|
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 21 2016 05:02 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 04:49 zeo wrote:
Thats the most secret sounding address he could come up with?
edit: Or maybe its some guy call Bob Ama So the criticism here is.. he didnt have a "secret sounding" enough email. Putin is shaking his had at comrade Zeo's ineptitude right now. Also I just read all of those emails threads/ Honestly how hard is it to review what you are leaking. The whole point of leaking information like this in the past has been to whistle-blow on something that is wrong or may be perceived to be wrong. Dumping all of these boring emails isnt really whistle blowing or doing a public service. Its just stealing peoples private information. Contextually its the kind of thing should be facing criminal charges for. Thats the difference between Snowden and Wikileaks.
Isn't it relevant in the sense that personal email use, while in office, is not going to end up being part of public record (including being difficult to obtain via FOIA requests).
|
On October 21 2016 05:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 03:39 Logo wrote:On October 21 2016 03:34 zeo wrote:“But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so.” –Hillary Clinton And again on twitter: You don't even have to hack her emails when she gives away top secret information for free. http://www.snopes.com/clinton-four-minute-nuclear/It was public information already. Nuclear deterrence are pointless if you don't tell the world about what it can do...
When the order is given, the nukes could be launched, or they may not be. It could take 4 minutes or maybe 5 hours. I'll tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense.
|
On October 21 2016 05:04 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 05:02 Rebs wrote:So the criticism here is.. he didnt have a "secret sounding" enough email. Putin is shaking his had at comrade Zeo's ineptitude right now. Also I just read all of those emails threads/ Honestly how hard is it to review what you are leaking. The whole point of leaking information like this in the past has been to whistle-blow on something that is wrong or may be perceived to be wrong. Dumping all of these boring emails isnt really whistle blowing or doing a public service. Its just stealing peoples private information. Contextually its the kind of thing should be facing criminal charges for. Thats the difference between Snowden and Wikileaks. Isn't it relevant in the sense that personal email use, while in office, is not going to end up being part of public record (including being difficult to obtain via FOIA requests).
The dates are all just before he took office as President, I dont know what the regulation would be regarding the time before his being sworn in, but since he isnt technically holding any office before being sworn in and during an election I dont think so.
That having been said it is bureaucratic shit he probably deals with as President anyway, just an intro version I'm guessing so that they can start working sooner than later. Not a particularly big deal.
|
On October 21 2016 05:06 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 05:04 Logo wrote:On October 21 2016 05:02 Rebs wrote:So the criticism here is.. he didnt have a "secret sounding" enough email. Putin is shaking his had at comrade Zeo's ineptitude right now. Also I just read all of those emails threads/ Honestly how hard is it to review what you are leaking. The whole point of leaking information like this in the past has been to whistle-blow on something that is wrong or may be perceived to be wrong. Dumping all of these boring emails isnt really whistle blowing or doing a public service. Its just stealing peoples private information. Contextually its the kind of thing should be facing criminal charges for. Thats the difference between Snowden and Wikileaks. Isn't it relevant in the sense that personal email use, while in office, is not going to end up being part of public record (including being difficult to obtain via FOIA requests). The dates are all just before he took office as President, I dont know if what the regulation would be regarding the time before his being sworn in, but since he isnt technically holding any office before being sworn in and during an election I dont think so.
Yeah I noticed that too and meant to actually ask about it. In that case I agree with that in this case.
|
On October 21 2016 05:02 Rebs wrote:So the criticism here is.. he didnt have a "secret sounding" enough email. Even Putin is shaking his had and face palming at comrade Zeo's ineptitude right now. ( + Show Spoiler +if he were even to give a shit about mindless pawns) Also I just read all of those emails threads/ Honestly how hard is it to review what you are leaking. The whole point of leaking information like this in the past has been to whistle-blow on something that is wrong or may be perceived to be wrong. Dumping all of these boring emails isnt really whistle blowing or doing a public service. Its just stealing peoples private information. Contextually its the kind of thing should be facing criminal charges for. Thats the difference between Snowden and Wikileaks.
