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.
How do we respond to threats after our endorsement? This is how
We endorsed a candidate, and faced reaction that threatened our business and our people. How should we respond? By speaking out about what matters most. As someone who has spent a career in the business of words, it’s unusual to find myself speechless. Yet, there I was, a little more than two weeks ago. What is the correct response, really, to this? YOU’RE DEAD. WATCH YOUR BACK. WE WILL BURN YOU DOWN. YOU SHOULD BE PUT IN FRONT OF A FIRING SQUAD AS A TRAITOR. How did I come to be hearing these threats? More than a year ago, The Republic’s editorial board began taking a stand against the actions and positioning of Donald Trump. In piece after piece, we made it clear that his principles weren’t conservative. They were bad for the party, bad for Arizona, dangerous for America. But in its more than 125 years, The Republic had never endorsed a Democrat for president. So, over the many months of the campaign, we found ourselves with this question: Endorse no one, or endorse a Democrat for the first time in our history? We made our choice soberly. We knew it would be unpopular with many people. We knew that, although we had clearly stated our objections to Trump, it would be a big deal for a conservative editorial board in a conservative state to break ranks from the party. We chose patriotism over party. We endorsed the Democrat. And then the reaction started pouring in. Threats against our business. Threats against our people. So, what is the response? What is the correct response to any of the vile threats against me? What is the correct response to the more disturbing actions and words directed against so many others? I’ve thought about those responses a lot. Today, I offer you a few.
To the anonymous caller who invoked the name of Don Bolles — he’s the Republic reporter who was assassinated by a car bomb 40 years ago — and threatened that more of our reporters would be blown up because of the endorsement, I give you Kimberly. She is the young woman who answered the phone when you called. She sat in my office and calmly told three Phoenix police detectives what you had said. She told them that later, she walked to church and prayed for you. Prayed for patience, for forgiveness. Kimberly knows free speech requires compassion. To those who said we should be shut down, burned down, who said they hoped we would cease to exist under a new presidential administration, I give you Nicole. She is our editor who directs the news staff, independent of our endorsements. After your threats, Nicole put on her press badge and walked with her reporters and photographers into the latest Donald Trump rally in Prescott Valley, Ariz. She stood as Trump encouraged his followers to heckle and boo and bully journalists. Then she came back to the newsroom to ensure our coverage was fair. Nicole knows free speech requires an open debate. To those of you who have said that someone who disagrees with you deserves to be punished, I give you Phil. Our editorial page editor is a lifelong Republican, a conservative and a patriot. He was an early voice of reason, arguing calmly that Donald Trump didn’t represent the values of the party he loves. Phil understands that free speech sometimes requires bravery. To those of you who have spit on, threatened with violence, screamed at and bullied the young people going door-to-door selling subscriptions, I give you those dozens of young men and women themselves. Many sell subscriptions to work their way through school. Most were too frightened to share even their first names here. But they are still on the job. They know that free speech is part of a society that values hard work and equal opportunity.
To those of you who have called us hacks and losers with no purpose, and that we are un-American, I give you Dennis. He is the investigative reporter who first revealed the despicable mistreatment of our veterans at the VA hospital. His work triggered comprehensive debate and, one hopes, lasting change. He and others on his team have been hailed as heroes by veterans’ families across the country. Dennis knows that free speech is sometimes the only way to hold the powerful accountable. To those of you who have called us hacks and losers with no purpose, and that we are un-American, I give you Dennis. He is the investigative reporter who first revealed the despicable mistreatment of our veterans at the VA hospital. His work triggered comprehensive debate and, one hopes, lasting change. He and others on his team have been hailed as heroes by veterans’ families across the country. Dennis knows that free speech is sometimes the only way to hold the powerful accountable.
