|
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 20 2016 02:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 02:01 biology]major wrote:On October 20 2016 01:43 Gorsameth wrote:On October 20 2016 01:37 biology]major wrote:
I expect chris wallace to actually ask clinton some tough questions this time. Also if he wants to have any shot at winning this election, he needs to apologize to women and make a case for himself from that position. He isn't going to do this, the polls will stay massively in HRC's favor and the only way trump can win at this point is if there is a large undetected population who will secretly cast their vote for trump, combined with complacency from the dems. Still gonna get my popcorn ready though for the impending onslaught on clinton for wikileaks and corruption charges. Never gets old. And I predict you will once again be thoroughly disappointing that these tough questions you want to hear do not get brought up because they were all answered during Benghazi and Emailghazi. Those 'scandals' are behind her and dealt with. And nothing else even has a shred of evidence going for it. Probably, but there's always hope! Anyways some tough questions regarding the recent wikileaks is all i'm expecting. Your right, the public has a right to know how that risotto turned out.
Turning the debate into a cooking show would probably increase the overall quality.
|
United States43783 Posts
On October 20 2016 02:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 02:06 Evotroid wrote:On October 20 2016 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 01:47 GreenHorizons 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. They've released 10 million documents, how many have been doctored or seeded with fake information? That is the question everyone should ask themselves. Well they say 0, and I've seen 0 evidence any have been. So I'm leaning toward 0. I don't know if it is actually this lost on you, but reading that, I bet Bill would laugh off his ass in his secret corruption library lounge where he corrupts stuff...... Bruh, I know it's fun to imagineer opponents but my comment on the penthouse wasn't some secret corruption lair, just a personal benefit maintained by his charity. That people want to push the point that it's absurd to suggest that perhaps he doesn't only do official charity business in a penthouse he stays at frequently, is their own feigned naivety. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of wikileaks documents.
Out of curiousity, where is this penthouse? Where did you hear about it? Can you link to an article referencing it?
I know you keep saying I'm feigning naivety for not believing that Bill Clinton keeps a secret penthouse in his library for personal use outside of his normal library functions but I'm really not. I just haven't yet seen all the things you have seen that led you to that conclusion.
|
On October 20 2016 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 01:47 GreenHorizons 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. They've released 10 million documents, how many have been doctored or seeded with fake information? That is the question everyone should ask themselves. Well they say 0, and I've seen 0 evidence any have been. So I'm leaning toward 0.
I looked into it and you are correct. There is zero evidence at this point that they have doctored any of the emails.
However, I still see zero reason to trust these people, per the report below and others.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/can-we-trust-julian-assange-and-wikileaks.html
But there is a responsible tradition of redacting potentially harmful private information. In 2010, just before publishing the first Afghan war logs provided to WikiLeaks by Chelsea Manning, Mr. Assange and a group of journalists from The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel were engaged in a tussle over redacting the names of Afghan informants. The three publications all decided to do so, but Mr. Assange disagreed. As he told Nick Davies of The Guardian, “If an Afghan civilian helps coalition forces, he deserves to die.”
Others present at this time insist that he was concerned about their safety but had little technical ability to do the redactions on a tight deadline. The net result: Mr. Assange held back 15,000 documents and published the rest, including the names of about 100 Afghan civilians.
There is no evidence that any of those people were killed. But people could have been hurt. And his refusal to redact allowed the United States government to deflect attention from the evidence of possible war crimes by claiming that Mr. Assange had blood on his hands.
