the hackee matters more than the hacker. LegalLord: Obama is not a FP president. I assess actions in terms of foolish or not foolish. LegalLord: The above clarifies whether I think Obama's reaction to Crimea was foolish or not foolish. Alrighty, so let's just answer this simply and specifically. Getting involved in Ukraine and encouraging the situation that led to the Crimean referendum was foolish and short-sighted. His response to the situation as it arose, was pretty garden variety for US FP: sanctions and posturing. He didn't start a war, which is a good benchmark for "not John Rambo McCain." He didn't do a good job of defusing the situation, but honestly I don't think that's a task that would happen within his presidency anyways, so I have little to comment about in that regard. I take it from you giving credence to the "referendum" that you think Putin's invasion wasn't that bad of a thing (after all, Obama got involved in Ukraine so we can't really blame Putin for invading). Now, Trump should let Russia have Crimea. I guess those are at least consistent positions, if surprisingly approving of Russia's ambitions w/r/t sphere of influence. I just hope you aren't adopting a Russia apologist stance to downplay the DNC hacking itself. The referendum was about as legitimate as a hastily organized event like that can be. At the very least only a clueless moron would doubt that the result was the favored result of a straight majority of the entire (voting and nonvoting) population. Anyone with at least a high school understanding of Russian history would realize that Russia was never going to give up Crimea, ever. If not for the Ukraine situation right now, Russia would have gotten it back through more diplomatic means, eventually. The US FP actors knew this and pushed forward anyways as a deliberate provocation. That sort of provocation is most consistent with the Wolfowitz Doctrine approach to foreign policy (preserve the US as the one and only superpower in the world) but it's ultimately short-sighted because no empire has ever been able to do that throughout all of human history, and it's a fool's errand to think this case will be any different.
We're getting far away from the DNC hack argument here but I'm seeing a good bit of leniency from you on letting Russia have what it wants and hacking the DNC.
|
On July 28 2016 02:57 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 02:52 IgnE wrote:On July 28 2016 02:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 28 2016 02:46 IgnE wrote:On July 28 2016 02:43 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 28 2016 02:40 IgnE wrote:On July 28 2016 02:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 28 2016 02:28 IgnE wrote:On July 28 2016 02:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 28 2016 02:24 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You are badly underestimating Trump if you don't think that this press conference or his comments were calculated. You routinely overestimate and rationalize Trump's narcissistic actions. Narcissism has it's own logic though. Trump can be doing what he feels he has to because he's a narcissist, and that something can also be a brilliant PR move, because narcissism thrives on publicity. This is exactly the point. Basically all of Trump's actions are short-sighted outbursts meant to preserve his own ego. Meanwhile, his hoard of followers (including most conservative posters here, e.g. xDaunt, Biology, Legal, etc.) will try to rationalize it any way they can so that the cognitive dissonance for one that sees themselves as rational or intelligent isn't so incredibly painful. Dauntless said it was "calculated" not that it was a cynically practical maneuver or unrelated to his narcissism. He knows what he's doing, even if he's not self-aware enough to know that he's motivated by his bottomless need for attention. He knows what he's doing because he has been promoting himself for his entire life. He's like a natural athlete who just knows how it "feels" to make the right moves on the sporting field, and you are complaining that he is beating Hillary when she puts so much more work into strategizing and theorizing about how to win the political game. Actually that's not what I'm doing at all, but feel free to continue to be wrong about my intentions. Whatever dude. Feel free to complain in shitposts about people not understanding you. Trump is reactionary and doesn't see more than 1 move ahead on the chessboard, but that doesn't mean he's just getting lucky. It says more about how bad Hillary is at the game that he is stomping her with purely reactionary, animal instinct. 1) I didn't say he was "lucky". 2) Trump isn't "stomping" Clinton. If you want to live in Republican fantasyland, you can continue to think that, but the rest of us will continue this discussion in the real world. Considering how objectively poor of a candidate Trump is compared to Clinton, "stomping" seems like an apt description. He is outplaying her with a far worse hand. If she wins it won't be because she is better at the game, it will be because she rolled double 6s multiple times in political backgammon. Because getting the media lights on himself is inherently a good thing and constitutes "stomping".