To those of you who have invoked the name of longtime publisher Gene Pulliam, saying he is spinning in his grave, I give you his wife, Nina. After reporter Don Bolles was targeted by a bomber for doing his job, Nina Pulliam wept at his hospital bed. He died there slowly over 12 days. The Pulliams understood that free speech, and a free press, come at a cost. Then, of course, there are the threats against the publisher today. To those of you who have said Jesus will judge me, that you hope I burn in hell, that non-Christians should be kept out of our country, I give you my pastor grandfather. He was imprisoned and tortured for being a Christian, and suffered the murder of his best friend for also refusing to deny Christ. He taught all that freedom of religion is a fragile and precious thing. Much as my grandfather taught, I also know there are a lot of things worth standing up for.
To those of you who said we should go live with the immigrants we love so much, and who threatened violence against people who look or speak a different way, I give you Jobe Couch. He was the Army cultural attache and Alabama professor who sponsored my aunts and my mother when they arrived in America from Korea after World War II. There are dozens of descendants of his kindness. Citizens with college degrees, a dentist, lawyers, engineers, pastors, teachers, business owners, a Marine, a publisher and more. Uncle Jobe stood for the power of America as a melting pot. He taught me that one kind man can make a difference. To all the other people who we heard from, who thanked us for our courage and our bravery, or who were bold enough to disagree with us on principle — the people who didn’t threaten to bomb our homes or harm our families — I have something for you, too. To you, I give my gratitude. I’m grateful that you stood up to say that we live in a better world when we exchange ideas freely, fairly, without fear. To all of you who asked why we endorsed — or what right we had to do so — I give you my mother. She grew up under an occupying dictatorship, with no right to an education, no free press, no freedom of religion, no freedom to assemble peaceably, no right to vote. No right to free speech. She raised a journalist who understood not to take these rights for granted. Don Bolles and Nina Pulliam are gone now, and Uncle Jobe is, too. But the journalists I introduced you to here walk into the newsroom every day to do their jobs. When they do, they pass by an inscription that fills an entire wall, floor to ceiling. It is 45 words long. It is an idea that is in my thoughts a lot these days. It is the First Amendment. Mi-Ai Parrish is president of The Arizona Republic and Republic Media.
On October 17 2016 05:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote: I was talking with some people voting Trump over the weekend and the impression I got is that they consider it a dice roll. They don't expect him to fix much of anything either, at this point their presumption is that Trump would probably bring more status quo, but that his incompetence at trying to execute it would expose it rather than embolden it as a Hillary win would.
So the contention is that Trump wouldn't intentionally destroy the status quo of legal corruption, but that by trying to take advantage of it so sloppily, actually do more to stop it than one who's adept at it would.
Since, as I pointed out, Hillary has essentially adopted the Republican position of "money=speech" and Trump's gotten plenty of attention for poorly executed political donations, I don't think it's that absurd a position, at least pertaining to particular policies.
I think you should vote for him. Really.
I would find it beautiful.
I really find little difference between die hard bernie supporters like GH and Trump's policies. It would not surprise me if GH actually would like a Trump presidency.
Well their rhetoric for sure sounds awfully similar.
And the fact GH, a leftist can give the benefit of the doubt to fucking Donald Trump is just unbelievable. How blinded by resentment one can get is really sad. Like, he thinks that Trump will in fact slow down corruption. It's not absurd, GH, it's bat shit crazy.
Pretty disingenuous to not include I think it's not ridiculous within the context that his ineptitude and the media's obsession with his scandals would mean his status quo corruption would be easy to see, poorly executed, and the center of media attention. As opposed to CNN telling us that reading the emails is a crime.
On October 17 2016 05:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 05:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On October 17 2016 05:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote: I was talking with some people voting Trump over the weekend and the impression I got is that they consider it a dice roll. They don't expect him to fix much of anything either, at this point their presumption is that Trump would probably bring more status quo, but that his incompetence at trying to execute it would expose it rather than embolden it as a Hillary win would.
So the contention is that Trump wouldn't intentionally destroy the status quo of legal corruption, but that by trying to take advantage of it so sloppily, actually do more to stop it than one who's adept at it would.
Since, as I pointed out, Hillary has essentially adopted the Republican position of "money=speech" and Trump's gotten plenty of attention for poorly executed political donations, I don't think it's that absurd a position, at least pertaining to particular policies.
I think you should vote for him. Really.
I would find it beautiful.