So all of there releases will be taken with a grain of salt, because Assange is all about his ego, rather than making the public better informed.
|
On October 20 2016 01:30 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 01:21 Logo wrote:On October 20 2016 01:06 KwarK wrote:
I expect no changes from Clinton. Why would she adjust a winning strategy? This election is pretty much done at this point. We're less than 3 weeks out and Texas is looking more competitive than Pennsylvania (Trump has gone allin on flipping PA, even though PA isn't a swing state, it's a bold strategy Cotton). Even if a new strategy for Clinton is low risk/high reward the current strategy is no risk/same reward. She can't become double President, there really isn't much more room for her to improve from her current 340ish electoral college vote cushion. I don't think there's any style that she CAN change into without alienating some people outside of minor adjustments (like having quips similar to the first debate). Anything that deviates from what she's already shown in the debates will just be interpreted as her being a bitch or emotional or failing that pretentious. Uhm: She could start answering questions. She could also stop talking over moderators for eternities and extend her 2 minutes to 4 minutes every time. Maybe should could also read up on the idea of the SC and how judges should be chosen. I guess not going mad on Russia on every answer would also be a possible change. I can see people accepting all those changes to her debate style. Then again, why change when your opponent is fails to say anything useful on the debate and is completely unable to react to those rather brutal misssteps. The second debate was a serious pain. Clinton said absurd stuff on half the questions, and you felt like any competent debater would hammer her for it. And then all Trump did was to say even more retarded things? Like "Ey, this is my territory, get out of here, I'm the true shitlord". Just great.
Absurd stuff, particularly the Iran timeline. Trump could've seized on Hillary's craziness, but he fumbled too. It's the Trump campaign and Trump's own performance that is sustaining this deficit in all the important battlegrounds.
|
On October 20 2016 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 01:47 GreenHorizons 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. They've released 10 million documents, how many have been doctored or seeded with fake information? That is the question everyone should ask themselves. Well they say 0, and I've seen 0 evidence any have been. So I'm leaning toward 0.
Pretty sure I remember a story where they received a series of documents and published everything but one that showed something shady about Russia and Syria, even though it was the most valuable info in the serie? (I know that's really vague but I don't remember it that well, sorry)
|
On October 20 2016 02:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 01:30 mahrgell wrote:On October 20 2016 01:21 Logo wrote:On October 20 2016 01:06 KwarK wrote:
I expect no changes from Clinton. Why would she adjust a winning strategy? This election is pretty much done at this point. We're less than 3 weeks out and Texas is looking more competitive than Pennsylvania (Trump has gone allin on flipping PA, even though PA isn't a swing state, it's a bold strategy Cotton). Even if a new strategy for Clinton is low risk/high reward the current strategy is no risk/same reward. She can't become double President, there really isn't much more room for her to improve from her current 340ish electoral college vote cushion. I don't think there's any style that she CAN change into without alienating some people outside of minor adjustments (like having quips similar to the first debate). Anything that deviates from what she's already shown in the debates will just be interpreted as her being a bitch or emotional or failing that pretentious. Uhm: She could start answering questions. She could also stop talking over moderators for eternities and extend her 2 minutes to 4 minutes every time. Maybe should could also read up on the idea of the SC and how judges should be chosen. I guess not going mad on Russia on every answer would also be a possible change. I can see people accepting all those changes to her debate style. Then again, why change when your opponent is fails to say anything useful on the debate and is completely unable to react to those rather brutal misssteps. The second debate was a serious pain. Clinton said absurd stuff on half the questions, and you felt like any competent debater would hammer her for it. And then all Trump did was to say even more retarded things? Like "Ey, this is my territory, get out of here, I'm the true shitlord". Just great. Absurd stuff, particularly the Iran timeline. Trump could've seized on Hillary's craziness, but he fumbled too. It's the Trump campaign and Trump's own performance that is sustaining this deficit in all the important battlegrounds.
It also has a little to do with his history of bragging about sexual assault and the wealth of women coming forward saying he assaulted them. I don't think there is much he can do to solve that problem, since the reason he is losing is due to women not wanting to vote for him.
|
On October 20 2016 02:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 02:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 02:06 Evotroid wrote:On October 20 2016 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 01:47 GreenHorizons 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. They've released 10 million documents, how many have been doctored or seeded with fake information? That is the question everyone should ask themselves. Well they say 0, and I've seen 0 evidence any have been. So I'm leaning toward 0. I don't know if it is actually this lost on you, but reading that, I bet Bill would laugh off his ass in his secret corruption library lounge where he corrupts stuff...... Bruh, I know it's fun to imagineer opponents but my comment on the penthouse wasn't some secret corruption lair, just a personal benefit maintained by his charity. That people want to push the point that it's absurd to suggest that perhaps he doesn't only do official charity business in a penthouse he stays at frequently, is their own feigned naivety. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of wikileaks documents. Out of curiousity, where is this penthouse? Where did you hear about it? Can you link to an article referencing it? I know you keep saying I'm feigning naivety for not believing that Bill Clinton keeps a secret penthouse in his library for personal use outside of his normal library functions but I'm really not. I just haven't yet seen all the things you have seen that led you to that conclusion.