Yes. That's right. Now you get it.
|
On July 28 2016 03:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +Now that U.S. authorities are confident Russian intelligence agencies are behind the hack of Democratic Party emails, political operatives and cybersecurity experts tell NBC News they are bracing for an "October Surprise" -- a release of even more potentially damaging information timed to influence the outcome of the presidential election and the course of the next administration.
The big question isn't whether more information will be disclosed, they say, but how destructive it might be to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and to broader U.S. foreign policy efforts.
Democratic Party and Clinton campaign officials are now doing an urgent "damage assessment" to determine what kind of information might have been stolen and the impact its release might have on a tight presidential race.
"That is a nightmare scenario, and let's hope we don't see that as an October Surprise -- emails from Hillary Clinton's server that have either been in the press or worse, the classified ones that no one in the public has seen," said retired Adm. James Stavridis, who as the former Supreme Allied Commander for NATO is familiar with Russian information operations.
"I think it is a nightmare for all of us because it shows the degree to which our systems have been penetrated by Russian hackers potentially operating under the rubric of the Russian government," said Stavridis, who was vetted as a possible Clinton running mate.
Julian Assange, whose WikiLeaks organization leaked more than 19,000 DNC emails last Friday, has promised to leak more in an effort to damage Clinton. Source.
NBD, Russia. Just commonplace. And it's still just wild speculation that Russia hacked the DNC, ofc.
|
Getting mad at Russia for hacking into the DNC files and revealing how they rigged the election, proposed political appointments to campaign donors, and corrupted media organizations
Is like your significant other sneaking into your phone and confronting you about pictures of you cheating on them, and you decide to make the argument about how they are wrong for breaking into your phone
|
On July 28 2016 02:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 02:57 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:52 IgnE wrote:On July 28 2016 02:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 28 2016 02:46 IgnE wrote:On July 28 2016 02:43 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 28 2016 02:40 IgnE wrote:On July 28 2016 02:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 28 2016 02:28 IgnE wrote:On July 28 2016 02:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
You routinely overestimate and rationalize Trump's narcissistic actions. Narcissism has it's own logic though. Trump can be doing what he feels he has to because he's a narcissist, and that something can also be a brilliant PR move, because narcissism thrives on publicity. This is exactly the point. Basically all of Trump's actions are short-sighted outbursts meant to preserve his own ego. Meanwhile, his hoard of followers (including most conservative posters here, e.g. xDaunt, Biology, Legal, etc.) will try to rationalize it any way they can so that the cognitive dissonance for one that sees themselves as rational or intelligent isn't so incredibly painful. Dauntless said it was "calculated" not that it was a cynically practical maneuver or unrelated to his narcissism. He knows what he's doing, even if he's not self-aware enough to know that he's motivated by his bottomless need for attention. He knows what he's doing because he has been promoting himself for his entire life. He's like a natural athlete who just knows how it "feels" to make the right moves on the sporting field, and you are complaining that he is beating Hillary when she puts so much more work into strategizing and theorizing about how to win the political game. Actually that's not what I'm doing at all, but feel free to continue to be wrong about my intentions. Whatever dude. Feel free to complain in shitposts about people not understanding you. Trump is reactionary and doesn't see more than 1 move ahead on the chessboard, but that doesn't mean he's just getting lucky. It says more about how bad Hillary is at the game that he is stomping her with purely reactionary, animal instinct. 1) I didn't say he was "lucky". 2) Trump isn't "stomping" Clinton. If you want to live in Republican fantasyland, you can continue to think that, but the rest of us will continue this discussion in the real world. Considering how objectively poor of a candidate Trump is compared to Clinton, "stomping" seems like an apt description. He is outplaying her with a far worse hand. If she wins it won't be because she is better at the game, it will be because she rolled double 6s multiple times in political backgammon. Because getting the media lights on himself is inherently a good thing and constitutes "stomping". I think it also speaks volumes about both the election and our electorate that the entire campaign has been about how good or bad Clinton is because we consistently brush aside the quality (or lack thereof) that Trump has as a presidential candidate. Every single time anything negative about Trump comes up, conservatives just rush to make the discussion about how bad Clinton is. The default discussion isn't about the merits of one vs. the other, it's about "is Clinton so bad that we can ignore all of the Trump faults that we take for granted?".
