|
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. |
United States42004 Posts
On November 02 2016 23:48 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 23:42 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 23:41 zeo wrote:On November 02 2016 23:38 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 23:37 zeo wrote:On November 02 2016 23:28 Nyan wrote:
I wonder how much the world politics will change once we have Trump as US president. China and Russia will have a field day with this. Clinton presidency would have been a dream for Russia/China, day after the inauguration both ambassadors come to the white house with copies of the deleted emails and a note saying 'guess who's calling the shots now Hillary  ' Thus explaining the close cooperation and support between Trump and Putin. You're two days late with your conspiracy theories: Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia And yet here we are with Putin backed wikileaks attacking Hillary day after day. Again, another conspiracy theory. It's easier to blame the Boogie man for everything instead of taking responsibility for her actions. The US isn't a banana republic to have its elections influenced by a 'bankrupt and failing' Russia. But regardless Hillary would be completely in the pocket of Moscow.
Wikileaks and Russia are a conspiracy theory now?
|
I think Russia wanting to get trump elected by hacking hillaries emails and giving them to wikileaks is a conspiracy theory.
|
On November 02 2016 23:47 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 23:42 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 23:41 zeo wrote:On November 02 2016 23:38 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 23:37 zeo wrote:On November 02 2016 23:28 Nyan wrote:
I wonder how much the world politics will change once we have Trump as US president. China and Russia will have a field day with this. Clinton presidency would have been a dream for Russia/China, day after the inauguration both ambassadors come to the white house with copies of the deleted emails and a note saying 'guess who's calling the shots now Hillary ' Thus explaining the close cooperation and support between Trump and Putin. You're two days late with your conspiracy theories: Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia And yet here we are with Putin backed wikileaks attacking Hillary day after day. FBI is hitting Hillary every day now too, is Putin in control of the FBI now? Time for the conspiracy theorists to accept these leaks most likely came from insiders in DC wanting to expose crooked Hillary and the Clinton Foundation.
The FBI has not confirmed anything beyond the potential existence of emails of unknown relevance.
And then we have Trump with a possible secret server to communicate with Russian banks and endless sexual assault charges, including the possible rape of a child.
|
United States42004 Posts
On November 02 2016 23:52 Sermokala wrote:
I think Russia wanting to get trump elected by hacking hillaries emails and giving them to wikileaks is a conspiracy theory.
On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
I think you're confusing a conspiracy with a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy of radical Muslims did 9/11. That does not make it a conspiracy theory, just a conspiracy.
|
On November 02 2016 23:52 Sermokala wrote:
I think Russia wanting to get trump elected by hacking hillaries emails and giving them to wikileaks is a conspiracy theory.
Is it if the US intelligence agencies have said they believe it is happening? I think that moves it out of “things believed by people wearing tinfoil hats.”
|
On November 02 2016 23:39 Monochromatic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 21:16 bo1b wrote:
How does Trump possibly seems honest at all? When Clinton has a position on an issue, her answers seem strategic, like they were designed to appeal to as many people as possible. She screens her answers. Meanwhile Trump just says whatever, like ban all Muslims! or build a wall! It's painfully obvious that no one has looked over what he is going to say. I have full confidence Trump believes what he says.
Well, he believes it at the moment anyways. But he might not believe it in 5 minutes.
|
I mean we know that Russia is the one supplying wikileaks but I think its a conspiracy theory to say that they're doing it with the intent to get trump elected.
|
A friend of mine on Facebook recently posted this, disagreeing with it:
I am mad. I am mad because I am scared. And if you are a woman, you should be, too. Emailgate is a bitch hunt, but the target is not Hillary Clinton. It’s us.
The only reason the whole email flap has legs is because the candidate is female. Can you imagine this happening to a man? Clinton is guilty of SWF (Speaking While Female), and emailgate is just a reminder to us all that she has no business doing what she’s doing and must be punished, for the sake of all decent women everywhere. There is so much of that going around.
Source: http://time.com/4551711/hillary-clinton-emailgate/
Since this issue has come up on TL recently, I thought I would x-post my thoughts here:
I think the argument regarding sexism needs framing. Regardless of how you feel about this specific situation, ideas like "do what it takes to win" and similarly masculine ideals are usually considered inappropriate for women. For men, it is just a reality. Because of the masculine nature of politics, business, law etc, a lot of the typical ways we see people bend the rules are things we have attributed to male qualities. They are things we have come to expect and we are not surprised when it happens. When Trump brags about abusing tax loop holes to avoid hundreds of millions in taxes, people don't think twice about him explaining its "being smart" by being immoral/cut-throat. We even often glorify the idea of "playing to win" and other similar rule-bending.
Women, on the other hand, are expected to be a lot more moral/consistent/stable/passive. A lot of times when women behave in the same immoral ways as men, expectations and culture frame it differently. It is similar to the idea that cussing isn't considered "lady-like", but things like "locker room talk" are quietly accepted. It is all about expectations framing the same actions differently depending on what sex someone is. Someone's mom making a crude sexual/racial joke (on average) makes people gasp a lot more easily than someone's dad doing the same thing. In a lot of ways, women are expected to be more moral than men. Because of that, women are also punished more harshly when it comes to things like honesty and other motherly/nurturing qualities. An untrustworthy woman is MUCH less acceptable than an untrustworthy man (generally speaking).