I really find little difference between die hard bernie supporters like GH and Trump's policies. It would not surprise me if GH actually would like a Trump presidency.
Well their rhetoric for sure sounds awfully similar.
And the fact GH, a leftist can give the benefit of the doubt to fucking Donald Trump is just unbelievable. How blinded by resentment one can get is really sad. Like, he thinks that Trump will in fact slow down corruption. It's not absurd, GH, it's bat shit crazy.
Pretty disingenuous to not include I think it's not ridiculous within the context that his ineptitude and the media's obsession with his scandals would mean his status quo corruption would be easy to see, poorly executed, and the center of media attention. As opposed to CNN telling us that reading the emails is a crime.
Source? Because they probably said hacking and stealing people's emails is a crime and you decided to reword it to fit your narrative, so please source them saying it's a crime to read the leaked emails?
On October 17 2016 05:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 05:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On October 17 2016 05:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote: I was talking with some people voting Trump over the weekend and the impression I got is that they consider it a dice roll. They don't expect him to fix much of anything either, at this point their presumption is that Trump would probably bring more status quo, but that his incompetence at trying to execute it would expose it rather than embolden it as a Hillary win would.
So the contention is that Trump wouldn't intentionally destroy the status quo of legal corruption, but that by trying to take advantage of it so sloppily, actually do more to stop it than one who's adept at it would.
Since, as I pointed out, Hillary has essentially adopted the Republican position of "money=speech" and Trump's gotten plenty of attention for poorly executed political donations, I don't think it's that absurd a position, at least pertaining to particular policies.
I think you should vote for him. Really.
I would find it beautiful.
I really find little difference between die hard bernie supporters like GH and Trump's policies. It would not surprise me if GH actually would like a Trump presidency.
Well their rhetoric for sure sounds awfully similar.
And the fact GH, a leftist can give the benefit of the doubt to fucking Donald Trump is just unbelievable. How blinded by resentment one can get is really sad. Like, he thinks that Trump will in fact slow down corruption. It's not absurd, GH, it's bat shit crazy.
Pretty disingenuous to not include I think it's not ridiculous within the context that his ineptitude and the media's obsession with his scandals would mean his status quo corruption would be easy to see, poorly executed, and the center of media attention. As opposed to CNN telling us that reading the emails is a crime.
Source? Because they probably said hacking and stealing people's emails is a crime and you decided to reword it to fit your narrative, so please source them saying it's a crime to read the leaked emails?
No, his description is not far off. CNN are garbage
On October 17 2016 05:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 05:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On October 17 2016 05:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote: I was talking with some people voting Trump over the weekend and the impression I got is that they consider it a dice roll. They don't expect him to fix much of anything either, at this point their presumption is that Trump would probably bring more status quo, but that his incompetence at trying to execute it would expose it rather than embolden it as a Hillary win would.
So the contention is that Trump wouldn't intentionally destroy the status quo of legal corruption, but that by trying to take advantage of it so sloppily, actually do more to stop it than one who's adept at it would.
Since, as I pointed out, Hillary has essentially adopted the Republican position of "money=speech" and Trump's gotten plenty of attention for poorly executed political donations, I don't think it's that absurd a position, at least pertaining to particular policies.
I think you should vote for him. Really.
I would find it beautiful.
I really find little difference between die hard bernie supporters like GH and Trump's policies. It would not surprise me if GH actually would like a Trump presidency.
Well their rhetoric for sure sounds awfully similar.
And the fact GH, a leftist can give the benefit of the doubt to fucking Donald Trump is just unbelievable. How blinded by resentment one can get is really sad. Like, he thinks that Trump will in fact slow down corruption. It's not absurd, GH, it's bat shit crazy.
Pretty disingenuous to not include I think it's not ridiculous within the context that his ineptitude and the media's obsession with his scandals would mean his status quo corruption would be easy to see, poorly executed, and the center of media attention. As opposed to CNN telling us that reading the emails is a crime.
Source? Because they probably said hacking and stealing people's emails is a crime and you decided to reword it to fit your narrative, so please source them saying it's a crime to read the leaked emails?