Mr. Leopoulos says Mr. Clinton “loved” his old job. “If he could be president again tomorrow, he would be.”
No doubt one of Mr. Clinton’s favorite exhibits is the exact replica of the Oval Office, meticulously cloned by Little Rock interior designer Kaki Hockersmith. Miss Hockersmith, who decorated the real Oval Office for Mr. Clinton, even grew the ivy on the fireplace from a cutting of the plant in the actual White House.
The fake Oval Office is where Mr. Clinton recently taped a television commercial with former President George Bush to raise money for tsunami relief.
Mr. Clinton, who plans to overnight at the penthouse whenever he has a speaking engagement in town, invited Mr. Leopoulos and his wife, as well as his first high-school date, Mauria Aspell, and her husband over the other night for a game of hearts.
Source
Were you genuinely unaware of it's existence?
On October 20 2016 02:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 01:47 GreenHorizons 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. They've released 10 million documents, how many have been doctored or seeded with fake information? That is the question everyone should ask themselves. Well they say 0, and I've seen 0 evidence any have been. So I'm leaning toward 0. I looked into it and you are correct. There is zero evidence at this point that they have doctored any of the emails. However, I still see zero reason to trust these people, per the report below and others. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/can-we-trust-julian-assange-and-wikileaks.htmlShow nested quote +But there is a responsible tradition of redacting potentially harmful private information. In 2010, just before publishing the first Afghan war logs provided to WikiLeaks by Chelsea Manning, Mr. Assange and a group of journalists from The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel were engaged in a tussle over redacting the names of Afghan informants. The three publications all decided to do so, but Mr. Assange disagreed. As he told Nick Davies of The Guardian, “If an Afghan civilian helps coalition forces, he deserves to die.”
Others present at this time insist that he was concerned about their safety but had little technical ability to do the redactions on a tight deadline. The net result: Mr. Assange held back 15,000 documents and published the rest, including the names of about 100 Afghan civilians.
There is no evidence that any of those people were killed. But people could have been hurt. And his refusal to redact allowed the United States government to deflect attention from the evidence of possible war crimes by claiming that Mr. Assange had blood on his hands. So all of there releases will be taken with a grain of salt, because Assange is all about his ego, rather than making the public better informed.
0 evidence anything has been doctored or faked, going to presume it may be anyway, got it.
|
On October 20 2016 02:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
0 evidence anything has been doctored or faked, going to presume it may be anyway, got it.
Well that tends to happen when you aren't an objective actor... People start to question your objectivity.
I don't really see the problem.
|
On October 20 2016 02:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 02:14 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 02:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 02:06 Evotroid wrote:On October 20 2016 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 01:47 GreenHorizons 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. They've released 10 million documents, how many have been doctored or seeded with fake information? That is the question everyone should ask themselves. Well they say 0, and I've seen 0 evidence any have been. So I'm leaning toward 0. I don't know if it is actually this lost on you, but reading that, I bet Bill would laugh off his ass in his secret corruption library lounge where he corrupts stuff...... Bruh, I know it's fun to imagineer opponents but my comment on the penthouse wasn't some secret corruption lair, just a personal benefit maintained by his charity. That people want to push the point that it's absurd to suggest that perhaps he doesn't only do official charity business in a penthouse he stays at frequently, is their own feigned naivety. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of wikileaks documents. Out of curiousity, where is this penthouse? Where did you hear about it? Can you link to an article referencing it? I know you keep saying I'm feigning naivety for not believing that Bill Clinton keeps a secret penthouse in his library for personal use outside of his normal library functions but I'm really not. I just haven't yet seen all the things you have seen that led you to that conclusion. Show nested quote +Mr. Leopoulos says Mr. Clinton “loved” his old job. “If he could be president again tomorrow, he would be.”
