|
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 October 19 2016 21:00 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 20:51 Gorsameth wrote:
I don't even see what the use is to get people to punch you.
No one is going to go "Someone at some rally punched someone else, I better not support Trump".
It makes no sense Spreading the idea that Trumps rallies and supporters are violent. Negative media attention, get the media to focus attention on the violence instead of what Trump is saying.
That's not spreading an idea. If someone punches you they are violent. Yeah there's always a problem where you can have thousands of protestors and even if you only have a few throwing punches the whole thing can be labeled violent and that's unfortunate, but that applies equally to every protest.
There may or may not be a story there, but the spin on it is ridiculous. Inciting is being intentionally misused to make the act seem more severe than it actually is. Showing up to get punched in the face because you know the other side will give in to violence is a very different thing from inciting violence.
|
|
|
It's so sad how spineless the GoP are and how afraid politicians are of transparency.
I'm guessing a statement like that is actually saying, "I don't see anything here damning enough to bite on to because it's pretty standard politician stuff so I'll pretend to take a moral high ground"
|
The problem with wikileaks is that it isn’t transparency, but acts like it is. It is stolen information that can be easily have parts omitted, doctored or seeded with fake information. And they only target the side they disagree with, rather than try to force both parties to be equally transparent.
I think transparency is important, but I also understand that privacy is necessary for things to get accomplished.
|
On October 19 2016 21:58 Plansix wrote:
I think transparency is important, but I also understand that privacy is necessary for things to get accomplished.
To invade a Middle East country based on fake intel, for example.
|
|
|
On October 19 2016 22:00 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 21:58 Plansix wrote:
I think transparency is important, but I also understand that privacy is necessary for things to get accomplished. To invade a Middle East country based on fake intel, for example.
If the president and his/her administration are willing to lie the public that just suffered a tragedy like 9/11, I don’t know that any amount of transparency would have stopped them from convincing people we needed to go to war. People were willing to put their faith in the countries leadership and that faith was betrayed. I understand the anger, but not electing shitty people that are willing to lie to you is a better option.
|
On October 19 2016 21:58 Plansix wrote:
The problem with wikileaks is that it isn’t transparency, but acts like it is. It is stolen information that can be easily have parts omitted, doctored or seeded with fake information. And they only target the side they disagree with, rather than try to force both parties to be equally transparent.
I think transparency is important, but I also understand that privacy is necessary for things to get accomplished.
But that's relatively true for all leaked information. In the case of Wikileaks emails I agree that integrity is a difficult burden to prove due to the nature of leaking emails, but so far there really hasn't been too much there to doubt in terms of accuracy (the best I've heard is Podesta doesn't have time to figure out which ones are fake). I enjoyed The Intercept's breakdown of why you report on sources like this: https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/on-wikileaks-journalism-and-privacy-reporting-on-the-podesta-archive-is-an-easy-call/
And I don't think a lack of Trump information says anything beyond that information not being available, there's plenty of parties who would leak that info if they had it. Though you can never rule out something being in mid flight.
|
Democrats are spamming tons of ads to vote early in North Carolina. Wonder if they're doing it in other swing states as well to avoid the asinine untrained "poll observers" who are certain not to know what they can and can't do that Trump is sending.
They're mostly Michelle Obama speaking too, which is interesting-it has the dual effect of stimulating Dem early voting and making Republicans want to not listen to Michelle Obama and delay voting.
On October 19 2016 22:18 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 21:58 Plansix wrote:
The problem with wikileaks is that it isn’t transparency, but acts like it is. It is stolen information that can be easily have parts omitted, doctored or seeded with fake information. And they only target the side they disagree with, rather than try to force both parties to be equally transparent.