Look at the odds on presumptive next President Hillary vs Trump from a year ago and then argue again that Trump and the GOP had the best hand to play.
|
On July 28 2016 03:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +Now that U.S. authorities are confident Russian intelligence agencies are behind the hack of Democratic Party emails, political operatives and cybersecurity experts tell NBC News they are bracing for an "October Surprise" -- a release of even more potentially damaging information timed to influence the outcome of the presidential election and the course of the next administration.
The big question isn't whether more information will be disclosed, they say, but how destructive it might be to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and to broader U.S. foreign policy efforts.
Democratic Party and Clinton campaign officials are now doing an urgent "damage assessment" to determine what kind of information might have been stolen and the impact its release might have on a tight presidential race.
"That is a nightmare scenario, and let's hope we don't see that as an October Surprise -- emails from Hillary Clinton's server that have either been in the press or worse, the classified ones that no one in the public has seen," said retired Adm. James Stavridis, who as the former Supreme Allied Commander for NATO is familiar with Russian information operations.
"I think it is a nightmare for all of us because it shows the degree to which our systems have been penetrated by Russian hackers potentially operating under the rubric of the Russian government," said Stavridis, who was vetted as a possible Clinton running mate.
Julian Assange, whose WikiLeaks organization leaked more than 19,000 DNC emails last Friday, has promised to leak more in an effort to damage Clinton. Source.
This election is some amazing shit. We could have Trump elected on the back of wikileaks and stolen government documents. I am excited for this future where untouchable internet vigilantes backed by god knows who can do anything they want to anyone with no repercussions.
|
On July 28 2016 03:03 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 03:00 xDaunt wrote:Now that U.S. authorities are confident Russian intelligence agencies are behind the hack of Democratic Party emails, political operatives and cybersecurity experts tell NBC News they are bracing for an "October Surprise" -- a release of even more potentially damaging information timed to influence the outcome of the presidential election and the course of the next administration.
The big question isn't whether more information will be disclosed, they say, but how destructive it might be to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and to broader U.S. foreign policy efforts.
Democratic Party and Clinton campaign officials are now doing an urgent "damage assessment" to determine what kind of information might have been stolen and the impact its release might have on a tight presidential race.
"That is a nightmare scenario, and let's hope we don't see that as an October Surprise -- emails from Hillary Clinton's server that have either been in the press or worse, the classified ones that no one in the public has seen," said retired Adm. James Stavridis, who as the former Supreme Allied Commander for NATO is familiar with Russian information operations.
"I think it is a nightmare for all of us because it shows the degree to which our systems have been penetrated by Russian hackers potentially operating under the rubric of the Russian government," said Stavridis, who was vetted as a possible Clinton running mate.
Julian Assange, whose WikiLeaks organization leaked more than 19,000 DNC emails last Friday, has promised to leak more in an effort to damage Clinton. Source. NBD, Russia. Just commonplace. And it's still just wild speculation that Russia hacked the DNC, ofc.
Shouldn't people be worried that the Democrats know Clinton did something that could sink her in October? I wonder what she did....