No doubt one of Mr. Clinton’s favorite exhibits is the exact replica of the Oval Office, meticulously cloned by Little Rock interior designer Kaki Hockersmith. Miss Hockersmith, who decorated the real Oval Office for Mr. Clinton, even grew the ivy on the fireplace from a cutting of the plant in the actual White House.
The fake Oval Office is where Mr. Clinton recently taped a television commercial with former President George Bush to raise money for tsunami relief.
Mr. Clinton, who plans to overnight at the penthouse whenever he has a speaking engagement in town, invited Mr. Leopoulos and his wife, as well as his first high-school date, Mauria Aspell, and her husband over the other night for a game of hearts. SourceWe're you genuinely unaware of it's existence? Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 02:17 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 01:47 GreenHorizons 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. They've released 10 million documents, how many have been doctored or seeded with fake information? That is the question everyone should ask themselves. Well they say 0, and I've seen 0 evidence any have been. So I'm leaning toward 0. I looked into it and you are correct. There is zero evidence at this point that they have doctored any of the emails. However, I still see zero reason to trust these people, per the report below and others. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/can-we-trust-julian-assange-and-wikileaks.htmlBut there is a responsible tradition of redacting potentially harmful private information. In 2010, just before publishing the first Afghan war logs provided to WikiLeaks by Chelsea Manning, Mr. Assange and a group of journalists from The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel were engaged in a tussle over redacting the names of Afghan informants. The three publications all decided to do so, but Mr. Assange disagreed. As he told Nick Davies of The Guardian, “If an Afghan civilian helps coalition forces, he deserves to die.”
Others present at this time insist that he was concerned about their safety but had little technical ability to do the redactions on a tight deadline. The net result: Mr. Assange held back 15,000 documents and published the rest, including the names of about 100 Afghan civilians.
There is no evidence that any of those people were killed. But people could have been hurt. And his refusal to redact allowed the United States government to deflect attention from the evidence of possible war crimes by claiming that Mr. Assange had blood on his hands. So all of there releases will be taken with a grain of salt, because Assange is all about his ego, rather than making the public better informed. 0 evidence anything has been doctored or faked, going to presume it may be anyway, got it.
Trust and the benifit of the doubt is earned, not given freely.
|
On October 20 2016 02:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 02:14 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 02:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 02:06 Evotroid wrote:On October 20 2016 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 01:47 GreenHorizons 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. They've released 10 million documents, how many have been doctored or seeded with fake information? That is the question everyone should ask themselves. Well they say 0, and I've seen 0 evidence any have been. So I'm leaning toward 0. I don't know if it is actually this lost on you, but reading that, I bet Bill would laugh off his ass in his secret corruption library lounge where he corrupts stuff...... Bruh, I know it's fun to imagineer opponents but my comment on the penthouse wasn't some secret corruption lair, just a personal benefit maintained by his charity. That people want to push the point that it's absurd to suggest that perhaps he doesn't only do official charity business in a penthouse he stays at frequently, is their own feigned naivety. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of wikileaks documents. Out of curiousity, where is this penthouse? Where did you hear about it? Can you link to an article referencing it? I know you keep saying I'm feigning naivety for not believing that Bill Clinton keeps a secret penthouse in his library for personal use outside of his normal library functions but I'm really not. I just haven't yet seen all the things you have seen that led you to that conclusion. Show nested quote +Mr. Leopoulos says Mr. Clinton “loved” his old job. “If he could be president again tomorrow, he would be.”
No doubt one of Mr. Clinton’s favorite exhibits is the exact replica of the Oval Office, meticulously cloned by Little Rock interior designer Kaki Hockersmith. Miss Hockersmith, who decorated the real Oval Office for Mr. Clinton, even grew the ivy on the fireplace from a cutting of the plant in the actual White House.
