caulfield12 Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 04:19 PM) lol youre barking up the wrong tree if you thing Im going to defend Trump. He's said and done plenty of stuff that warrants these attacks. I just think people focusing on the pettier stuff like his taxes and birther is a poor approach because of reasons Ive stated in the other thread. There is plenty of stuff to go at Trump for that is a lot more important than that stuff. So what exactly do you and Greg want? At least Greg has occasionally supported Sanders and mentioned the other two candidates as possibilities...but it's clear he is more anti-Hillary than pro anyone else, which is his democratic right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 05:27 PM) So what exactly do you and Greg want? At least Greg has occasionally supported Sanders and mentioned the other two candidates as possibilities...but it's clear he is more anti-Hillary than pro anyone else, which is his democratic right. I dont want any of them. Its a very frustrating election for me. As I mentioned a few days ago I would have preferred Bernie, or even Biden than any of these people and I really disagree with their politics. My strongest opinion in this election is Id rather have anyone on the planet as President than Hillary Clinton, its just really unfortunate that the only plausible way for that to happen now is with Donald Trump. Edited September 19, 2016 by DrunkBomber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 05:11 PM) All I brought up was that our military accidentally bombed the Syrian Army killing dozens of soldiers who are fighting AGAINST Isis. I was asked about what I would do in Syria to which I said I have no idea. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 05:13 PM) Don't you know in order to question the death of innocents, you have to have a doctoral thesis ready to go? Again what is the point? Should I just start posting random facts in a thread? Does that make any sense. It was posted in both Republican and Democrat thread, there surely must be some sort of point to that random fact. Its like saying "Mount Pinatubo erupted on June 15, 1991." Drunkbomber posted a fact. Okay great, so what was the point? It should be easy to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illinilaw08 Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 04:13 PM) Don't you know in order to question the death of innocents, you have to have a doctoral thesis ready to go? Well, DB did blame that on Clinton (at least tangentially by lumping it in to his original post re: Clinton's many problems). I also don't see anyone in this thread defending the fact that the US bombed the wrong group. It's not the first time this has happened in the last 15 years and, sadly, it probably won't be the last. It's a tragedy, just like it was a tragedy when the US hit the Doctor's Without Borders hospital. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike What's been problematic about those posts is it lays blame for the destabilization of the Middle East at the feet of Obama/Clinton when that's been going on for significantly longer than that. If you are arguing that Obama/Clinton are responsible for the destabilization of the Middle East, or if you are arguing that the US should not intervene in conflicts in the Middle East, you are in fact taking a policy position and should be prepared to defend that position... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 05:37 PM) Well, DB did blame that on Clinton (at least tangentially by lumping it in to his original post re: Clinton's many problems). I also don't see anyone in this thread defending the fact that the US bombed the wrong group. It's not the first time this has happened in the last 15 years and, sadly, it probably won't be the last. It's a tragedy, just like it was a tragedy when the US hit the Doctor's Without Borders hospital. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike What's been problematic about those posts is it lays blame for the destabilization of the Middle East at the feet of Obama/Clinton when that's been going on for significantly longer than that. If you are arguing that Obama/Clinton are responsible for the destabilization of the Middle East, or if you are arguing that the US should not intervene in conflicts in the Middle East, you are in fact taking a policy position and should be prepared to defend that position... What is the point of bringing up anything on a forum lol? For discussion. It was part of a bigger post that laid out Clinton/Obama's foreign policy failures amongst other things. This is technically a political forum isnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 19, 2016 Author Share Posted September 19, 2016 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 05:36 PM) Again what is the point? Should I just start posting random facts in a thread? Does that make any sense. It was posted in both Republican and Democrat thread, there surely must be some sort of point to that random fact. Its like saying "Mount Pinatubo erupted on June 15, 1991." Drunkbomber posted a fact. Okay great, so what was the point? It should be easy to answer. Posting random questions in a thread isn't any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illinilaw08 Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 04:33 PM) I dont want any of them. Its a very frustrating election for me. As I mentioned a few days ago I would have preferred Bernie, or even Biden than any of these people and I really disagree with their politics. My strongest opinion in this election is Id rather have anyone on the planet as President than Hillary Clinton, its just really unfortunate that the only plausible way for that to happen now is with Donald Trump. DB - I'm curious regarding your political stance on social issues. To me, that's the biggest reason to avoid Trump. Take a look at Trump's Supreme Court list and the positions they have taken in the past. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-elec...t-idUSKCN0YA2XV If you are at all concerned about LGBT rights - including the right to marriage - or are concerned about decisions like Citizens United, then I urge you to really look at the difference between Trump and Clinton on those appointments. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is a crazy powerful thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 04:33 PM) I dont want any of them. Its a very frustrating election for me. As I mentioned a few days ago I would have preferred Bernie, or even Biden than any of these people and I really disagree with their politics. My strongest opinion in this election is Id rather have anyone on the planet as President than Hillary Clinton, its just really unfortunate that the only plausible way for that to happen now is with Donald Trump. The problem is articulating an argument for why he would do a better job in foreign policy. Let's forget Clinton for a moment, which is going to be a more right wing version of Obama...more hawkish. Does he have the temperament to NOT get America involved in a major foreign conflict the next four years? That America would be safer with him as leader? Other than arguing he'll surround himself with the best and the brightest...and that's exactly what led Kennedy into the Bay of Pigs, listening to his top military advisors. Since he doesn't have the requisite expertise, the concern is that he'll simply be led astray, just like GW Bush was by Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 05:40 PM) Posting random questions in a thread isn't any better. How is asking someone what the purpose of their statement was "random"? Random: "What is your hair color?" Not random: "Why did you make the previous statement?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 05:45 PM) DB - I'm curious regarding your political stance on social issues. To me, that's the biggest reason to avoid Trump. Take a look at Trump's Supreme Court list and the positions they have taken in the past. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-elec...t-idUSKCN0YA2XV If you are at all concerned about LGBT rights - including the right to marriage - or are concerned about decisions like Citizens United, then I urge you to really look at the difference between Trump and Clinton on those appointments. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is a crazy powerful thing... I think the reality is that we have no idea who Trump would attempt to appoint to the Supreme Court. That is the scary part, the completely unknown quantity. The problem is Trump has no history besides his business. And in his business he always appoints family, friends, etc to high ranking positions. People were upset when Bush tried to appoint Harriet Miers, I just feel Trump would go that route. Again, who knows. I guess I just dont trust someone who says "Make America Great Again", when I personally believe that America is great. Then again, no matter how great our economy may have been, I dont consider a country "great" when a good portion of it dont enjoy the same rights as everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 04:37 PM) Well, DB did blame that on Clinton (at least tangentially by lumping it in to his original post re: Clinton's many problems). I also don't see anyone in this thread defending the fact that the US bombed the wrong group. It's not the first time this has happened in the last 15 years and, sadly, it probably won't be the last. It's a tragedy, just like it was a tragedy when the US hit the Doctor's Without Borders hospital. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike What's been problematic about those posts is it lays blame for the destabilization of the Middle East at the feet of Obama/Clinton when that's been going on for significantly longer than that. If you are arguing that Obama/Clinton are responsible for the destabilization of the Middle East, or if you are arguing that the US should not intervene in conflicts in the Middle East, you are in fact taking a policy position and should be prepared to defend that position... I disagree with calling the bombing of the Syrian "Barrel Bomb Civilians" Army a tragedy. An international relations issue, sure, but not a tragedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 04:45 PM) DB - I'm curious regarding your political stance on social issues. To me, that's the biggest reason to avoid Trump. Take a look at Trump's Supreme Court list and the positions they have taken in the past. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-elec...t-idUSKCN0YA2XV If you are at all concerned about LGBT rights - including the right to marriage - or are concerned about decisions like Citizens United, then I urge you to really look at the difference between Trump and Clinton on those appointments. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is a crazy powerful thing... You know, if you're really concerned about the corrupting influence of money in politics, this should be your top target. And if you are concerned about that, you should know that Republicans are 100% opposed to overturning CU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 05:59 PM) You know, if you're really concerned about the corrupting influence of money in politics, this should be your top target. And if you are concerned about that, you should know that Republicans are 100% opposed to overturning CU. Not 100% true. The state of Montana tried to circumvent Citizens United by arguing state's rights. But the Federal Supreme Court overruled the Montana Supreme Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradi...Inc._v._Montana Which ultimately should just prove to everyone how messed up this all is. If you dont want to read, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 along political lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 06:18 PM) Not 100% true. The state of Montana tried to circumvent Citizens United by arguing state's rights. But the Federal Supreme Court overruled the Montana Supreme Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradi...Inc._v._Montana Which ultimately should just prove to everyone how messed up this all is. If you dont want to read, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 along political lines. That law was actually a law dating back to the silver baron days when they openly bought elections left and right. It wasn't a modern law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 06:29 PM) That law was actually a law dating back to the silver baron days when they openly bought elections left and right. It wasn't a modern law. I understand. But the Montana Supreme Court upheld that law when it was challenged under Citizens United. It is more to show that its unclear what regular people think about Citizens United. All we know for sure is what a handful of people thought, and in that case 5 people decided for all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 06:41 PM) HRC's IT guy went to Reddit for help deleting emails from the server. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-0...reddit-for-tips https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comment...amp;sh=ddf3dfb0 I didnt want to post this unless there was iron clad proof this was the same guy but it looks like the internet sleuths have a pretty compelling case. I dont think this will make that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things but they already have more than enough, it just depends how long it takes for everything to come out. Really makes you wonder how bad the stuff in those emails could be to go through all of this trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 05:45 PM) DB - I'm curious regarding your political stance on social issues. To me, that's the biggest reason to avoid Trump. Take a look at Trump's Supreme Court list and the positions they have taken in the past. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-elec...t-idUSKCN0YA2XV If you are at all concerned about LGBT rights - including the right to marriage - or are concerned about decisions like Citizens United, then I urge you to really look at the difference between Trump and Clinton on those appointments. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is a crazy powerful thing... Im very liberal on most social issues. I have been adamantly for gay marriage and LGBT rights for as long as I can remember. While I dont doubt that Hillary would be better for things like that I also am not convinced Trump has any plans to try to stifle the progress theyve made. I might be wrong about that but it isnt something Ive heard people complaining about. The Supreme Court is impossible to be happy with when youre socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Im likely not going to be happy either way. I didnt mind Garland actually but I also did no research into him so I may have missed stuff. I just think that there is pretty much zero chance she doesnt get caught up with this server stuff and get impeached if she wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Yeah I thought it came out a while ago that the guy who set up her server didn't have a clue as to what he was doing? That's why it sat out there without security certificates and RDP turned on for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 07:31 PM) Here is video of the guy deleting his posts. Some people on twitter claiming he accidentally posted the ip address. If thats true it could be a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emaili...AGZAHlAIhAJrALn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Some context would help here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 08:16 PM) Some context would help here. An outgoing email from Hillary's private email address saying "Hey its Huma" Not only does she not have the clearance to see that stuff, but letting someone with the questionable background of Abedin have access to every single piece of classified info from the US Secretary of State is a very big deal. There's more stuff at the link too. This wasnt a hack either. This was from a FOIA request from Judicial Watch. Edited September 20, 2016 by DrunkBomber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 (edited) Uh that's not what that shows. The whole kerfuffle is over her having ever sent or received anything classified on that email at all. There's nothing wrong with huma having access to that email, and honestly I'd be surprised if she doesn't hold some sort of clearance herself anyway. That server never contained all of the classified information available to the secretary of state or anything close to it- such a repository almost definitely doesn't even exist given the disparity of sources of said information. You're diving deep down the conspiracy rabbit hole these last few days. Huma doesn't have a questionable background. It's paranoid ramblings from Michelle Bachman Edited September 20, 2016 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 08:21 PM) An outgoing email from Hillary's private email address saying "Hey its Huma" Not only does she not have the clearance to see that stuff, but letting someone with the questionable background of Abedin have access to every single piece of classified info from the US Secretary of State is a very big deal. There's more stuff at the link too. This wasnt a hack either. This was from a FOIA request from Judicial Watch. You are just posting conclusions. Huma had security clearance. What that clearance entitled her to do