No, his description is not far off. CNN are garbage
Thanks, I now see the actual quote was taken way out of context by GH, as I thought. Of course it is illegal to literally have someone elses hacked emails. Which part do you disagree with and think CNN is garbage for?
On October 17 2016 05:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 05:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On October 17 2016 05:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote: I was talking with some people voting Trump over the weekend and the impression I got is that they consider it a dice roll. They don't expect him to fix much of anything either, at this point their presumption is that Trump would probably bring more status quo, but that his incompetence at trying to execute it would expose it rather than embolden it as a Hillary win would.
So the contention is that Trump wouldn't intentionally destroy the status quo of legal corruption, but that by trying to take advantage of it so sloppily, actually do more to stop it than one who's adept at it would.
Since, as I pointed out, Hillary has essentially adopted the Republican position of "money=speech" and Trump's gotten plenty of attention for poorly executed political donations, I don't think it's that absurd a position, at least pertaining to particular policies.
I think you should vote for him. Really.
I would find it beautiful.
I really find little difference between die hard bernie supporters like GH and Trump's policies. It would not surprise me if GH actually would like a Trump presidency.
Well their rhetoric for sure sounds awfully similar.
And the fact GH, a leftist can give the benefit of the doubt to fucking Donald Trump is just unbelievable. How blinded by resentment one can get is really sad. Like, he thinks that Trump will in fact slow down corruption. It's not absurd, GH, it's bat shit crazy.
Pretty disingenuous to not include I think it's not ridiculous within the context that his ineptitude and the media's obsession with his scandals would mean his status quo corruption would be easy to see, poorly executed, and the center of media attention. As opposed to CNN telling us that reading the emails is a crime.
Source? Because they probably said hacking and stealing people's emails is a crime and you decided to reword it to fit your narrative, so please source them saying it's a crime to read the leaked emails?
If we want to be technical they said "possess". Now for those capable of parsing specifically what that means, it would mean (according to precedent but could change) that merely being in your cache doesn't = possession. But if you download them you would illegally be possessing them. In addition something like a screenshot would be considered possession.
Which part do you disagree with and think CNN is garbage for?
That all we are learning we are learning from them. If they didn't mean to imply it was illegal to read (even if being rhetorically accurate) they wouldn't suggest we couldn't read and learn from them on our own.
How do we respond to threats after our endorsement? This is how
We endorsed a candidate, and faced reaction that threatened our business and our people. How should we respond? By speaking out about what matters most. As someone who has spent a career in the business of words, it’s unusual to find myself speechless. Yet, there I was, a little more than two weeks ago. What is the correct response, really, to this? YOU’RE DEAD. WATCH YOUR BACK. WE WILL BURN YOU DOWN. YOU SHOULD BE PUT IN FRONT OF A FIRING SQUAD AS A TRAITOR. How did I come to be hearing these threats? More than a year ago, The Republic’s editorial board began taking a stand against the actions and positioning of Donald Trump. In piece after piece, we made it clear that his principles weren’t conservative. They were bad for the party, bad for Arizona, dangerous for America. But in its more than 125 years, The Republic had never endorsed a Democrat for president. So, over the many months of the campaign, we found ourselves with this question: Endorse no one, or endorse a Democrat for the first time in our history? We made our choice soberly. We knew it would be unpopular with many people. We knew that, although we had clearly stated our objections to Trump, it would be a big deal for a conservative editorial board in a conservative state to break ranks from the party. We chose patriotism over party. We endorsed the Democrat. And then the reaction started pouring in. Threats against our business. Threats against our people. So, what is the response? What is the correct response to any of the vile threats against me? What is the correct response to the more disturbing actions and words directed against so many others? I’ve thought about those responses a lot. Today, I offer you a few.