The fake Oval Office is where Mr. Clinton recently taped a television commercial with former President George Bush to raise money for tsunami relief.
Mr. Clinton, who plans to overnight at the penthouse whenever he has a speaking engagement in town, invited Mr. Leopoulos and his wife, as well as his first high-school date, Mauria Aspell, and her husband over the other night for a game of hearts. SourceWere you genuinely unaware of it's existence?
Trying to find something more reliable but I'm coming up blank. Washington Times is about as credible as Infowars, not long ago they were predicting an inevitable civil war because of Obama's 'war on capitalism'
|
On October 20 2016 02:26 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 02:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
0 evidence anything has been doctored or faked, going to presume it may be anyway, got it. Well that tends to happen when you aren't an objective actor... People start to question your objectivity. I don't really see the problem.
It's just a one way street is all. Hillary's crew has 0 evidence any of the millions of documents released by wikileaks have ever been faked or doctored, but have no problem suggesting they could be. Meanwhile Hillary has repeatedly lied, but to presume she might be lying is absurd.
So it's fine to dismiss the credibility of an org with over 10,000,000 documents released without a single incident of what's being suggested, but it's ridiculous to suggest that someone who has lied about tons of stuff from Bosnia, to emails, may again be lying to tell people what they want to hear.
I doubt anyone will acknowledge how ridiculous that is, but there it is.
On October 20 2016 02:29 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 02:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 02:14 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 02:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 02:06 Evotroid wrote:On October 20 2016 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 01:47 GreenHorizons 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. They've released 10 million documents, how many have been doctored or seeded with fake information? That is the question everyone should ask themselves. Well they say 0, and I've seen 0 evidence any have been. So I'm leaning toward 0. I don't know if it is actually this lost on you, but reading that, I bet Bill would laugh off his ass in his secret corruption library lounge where he corrupts stuff...... Bruh, I know it's fun to imagineer opponents but my comment on the penthouse wasn't some secret corruption lair, just a personal benefit maintained by his charity. That people want to push the point that it's absurd to suggest that perhaps he doesn't only do official charity business in a penthouse he stays at frequently, is their own feigned naivety. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of wikileaks documents. Out of curiousity, where is this penthouse? Where did you hear about it? Can you link to an article referencing it? I know you keep saying I'm feigning naivety for not believing that Bill Clinton keeps a secret penthouse in his library for personal use outside of his normal library functions but I'm really not. I just haven't yet seen all the things you have seen that led you to that conclusion. Mr. Leopoulos says Mr. Clinton “loved” his old job. “If he could be president again tomorrow, he would be.”
No doubt one of Mr. Clinton’s favorite exhibits is the exact replica of the Oval Office, meticulously cloned by Little Rock interior designer Kaki Hockersmith. Miss Hockersmith, who decorated the real Oval Office for Mr. Clinton, even grew the ivy on the fireplace from a cutting of the plant in the actual White House.
The fake Oval Office is where Mr. Clinton recently taped a television commercial with former President George Bush to raise money for tsunami relief.
Mr. Clinton, who plans to overnight at the penthouse whenever he has a speaking engagement in town, invited Mr. Leopoulos and his wife, as well as his first high-school date, Mauria Aspell, and her husband over the other night for a game of hearts. SourceWere you genuinely unaware of it's existence? Trying to find something more reliable but I'm coming up blank. Washington Times is about as credible as Infowars, not long ago they were predicting an inevitable civil war because of Obama's 'war on capitalism'
Like holy crap... Am I really arguing whether something exists...? This is some supreme level gaslighting.
I know people liked the Washington Post earlier this year, or did they retroactively burn their credibility too by criticizing Hillary?
Over the past two weeks, workers have been hoisting 90 species of plants and more than four truckloads of soil atop the William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum to create a garden on an area surrounding Clinton's penthouse apartment.
Source
|
Our dear GH is totally right.
|
On October 20 2016 01:56 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On October 20 2016 01:30 mahrgell wrote:On October 20 2016 01:21 Logo wrote:On October 20 2016 01:06 KwarK wrote:
I expect no changes from Clinton. Why would she adjust a winning strategy? This election is pretty much done at this point. We're less than 3 weeks out and Texas is looking more competitive than Pennsylvania (Trump has gone allin on flipping PA, even though PA isn't a swing state, it's a bold strategy Cotton). Even if a new strategy for Clinton is low risk/high reward the current strategy is no risk/same reward. She can't become double President, there really isn't much more room for her to improve from her current 340ish electoral college vote cushion. I don't think there's any style that she CAN change into without alienating some people outside of minor adjustments (like having quips similar to the first debate). Anything that deviates from what she's already shown in the debates will just be interpreted as her being a bitch or emotional or failing that pretentious. I guess not going mad on Russia on every answer would also be a possible change. Ok, to give Hillary credit on her FP approach (not something I do often), she has some really vicious anti-Russia rhetoric but most of the policy suggestions she actually gives when pressed are rather balanced. Whether or not they're the right ones is a matter of its own, but they're definitely not of the "start nuclear war with Russia" style of aggression like what her rhetoric would suggest. I'm favoring a rather strong course against Russia and would consider them more of a rival than a friend. But I'm also seeing that Russia wont dissappear. We will have to deal with them for decades. And thus you should somehow manage to get along with them. So all those hostile arguments even before the election, which were not really needed at this point in the debate, are not helping once you take office. No matter how much truth they contained, she could have gotten away with mentioning Russia only half the times she did and nobody would have been mad at her. And she would have given way less ammo to any media/whatever groups who are trying to increase the tensions between the US and Russia even further. I usually appreciate HRC for being a "professional politician", a trait I consider to be positive (with all the establishment hate I'm probably alone on that soon). Sadly those repeated remarks were not exactly what I would expect from a "professional politician". Mention them where necessary, skip the uncalled mentions. And all good.
We are basicly in a cold war again,the only thing different is that the rusian elite now has a lot to loose so they have to be carefull. Usa/Europe wants influence in Syria,probably to isolate iran more. But Syria has been under rusian influence for decades. Rusia lost a lot of influence after the cold war ended but they have stabilized and I don't think they will let Syria go. It is one of the last strategic places where they do have influence.
30 years ago Americas actions of today regarding syria would have let to ww3.
Don't think it matters much how often Hillary mentions rusia,they are not friends and they know it. They have a few common interests but that is it.
And ya, I agree with horizon for once. But many people are invulnerable to that kind of logic when it comes to criticize someone they do support,they will simply ignore it and act like nothing did happen. The brainwash has been completed.
Never in history have I seen so much nonsense as during this election,and people buy it like crazy even asking for more.
Both sides are guilty on this btw
|
On October 20 2016 02:33 WhiteDog wrote:
Our dear GH is totally right.
Now that we passed the "it's all a lie" phase I expect "It's not a big deal, it's normal", followed quickly by "But compare that to Trump", and maybe even find a way to blame Russia.
Of course none of that would matter to my original point (that they personally benefit from the charity), but they have already reconstructed in their minds what I was actually saying and will probably keep arguing against that imaginary opponent.
|
United States43783 Posts
On October 20 2016 02:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 02:14 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 02:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 02:06 Evotroid wrote:On October 20 2016 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 01:47 GreenHorizons 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. They've released 10 million documents, how many have been doctored or seeded with fake information? That is the question everyone should ask themselves. Well they say 0, and I've seen 0 evidence any have been. So I'm leaning toward 0. I don't know if it is actually this lost on you, but reading that, I bet Bill would laugh off his ass in his secret corruption library lounge where he corrupts stuff...... Bruh, I know it's fun to imagineer opponents but my comment on the penthouse wasn't some secret corruption lair, just a personal benefit maintained by his charity. That people want to push the point that it's absurd to suggest that perhaps he doesn't only do official charity business in a penthouse he stays at frequently, is their own feigned naivety. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of wikileaks documents. Out of curiousity, where is this penthouse? Where did you hear about it? Can you link to an article referencing it? I know you keep saying I'm feigning naivety for not believing that Bill Clinton keeps a secret penthouse in his library for personal use outside of his normal library functions but I'm really not. I just haven't yet seen all the things you have seen that led you to that conclusion. Show nested quote +Mr. Leopoulos says Mr. Clinton “loved” his old job. “If he could be president again tomorrow, he would be.”