I think transparency is important, but I also understand that privacy is necessary for things to get accomplished. But that's relatively true for all leaked information. In the case of Wikileaks emails I agree that integrity is a difficult burden to prove due to the nature of leaking emails, but so far there really hasn't been too much there to doubt in terms of accuracy (the best I've heard is Podesta doesn't have time to figure out which ones are fake). I enjoyed The Intercept's breakdown of why you report on sources like this: https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/on-wikileaks-journalism-and-privacy-reporting-on-the-podesta-archive-is-an-easy-call/And I don't think a lack of Trump information says anything beyond that information not being available, there's plenty of parties who would leak that info if they had it. Though you can never rule out something being in mid flight.
Assange came out and said they weren't leaking things on Trump with the reasoning the man's own words were worse. He's also done interviews with Trump campaign consultants and the organization tweets fake polls. The idea he's impartial in this election is a total joke.
Admittedly, he has good reasons to be partial because Trump and their surrogates eat out of his hand and give him tremendous power and media attention. But still, all these leaks are tactical moves favoring Trump, not anything to encourage transparency-otherwise he would have leaked them months ago and curated them better rather than releasing personal information and letting Trump mouthpieces comb through them.
|
I thought that Michael Moore was thoroughly anti-Hillary, but I guess recent events has made him dislike Trump more.
|
On October 19 2016 22:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:Democrats are spamming tons of ads to vote early in North Carolina. Wonder if they're doing it in other swing states as well to avoid the asinine untrained "poll observers" who are certain not to know what they can and can't do that Trump is sending. They're mostly Michelle Obama speaking too, which is interesting-it has the dual effect of stimulating Dem early voting and making Republicans want to not listen to Michelle Obama and delay voting. Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 22:18 Logo wrote:On October 19 2016 21:58 Plansix wrote:
The problem with wikileaks is that it isn’t transparency, but acts like it is. It is stolen information that can be easily have parts omitted, doctored or seeded with fake information. And they only target the side they disagree with, rather than try to force both parties to be equally transparent.
I think transparency is important, but I also understand that privacy is necessary for things to get accomplished. But that's relatively true for all leaked information. In the case of Wikileaks emails I agree that integrity is a difficult burden to prove due to the nature of leaking emails, but so far there really hasn't been too much there to doubt in terms of accuracy (the best I've heard is Podesta doesn't have time to figure out which ones are fake). I enjoyed The Intercept's breakdown of why you report on sources like this: https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/on-wikileaks-journalism-and-privacy-reporting-on-the-podesta-archive-is-an-easy-call/And I don't think a lack of Trump information says anything beyond that information not being available, there's plenty of parties who would leak that info if they had it. Though you can never rule out something being in mid flight. Assange came out and said they weren't leaking things on Trump with the reasoning the man's own words were worse. He's also done interviews with Trump campaign consultants and the organization tweets fake polls. The idea he's impartial in this election is a total joke. Admittedly, he has good reasons to be partial because Trump and their surrogates eat out of his hand and give him tremendous power and media attention. But still, all these leaks are tactical moves favoring Trump, not anything to encourage transparency-otherwise he would have leaked them months ago and curated them better rather than releasing personal information and letting Trump mouthpieces comb through them.
Wikileaks isn't the only way to leak information. Also the words of "Trump's own words are worse" does still apply.
I never implied Assange was impartial, I think he's shown a long standing anti-Hillary bias. My contention is that Wikileaks isn't the only way to leak information (it's practically a glorified CDN with good marketing) and there are plenty of people who would be motivated to leak such information. If the emails are a verified accurate source (which many journalists all across the spectrum seem to believe and there's been little to no outright denial of them) that's all that really matters in terms of whether or not that information should be talked about.