|
On July 28 2016 03:04 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 02:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 28 2016 02:57 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:52 IgnE wrote:On July 28 2016 02:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 28 2016 02:46 IgnE wrote:On July 28 2016 02:43 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 28 2016 02:40 IgnE wrote:On July 28 2016 02:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 28 2016 02:28 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
Narcissism has it's own logic though. Trump can be doing what he feels he has to because he's a narcissist, and that something can also be a brilliant PR move, because narcissism thrives on publicity. This is exactly the point. Basically all of Trump's actions are short-sighted outbursts meant to preserve his own ego. Meanwhile, his hoard of followers (including most conservative posters here, e.g. xDaunt, Biology, Legal, etc.) will try to rationalize it any way they can so that the cognitive dissonance for one that sees themselves as rational or intelligent isn't so incredibly painful. Dauntless said it was "calculated" not that it was a cynically practical maneuver or unrelated to his narcissism. He knows what he's doing, even if he's not self-aware enough to know that he's motivated by his bottomless need for attention. He knows what he's doing because he has been promoting himself for his entire life. He's like a natural athlete who just knows how it "feels" to make the right moves on the sporting field, and you are complaining that he is beating Hillary when she puts so much more work into strategizing and theorizing about how to win the political game. Actually that's not what I'm doing at all, but feel free to continue to be wrong about my intentions. Whatever dude. Feel free to complain in shitposts about people not understanding you. Trump is reactionary and doesn't see more than 1 move ahead on the chessboard, but that doesn't mean he's just getting lucky. It says more about how bad Hillary is at the game that he is stomping her with purely reactionary, animal instinct. 1) I didn't say he was "lucky". 2) Trump isn't "stomping" Clinton. If you want to live in Republican fantasyland, you can continue to think that, but the rest of us will continue this discussion in the real world. Considering how objectively poor of a candidate Trump is compared to Clinton, "stomping" seems like an apt description. He is outplaying her with a far worse hand. If she wins it won't be because she is better at the game, it will be because she rolled double 6s multiple times in political backgammon. Because getting the media lights on himself is inherently a good thing and constitutes "stomping". I think it also speaks volumes about both the election and our electorate that the entire campaign has been about how good or bad Clinton is because we consistently brush aside the quality (or lack thereof) that Trump has as a presidential candidate. Every single time anything negative about Trump comes up, conservatives just rush to make the discussion about how bad Clinton is. The default discussion isn't about the merits of one vs. the other, it's about "is Clinton so bad that we can ignore all of the Trump faults that we take for granted?". Look at the odds on presumptive next President Hillary vs Trump from a year ago and then argue again that Trump and the GOP had the best hand to play.
Commentators' assessed odds don't necessarily reflect the underlying cards at play.
|
On July 28 2016 03:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +Now that U.S. authorities are confident Russian intelligence agencies are behind the hack of Democratic Party emails, political operatives and cybersecurity experts tell NBC News they are bracing for an "October Surprise" -- a release of even more potentially damaging information timed to influence the outcome of the presidential election and the course of the next administration.
The big question isn't whether more information will be disclosed, they say, but how destructive it might be to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and to broader U.S. foreign policy efforts.
Democratic Party and Clinton campaign officials are now doing an urgent "damage assessment" to determine what kind of information might have been stolen and the impact its release might have on a tight presidential race.
"That is a nightmare scenario, and let's hope we don't see that as an October Surprise -- emails from Hillary Clinton's server that have either been in the press or worse, the classified ones that no one in the public has seen," said retired Adm. James Stavridis, who as the former Supreme Allied Commander for NATO is familiar with Russian information operations.
"I think it is a nightmare for all of us because it shows the degree to which our systems have been penetrated by Russian hackers potentially operating under the rubric of the Russian government," said Stavridis, who was vetted as a possible Clinton running mate.
Julian Assange, whose WikiLeaks organization leaked more than 19,000 DNC emails last Friday, has promised to leak more in an effort to damage Clinton. Source.
Well, well. Instead of talking about the issue on hand, the important thing is obviously the alleged russian hacking(is confident about, what does that even mean?). As if that would be in any way surprising, or something the US wouldn't do.
On the other hand Wikileaks is obviously only doing this to damage Clinton. Oh the propaganda is strong in this one.
|
On July 28 2016 03:04 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Getting mad at Russia for hacking into the DNC files and revealing how they rigged the election and corrupted media organizations
Is like your significant other sneaking into your phone and confronting you about pictures of you cheating on them, and you decide to make the argument about how they are wrong for breaking into your phone
no it's even more ridiculous
because a better example is that it wasn't even your significant other that broke into your phone
|
On July 28 2016 03:04 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Getting mad at Russia for hacking into the DNC files and revealing how they rigged the election, proposed political appointments to campaign donors, and corrupted media organizations
Is like your significant other sneaking into your phone and confronting you about pictures of you cheating on them, and you decide to make the argument about how they are wrong for breaking into your phone
They violated your privacy. Even if you were cheating, you would be totally justified in not wanting to be friends with that person any more.
|
On July 28 2016 03:05 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 03:03 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 03:00 xDaunt wrote:Now that U.S. authorities are confident Russian intelligence agencies are behind the hack of Democratic Party emails, political operatives and cybersecurity experts tell NBC News they are bracing for an "October Surprise" -- a release of even more potentially damaging information timed to influence the outcome of the presidential election and the course of the next administration.
The big question isn't whether more information will be disclosed, they say, but how destructive it might be to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and to broader U.S. foreign policy efforts.
Democratic Party and Clinton campaign officials are now doing an urgent "damage assessment" to determine what kind of information might have been stolen and the impact its release might have on a tight presidential race.
"That is a nightmare scenario, and let's hope we don't see that as an October Surprise -- emails from Hillary Clinton's server that have either been in the press or worse, the classified ones that no one in the public has seen," said retired Adm. James Stavridis, who as the former Supreme Allied Commander for NATO is familiar with Russian information operations.
"I think it is a nightmare for all of us because it shows the degree to which our systems have been penetrated by Russian hackers potentially operating under the rubric of the Russian government," said Stavridis, who was vetted as a possible Clinton running mate.
Julian Assange, whose WikiLeaks organization leaked more than 19,000 DNC emails last Friday, has promised to leak more in an effort to damage Clinton. Source. NBD, Russia. Just commonplace. And it's still just wild speculation that Russia hacked the DNC, ofc. the Democrats know Clinton did something that could sink her in October
spin spin spin
|
On July 28 2016 03:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 03:00 xDaunt wrote:Now that U.S. authorities are confident Russian intelligence agencies are behind the hack of Democratic Party emails, political operatives and cybersecurity experts tell NBC News they are bracing for an "October Surprise" -- a release of even more potentially damaging information timed to influence the outcome of the presidential election and the course of the next administration.
The big question isn't whether more information will be disclosed, they say, but how destructive it might be to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and to broader U.S. foreign policy efforts.
Democratic Party and Clinton campaign officials are now doing an urgent "damage assessment" to determine what kind of information might have been stolen and the impact its release might have on a tight presidential race.
"That is a nightmare scenario, and let's hope we don't see that as an October Surprise -- emails from Hillary Clinton's server that have either been in the press or worse, the classified ones that no one in the public has seen," said retired Adm. James Stavridis, who as the former Supreme Allied Commander for NATO is familiar with Russian information operations.
"I think it is a nightmare for all of us because it shows the degree to which our systems have been penetrated by Russian hackers potentially operating under the rubric of the Russian government," said Stavridis, who was vetted as a possible Clinton running mate.
Julian Assange, whose WikiLeaks organization leaked more than 19,000 DNC emails last Friday, has promised to leak more in an effort to damage Clinton. Source. This election is some amazing shit. We could have Trump elected on the back of wikileaks and stolen government documents. I am excited for this future where untouchable internet vigilantes backed by god knows who can do anything they want to anyone with no repercussions.
MAYBE POLITICIANS SHOULD STOP DOING CORRUPT ILLEGAL SHIT THEN? DURRR?
|
On July 28 2016 03:08 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 03:05 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2016 03:00 xDaunt wrote:Now that U.S. authorities are confident Russian intelligence agencies are behind the hack of Democratic Party emails, political operatives and cybersecurity experts tell NBC News they are bracing for an "October Surprise" -- a release of even more potentially damaging information timed to influence the outcome of the presidential election and the course of the next administration.
The big question isn't whether more information will be disclosed, they say, but how destructive it might be to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and to broader U.S. foreign policy efforts.
Democratic Party and Clinton campaign officials are now doing an urgent "damage assessment" to determine what kind of information might have been stolen and the impact its release might have on a tight presidential race.
"That is a nightmare scenario, and let's hope we don't see that as an October Surprise -- emails from Hillary Clinton's server that have either been in the press or worse, the classified ones that no one in the public has seen," said retired Adm. James Stavridis, who as the former Supreme Allied Commander for NATO is familiar with Russian information operations.
"I think it is a nightmare for all of us because it shows the degree to which our systems have been penetrated by Russian hackers potentially operating under the rubric of the Russian government," said Stavridis, who was vetted as a possible Clinton running mate.