You do realize that was a joke right? Lay off the coolaid for a few minutes then post.
|
Are they seriously calling a corporate email address "secret"?
Ameritech is a company. Companies like first initial+last name accounts. Ooooh, conspiracy.
(also did Obama ever work for Ameritech, or is this some other random B. Obama?)
Edit: Oh lol nvm Ameritech is a service provider. And they're sent from his phone.
|
|
|
On October 21 2016 05:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Are they seriously calling a corporate email address "secret"?
Ameritech is a company. Companies like first initial+last name accounts. Ooooh, conspiracy.
(also did Obama ever work for Ameritech, or is this some other random B. Obama?)
Edit: Oh lol nvm Ameritech is a service provider. And they're sent from his phone.
There's no reference anywhere of him being employed by Ameritech, and I can find no history of Ameritech directly making a campaign contribution to any party.
I'm pretty sure this is bunk.
He's not wrong. I don't know if die hard Republican supporters realize how damaging what happened last night was. This has moved the things being decided this election from who will become President (which is now far out of Trumps reach) to exactly how unwilling I will be to vote for any Republican that is remotely tied to him.
At this point their best hope is to cut and run, disavowing their endorsements and saying they were wrong. I'm still appalled beyond words at what I saw last night.
|
ameritech is at&t, which looks like the service provider for his blackberry.
at this point, this is just weird political voyeurism.
|
On October 21 2016 05:15 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 05:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Are they seriously calling a corporate email address "secret"?
Ameritech is a company. Companies like first initial+last name accounts. Ooooh, conspiracy.
(also did Obama ever work for Ameritech, or is this some other random B. Obama?)
Edit: Oh lol nvm Ameritech is a service provider. And they're sent from his phone. There's no reference anywhere of him being employed by Ameritech, and I can find no history of Ameritech directly making a campaign contribution to any party. I'm pretty sure this is bunk.
There is a decent chance those emails are really from Obama, but I'm also 99.9% sure that there is no smoking gun hidden in them.
And as Rebs said. This isn't leaking or whistle-blowing. This is simple criminal activity.
|
Seems likely.
And as it is before he took office, even a semblance of impropriety isn't there.
|
Wikileaks are taking grasping at straws to a new level this election, 7 entirely uninteresting emails in which he writes a couple of sentences in total, all from before his presidency.
And what's with the last one, it's just the phone numbers of two people and nothing else, what's the point of publishing that. I understand not curating when they release a block of 30k emails which they desperately want in play before the election but don't have the time to go through themselves, but they can't curate the release of 7 emails?
|
On October 21 2016 04:37 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 04:27 Trainrunnef wrote:On October 21 2016 04:17 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 03:55 Nyxisto wrote:On October 21 2016 03:43 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 03:33 zlefin wrote:On October 21 2016 03:28 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 02:44 zlefin wrote:On October 21 2016 02:14 IgnE wrote:On October 21 2016 01:56 oneofthem wrote:
large redistribution to the truly needy does not cost that much. it is the healthcare for boomers that is the big budget item. heeeeey welcome back, friend @zlefin yes i want more details you want to take every conceived fetus slated for abortion and birth it from a test tube? and then what? raise it as a ward of the state? more details: for technology, either an artificial womb, or a womb transplant system to a willing surrogate, could potentially work. it's not meant to solve every problem, it's meant to be a compromise which can reduce the number of abortions. There's also other technologies which could help reduce abortion rate. legally, the extent of restrictions depends in part on what the alternative options available are. one of the reasons a lot of it is up to the mother is that up until pretty late, the fetus cannot be removed from the mother and survive. some reasons for abortion: population control, not helped, though with current trends in birthrates it may be possible to support the additional lives, especially in places where birthrate is below replacement levels. (the below lifted from an online site) Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. obviously technological improvements (as well as sociological ones) which reduce contraceptive failure rate will cut down on abortions. iirc the increased use of IUDs has had such an effect. Inability to support or care for a child. To end an unwanted pregnancy. Obviosuly for those 2 cases the cost would be transferred to the state, or adoptive parents. To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done. while this will always be an issue, advances in technology may allow for more of these to be fixed either in utero, or otherwise. thus reducing the number of cases where it would be applicable. Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. doesn't help much with this. (other than potentially removing some of the psychological burden from the victim) Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued. It would nullify most of these reasons, so long as the procedure for transferring the embryo/fetus was about as safe as an abortion. end of that section; a safe alternate womb system would also mean that the ordinary maternal risks wouldn't apply. (which while not huge, aren't entirely negligible either) if cryogenics or other suspended animation systems became useably safe, then it would be possible for fetuses to be stored until population support cost issues make it more feasible (not sure that would really help at all though). there would be considerable additional costs to the state on the whole from the extra people; and that's a real issue. I'd want the pro-lifers to put up more effort to ensuring the extra lives are cared for and preferably adopted. of course some classes of infant are pretty easy to find adoptive parents for anyways. are there any other additional details you'd like? i honestly think you fundamentally misunderstand the pro-life mindset. reducing abortion rate by providing technological alternatives for carrying fetuses to term is to miss the point. they preserve the sanctity of this fetus while ripping it out of the organic family unit from which it sprung. you are suggesting a technical compromise here with a position that asserts that life is fundamentally mysterious, something not to be meddled with by humans pretending to be god. at its core it makes the mistake of thinking that the pro-life position is ends-oriented; that pro-lifers care about fetuses tout court. pro-choice policy has mostly worked through disciplining of biopower at the population level (i.e. contraceptives, education of women, incentives for marriage). the clumsy attempt to "compromise" with pro-lifers by attempting to improve the rate at which fetuses are carried to term is, i think, offensive in its singular focus on ends in themselves. focusing on the ends in themselves unravels the entire pro-life position, as kwark has attempted to show before (if fetuses are an end in themselves then every egg that is flushed out of of a woman's body is a sin against life itself, a missed opportunity, potential snuffed out). the pro-life agenda is concerned with preserving the transcendental nature of human origins. it needs to preserve that mystery in order to maintain the order in pro-lifers symbolic universe. there are a few different bases for the pro-life belief, some of which would be more satisfied with my proposal, some of which aren't. and if they'd prefer the status quo in america, I can live with that. I'd also disagree with some of your philosophical points, at any rate, i'm not interested in arguing the philosophy or ethics of the points with you; my point was about the potentiality for compromise with some. i'm going to assume there weren't any additional details you wanted. well you are the one who suggested that we should be working on a grand "compromise" and "long term plan" for abortion. i think that fundamentally misunderstands the issue itself. but if you'd rather not talk about the issue itself fine. I think you're underestimating how big the secular pro-life group is, millennials trend to hold stronger pro-life views than their parents at the moment (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/Generational-Differences-Abortion-Narrow.aspx) There's a significant group of people who see this as a humanist, ends related issue rather than a religious one. those people are mostly incoherent. i have no idea what it even means to be a secular pro-lifer. it sounds like some kind of suburban naivete. millennials who have never seen a homeless person. It doesn't mean that the position doesn't exist or that it is not logical. I can not be religious but still think murder is a bad thing, why would abortion be any different in terms of the variety of opinions possible. Its good to know that only religious people can truly care for the life of a fetus.... Come on man you are better than this. where did i say that only religious people can truly care for the life of a fetus? i object to your framing anyway, what does it mean to "care" about the life of a fetus?
This whole portion of the conversation was turning on the incoherent nature of being a secular (i.e. non religious) pro-lifer. if thats not how you intended it to be used then I apologize. but your post made it seem as though only a religious pro life point of view could be coherent with a connotation of "valid", so i guess its less that only religious can care for the life of a fetus and more that only the religious make sense when they care for said life. that is my perception of your post.
|
On October 21 2016 05:20 Dan HH wrote:
Wikileaks are taking grasping at straws to a new level this election, 7 entirely uninteresting emails in which he writes a couple of sentences in total, all from before his presidency.
And what's with the last one, it's just the phone numbers of two people and nothing else, what's the point of publishing that. I understand not curating when they release a block of 30k emails which they desperately want in play before the election but don't have the time to go through themselves, but they can't curate the release of 7 emails?
The headline that there is something relevant is all they care about. As long as they give the illusion that some sort of conspiracy is real, their readers will eat it up and continue supporting them.
|
|
|
On October 21 2016 05:11 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 05:02 Rebs wrote:So the criticism here is.. he didnt have a "secret sounding" enough email. Even Putin is shaking his had and face palming at comrade Zeo's ineptitude right now. ( + Show Spoiler +if he were even to give a shit about mindless pawns) Also I just read all of those emails threads/ Honestly how hard is it to review what you are leaking. The whole point of leaking information like this in the past has been to whistle-blow on something that is wrong or may be perceived to be wrong. Dumping all of these boring emails isnt really whistle blowing or doing a public service. Its just stealing peoples private information. Contextually its the kind of thing should be facing criminal charges for. Thats the difference between Snowden and Wikileaks. You do realize that was a joke right? Lay off the coolaid for a few minutes then post.
Yes and I was implying that your joke was terrible and made my own joke (which was probably just as bad but hey whose competing).
+ Show Spoiler +
The rest of it was serious though, but obviously you werent going to address that part because that would be actual serious discussion and not tinfoil one liners.
|
Trump used his foundation to fund guerrilla filmmaker James O’KeefeIn Wednesday’s presidential debate, Donald Trump claimed that new videos proved that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had “hired people” and “paid them $1,500” to “be violent, cause fights, [and] do bad things” at Trump rallies. He was referring to videos released this week by conservative activist James O’Keefe that purport to show pro-Clinton activists boasting of their efforts to bait Trump supporters into violent acts. The videos offer no evidence that Clinton or Obama were aware of or behind the alleged dirty tricks. Still, Trump claimed the videos exposed that a violence at a March Chicago rally was a “criminal act” and that it “was now all on tape started by her.” Trump neglected, however, to mention his own connection to the videos, released by James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas tax-exempt group. According to a list of charitable donations made by Trump‘s controversial foundation (provided to the Washington Post in April by Trump’s campaign), on May 13, 2015, it gave $10,000 to Project Veritas. ![[image loading]](https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*cSyrsB3xr39zqRodc_8f3Q.jpeg) Trump, who claimed in the same debate that Hillary Clinton “shouldn’t be allowed to run” for president “based on what she did with e-mails and so many other things,” was funding a convicted criminal. O’Keefe was sentenced to three years of probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $1,500 fine in 2010 after taking a plea bargain following a botched “sting” attempt at the office of then-Sen. Mary Landrieu. What’s more, there is a great deal of reason to be skeptical of the videos themselves. O’Keefe has a long history of selectively editing videos to present a false impression to the viewer. His most famous video, an attack on the now-defunct community organizing group ACORN, supposedly showed employees agreeing to help him smuggle underage prostitutes into the country. It turned out the employees later had called the police and O’Keefe eventually paid $100,000 in a settlement after being sued for surreptitious recording of someone’s voice and image. Even Glenn Beck’s conservative The Blaze slammed O’Keefe over a selectively-edited video purporting to show unethical action on the part of National Public Radio executives, faulting “ editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented. Though the latest video too has been criticized for selective editing by at least one of its subjects, two of the staffers resigned after its release.
Source
Can't make these things up.
|
I don't know why I'm even surprised by this.
At this point I'm more disappointed that he isn't being destroyed for it by his rivals. Is that even legal to pay out of a "charity" for your campaign?
|
It astounds me how Trump can consistently be guilty of doing the things he accuses others of doing, and several fold greater.
It's like the Trump Rule or something.
|
That's why it's important to be skeptical about something as damning as, "The Clintons are inciting violence and rigging elections" purportedly told in a video. Then again plenty of people bit into it already so it did its job. It's funny how everything unravels and ends with Trump looking twice as stupid as Hillary though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