So I don't think labeling Clinton's actions as immoral is sexist. But I do think that the conclusion someone reaches about a woman who behaves immorally is very different (on average) from how someone would label a man doing the same thing. "Men being men" is instead "an immoral woman" in a lot of cases.
|
I don't think it quit ereaches hte level to justify the pejorative "conspiracy theory".
|
United States42004 Posts
On November 02 2016 23:58 Sermokala wrote:
I mean we know that Russia is the one supplying wikileaks but I think its a conspiracy theory to say that they're doing it with the intent to get trump elected.
You think they're accidentally supplying wikileaks with anti-Hillary material? Or they're deliberately supplying wikileaks with anti-Hillary material but aren't sure who that kind of material might benefit? I don't get how you can be happy with "Russia is behind the anti-Hillary leaks" but then go "whoa, hold on, that's a little far" at "Russia wants the anti-Hillary leaks to hurt Hillary".
|
On November 02 2016 23:58 Sermokala wrote:
I mean we know that Russia is the one supplying wikileaks but I think its a conspiracy theory to say that they're doing it with the intent to get trump elected.
Except when you realize the fact that Russia benefits more from a Trump presidency. This isn't rocket science people.
|
On November 03 2016 00:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 23:58 Sermokala wrote:
I mean we know that Russia is the one supplying wikileaks but I think its a conspiracy theory to say that they're doing it with the intent to get trump elected. You think they're accidentally supplying wikileaks with anti-Hillary material?
You think they didn't know supplying anti-Hillary material that could be traced back to them would give her ammo?
|
United States42004 Posts
On November 03 2016 00:03 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 00:00 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 23:58 Sermokala wrote:
I mean we know that Russia is the one supplying wikileaks but I think its a conspiracy theory to say that they're doing it with the intent to get trump elected. You think they're accidentally supplying wikileaks with anti-Hillary material? You think they didn't know supplying anti-Hillary material that could be traced back to them would give her ammo?
She doesn't lack for ammunition. She has an image problem, not a facts problem. Giving Hillary more facts only solidifies her support with the facts side of the political spectrum, in which she already has 100% support.
|
On November 03 2016 00:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2016 23:58 Sermokala wrote:
I mean we know that Russia is the one supplying wikileaks but I think its a conspiracy theory to say that they're doing it with the intent to get trump elected. You think they're accidentally supplying wikileaks with anti-Hillary material?
Yeah but I don't see how its trying to get trump elected. Weakening Hillary for the sake of weakening hillary or just muddling in the election to weaken the country but people are arguing that there is real coordination between Russia and trump to get him elected. Thats where it goes from conspiracy to conspiracy theory for me.
|
On November 02 2016 14:50 Maenander wrote:
I am glad I have no part in this election, wouldn't want to vote for either option. How could it come down to two ugly choices?
Because about 90% of the population buys into the self-fulfilling prophecy that only two political parties matter.
|
On November 03 2016 00:07 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 00:00 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 23:58 Sermokala wrote:
I mean we know that Russia is the one supplying wikileaks but I think its a conspiracy theory to say that they're doing it with the intent to get trump elected. You think they're accidentally supplying wikileaks with anti-Hillary material? Yeah but I don't see how its trying to get trump elected. Weakening Hillary for the sake of weakening hillary or just muddling in the election to weaken the country but people are arguing that there is real coordination between Russia and trump to get him elected. Thats where it goes from conspiracy to conspiracy theory for me.
the conspiracy theory pejorative generally applies to stuff tha'ts super wacko and out there. while I agree there are many plausible and more likely alternative explanations; them wanting trump in power isn't so out there as to be conspiracy theory territory.
also, there doesn't need to be coordination for russia to be trying to get trump elected.
|
United States42004 Posts
On November 03 2016 00:07 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 00:00 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2016 23:58 Sermokala wrote:
I mean we know that Russia is the one supplying wikileaks but I think its a conspiracy theory to say that they're doing it with the intent to get trump elected. You think they're accidentally supplying wikileaks with anti-Hillary material? Yeah but I don't see how its trying to get trump elected. Weakening Hillary for the sake of weakening hillary or just muddling in the election to weaken the country but people are arguing that there is real coordination between Russia and trump to get him elected. Thats where it goes from conspiracy to conspiracy theory for me.
You genuinely don't see a connection between trying to stop Hillary getting elected and trying to help Trump get elected? I'm sorry if I'm pushing you too hard on this, I'm just trying to work out where I'm losing you in the chain of logic.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's not a conspiracy theory. fbi just hasn't found any criminal ties yet. they didn't say no ties.
|
From all reports the Trump foundation’s email server would be comically easy to hack, yet no one has done it. The laser focus on Clinton combined with all the people on the Trump team that have connections to Russia and the heavy Russian investment in his businesses makes it very easy to understand why Putin would want Trump in office.
|
United States42004 Posts
That and Trump has explicitly called for an ending of sanctions and a recognition of Crimea before any negotiations even take place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