No doubt one of Mr. Clinton’s favorite exhibits is the exact replica of the Oval Office, meticulously cloned by Little Rock interior designer Kaki Hockersmith. Miss Hockersmith, who decorated the real Oval Office for Mr. Clinton, even grew the ivy on the fireplace from a cutting of the plant in the actual White House.
The fake Oval Office is where Mr. Clinton recently taped a television commercial with former President George Bush to raise money for tsunami relief.
Mr. Clinton, who plans to overnight at the penthouse whenever he has a speaking engagement in town, invited Mr. Leopoulos and his wife, as well as his first high-school date, Mauria Aspell, and her husband over the other night for a game of hearts. SourceWere you genuinely unaware of it's existence?
Yes, I had not yet seen any evidence that a penthouse existed other than you saying I was naive for asking you for evidence that it existed. I did keep asking you but you just kept calling me naive.
Incidentally when I googled looking for it (I searched: clinton presidential library executive suite penthouse) there were only tabloids and explicitly conservative sources reporting on it.
This is a pretty representative example
http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/inside-bill-clintons-presidential-library-playboy-pad/
I'm still pretty skeptical honestly.
|
On October 20 2016 02:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 02:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 02:14 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 02:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 02:06 Evotroid wrote:On October 20 2016 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 01:59 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 01:47 GreenHorizons 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. They've released 10 million documents, how many have been doctored or seeded with fake information? That is the question everyone should ask themselves. Well they say 0, and I've seen 0 evidence any have been. So I'm leaning toward 0. I don't know if it is actually this lost on you, but reading that, I bet Bill would laugh off his ass in his secret corruption library lounge where he corrupts stuff...... Bruh, I know it's fun to imagineer opponents but my comment on the penthouse wasn't some secret corruption lair, just a personal benefit maintained by his charity. That people want to push the point that it's absurd to suggest that perhaps he doesn't only do official charity business in a penthouse he stays at frequently, is their own feigned naivety. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of wikileaks documents. Out of curiousity, where is this penthouse? Where did you hear about it? Can you link to an article referencing it? I know you keep saying I'm feigning naivety for not believing that Bill Clinton keeps a secret penthouse in his library for personal use outside of his normal library functions but I'm really not. I just haven't yet seen all the things you have seen that led you to that conclusion. Mr. Leopoulos says Mr. Clinton “loved” his old job. “If he could be president again tomorrow, he would be.”
No doubt one of Mr. Clinton’s favorite exhibits is the exact replica of the Oval Office, meticulously cloned by Little Rock interior designer Kaki Hockersmith. Miss Hockersmith, who decorated the real Oval Office for Mr. Clinton, even grew the ivy on the fireplace from a cutting of the plant in the actual White House.
The fake Oval Office is where Mr. Clinton recently taped a television commercial with former President George Bush to raise money for tsunami relief.
Mr. Clinton, who plans to overnight at the penthouse whenever he has a speaking engagement in town, invited Mr. Leopoulos and his wife, as well as his first high-school date, Mauria Aspell, and her husband over the other night for a game of hearts. SourceWere you genuinely unaware of it's existence? Yes, I had not yet seen any evidence that a penthouse existed other than you saying I was naive for asking you for evidence that it existed. I did keep asking you but you just kept calling me naive. Incidentally when I googled looking for it (I searched: clinton presidential library executive suite penthouse) there were only tabloids and explicitly conservative sources reporting on it. This is a pretty representative example http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/inside-bill-clintons-presidential-library-playboy-pad/I'm still pretty skeptical honestly.
jfc... I'm hoping this was post lag where you didn't see another source. Now we know the best way to get Democrats to doubt a fact is to put it in right wing tabloids.
|
If Trump wins can we make Trump a member of Teamliquid starcraft 2 team ? "LiquidTrumP" would sound badass. jk
Anyway guys, Trump will destroy her tonight. I still believe he can win this!
