EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5948
| 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. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On November 07 2016 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote: I think my relationship with the justice system gives me much less confidence that what they pronounce is automatically closer to the truth than "what it looks like". Clinton looks like an addict (to money and power) to me, so yes, that is the lens through which I look at her actions. I don't doubt that she probably managed to not break the law (or at least to a point where she would be likely enough to lose in court for someone to risk bringing charges[which was my position way back in 2015]), but that's not my problem. Much like xDaunt was trying to point out, it's that we're approving and promoting what she's done from the left. Too many people on the left have adopted what used to be a Republican mantra in their defense of Clinton: "If it's profitable and legal, it must be moral and ethical". It was a server configuration. Nobody died. Nothing leaked. To the extent any at-the-time-classified information was sent through the server, it was done so by accident and that information was innocuous stuff about impressions about the President of Burundi. By all available evidence, it was hacked less than the .gov state department servers. I defend it as being innocuous, harmless, and legal. I don't need to show it was "moral and ethical". But if you want to shitlord it, you need to show how that server Harmed something and/or was actively Illegal. You can't show either and never will. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8111 Posts
On November 07 2016 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote: I think my relationship with the justice system gives me much less confidence that what they pronounce is automatically closer to the truth than "what it looks like". Clinton looks like an addict (to money and power) to me, so yes, that is the lens through which I look at her actions. I don't doubt that she probably managed to not break the law (or at least to a point where she would be likely enough to lose in court for someone to risk bringing charges[which was my position way back in 2015]), but that's not my problem. Much like xDaunt was trying to point out, it's that we're approving and promoting what she's done from the left. Too many people on the left have adopted what used to be a Republican mantra in their defense of Clinton: "If it's profitable and legal, it must be moral and ethical". GH, it's a presidential election. Not a date or something. You have spent a year jumping on every fake scandal the Republican made up with their suppositions and conspiracy theories. When you thought you had something you said "I KNEW IT" and when every time it happened to be nothing at all you said "yes but anyway she must be corrupt anyway because I have a bad feeling about her". My problem is that you treat information according to your feelings (that she is an addict or whatever), rather than the opposite. That's how the right wing proceeds and that's why they are utterly out of touch with facts and reality. You WANT Clinton to be corrupt because you don't like her. And that thing about her being an addict is ludicrous. Of course she is ambitious, and of course she wants power. Like everybody who gets there. You have to spend your life pursuing that dream to even have a chance, it needs to be the one most important thing for you and you must be ready to sacrifice a LOT. In what universe do you think making psychological assumption based on your vague gut feeling is helpful? | ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
On November 07 2016 06:20 pmh wrote: They went through all new emails already,wth? They said it would take months. Like how long would it take for a organization to go over thousands of email if they want to? a couple hours tops? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 07 2016 06:20 pmh wrote: They went through all new emails already,wth? They said it would take months. Did they close the investigation? The twit earlier just strikes me as a statement of the current situation. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 07 2016 06:22 ragz_gt wrote: Like how long would it take for a organization to go over thousands of email if they want to? a couple hours tops? How long to: 1. Prune through 650,000 emails and decide which are relevant. 2. For those that are relevant, discard those that are obviously inoccuous. 3. For those that are not obviously inoccuous, investigate the legality of what is in those emails. 4. Connect those suspicious emails to relevant context that determines whether or not there is something further to look into. 5. Come to a consensus on the results of the emails. ... might take a while. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On November 07 2016 06:27 LegalLord wrote: How long to: 1. Prune through 650,000 emails and decide which are relevant. 2. For those that are relevant, discard those that are obviously inoccuous. 3. For those that are not obviously inoccuous, investigate the legality of what is in those emails. 4. Connect those suspicious emails to relevant context that determines whether or not there is something further to look into. 5. Come to a consensus on the results of the emails. ... might take a while. You are underestimating just how big (1.) the pruning will be. Start at 650,000. Filter down to only those that are HRC-Huma. Match against known HRC-Huma emails within the 30,000 emails FBI already investigated. Then you only have to look at the HRC-Huma emails you have NOT already seen. EDIT: Comey claims his FBI agents worked overtime this weekend and banged it all out. To dispute this, you need to believe that Comey is lying. 1 agent can probably review 1 email in 1 minute. 10 agents can do 600 emails in an hour. If you buy the pruning tree I put up, we could be talking in the X,000's of emails. That can be done by 10 guys over 2 really hard days. | ||
|
CobaltBlu
United States919 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 07 2016 06:29 JW_DTLA wrote: You are underestimating just how big (1.) the pruning will be. Start at 650,000. Filter down to only those that are HRC-Huma. Match against known HRC-Huma emails within the 30,000 emails FBI already investigated. Then you only have to look at the HRC-Huma emails you have NOT already seen. Of course, the last few steps in what I listed are the ones that are really take time. Reading through a database of 650k emails isn't the hard part, filter or not. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On November 07 2016 05:47 Plansix wrote: He can't handle having access to his own twitter account. Tony Schwartz was so on point with his analysis of Trump's personality disorders. Dude is in a pit of depression right now. How can anyone aware of these facts consider making this man Commander in Chief? Donald J. Trump is not sleeping much these days. Aboard his gold-plated jumbo jet, the Republican nominee does not like to rest or be alone with his thoughts, insisting that aides stay up and keep talking to him. He prefers the soothing, whispery voice of his son-in-law. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24049 Posts
On November 07 2016 06:21 Biff The Understudy wrote: GH, it's a presidential election. Not a date or something. You have spent a year jumping on every fake scandal the Republican made up with their suppositions and conspiracy theories. When you thought you had something you said "I KNEW IT" and when every time it happened to be nothing at all you said "yes but anyway she must be corrupt anyway because I have a bad feeling about her". My problem is that you treat information according to your feelings (that she is an addict or whatever), rather than the opposite. That's how the right wing proceeds and that's why they are utterly out of touch with facts and reality. You WANT Clinton to be corrupt because you don't like her. And that thing about her being an addict is ludicrous. Of course she is ambitious, and of course she wants power. Like everybody who gets there. You have to spend your life pursuing that dream to even have a chance, it needs to be the one most important thing for you and you must be ready to sacrifice a LOT. In what universe do you think making psychological assumption based on your vague gut feeling is helpful? Based on your characterization, I'll agree to disagree. I don't want her to be corrupt, I want her to do things like vocally and consistently stand with the water protectors for example. It's not some wild conspiracy or bitterness, or any of the other ridiculous stuff you all want to dismiss my problems with her as, it's who she is, what she does, and what she doesn't do. Her promoting her role in the 9/11 responders bill, with no one challenging her on her almost complete silence on it's renewal is another example. Like being an f-1 driver, Olympic wrestler, or many other occupations/hobbies addiction can often be a prerequisite (or at least helpful) for reaching the top. One easily accessible example of this would be when confronted on making 5 million in speaking fees Hillary suggested they were "dead broke" insinuating they "needed the money". They had just previously managed a $800,000+ cash down payment on a house a few weeks before she insists they were "dead broke". Another example might be when Hillary's staff had to drill into her the problem with paid speeches while running. That is textbook addict behavior. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On November 07 2016 06:32 Doodsmack wrote: Tony Schwartz was so on point with his analysis of Trump's personality disorders. Dude is in a pit of depression right now. How can anyone aware of these facts consider making this man Commander in Chief? I was reading up on the psych issues re trump, and felt this article was a good reasoned point on the topic (note the author is anti-trump): http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldenberg-trump-mental-health-20160823-snap-story.html the tldr of it is the potential of mental illness isn't necessary or helpful to make the determination to vote against Trump it also discusses the reasons to be wary of any diagnosis. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6342 Posts
On November 07 2016 06:24 LegalLord wrote: Did they close the investigation? The twit earlier just strikes me as a statement of the current situation. They are still investigating the Clinton Foundation, the statement was just declaring that they didn't find enough evidence to prosecute. They will reopen the case once new evidence is found. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On November 07 2016 06:41 Danglars wrote: Now the NY Post is reporting Clinton had her maid print out classified material based on FBI memos and her emails. I am glad that you've moved on so quickly after what must be an enormous disappointment that the 650k emails had nothing new or interesting in them. | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
| ||
| ||