*Also* talking about the leaker's motivation and the source of the information is good too, but it's not a reason to ignore the leaks.
|
|
|
On October 19 2016 21:05 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 19:59 Acrofales wrote:On October 19 2016 19:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 19 2016 17:11 oBlade wrote:On October 19 2016 16:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5806f564e4b0dd54ce36455870 nobel laureates from all fields wrote an open letter saying they support strongly Hillary Clinton and that in the interest of science and the safeguard of our freedom she must become president of the united states. Clearly a rigged election, no nobel supports Trump. Very unfair. Is the eminent Bob Dylan represented? Nobel prize is clearly worth nothing, u right bro. Especially stuff like chemistry, economics or physics. On October 19 2016 16:16 Danglars wrote:On October 19 2016 16:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5806f564e4b0dd54ce36455870 nobel laureates from all fields wrote an open letter saying they support strongly Hillary Clinton and that in the interest of science and the safeguard of our freedom she must become president of the united states. Clearly a rigged election, no nobel supports Trump. Very unfair. Did you interview all recipients or something? lol Oh, i shoukd have said "publicly supports" not to get one of you pretend he doesn't understand. The fact is, an enormous amount if scientists, intellectuals, diplomats, writers and artists have backed Clinton and urged americans to stop Trump. I can't really think of any intellectual world class thinker or scientist who backs Trump. But keep arguing Ben Carson! Does not fit into this category. Yes, he is a neurosurgeon, and that means he is a talented craftsman with a steady hand, but that does not mean he made any scientific advances. He is nowhere near nobel prize level.
However, the actual success of the operations he became well known for is rather questionable. IIRC, some of the twins he separated suffered from fairly significant health problems afterwards - blindness and partial paralysis. I also don't think he was the first to perform the particular operation he became famous for, just that he was more aggressive. There's no denying he's a talented surgeon, but I feel like his fame is also driven by his life story than his skill with a blade.
|
This election needs to come to an end, the debate on this thread has never been that bad. Trump has to be the stupidest candidate ever, sorry for the few who support him still. He had some interesting point to push forward when he was not the republican nominee, but at this point he is nothing but a caricature.
On October 19 2016 20:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Intellectual integrity? More like worried about being blackballed. You'll find Piers Corbyn, Jeremy Corbyns brother was a strong and vocal supporter of Brexit and he has a masters in astrophysics.The difference is he owns his own company. We saw Trumps campaign office get firebombed in North Carolina a couple of days ago, bricks thrown through a Trump campaign office in Indiana just yesterday, videos of Scott Foval admitting on camera that democrats are inciting violence at trump rallies and you wonder why more people don't support Trump publicly?....
So you know the media/some opponent will come to your rally to stir shit up and yet ... you still fall for the trap and give those people exactly what they want.
It's exactly the same in poor neighborhood near where I live : the media come near a mosquee or in a project knowing they will have crunchy videos to show the people that, indeed, muslims, youngsters or whatever, are radicals / violents. After that, people whine and argue that this give a bad image of their community ... The easy solution is just to refuse to behave like they want you to ...
|
On October 19 2016 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 20:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 19 2016 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 19 2016 19:51 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 19 2016 19:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 19 2016 17:11 oBlade wrote:On October 19 2016 16:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5806f564e4b0dd54ce36455870 nobel laureates from all fields wrote an open letter saying they support strongly Hillary Clinton and that in the interest of science and the safeguard of our freedom she must become president of the united states. Clearly a rigged election, no nobel supports Trump. Very unfair. Is the eminent Bob Dylan represented? Nobel prize is clearly worth nothing, u right bro. Especially stuff like chemistry, economics or physics. Those are still worthwhile but the nobel peace prize has been bastardized in recent years. At least the bloke who gave the award to Obama now states he regrets doing so. US boots back on the ground in Iraq btw https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/17/us-military-troops-on-ground-mosul-iraq-isis-obama Here is the list bro. They are only chemistry, physics and medicine, so much for your strong arguments. https://twitter.com/betsy_klein/status/788469224456978432/photo/1https://twitter.com/betsy_klein/status/788469224456978432/photo/2Now ask yourself why no one with a brain supports DJT. Might it be because intellectual integrity and Trumpism don't go well together, i let you decide (but the answer is yes). Considering the disregard for reality and the lack of care about Trumps constant factual lies I would say the regard for intellectuals among Trump voters is rather low. As someone said during the Brexit campaign "The people have had enough of experts" Still fun to see Danglar struggle with the fact no one remotely smart support his candidate while an overwhelming amount of intellectual giants, world famous scientists, ranging from Hawking to Noam Chomsky not only condemn Trump but call to vote for Clinton. The thing is, Danglar and IPN are arguing on the side of Ben Carson, while we are arguing on the side of most of the prominent minds on the planet. I am shallow, but it just makes me happy to remind them.
