American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems (Vol 2)

American Presidential candidates GoP/Dems (Vol 2)

Author
Discussion

minimoog

5,710 posts

169 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
scherzkeks said:
But I do enjoy the snowflake outrage,
I'm pretty much much with Sam Harris on the whole 'snowflake' thing:

Sam Harris said:
And I’m confident that many people who don’t perceive Trump to be a dangerous conman in the way that I do probably voted for him out of sheer exasperation. They were sick of being called racists for not worrying about Halloween costumes on our Ivy League campuses. So, millions of these people, along with real racists, told all you social justice warriors at Yale and Brown to go fk yourselves.
And can you really blame them? I mean, safe spaces? Trigger warnings? New gender pronouns? Getting Muslim student groups to deplatform speakers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Bill Maher? Was that the cause of your generation? That’s the trench you are willing to die in?
Sounds about right to me.

You however seem to regard anyone who isn't a Trump supporter to be a snowflake. Meaning there's something approaching 60 million snowflakes in the USA alone, never mind the horrified ROW. Which I'm afraid rather takes the sting out of your would-be insult. Sorry about that.

scherzkeks said:
Our CIA is not a monoculture by the way. Neither is the FBI.
They are the USA's security and intelligence services. And Trump would rather side with the Russians than them. If that doesn't alarm you, nothing ever will.


Edited by minimoog on Tuesday 13th December 10:17

minimoog

5,710 posts

169 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
scherzkeks said:
But I do enjoy the snowflake outrage,
I'm pretty much much with Sam Harris on the whole 'snowflake' thing:

Sam Harris said:
And I’m confident that many people who don’t perceive Trump to be a dangerous conman in the way that I do probably voted for him out of sheer exasperation. They were sick of being called racists for not worrying about Halloween costumes on our Ivy League campuses. So, millions of these people, along with real racists, told all you social justice warriors at Yale and Brown to go fk yourselves.
And can you really blame them? I mean, safe spaces? Trigger warnings? New gender pronouns? Getting Muslim student groups to deplatform speakers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Bill Maher? Was that the cause of your generation? That’s the trench you are willing to die in?
Sounds about right to me.

You however seem to regard anyone who isn't a Trump supporter to be a snowflake. Meaning there's something approaching 60 million snowflakes in the USA alone, never mind the horrified ROW. Which I'm afraid rather takes the sting out of your would-be insult. Sorry about that.

scherzkeks said:
Our CIA is not a monoculture by the way. Neither is the FBI.
They are the USA's security and intelligence services. And Trump would rather side with the Russians than them. If that doesn't alarm you, nothing ever will.


Edited by minimoog on Tuesday 13th December 10:24

scherzkeks

4,460 posts

84 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
minimoog said:
Sounds about right to me.

You however seem to regard anyone who isn't a Trump supporter to be a snowflake. Meaning there's something approaching 60 million snowflakes in the USA alone, never mind the horrified ROW. Which I'm afraid rather takes the sting out of your would-be insult. Sorry about that.
It would seem to sting, IMO. You've posted twice about it.

The Russian conspiracy is classic Clinton, and has been done before (I previously linked to another excellent Greenwald piece on this). Unless they are going to post actual solid evidence of tampering, it is relegated to the category of SJW outrage.

Furthermore, even if the the claim could be backed up, the entire topic is a red herring to distract from the very real information on Clinton corruption provided to voters. So, we go full circle to realize, again, that the problem would appear to be Hillary Clinton.

minimoog

5,710 posts

169 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
scherzkeks said:
It would seem to sting, IMO. Why have you posted twice about it?
No-one no-platforms like a sore winner, PH has proved that much this year.

scherzkeks said:
Unless they are going to post actual solid evidence of tampering, it is relegated to the category of SJW outrage.
Try applying that approach to the Clinton email issue.

You seem to be suggesting the CIA are SJWs too, which is too funny for words.

scherzkeks said:
So, we go full circle to realize, again, that the problem would appear to be Hillary Clinton.
She is indeed the problem. I just don't think Comrade Trumpovich is the solution.

jsf

15,113 posts

186 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
It should be absolutely expected that a foreign power who has a vested interest, should be trying to change the results to suit their own agenda.

The issue here isn't that the Russians may have been hacking servers and releasing incriminating information.

The issue here is that firstly they could do that, i.e. the USA is not good enough at protecting its information, and secondly, there are practices taking place that shouldn't be, with the disclosure of that having a material impact.

That isn't Russia's fault, that is the USA in general and certain USA individuals doing a stty job.

rscott

9,696 posts

141 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
scherzkeks said:
minimoog said:
Sounds about right to me.

You however seem to regard anyone who isn't a Trump supporter to be a snowflake. Meaning there's something approaching 60 million snowflakes in the USA alone, never mind the horrified ROW. Which I'm afraid rather takes the sting out of your would-be insult. Sorry about that.
It would seem to sting, IMO. You've posted twice about it.

The Russian conspiracy is classic Clinton, and has been done before (I previously linked to another excellent Greenwald piece on this). Unless they are going to post actual solid evidence of tampering, it is relegated to the category of SJW outrage.