|
On October 20 2016 02:08 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 02:00 LegalLord wrote:On October 20 2016 01:56 mahrgell wrote:On October 20 2016 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On October 20 2016 01:30 mahrgell wrote:On October 20 2016 01:21 Logo wrote:On October 20 2016 01:06 KwarK wrote:
I expect no changes from Clinton. Why would she adjust a winning strategy? This election is pretty much done at this point. We're less than 3 weeks out and Texas is looking more competitive than Pennsylvania (Trump has gone allin on flipping PA, even though PA isn't a swing state, it's a bold strategy Cotton). Even if a new strategy for Clinton is low risk/high reward the current strategy is no risk/same reward. She can't become double President, there really isn't much more room for her to improve from her current 340ish electoral college vote cushion. I don't think there's any style that she CAN change into without alienating some people outside of minor adjustments (like having quips similar to the first debate). Anything that deviates from what she's already shown in the debates will just be interpreted as her being a bitch or emotional or failing that pretentious. I guess not going mad on Russia on every answer would also be a possible change. Ok, to give Hillary credit on her FP approach (not something I do often), she has some really vicious anti-Russia rhetoric but most of the policy suggestions she actually gives when pressed are rather balanced. Whether or not they're the right ones is a matter of its own, but they're definitely not of the "start nuclear war with Russia" style of aggression like what her rhetoric would suggest. I'm favoring a rather strong course against Russia and would consider them more of a rival than a friend. But I'm also seeing that Russia wont dissappear. We will have to deal with them for decades. And thus you should somehow manage to get along with them. So all those hostile arguments even before the election, which were not really needed at this point in the debate, are not helping once you take office. No matter how much truth they contained, she could have gotten away with mentioning Russia only half the times she did and nobody would have been mad at her. And she would have given way less ammo to any media/whatever groups who are trying to increase the tensions between the US and Russia even further. I usually appreciate HRC for being a "professional politician", a trait I consider to be positive (with all the establishment hate I'm probably alone on that soon). Sadly those repeated remarks were not exactly what I would expect from a "professional politician". Mention them where necessary, skip the uncalled mentions. And all good. I think she's trying to tie Trump to Russia as a talking point. Maybe there are some undecided voters for whom that would be a big deal? I don't know. What effect is bigger? The number of people turned off by "evil big red fear mongering" or the number of people convinced by that strategy. I would expect her own research team to have judged the net effect in her favor, otherwise she wouldn't have went for it. Her preparedness can be considered a given. But even if there is a minor net positive in those points, I consider it a loan on the future. A loan that was, given the state of the election at the time of the second debate, not needed.
Meh. Hillary definitely won't improve relations with Russia, that much is true. But I've seen enough to know that her rhetoric is rhetoric and her position is basically what it always has been.
If there were a better option I'd have chosen it. No such option exists so I just have to deal with it and choose the path of least damage.
|
On October 20 2016 02:33 WhiteDog wrote:
Our dear GH is totally right.
I agree and admit I was incorrect. There is zero evidence to date that wikileaks are altered documents and it is pure speculation on my part that they will do so in the future. My speculation is based on previous statements by Mr. Assange and the mounting evidence that he has a clear agenda and is not accountable to anyone.
On top of that, Mr. Assange has stated several times that anyone who sides with people he considers to be enemies are also free game and he is not bothered if he harms them. In the previous article he stated that anyone who sides with the US forces in Afghanistan deserved to die. That includes anyone we know serving there, like my brother.
And I assume that he has not problem going after me based on who I am voting for.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37065 Posts
On October 20 2016 02:47 ImFromPortugal wrote:
If Trump wins can we make Trump a member of Teamliquid starcraft 2 team ? "LiquidTrumP" would sound badass. jk
Anyway guys, Trump will destroy her tonight. I still believe he can win this!
The only affiliation TL would ever want with Trump would be when we announce the "Trump apologizes to America for his offensive actions. TL 24hr AMA."
|
|
|
|
|
|
392
185
19
21672
2699
237
EPT