Julian Assange, whose WikiLeaks organization leaked more than 19,000 DNC emails last Friday, has promised to leak more in an effort to damage Clinton. Source. This election is some amazing shit. We could have Trump elected on the back of wikileaks and stolen government documents. I am excited for this future where untouchable internet vigilantes backed by god knows who can do anything they want to anyone with no repercussions. MAYBE POLITICIANS SHOULD STOP DOING CORRUPT ILLEGAL SHIT THEN? DURRR?
i almost choked on my water reading this
|
On July 28 2016 03:08 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 03:05 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2016 03:00 xDaunt wrote:Now that U.S. authorities are confident Russian intelligence agencies are behind the hack of Democratic Party emails, political operatives and cybersecurity experts tell NBC News they are bracing for an "October Surprise" -- a release of even more potentially damaging information timed to influence the outcome of the presidential election and the course of the next administration.
The big question isn't whether more information will be disclosed, they say, but how destructive it might be to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and to broader U.S. foreign policy efforts.
Democratic Party and Clinton campaign officials are now doing an urgent "damage assessment" to determine what kind of information might have been stolen and the impact its release might have on a tight presidential race.
"That is a nightmare scenario, and let's hope we don't see that as an October Surprise -- emails from Hillary Clinton's server that have either been in the press or worse, the classified ones that no one in the public has seen," said retired Adm. James Stavridis, who as the former Supreme Allied Commander for NATO is familiar with Russian information operations.
"I think it is a nightmare for all of us because it shows the degree to which our systems have been penetrated by Russian hackers potentially operating under the rubric of the Russian government," said Stavridis, who was vetted as a possible Clinton running mate.
Julian Assange, whose WikiLeaks organization leaked more than 19,000 DNC emails last Friday, has promised to leak more in an effort to damage Clinton. Source. This election is some amazing shit. We could have Trump elected on the back of wikileaks and stolen government documents. I am excited for this future where untouchable internet vigilantes backed by god knows who can do anything they want to anyone with no repercussions. MAYBE POLITICIANS SHOULD STOP DOING CORRUPT ILLEGAL SHIT THEN? DURRR?
Two things were wrong here. Grown adults should be able to see both as serious issues.
I'm pretty sure there are hordes of examples in the legal realm where committing crime A to expose crime B does not justify crime A. e.g. the state can't use evidence that cops illegally obtained against a defendant even if the evidence proves a crime was committed.
|
On July 28 2016 03:08 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 03:05 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2016 03:00 xDaunt wrote:Now that U.S. authorities are confident Russian intelligence agencies are behind the hack of Democratic Party emails, political operatives and cybersecurity experts tell NBC News they are bracing for an "October Surprise" -- a release of even more potentially damaging information timed to influence the outcome of the presidential election and the course of the next administration.
The big question isn't whether more information will be disclosed, they say, but how destructive it might be to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and to broader U.S. foreign policy efforts.
Democratic Party and Clinton campaign officials are now doing an urgent "damage assessment" to determine what kind of information might have been stolen and the impact its release might have on a tight presidential race.
"That is a nightmare scenario, and let's hope we don't see that as an October Surprise -- emails from Hillary Clinton's server that have either been in the press or worse, the classified ones that no one in the public has seen," said retired Adm. James Stavridis, who as the former Supreme Allied Commander for NATO is familiar with Russian information operations.
"I think it is a nightmare for all of us because it shows the degree to which our systems have been penetrated by Russian hackers potentially operating under the rubric of the Russian government," said Stavridis, who was vetted as a possible Clinton running mate.
Julian Assange, whose WikiLeaks organization leaked more than 19,000 DNC emails last Friday, has promised to leak more in an effort to damage Clinton. Source. This election is some amazing shit. We could have Trump elected on the back of wikileaks and stolen government documents. I am excited for this future where untouchable internet vigilantes backed by god knows who can do anything they want to anyone with no repercussions. MAYBE POLITICIANS SHOULD STOP DOING CORRUPT ILLEGAL SHIT THEN? DURRR?
Both things are problems you know. Not just one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