Furthermore, even if the the claim could be backed up, the entire topic is a red herring to distract from the very real information on Clinton corruption provided to voters. So, we go full circle to realize, again, that the problem would appear to be Hillary Clinton.
You seem somewhat obsessed with the awfulness of Clinton and blind to the idea that Trump might be somewhat dirty like her.

Are you also suggesting that unless there's compelling evidence of something, then we should ignore it completely (or call it SJW outrage)? The idea that whoever hacked the DNC systems also hacked the opposition isn't unreasonable. The subsequent question as to why only data from one party was released is also worth considering.


amusingduck

6,817 posts

86 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
jsf said:
The issue here isn't that the Russians may have been hacking servers and releasing incriminating information.
rscott said:
The idea that whoever hacked the DNC systems also hacked the opposition isn't unreasonable. The subsequent question as to why only data from one party was released is also worth considering.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

CraigMurray said:
A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.

As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.
Was the DNC hacked? Or was the data leaked by an insider?

It all comes down to who you find more credible, CIA/FBI et al, or Wikileaks.

rscott

9,696 posts

141 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
amusingduck said:
Was the DNC hacked? Or was the data leaked by an insider?

It all comes down to who you find more credible, CIA/FBI et al, or Wikileaks.
I don't particularly find any of them overly credible. They've all got agendas of their own.

scherzkeks

4,460 posts

84 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
rscott said:
The subsequent question as to why only data from one party was released is also worth considering.
Where is the evidence the RNC was hacked?

https://wikileaks.org/Assange-Statement-on-the-US-...





Edited by scherzkeks on Tuesday 13th December 10:58

rscott

9,696 posts

141 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
scherzkeks said:
rscott said:
The idea that whoever hacked the DNC systems also hacked the opposition isn't unreasonable. The subsequent question as to why only data from one party was released is also worth considering.
Where is the evidence the RNC was hacked?
Restored the other half of the post. Then it makes more sense.


scherzkeks

4,460 posts

84 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
rscott said:
scherzkeks said:
rscott said:
The idea that whoever hacked the DNC systems also hacked the opposition isn't unreasonable. The subsequent question as to why only data from one party was released is also worth considering.
Where is the evidence the RNC was hacked?
Restored the other half of the post. Then it makes more sense.
Is there evidence in the other half of the post?

rscott

9,696 posts

141 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
scherzkeks said:
rscott said:
scherzkeks said:
rscott said:
The idea that whoever hacked the DNC systems also hacked the opposition isn't unreasonable. The subsequent question as to why only data from one party was released is also worth considering.
Where is the evidence the RNC was hacked?
Restored the other half of the post. Then it makes more sense.
Is there evidence in the other half of the post?
Is there evidence they weren't hacked?

scherzkeks

4,460 posts

84 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
rscott said:
Is there evidence they weren't hacked?
The burden of proof is on the individual making the claim. Where is your evidence?

rscott

9,696 posts

141 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
scherzkeks said:
rscott said:
Is there evidence they weren't hacked?
The burden of proof is on the individual making the claim. Where is your evidence?
Go back to my post - I never said they definitely were or weren't. Only that the idea that they might have been wasn't unreasonable. There's a bunch of news reports over the past week alleging they have been. Whether they're true or not we don't know, but surely it's worth further investigation?

Nom de ploom

4,890 posts

124 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
I wonder how trump voters are reacting to his selections of staff positions?

part of the mass rejection of HRC was anti establishment and not wanting more of the same....

Are Trumps appointments starting to look like cronyism? Ex Exxon mobil chief now appointed as secretary of state???


jmorgan

33,939 posts

234 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
If I were the Trump dude I would would be asking the security services to dig into the accusations knowing damn well that I am in the clear as I must be cos I had so many votes and the previous comments on the opposition rigging the system was obviously a hissy fit.

BlackLabel

12,468 posts

73 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
Putin's mate becomes Secretary of State.

"US President-elect Donald Trump announces Exxon Mobil chief Rex Tillerson as his choice for secretary of state."

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/am...

Funkycoldribena

7,379 posts

104 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
jmorgan said:
If I were the Trump dude I would would be asking the security services to dig into the accusations knowing damn well that I am in the clear as I must be cos I had so many votes and the previous comments on the opposition rigging the system was obviously a hissy fit.
http://www.gizoogle.net/textilizer.php

Edited by Funkycoldribena on Tuesday 13th December 11:58

jmorgan

33,939 posts

234 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
Funkycoldribena said:
http://www.gizoogle.net/textilizer.php

Edited by Funkycoldribena on Tuesday 13th December 11:58
meh

amusingduck

6,817 posts

86 months

Tuesday 13th December 2016
quotequote all
Funkycoldribena said:
unrepentant said:
Yo ass do KNOW dat Trump is goin ta lose by at least 100 electoral college votes, probably nuff more, biatch? Yo ass do KNOW dat he even stopped campaignin up in nuff swin states n' is concentratin on tryin desperately ta shore up his vote up in red states dat he now standz a phat chizzle of losing, biatch? His campaign is only bout preventin a humiliation now, biatch? Do you have tha slightest clue bout anythang dat you write, biatch? Yo ass just look dumb.
rofl