Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
whembly wrote: So... 'bout them email thingys that gave Clinton her bugaboos...
I guess she's trying to prove that old axiom that, if you lie enough... it becomes true:
The email scandal was destroyed as an issue of comparison between Trump and Clinton when Trump invited the Russians to spy on the State Department...whatever high ground the Republicans might have claimed was destroyed then and there IMO.
There's bad IT security, and then there's acting as an agent for an adversarial power.
One is bad, but the other is treason, dude.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/05 16:54:25
Yea I thought the general consensus that everyone that regularly participates in this thread was tired of whembly talking about the Clinton Email non-issue.
Asked who his first female pick would be, the 70-year-old businessman suggested someone close to his heart – his daughter Ivanka Trump.
“I can tell you everybody would say, ‘Put Ivanka in! Put Ivanka in!’ you know that, right?” he told Florida journalist Angelica Savage, a cohost on First Coast News’ afternoon program The Chat.
“She’s very popular, she’s done very well,” he continued.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Yea I thought the general consensus that everyone that regularly participates in this thread was tired of whembly talking about the Clinton Email non-issue.
Apparently it's only a non-issue to the people who don't face jail time for the things she did. For those of us who do have to deal with the consequences of our actions, it is an issue.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Yea I thought the general consensus that everyone that regularly participates in this thread was tired of whembly talking about the Clinton Email non-issue.
Sorry, I've actually been really good a out staying off this issue, and I fell for the bait
whembly wrote: So... 'bout them email thingys that gave Clinton her bugaboos...
I guess she's trying to prove that old axiom that, if you lie enough... it becomes true:
The email scandal was destroyed as an issue of comparison between Trump and Clinton when Trump invited the Russians to spy on the State Department...whatever high ground the Republicans might have claimed was destroyed then and there IMO.
There's bad IT security, and then there's acting as an agent for an adversarial power.
One is bad, but the other is treason, dude.
You might want to revist the specifics of that regarding Trump. He didn't ask Russian to spy on the States Department. He asked Russia to release any emails that they've ALREADY hacked in CLINTON's homebrew server.
That's bad, imo... but, definitely not the *SPY ON US* treason worthy.
See? This is the sort of fabrication that's trying to make Trump literally Hitler obfuscates the actual problems about Trump.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/05 17:01:50
You might want to revist the specifics of that regarding Trump. He didn't ask Russian to spy on the States Department. He asked Russia to release any emails that they've ALREADY hacked in CLINTON's homebrew server.
That's bad, imo... but, definitely not the *SPY ON US* treason worthy.
See? This is the sort of fabrication that's trying to make Trump literally Hitler obfuscates the actual problems about Trump.
He asks Russia to "find" the State Dept emails. You're putting words into Trump's mouth that aren't there.
Exact quote: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
Appeal to adversary to spy on us = unqualified to hold office in US government. Every time.
This message was edited 14 times. Last update was at 2016/08/05 17:18:10
Asked who his first female pick would be, the 70-year-old businessman suggested someone close to his heart – his daughter Ivanka Trump.
“I can tell you everybody would say, ‘Put Ivanka in! Put Ivanka in!’ you know that, right?” he told Florida journalist Angelica Savage, a cohost on First Coast News’ afternoon program The Chat.
“She’s very popular, she’s done very well,” he continued.
Frazzled wrote: Considering his propensity to attack fellow Republicans, I wonder when Trump is going to start attacking...Pence?
"If you elect Hillary Putin will be in Ukraine."
"he's already in the Ukraine."
"Yea but not like how I mean."
"He took over Crimea, and has troops in the Eastern third of the reminder of the country."
"Yea but I mean like the important parts. When I am President I will make Ukraine great again."
" How would you do that?"
"With plans. I have so many plans. They are the greatest plans ever."
"But you took that out of the Republican platform."
"Thats because they are losers. They want us to help them, they gotta pay us. And I heard something crazy, that the Boston bombers were from there."
"You mean they guys from Chechnya?"
"Yea them."
"Thats a different country."
"I meant the other Chechnya. The one with Hillary's emails. Its just disgusting. Thats just what I heard, I am sure its a fine country. Who's to say?"