or not do, I have no idea and I doubt many people do. Maybe its a big deal, maybe its nothing. But you said above you are socially liberal, what happened to innocent until proven guilty? That isnt something you just believe in when it suits you, its what you believe when your worst enemy is being accused. I tried to go through that wikileaks database, its horribly organized. The doc numbers seem to jump, so I cant put together what emails come before or after it. 29422 2010-11-11 10:20 LET ME KNOW WHEN WE CAN TALK. Hillary Clinton Jake Sullivan 1186 2010-11-11 10:43 LET ME KNOW WHEN WE CAN TALK. Jake Sullivan Hillary Clinton 29372 2010-11-11 10:49 LET ME KNOW WHEN WE CAN TALK. Hillary Clinton Jake Sullivan From what I can tell there is no way to just go through the emails sequentially. When I went through them all with search "Hillary Clinton" (which should pull all emails) you get this: 6953 2010-11-11 08:54 CAN YOU TALK SECURE AFTER 7 TONIGHT OR AFTER 9AM TOMORROW? Hillary Clinton dennis_b._ross 6952 2010-11-11 08:57 CAN YOU TALK SECURE AFTER 7 TONIGHT OR AFTER 9AM TOMORROW? Hillary Clinton dennis_b._ross 6951 2010-11-11 09:01 CAN YOU TALK SECURE AFTER 7 TONIGHT OR AFTER 9AM TOMORROW? Hillary Clinton dennis_b._ross 6950 2010-11-11 09:02 CAN YOU TALK SECURE AFTER 7 TONIGHT OR AFTER 9AM TOMORROW? Hillary Clinton dennis_b._ross 6949 2010-11-11 09:06 CAN YOU TALK SECURE AFTER 7 TONIGHT OR AFTER 9AM TOMORROW? Hillary Clinton dennis_b._ross 29422 2010-11-11 10:20 LET ME KNOW WHEN WE CAN TALK. Hillary Clinton Jake Sullivan 29372 2010-11-11 10:49 LET ME KNOW WHEN WE CAN TALK. Hillary Clinton Jake Sullivan 6948 2010-11-11 13:12 ISRAELIS Hillary Clinton Huma Abedin 6947 2010-11-11 13:14 ISRAELIS Hillary Clinton Huma Abedin 29391 2010-11-11 15:23 RE: Hillary Clinton Cheryl Mills 29408 2010-11-12 02:24 JACKSON DIEHL EDITORIAL Hillary Clinton Phillip Crowley 29429 2010-11-12 03:00 (REUTERS) SAUDI KING TOLD TO REST OVER SLIPPED DISC Hillary Clinton Huma Abedin 6942 2010-11-12 07:52 3DS FORWARD - ASIA PACIFIC Hillary Clinton Jake Sullivan Here is whats odd, 1186 does not appear there, nor does it make any sense sequentially. What is even more odd is that there seems to be tons of document numbers missing. Which means docs like 6943-6946 are somewhere else. But where? And if the search is "Hillary Clinton" and the results are by date, how are they not in the right place? Now maybe Hillary is the biggest crook in the world, maybe she committed every crime you say. But you have to be as suspicious of Wikileaks as you are Hillary. Found out you can search by id in a different place. So for example 6943: https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/em...43#searchresult 6944: https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/em...44#searchresult Why is it not showing in the original search? Even more odd 1185 is from November 19. A full week after that 1186. Where as 1187 is from November 10. Edited September 20, 2016 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 19, 2016 -> 08:54 PM) You are just posting conclusions. Huma had security clearance. What that clearance entitled her to do or not do, I have no idea and I doubt many people do. Maybe its a big deal, maybe its nothing. But you said above you are socially liberal, what happened to innocent until proven guilty? That isnt something you just believe in when it suits you, its what you believe when your worst enemy is being accused. I tried to go through that wikileaks database, its horribly organized. The doc numbers seem to jump, so I cant put together what emails come before or after it. 29422 2010-11-11 10:20 LET ME KNOW WHEN WE CAN TALK. Hillary Clinton Jake Sullivan 1186 2010-11-11 10:43 LET ME KNOW WHEN WE CAN TALK. Jake Sullivan Hillary Clinton 29372 2010-11-11 10:49 LET ME KNOW WHEN WE CAN TALK. Hillary Clinton Jake Sullivan From what I can tell there is no way to just go through the emails sequentially. When I went through them all with search "Hillary Clinton" (which should pull all emails) you get this: 6953 2010-11-11 08:54 CAN YOU TALK SECURE AFTER 7 TONIGHT OR AFTER 9AM TOMORROW? Hillary Clinton dennis_b._ross 6952 2010-11-11 08:57 CAN YOU TALK SECURE AFTER 7 TONIGHT OR AFTER 9AM TOMORROW? Hillary Clinton dennis_b._ross 6951 2010-11-11 09:01 CAN YOU TALK SECURE AFTER 7 TONIGHT OR AFTER 9AM TOMORROW? Hillary Clinton dennis_b._ross 6950 2010-11-11 09:02 CAN YOU TALK SECURE AFTER 7 TONIGHT OR AFTER 9AM TOMORROW? Hillary Clinton dennis_b._ross 6949 2010-11-11 09:06 CAN YOU TALK SECURE AFTER 7 TONIGHT OR AFTER 9AM TOMORROW? Hillary Clinton dennis_b._ross 29422 2010-11-11 10:20 LET ME KNOW WHEN WE CAN TALK. Hillary Clinton Jake Sullivan 29372 2010-11-11 10:49 LET ME KNOW WHEN WE CAN TALK. Hillary Clinton Jake Sullivan 6948 2010-11-11 13:12 ISRAELIS Hillary Clinton Huma Abedin 6947 2010-11-11 13:14 ISRAELIS Hillary Clinton Huma Abedin 29391 2010-11-11 15:23 RE: Hillary Clinton Cheryl Mills 29408 2010-11-12 02:24 JACKSON DIEHL EDITORIAL Hillary Clinton Phillip Crowley 29429 2010-11-12 03:00 (REUTERS) SAUDI KING TOLD TO REST OVER SLIPPED DISC Hillary Clinton Huma Abedin 6942 2010-11-12 07:52 3DS FORWARD - ASIA PACIFIC Hillary Clinton Jake Sullivan Here is whats odd, 1186 does not appear there, nor does it make any sense sequentially. What is even more odd is that there seems to be tons of document numbers missing. You cant search by doc numbers (really really odd), which means docs like 6943-6946 are somewhere else. But where? And if the search is "Hillary Clinton" and the results are by date, how are they not in the right place? Now maybe Hillary is the biggest crook in the world, maybe she committed every crime you say. But you have to be as suspicious of Wikileaks as you are Hillary. Hillary has been proven guilty. She just hasnt been prosecuted yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts