| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 24 2016 09:39 IgnE wrote: Why do people watch videos when they could read things? I don't understand youtube. Well it's all about money. YouTube gave every guy holding a sign about The Truth at a subways stop a huge venue. And people are bad a assessing quality. Snake oil merchants of the modern era. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On October 24 2016 09:39 IgnE wrote: Why do people watch videos when they could read things? I don't understand youtube. Did you see the scary red capitalized text? What about the dark voice over? How about the overly shadowed picture of HRC looking guilty? You can't get that kind of propaganda effect with text. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On October 24 2016 09:30 GoTuNk! wrote: + Show Spoiler + That article has false information and ommits critical points, aside from the obvious biased point of view from the author. -The author says that Hillary could "claim ignorance" and that was her main fault, despite the fact she received training from the secret service on how to handle e-mails, and that she signed documents acknowledging such responsibility. -Or it ommits that she willfully deleted the emails after receiving a court order. Allow me to post a counter-point of view: Dog if you want to bias-whine, don't cite Stefan Molyneux. Check out his video uploads. https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot/videos?shelf_id=11&view=0&sort=dd You couldn't get more of a biased source if you tried. The guy literally pays his bills shitlording HRC. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On October 24 2016 10:07 JW_DTLA wrote: Dog if you want to bias-whine, don't cite Stefan Molyneux. Check out his video uploads. https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot/videos?shelf_id=11&view=0&sort=dd You couldn't get more of a biased source if you tried. The guy literally pays his bills shitlording HRC. I purposedly posted a biased source to counter another. However I did take the time of pointing out the false information the article posted by DPB. Gotta love how he doesn't get ANY critism for posting a 10 paragraph partisan article called "The Truth About" without any cliff or main points because it alings with your points of view. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
On October 24 2016 10:10 GoTuNk! wrote: I purposedly posted a biased source to counter another. However I did take the time of pointing out the false information the article posted by DPB. Gotta love how he doesn't get ANY critism for posting a 10 paragraph partisan article called "The Truth About" without any cliff or main points because it alings with your points of view. I could criticize him as well, but lengthy videos are far worse as they don't contain, in effect, chapter breaks. It is actually like posting 3000 words without any paragraph breaks. I would like cliff notes on both, but I would like it more on videos. On October 24 2016 10:21 kwizach wrote: I found this article by Politico to be very helpful in comprehensively addressing the issue of Clinton's e-mail practices. Could you say what was helpful about it? Because that actually is a 11,000 word article. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46514 Posts
On October 24 2016 10:10 GoTuNk! wrote: I purposedly posted a biased source to counter another. However I did take the time of pointing out the false information the article posted by DPB. Gotta love how he doesn't get ANY critism for posting a 10 paragraph partisan article called "The Truth About" without any cliff or main points because it alings with your points of view. That's a fair complaint, so let me elaborate: When I originally tried pasting the text of the huge article I cited, there were unfortunately formatting issues (due to its length, clumping of sentences, etc.). Not that that's any excuse, so I'd be happy to list some of the topics covered in the large article: 1. What are common opinions/ assumptions of the scandal? 2. "Where Did Hillary Clinton’s Email Server Come From?" 3. The legitimacy and quantity of classified e-mails being funneled through the private server. 4. Inertia, efficiency, and digital communication becoming normalized. 5. Was she purposely hiding or deleting anything? 6. How Hillary could/ should actually address the issue. And here's the central thesis: The Clinton email issue is a perfect confluence of inertia, bureaucracy, and the limits of technology in government. It was a bad solution to an even worse problem. How do you marry convenience, speed, secrecy, and accountability into one streamlined government communications package? You can’t. ~ https://medium.com/the-curious-civilian/admit-it-the-clinton-email-controversy-bothers-you-yet-you-dont-actually-know-what-the-clinton-511dc1659eda#.akc8ili0d | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9247 Posts
On October 24 2016 10:10 GoTuNk! wrote: I purposedly posted a biased source to counter another. However I did take the time of pointing out the false information the article posted by DPB. Gotta love how he doesn't get ANY critism for posting a 10 paragraph partisan article called "The Truth About" without any cliff or main points because it alings with your points of view. 'A biased source' in the opposite direction would have been something like the National Review's take on the email scandal which is entirely pertinent to the thread, Molyneux is more than that, he is a cultist and conspiratard. As a general helpful rule for the future, try to avoid sources that predict the end of civilization 10 times a year. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On October 24 2016 10:24 Falling wrote: Could you say what was helpful about it? Because that actually is a 11,000 word article. As I said, it comprehensively addresses the history of Clinton's e-mail practices and private server before and during her tenure as Secretary of State. If you want to understand what went on, it's the best read I've found yet. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4456 Posts
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26551 | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On October 24 2016 10:50 kwizach wrote: There's actually a lot more to the article than that -- for example, the role played by the individuals who set up the server and handled the technical issues around it, how and why state department employees often used private e-mails, what happened when the investigation started and Clinton was asked to provide copies of her e-mails, what was the issue with the e-mails that were characterized as classified, etc. I read that whole article when it came out and I regard it as the definitive piece on the emails subject. If anyone comes in here and starts rattling off bits and pieces of dubious fact claims about the chappaqua server, they should be made to read the damned article first. I know it is long, but this subject is so prone to bogus fact claims that such a long article is justified. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-emails-2016-server-state-department-fbi-214307 EDIT: at this point that email server is the central question of this election. DJT isn't running on policy anymore, and Conservatives who vote for DJT usually cite the chappaqua server as the core reason they vote against HRC (and for DJT). True Trumpkins who like DJT"s white nationalist message flat out don't care about the facts of the server. But the college-conservative crowd that can still hear facts needs to be held to account for the actual details of the chappaqua server (they are innocuous). | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46514 Posts
On October 24 2016 10:56 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Hillary campaign recommends poll oversampling in new Podesta wikileaks email. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26551 1. Whether or not this guy- Tom- wants oversampling for a specific poll, every other poll has already corroborated Hillary's lead, as have aggregate sites like 538. 2. As an aside, how are we establishing the validity of any of these WikiLeak reveals in general? It's insanely easy to doctor an e-mail, so why are all of these assumed to be real and not fake? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 24 2016 10:56 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Hillary campaign recommends poll oversampling in new Podesta wikileaks email. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26551 Can you explain why anyone would ever care about this? They can pay for any polls they want. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9247 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
OSC
WardiTV Weekly
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Soulkey
CranKy Ducklings
BSL Open Qualifier
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