Me. In lounge chair. On patio. Popcorn and bourbon in hand. Watching the Trump dumb train chug along.
Hey, if we drop Emailgate, that only leaves BENGHAZI. Can't have that.
Trump was joking. Whenever he says something racist, offensive, or insane, he is *just kidding*. Also totally not kidding.
Plus it's not like Trump has many ties to Russia or anything. In fact, Trump even said he didn't know who Putin was, so it's all good. Nothingtosee here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/05 17:25:33
You might want to revist the specifics of that regarding Trump. He didn't ask Russian to spy on the States Department. He asked Russia to release any emails that they've ALREADY hacked in CLINTON's homebrew server.
That's bad, imo... but, definitely not the *SPY ON US* treason worthy.
See? This is the sort of fabrication that's trying to make Trump literally Hitler obfuscates the actual problems about Trump.
He asks Russia to "find" the State Dept emails. You're putting words into Trump's mouth that aren't there.
Exact quote: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
Appeal to adversary to spy on us = unqualified to hold office in US government. Every time.
The appeal only matters if he has the power/leverage to get Russi to act on it. If Trump already has Putin doing what he tells him to do then he might be a better PotUS than Clinton. However, I feel pretty confident in my belief that Putin doesn't listen to Trump and that Trump won't win the election anyway.
You might want to revist the specifics of that regarding Trump. He didn't ask Russian to spy on the States Department. He asked Russia to release any emails that they've ALREADY hacked in CLINTON's homebrew server.
That's bad, imo... but, definitely not the *SPY ON US* treason worthy.
See? This is the sort of fabrication that's trying to make Trump literally Hitler obfuscates the actual problems about Trump.
He asks Russia to "find" the State Dept emails. You're putting words into Trump's mouth that aren't there.
Exact quote: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
Appeal to adversary to spy on us = unqualified to hold office in US government. Every time.
The appeal only matters if he has the power/leverage to get Russi to act on it. If Trump already has Putin doing what he tells him to do then he might be a better PotUS than Clinton. However, I feel pretty confident in my belief that Putin doesn't listen to Trump and that Trump won't win the election anyway.
I'm afraid the evidence is pointing in another direction: Trump is already doing exactly what Putin wants him to do.
And the most charitable explanation I can imagine as to why this is so is that Putin was able to manipulate Trump through pure flattery.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/05 17:40:07
You might want to revist the specifics of that regarding Trump. He didn't ask Russian to spy on the States Department. He asked Russia to release any emails that they've ALREADY hacked in CLINTON's homebrew server.
That's bad, imo... but, definitely not the *SPY ON US* treason worthy.
See? This is the sort of fabrication that's trying to make Trump literally Hitler obfuscates the actual problems about Trump.
He asks Russia to "find" the State Dept emails. You're putting words into Trump's mouth that aren't there.
Exact quote: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
Appeal to adversary to spy on us = unqualified to hold office in US government. Every time.
The appeal only matters if he has the power/leverage to get Russi to act on it. If Trump already has Putin doing what he tells him to do then he might be a better PotUS than Clinton. However, I feel pretty confident in my belief that Putin doesn't listen to Trump and that Trump won't win the election anyway.
I'm afraid the evidence is pointing in another direction: Trump is already doing exactly what Putin wants him to do.
And the most charitable explanation I can imagine as to why this is so is that Putin was able to manipulate Trump through pure flattery.
Nah, it's more likely to be something along the lines of Trump doing real estate/development deals with Russian oligarchs and Putin controls the oligarchs so Putin controls Trump's ability to make money off those deals and uses that as leverage on Trump, if there's anything there at all beyond typical business deals. Doing business with Russian oligarchs isn't a big deal to me, I don't see it as a negative on Trump or anyone else in a similar position. Heck, the NBA and UEFA are partnered up with Russian oligarchs.
You might want to revist the specifics of that regarding Trump. He didn't ask Russian to spy on the States Department. He asked Russia to release any emails that they've ALREADY hacked in CLINTON's homebrew server.
That's bad, imo... but, definitely not the *SPY ON US* treason worthy.
See? This is the sort of fabrication that's trying to make Trump literally Hitler obfuscates the actual problems about Trump.
He asks Russia to "find" the State Dept emails. You're putting words into Trump's mouth that aren't there.
Exact quote: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
And he followed that tweet with :
If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton's 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 27, 2016
So hey... Hillary, remember, wiped her server. With a cloth, some say! So there’s nothing left to hack. Trump was just saying: if you have the emails, release them to FBI.
Appeal to adversary to spy on us = unqualified to hold office in US government. Every time.
Trump's braggadocio's is typical Trumpian irresponsibility. Although his comments were nowhere near as irresponsible as the decisions made by certain former Secretary of State that put these emails at risk in the first place.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/05 18:23:16
@Prestor Jon: It might not matter to me either except (a) Trump regularly genuflecting whenever Putin is brought up, (b) Trumps policy is to degrade the NATO alliance, which has been the bulwark against Russian aggression for most of our lifetimes, (c) Trump's campaign successfully softened the GOP platform on aid to our Ukrainian allies, (d) Trump has made contradictory claims about his relationship with Putin.
Putin couldn't realistically wish for a more pro-Russia platform to emerge than what Trump is offering.
I tend to think Putin is just playing off Trump's arrogance similar to how he played off Bush's lack of sophistication, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least of we learn that Trump is engaging in quid pro quo with the Russian Federation...Trumps policies do seem to be tailored to serve Russian interests.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/05 18:34:29
jasper76 wrote: It might not matter to me either except (a) Trump regularly genuflecting before Trump, (b) Trumps policy is to degrade the NATO alliance, which has been the bulwark against Russian aggression for most of our lifetimes, (c) Trump's campaign successfully softened the GOP platform on and to our Ukrainian allies.
Putin couldn't realistically wish for a more pro-Russia US platform to emerge.
I tend to think Putin is just playing off Trump's arrogance similar played off Bush's lack of sophistication, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least of we learn that Trump is engaging in quid pro quo with the Russian Federation...Trumps policies do seem aro be tailor for to serve Russian interests
Um... this is a serious question...
Has Obama/Clinton & Obama/Kerry done anything against Russian aggressions?
djones520 wrote: I guess culling a few posts out was to much work?
Or - I hope you're sitting down! - it was just an honest mistake?
Yes, yes it was.
Sorry guys...
Anyway, carry on!
Night Lords tolerate no mistakes.
Emailgate highlights a big problem that appears in all governments: Politicians using shady or outright illegal means to circumvent FOIA requests.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
jasper76 wrote: It might not matter to me either except (a) Trump regularly genuflecting before Trump, (b) Trumps policy is to degrade the NATO alliance, which has been the bulwark against Russian aggression for most of our lifetimes, (c) Trump's campaign successfully softened the GOP platform on and to our Ukrainian allies.
Putin couldn't realistically wish for a more pro-Russia US platform to emerge.
I tend to think Putin is just playing off Trump's arrogance similar played off Bush's lack of sophistication, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least of we learn that Trump is engaging in quid pro quo with the Russian Federation...Trumps policies do seem aro be tailor for to serve Russian interests
Um... this is a serious question...
Has Obama/Clinton & Obama/Kerry done anything against Russian aggressions?
jasper76 wrote: It might not matter to me either except (a) Trump regularly genuflecting before Trump, (b) Trumps policy is to degrade the NATO alliance, which has been the bulwark against Russian aggression for most of our lifetimes, (c) Trump's campaign successfully softened the GOP platform on and to our Ukrainian allies.
Putin couldn't realistically wish for a more pro-Russia US platform to emerge.
I tend to think Putin is just playing off Trump's arrogance similar played off Bush's lack of sophistication, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least of we learn that Trump is engaging in quid pro quo with the Russian Federation...Trumps policies do seem aro be tailor for to serve Russian interests
Um... this is a serious question...
Has Obama/Clinton & Obama/Kerry done anything against Russian aggressions?
It doesn't seem worthwhile to speculate about Clinton and the Russians when there's no evidence that she's running on a pro-Russia platform. But if you want to speculate as to what motives Clinton has got putting American interests over Russian interest in her policies, go for it!
I'm more interested in Trump and his motives since an ex-CIA chief today asserted that Trump is presently an unwitting Russian agent, and rightly notes that in several key policy areas, Trump puts Russian interests ahead of American interests.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/05 18:52:24
jasper76 wrote: It doesn't seem worthwhile to speculate about Clinton and the Russians when there's no evidence that she's running on a pro-Russia platform. But if you want to speculate as to what motives Clinton has got putting American interests over Russian interest in her policies, go for it!
I'm more interested in Trump and his motives since an ex-CIA chief today asserted that Trump is presently an unwitting Russian agent, and rightly notes that in several key policy areas, Trump puts Russian interests ahead of American interests.
Does your opinion change that Morell is an ultimate Clinton insider who's vying for a position in Clinton's cabinet? Who was instrumental in perpetuating the Benghazi caused by YouTube Film lie and since leaving CIA worked for Washington DC PR firm (Beacon Global Strategies) which has close ties to Clinton.
Did you factor that in?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/05 19:11:33
jasper76 wrote: It doesn't seem worthwhile to speculate about Clinton and the Russians when there's no evidence that she's running on a pro-Russia platform. But if you want to speculate as to what motives Clinton has got putting American interests over Russian interest in her policies, go for it!
I'm more interested in Trump and his motives since an ex-CIA chief today asserted that Trump is presently an unwitting Russian agent, and rightly notes that in several key policy areas, Trump puts Russian interests ahead of American interests.
If find it interesting how many major Russian media fronts push so hard for Trump, like RT or Infowars. I don't want to be that guy but I've been speculating on Russian psyops against the US through right-wing media for a while now.
I can't prove it though...too lazy to collect the bits and pieces that have made me feel this way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/05 19:11:19
jasper76 wrote: It doesn't seem worthwhile to speculate about Clinton and the Russians when there's no evidence that she's running on a pro-Russia platform. But if you want to speculate as to what motives Clinton has got putting American interests over Russian interest in her policies, go for it!
I'm more interested in Trump and his motives since an ex-CIA chief today asserted that Trump is presently an unwitting Russian agent, and rightly notes that in several key policy areas, Trump puts Russian interests ahead of American interests.
Does your opinion change that Morell is an ultimate Clinton insider who's vying for a position in Clinton's cabinet? Who was instrumental in perpetuating the Benghazi caused by YouTube Film lie and since leaving CIA worked for Washington DC PR firm (Beacon Global Strategies) which has close ties to Clinton.
Did you factor that in?
Not really, because I have been suspicious about Trumps pro-Russia platform and bent before Mr. Morell made his endorsement.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/05 19:23:29
jasper76 wrote: It doesn't seem worthwhile to speculate about Clinton and the Russians when there's no evidence that she's running on a pro-Russia platform. But if you want to speculate as to what motives Clinton has got putting American interests over Russian interest in her policies, go for it!
I'm more interested in Trump and his motives since an ex-CIA chief today asserted that Trump is presently an unwitting Russian agent, and rightly notes that in several key policy areas, Trump puts Russian interests ahead of American interests.
Does your opinion change that Morell is an ultimate Clinton insider who's vying for a position in Clinton's cabinet? Who was instrumental in perpetuating the Benghazi caused by YouTube Film lie and since leaving CIA worked for Washington DC PR firm (Beacon Global Strategies) which has close ties to Clinton.
Did you factor that in?
You are linking to an overtly partisan source here, I don't trust anything I read on it.
You're right about the source...I made an edit to my post. True is, I was already suspicious about Trump and his pro-Russia policy statements and general pro-Putin bent prior to Morell's endorsement of Clinton.
jasper76 wrote: You're right about the source...I made an edit to my post. True is, I was already suspicious about Trump and his pro-Russia policy statements and general pro-Putin bent prior to Morell's endorsement of Clinton.
Sure, and his response about Russian's engagement over Ukraine was WTF worthy.
One would think the talking points would change after receiving Four Pinocchios from The Washington Post Fact Checker, “Pants on Fire” from PolitiFact and “false” from FactCheck.org.
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?
COMEY: That’s not true.
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.” Was that true?
COMEY: There was classified material emailed.
It's like she can't stop lying about things. The lies come out of her mouth as effortlessly and self-righteously as idiocy comes out of Trump's.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/05 19:59:52
3000
4000 
You meant Dept of Nepotism right?