To the anonymous caller who invoked the name of Don Bolles — he’s the Republic reporter who was assassinated by a car bomb 40 years ago — and threatened that more of our reporters would be blown up because of the endorsement, I give you Kimberly. She is the young woman who answered the phone when you called. She sat in my office and calmly told three Phoenix police detectives what you had said. She told them that later, she walked to church and prayed for you. Prayed for patience, for forgiveness. Kimberly knows free speech requires compassion. To those who said we should be shut down, burned down, who said they hoped we would cease to exist under a new presidential administration, I give you Nicole. She is our editor who directs the news staff, independent of our endorsements. After your threats, Nicole put on her press badge and walked with her reporters and photographers into the latest Donald Trump rally in Prescott Valley, Ariz. She stood as Trump encouraged his followers to heckle and boo and bully journalists. Then she came back to the newsroom to ensure our coverage was fair. Nicole knows free speech requires an open debate. To those of you who have said that someone who disagrees with you deserves to be punished, I give you Phil. Our editorial page editor is a lifelong Republican, a conservative and a patriot. He was an early voice of reason, arguing calmly that Donald Trump didn’t represent the values of the party he loves. Phil understands that free speech sometimes requires bravery. To those of you who have spit on, threatened with violence, screamed at and bullied the young people going door-to-door selling subscriptions, I give you those dozens of young men and women themselves. Many sell subscriptions to work their way through school. Most were too frightened to share even their first names here. But they are still on the job. They know that free speech is part of a society that values hard work and equal opportunity.
To those of you who have called us hacks and losers with no purpose, and that we are un-American, I give you Dennis. He is the investigative reporter who first revealed the despicable mistreatment of our veterans at the VA hospital. His work triggered comprehensive debate and, one hopes, lasting change. He and others on his team have been hailed as heroes by veterans’ families across the country. Dennis knows that free speech is sometimes the only way to hold the powerful accountable. To those of you who have called us hacks and losers with no purpose, and that we are un-American, I give you Dennis. He is the investigative reporter who first revealed the despicable mistreatment of our veterans at the VA hospital. His work triggered comprehensive debate and, one hopes, lasting change. He and others on his team have been hailed as heroes by veterans’ families across the country. Dennis knows that free speech is sometimes the only way to hold the powerful accountable.
To those of you who have invoked the name of longtime publisher Gene Pulliam, saying he is spinning in his grave, I give you his wife, Nina. After reporter Don Bolles was targeted by a bomber for doing his job, Nina Pulliam wept at his hospital bed. He died there slowly over 12 days. The Pulliams understood that free speech, and a free press, come at a cost. Then, of course, there are the threats against the publisher today. To those of you who have said Jesus will judge me, that you hope I burn in hell, that non-Christians should be kept out of our country, I give you my pastor grandfather. He was imprisoned and tortured for being a Christian, and suffered the murder of his best friend for also refusing to deny Christ. He taught all that freedom of religion is a fragile and precious thing. Much as my grandfather taught, I also know there are a lot of things worth standing up for.
To those of you who said we should go live with the immigrants we love so much, and who threatened violence against people who look or speak a different way, I give you Jobe Couch. He was the Army cultural attache and Alabama professor who sponsored my aunts and my mother when they arrived in America from Korea after World War II. There are dozens of descendants of his kindness. Citizens with college degrees, a dentist, lawyers, engineers, pastors, teachers, business owners, a Marine, a publisher and more. Uncle Jobe stood for the power of America as a melting pot. He taught me that one kind man can make a difference. To all the other people who we heard from, who thanked us for our courage and our bravery, or who were bold enough to disagree with us on principle — the people who didn’t threaten to bomb our homes or harm our families — I have something for you, too. To you, I give my gratitude. I’m grateful that you stood up to say that we live in a better world when we exchange ideas freely, fairly, without fear. To all of you who asked why we endorsed — or what right we had to do so — I give you my mother. She grew up under an occupying dictatorship, with no right to an education, no free press, no freedom of religion, no freedom to assemble peaceably, no right to vote. No right to free speech. She raised a journalist who understood not to take these rights for granted. Don Bolles and Nina Pulliam are gone now, and Uncle Jobe is, too. But the journalists I introduced you to here walk into the newsroom every day to do their jobs. When they do, they pass by an inscription that fills an entire wall, floor to ceiling. It is 45 words long. It is an idea that is in my thoughts a lot these days. It is the First Amendment. Mi-Ai Parrish is president of The Arizona Republic and Republic Media.
I really, really wish the republican party can revert back to echoing these types of values. Great read. Both this and the Charlie Sykes interview some pages ago were interesting. I hope democrats will actively try to work with and empower this brand of conservatism in the future; you need to have more than one sensible and viable political option.
On October 17 2016 05:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 05:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On October 17 2016 05:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote: I was talking with some people voting Trump over the weekend and the impression I got is that they consider it a dice roll. They don't expect him to fix much of anything either, at this point their presumption is that Trump would probably bring more status quo, but that his incompetence at trying to execute it would expose it rather than embolden it as a Hillary win would.
So the contention is that Trump wouldn't intentionally destroy the status quo of legal corruption, but that by trying to take advantage of it so sloppily, actually do more to stop it than one who's adept at it would.
Since, as I pointed out, Hillary has essentially adopted the Republican position of "money=speech" and Trump's gotten plenty of attention for poorly executed political donations, I don't think it's that absurd a position, at least pertaining to particular policies.
I think you should vote for him. Really.
I would find it beautiful.
I really find little difference between die hard bernie supporters like GH and Trump's policies. It would not surprise me if GH actually would like a Trump presidency.
Well their rhetoric for sure sounds awfully similar.
And the fact GH, a leftist can give the benefit of the doubt to fucking Donald Trump is just unbelievable. How blinded by resentment one can get is really sad. Like, he thinks that Trump will in fact slow down corruption. It's not absurd, GH, it's bat shit crazy.
Pretty disingenuous to not include I think it's not ridiculous within the context that his ineptitude and the media's obsession with his scandals would mean his status quo corruption would be easy to see, poorly executed, and the center of media attention. As opposed to CNN telling us that reading the emails is a crime.
Source? Because they probably said hacking and stealing people's emails is a crime and you decided to reword it to fit your narrative, so please source them saying it's a crime to read the leaked emails?
No, his description is not far off. CNN are garbage
Thanks, I now see the actual quote was taken way out of context by GH, as I thought. Of course it is illegal to literally have someone elses hacked emails. Which part do you disagree with and think CNN is garbage for?
The part where he says there's a difference in legality between the media and private citizens checking them
On October 17 2016 05:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 05:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On October 17 2016 05:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote: I was talking with some people voting Trump over the weekend and the impression I got is that they consider it a dice roll. They don't expect him to fix much of anything either, at this point their presumption is that Trump would probably bring more status quo, but that his incompetence at trying to execute it would expose it rather than embolden it as a Hillary win would.
So the contention is that Trump wouldn't intentionally destroy the status quo of legal corruption, but that by trying to take advantage of it so sloppily, actually do more to stop it than one who's adept at it would.
Since, as I pointed out, Hillary has essentially adopted the Republican position of "money=speech" and Trump's gotten plenty of attention for poorly executed political donations, I don't think it's that absurd a position, at least pertaining to particular policies.
I think you should vote for him. Really.
I would find it beautiful.
I really find little difference between die hard bernie supporters like GH and Trump's policies. It would not surprise me if GH actually would like a Trump presidency.
Well their rhetoric for sure sounds awfully similar.
And the fact GH, a leftist can give the benefit of the doubt to fucking Donald Trump is just unbelievable. How blinded by resentment one can get is really sad. Like, he thinks that Trump will in fact slow down corruption. It's not absurd, GH, it's bat shit crazy.
Pretty disingenuous to not include I think it's not ridiculous within the context that his ineptitude and the media's obsession with his scandals would mean his status quo corruption would be easy to see, poorly executed, and the center of media attention. As opposed to CNN telling us that reading the emails is a crime.
Source? Because they probably said hacking and stealing people's emails is a crime and you decided to reword it to fit your narrative, so please source them saying it's a crime to read the leaked emails?
If we want to be technical they said "possess". Now for those capable of parsing specifically what that means, it would mean (according to precedent but could change) that merely being in your cache doesn't = possession. But if you download them you would illegally be possessing them. In addition something like a screenshot would be considered possession.
Which part do you disagree with and think CNN is garbage for?
That all we are learning we are learning from them. If they didn't mean to imply it was illegal to read (even if being rhetorically accurate) they wouldn't suggest we couldn't read and learn from them on our own.
yeah he is basically saying "do not look at these emails, trust us to not spin whatever we find'. Not OK.
Does anyone have any evidence that is it actually illegal to go to wikileaks and read them?
On October 17 2016 05:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 05:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On October 17 2016 05:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote: I was talking with some people voting Trump over the weekend and the impression I got is that they consider it a dice roll. They don't expect him to fix much of anything either, at this point their presumption is that Trump would probably bring more status quo, but that his incompetence at trying to execute it would expose it rather than embolden it as a Hillary win would.
So the contention is that Trump wouldn't intentionally destroy the status quo of legal corruption, but that by trying to take advantage of it so sloppily, actually do more to stop it than one who's adept at it would.
Since, as I pointed out, Hillary has essentially adopted the Republican position of "money=speech" and Trump's gotten plenty of attention for poorly executed political donations, I don't think it's that absurd a position, at least pertaining to particular policies.
I think you should vote for him. Really.
I would find it beautiful.
I really find little difference between die hard bernie supporters like GH and Trump's policies. It would not surprise me if GH actually would like a Trump presidency.
Well their rhetoric for sure sounds awfully similar.
And the fact GH, a leftist can give the benefit of the doubt to fucking Donald Trump is just unbelievable. How blinded by resentment one can get is really sad. Like, he thinks that Trump will in fact slow down corruption. It's not absurd, GH, it's bat shit crazy.
Pretty disingenuous to not include I think it's not ridiculous within the context that his ineptitude and the media's obsession with his scandals would mean his status quo corruption would be easy to see, poorly executed, and the center of media attention. As opposed to CNN telling us that reading the emails is a crime.
Source? Because they probably said hacking and stealing people's emails is a crime and you decided to reword it to fit your narrative, so please source them saying it's a crime to read the leaked emails?
No, his description is not far off. CNN are garbage
Thanks, I now see the actual quote was taken way out of context by GH, as I thought. Of course it is illegal to literally have someone elses hacked emails. Which part do you disagree with and think CNN is garbage for?
The part where he says there's a difference in legality between the media and private citizens checking them
Yeah it's just abundantly clear. "Everything you learn about this, you're learning from us". That tells the people who are not very informed about this that they aren't supposed to check for themselves.
On October 17 2016 06:08 Liquid`Drone wrote: RealityisKing, neither candidate is gonna go to war with Russia. That is not a real issue. The question is whether FP common ground can really be found between the countries, and there it becomes complicated. Both Russia and the US agree that IS need to be eradicated. But they greatly differ in terms of which middle-eastern actors they want to empower in this fight, and imo, they also greatly differ in terms of how much destruction they are willing to impart on the civilian population. I'm really no expert here, there are so many different factions that seem to be changing around quite frequently, I don't have full overview of the various sectarian conflicts that are always present in the background.
But simplified I think this is pretty accurate; Russia has historically been supporting more the Iran-Syria(assad) line, doesn't ideologically object to autocratic rulers or despots. Meanwhile the US idealizes democracy, but is also willing to support US-friendly dictators. Russia indiscriminately bombs cities full of civilians to crush resistance, the US is at least concerned with the optics, and attempts (I agree this is a hopeless endeavor though) to limit civilian casualties. The US has been trying to stop IS and dispose of Assad (and let's be clear - he's a cruel dictator with much of the responsibility for the ongoing Syrian civil war with 250k+ dead), whereas Russia doesn't mind Assad staying in power.
One might argue that part of why Russia doesn't mind autocratic regimes is that they themselves is an autocratic regime, much like how one might argue that Trump doesn't mind autocratic rulers because he visions himself as an autocratic ruler, or one might argue that the middle east does not have in place the various societal elements that facilitate a healthy democracy and thus attempting to dispose of their autocratic rulers inevitably leads to chaos which is worse than the dictatorship in question. I'm honestly inclined to agree with both these arguments, but like, when people are talking about conflict or cooperation with Russia, they're not talking about whether the US is going to go to war with Russia. It's more like, should both the US and Russia arm the same groups of people, or should they arm factions in war with each other. And this is where you're left with a shitty, impossible to answer situation, because arming Russia's enemies ensures a terrible quagmire, and supporting Russia's friends ensures that terrible dictators get to horribly oppress their people with less opposition.
If anything however, I would argue that the person responsible for making this choice should be someone with the highest possible competence and awareness of the situation and how the different factions interact. And I honestly think it's entirely plausible that Trump doesn't know whether Iran is predominantly Sunni or Shia.
Not much of a difference between Russia and US really. US would support their ally Saudi, Israel, Turkey even if they oppress the people more then Assad and Gadaffi did. Even if US says it tries to limit civilian casualties, the casualties would be the same even if US was doing the bombing of Aleppo, the only difference would be that the western media wouldn't cover it as much as when the Russians were doing the bombing.
Forcing democracy through force (which btw has nothing to do with democracy it's just a forced regime change) will never have better results then just leaving the dictator and the country sort itself out. While the country matures and through diplomacy it may change to having a more democratic views in the future. If US was really thinking about syrian people, they would never arm rebels against a Russian and Iranian backed government, the casualties as we see are way worse, if they would just leave Assad topple a couple of unarmed rebels. So in the end by supporting rebels US, Saudi, Israel, and every western country in the coalition are just fighting a proxy war against Syria's "legitimate" goverment. Just like Russains are backing rebels in Ukraine.
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote
On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote: So the odds now with bookies Trump 5 Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote
That has the opposite effect, the last thing that groups that want Clinton to win should do to achieve that, is convince people that she's sure to win
On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote: So the odds now with bookies Trump 5 Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote
That has the opposite effect, the last thing that groups that want Clinton to win should do to achieve that, is convince people that she's sure to win
That's exactly what happened in the UK too, didn't stop them from doing it, there were large sums on remain and volume of bets going a lot more closer towards leave. And it obviously backfired with leave people turning up more at the polls.
On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote: So the odds now with bookies Trump 5 Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote
No, they're giving 538 odds, her advantage actually is that large.
On October 17 2016 06:59 LemOn wrote: So the odds now with bookies Trump 5 Hillary 1/6
Obviously Hillary is a favourite but nowhere near the lock they are making it out to be... Are interest groups rigging the election through capital again?
It happened in the UK where large companies and City pumped out bets remain to influence the vote
Am I the only one felling super disgusted at the idea of betting on an election? I don't want to be mean to anyone but I can't understand how someone can do it and still have an ounce of respect for democracy.
On October 16 2016 23:58 zlefin wrote: re: portugal I'm sure they had lots of people like trump (also a total invitation to that Trevor Noah african leader skit); trump is simply far less useful than you think he is, and far more common. Also not sure what kind of difference you think it would've made.
I mean, someone that wants the well being of his own nationals first and wants to make america great again instead of being a corrupt leader like hillary that makes backdoor deals with other corrupt world leaders, that's what we have in Angola, i would like a nationalist there for a change.
what i'm hearing is you have absolutely nothing but stuff that's not remotely true and no sense of reality. Trump is not an example of a low corruption person. All leaders favor their own nationals and want to make their countries better. at least in decent places, I dunno about shitty places in africa. also the notion that america isn't already great; or that trump's proposal would help anything (especially considering how vague they are)
I'm talking about the shitty place in Africa i came from (Angola) if you don't know the country you can check the wikipedia link if you feel like learning about shitty places https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angola . We could do well with more people like Trump in Africa at least the nationalist ideas and the well being of the country.
I'm unsure if you're trolling or not with this statement. Because the daily show just talked about how African they think Trump is:
If your going to just regurgitate what the daily says and pretend to be an intellectual then it might be best for you to slow roll your posting.
Hillary could qualify as well see my other post, thank you bro.
a. It's more like, should both the US and Russia arm the same groups of people, or should they arm factions in war with each other.
The US has been arming russia's enemies for quite sometime.
EPT