If the people on the side of the best minds can't even grasp foreign policy failures, or see corruption in nonpartisan light, or even hold themselves above demeaning the voting public who think differently than them (Who wants to play Thread Racist Trials again?), then I'm still fine in my opposition. I reluctantly vote Trump because my guy didn't win the primary, but he's still marginally better as a candidate and loads better than her progressive agenda.
Great minds, shallow people, and Noam Chomsky. Stick around. We can use the constant reminder that the debate is over and the losing side should surrender, in the eyes of some.
|
United States43266 Posts
On October 19 2016 15:56 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:I've read about Obamas half brother before, seems like a switched on guy.Gives hope that many of the long term dem supporters are waking up to the fact the establishment doesn't have their best interest at heart despite what the talking head puppets say.
Alternatively, Obama's brother is an idiot raised in a third world African "democracy" who finds Trump appealing because it's just like the folks they have back home.
Seriously, of the two brothers one is a Harvard educated law professor and the other is a shop clerk and you're rooting for the shop clerk.
|
I bet if you bother looking most high-profile politicians have an embarrassing family member or two. I have no idea what the stunt with Obama's half brother is supposed to accomplish really. At least putting Gennifer Flowers had a goal of some sort, even if it was incredibly stupid.
|
On October 19 2016 23:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2016 15:56 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:I've read about Obamas half brother before, seems like a switched on guy.Gives hope that many of the long term dem supporters are waking up to the fact the establishment doesn't have their best interest at heart despite what the talking head puppets say. Alternatively, Obama's brother is an idiot raised in a third world African "democracy" who finds Trump appealing because it's just like the folks they have back home. Seriously, of the two brothers one is a Harvard educated law professor and the other is a shop clerk and you're rooting for the shop clerk.
People are tired of experts telling them their feelings are wrong.
|
Donald Trump Jr.’s comments on a radio show about the Aurora theater shooting are sparking outrage and becoming political fodder in Colorado.
The son of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump appeared on the shock-jock show “Opie and Anthony” on July 20, 2012 — the same day convicted gunman James Holmes murdered 12 people at the Century Aurora 16 theater during the midnight premiere of the Batman movie, “The Dark Knight Rises.”
The radio hosts played interviews with people inside the theater when the attack took place.
“Everything was going good until, we saw gas and sparks, and sounded like really strong fireworks,” a witness says. “And then you just hear people yelling — and actually just a few rows away from me a girl gets up holding her jaw. I guess she had got shot.”
Trump Jr. immediately interjected: “Overall, I give the movie two thumbs up.”
The remarks, first reported Tuesday by CNN, sparked a sharp reaction in Colorado.
Sandy Phillips, the mother of Jessica Ghawi, who died in the attack, issued a statement saying “this recording shows the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.”
“This recording goes beyond politics — it’s disturbing and painful,” Phillips said in a statement released by Democrat Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
“We’ve already known that his father is a crass, blustery billionaire who cares zero about other people’s struggles or pain,” she added.
Democratic state Sen. Morgan Carroll, who represents Aurora, called on Trump Jr. to “apologize immediately to the families and victims affected by this terrible tragedy.”
“The loss of life, and horror faced by this community and all in that theater that day, is no joke,” added Carroll, who is running for Congress against Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman.
The tape became public the day Donald Trump made two campaign stops in Colorado ahead of Wednesday’s debate in Las Vegas. Donald Trump Jr. visited Colorado on Monday, making stops in Centennial and Boulder.
A Trump campaign spokeswoman in Colorado did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
