This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
So you think no damage to national security would occur from a wikileaks dump of Hillary's original (including deleted) email cache?randall146 said:
I think people wringing hands over this stuff need to come to grips with the nature of Hillary's emails.Bob Magaw said:
Huh?
Ha, ok.
Totally disagree. This has gotten the attention it did because a major party nominee for president said he hoped Russia would commit a crime against his opponent. The exact nature of what he wants them to steal is largely irrelevant. No "ramping up" is necessary, it's ####ed up enough as it is, for a number of different reasons.
That's a total non sequitur. I don't know how to multi-quote, which would have made all of this clearer.
Ok, thanks, I can agree on both points, I appreciate the response, it clear some things up for me.
He repeated it, once, maybe twice now. Once is arguably sarcasm, twice is policy.
I agree that it was an obvious joke. But, it was entirely not funny and completely inappropriate.
lmao @ a candidate doing something so moronic that the only available defense available to his supporters is to claim 24 hours later that he was joking despite the fact that he's been given multiple chances to clarify his statement in the interim, including at the press conference itself by an NBC reporter (he told her to "be quiet") and chose not to.
This doesn't even make sense. I hope your desperation to equate Clinton and Trump isn't triggering some sort of nervous breakdown?So we have one candidate verbally condoning hacking and the other condoning hacking by their actions....yeah, great choices we have here.
Also, if the crime already happened, by definition he couldn't be soliciting THAT crime (though it is at the least grossly irresponsible in potentially emboldening outside agencies, albeit stuff they are likely already doing, also not too bright by maybe foreshadowing monstrous downstream security risks). If the information (missing 30,000+ mssgs) were distributed to the wrong channels, that would be a different story, and could well be a crime.
Of course it makes sense and I have never attempted to equate them. They don't need to be equally ####ty to be on their own merits. It's why I don't get into comparing the two to each other rather to a standard I think one should meet to become President.This doesn't even make sense. I hope your desperation to equate Clinton and Trump isn't triggering some sort of nervous breakdown?So we have one candidate verbally condoning hacking and the other condoning hacking by their actions....yeah, great choices we have here.
In your defense it is a monumental, Sisyphean task that you've taken on. Kudos for your perseverance. Most of your cohorts gave up right around the time of the Judge Curiel remarks.
What does " condoning hacking by their actions" even mean? Were the people who looked at the nude photos leaked in The Fappening condoning hacking by their actions? Is everyone that's seen Jennifer Lawrence's boobs no longer eligible to be president? This is all very confusing.
How about this. One has verbally said cyber security isn't all that important, hack away. One has illustrated cyber security isn't all that important via their actions. And, no, ignorance isn't a defense, though it's hard to argue ignorance where she flat out ignored the tech guys and told them to do what she wanted anyway.
You appear to have totally missed the problem with what Trump said. He didn't say it "isn't all that important." He said "I hope you do it, that would be great."
This is exactly what you're saying with your actions when you do with a server what Clinton did. Everyone talked about email content and all that crap. It completely missed the point of what her actions were saying to those out there wanting to get US intelligence information. I'm pretty confident you understand that, but if not, there's no explaining it any other way than what I have posted here.
This is truly awful reasoning. The law differentiates between negligent, reckless and intentional conduct at every turn, and the differences are massive. It does this because from a moral standpoint we all agree with this obvious differentiation. Leaving a store with a candy bar you accidentally put in your pocket is very different from intentionally taking it. Accidentally leaving your car door unlocked is very different from telling someone to steal your car so you can collect on the insurance. Even accidentally running someone over in your car is very different than plotting to murder them. Equating these things in any case is- and I don't say this lightly because I generally respect your opinions- incredibly stupid. I really wish you'd stop doing it.
This is a major rub I have with most, and that's OK. I don't believe for a second Hillary Clinton didn't know what she was doing. She's an incredibly smart person. I've never questioned that. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that she knew the potential problems a server like this could bring and it's my belief that she rolled the dice with our national security in her actions.
(1) Someone is housesitting for their friend. The friend tells them they want them to lock the door and turn on the security system when they are not there because it is a high crime area and burglars are likely to try to break in. The housesitter decides to leave the security system off and leave the door unlocked when they are not there in case her friends want to come over to enjoy the house.
But what if he shouted "You're fired" in a crowded theater?
Tobias have been off the reservation for quite some time now. He's in TGunz-level make believe land now.
If he could, he wouldn't be a part of either one. They both suck. He's as much of a republican as Sanders is a democrat. That is, they willingly took a spot in the circle jerk hoping they could make a difference.
I don't want to get into this with you again, but I don't believe it's a very valid comparison.
I agree it's not a good comparison, because the US government is limited by the US Constitution, thus our government doing it to us is a constitutional issue. The constitution has nothing to do with russia doing it to us. But again, we know you pick and choose when laws should and shouldn't be enforced, so please don't turn this into another 500 page discussion like you did in the NSA thread, where by the way you admitted in the end you were wrong.
Bill Clinton back in the public eye during the era of gifs and memes is something I had not previously considered, but he is a perfect match. The balloon stuff was excellent. Almost worth enduring this awful election cycle for it.
