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.
AdeptSister wrote:And the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest US police union, has just endorsed Trump.
Which is hilarious, considering how far to the left the FOP leans.
Rainbow Dash wrote:That speech Hillary gave about the "alt-right" was hilarious, if not weirdly insane.
Though not as much as that Pepe the Frog thing... None of her people bothered to like google that?
It was a sign from our Lord, the great Kek, bringer of Happenings and the blessings of Meme Magic.
Frazzled wrote: Trump hasn't been very good in the debates actually. His best shtick is two fold:
1. He relies on his dog pound to cheer him on or boo opponents. That will not be available in the debate.
2. What he REALLY DOES is shortly thereafter say or tweet some absolutely outrageous thing that takes everyone's attention off the debate. Clinton could get ahead of that and prebomb the moment the debate ends. Alternatively whatever current version of JournoList (which is out there) could do the combined focus on something in the debate. I am sure thats what they will likely do.
3. Inversely HRC did moderately well in the debate. I am sure they are training her on how to rise above Trump and pull a few Reaganesque "there you go again" moments. Thats her strong suit, pushing the optimistic "lets join hands" president thing.
Side note: after verbal sparring for three days with the Trumps on Townhall etc I think she nailed the Deplorable statement. She just shouldn't have said it about the voters but about him and his statements. I'd say about 20% of his hardcore Trumpheads fall squarely in that category-but the rest don't.
Honestly, Clinton will get slaughtered in the debates. 5 buck says she gets "overheated" again.
Clinton can't beat Trump and Trump can't beat Clinton. The winners are already decided in the minds of potential viewers. At this point unless either of the candidates propose a completely new platform on stage, you should already know where you stand.
Trump could do the Macarena the entire debate and as long as Clinton drinks water or coughs, Trump will win. Doesn't matter what Clinton says or the pundits say, can't stump Trump is a thing that his supporters slavishly assume.
If Clinton doesn't stoop to Trumps level and also just stands there doing the Macarena she will win amongst her base. Even if all she did was the YMCA the entire time.
To be serious, Clinton faces a pretty uphill battle against Trump. Trump is definitely a patriarchal symbol (hence blindly thinking he is right despite all evidence) and Clinton has spent a career fighting the image of being a corrupt usurper (a woman) in politics. Clinton mostly has to debate in such a manner that will not incite Trump's base or anyone that prefers being told what to do by a father figure and in a way that also does not demotivate her own base and potential voters.
...except Clinton is corrupt. Gender has nothing to do with this, except for maybe Hillary getting the feminist vote because she has certain body parts.
Once again, we march to war, for Victory or Death!
Never wake yourself at night, unless you are spying on your enemy or looking for a place to relieve yourself. - The Poetic Edda
People keep on saying that Clinton us corrupt, but there is scanr real evidence for that. Compare to Trump where he is bribing attorney generals not to press charges against him...
skyth wrote: People keep on saying that Clinton us corrupt, but there is scanr real evidence for that. Compare to Trump where he is bribing attorney generals not to press charges against him...
skyth wrote: People keep on saying that Clinton us corrupt, but there is scanr real evidence for that. Compare to Trump where he is bribing attorney generals not to press charges against him...
Yeah, I'm sure all those Saudi donors are just throwing away all their oil money because they think she's pretty. Not to mention gak like Bengahzi.
Once again, we march to war, for Victory or Death!
Never wake yourself at night, unless you are spying on your enemy or looking for a place to relieve yourself. - The Poetic Edda
Yeaah... Hillary may not be 100% squeaky clean but what politician is? She is sure a lot more honest than Trump is.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
Frazzled wrote: Trump hasn't been very good in the debates actually. His best shtick is two fold:
1. He relies on his dog pound to cheer him on or boo opponents. That will not be available in the debate.
2. What he REALLY DOES is shortly thereafter say or tweet some absolutely outrageous thing that takes everyone's attention off the debate. Clinton could get ahead of that and prebomb the moment the debate ends. Alternatively whatever current version of JournoList (which is out there) could do the combined focus on something in the debate. I am sure thats what they will likely do.
3. Inversely HRC did moderately well in the debate. I am sure they are training her on how to rise above Trump and pull a few Reaganesque "there you go again" moments. Thats her strong suit, pushing the optimistic "lets join hands" president thing.
Side note: after verbal sparring for three days with the Trumps on Townhall etc I think she nailed the Deplorable statement. She just shouldn't have said it about the voters but about him and his statements. I'd say about 20% of his hardcore Trumpheads fall squarely in that category-but the rest don't.
Honestly, Clinton will get slaughtered in the debates. 5 buck says she gets "overheated" again.
Clinton can't beat Trump and Trump can't beat Clinton. The winners are already decided in the minds of potential viewers. At this point unless either of the candidates propose a completely new platform on stage, you should already know where you stand.
Trump could do the Macarena the entire debate and as long as Clinton drinks water or coughs, Trump will win. Doesn't matter what Clinton says or the pundits say, can't stump Trump is a thing that his supporters slavishly assume.
If Clinton doesn't stoop to Trumps level and also just stands there doing the Macarena she will win amongst her base. Even if all she did was the YMCA the entire time.
To be serious, Clinton faces a pretty uphill battle against Trump. Trump is definitely a patriarchal symbol (hence blindly thinking he is right despite all evidence) and Clinton has spent a career fighting the image of being a corrupt usurper (a woman) in politics. Clinton mostly has to debate in such a manner that will not incite Trump's base or anyone that prefers being told what to do by a father figure and in a way that also does not demotivate her own base and potential voters.
...except Clinton is corrupt. Gender has nothing to do with this, except for maybe Hillary getting the feminist vote because she has certain body parts.
No more corrupt than Trump, a guy who bragged about trying to bribe Jeb in Florida. In a gendered society, gender has a lot to with everything. Gender immediately implies specific inherent qualities of both social and physical. Trump supporters consistently cite being a woman indows Clinton with qualities that are unbecoming and disqualifying for presidency.
What should instead be a concern for Clinton is all the people who are undecided on her.
I doubt she can change that. Her reputation of "uppity woman" is so pervasive in the relevant communities that any action would be digging the hole deeper.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
skyth wrote: People keep on saying that Clinton us corrupt, but there is scanr real evidence for that. Compare to Trump where he is bribing attorney generals not to press charges against him...
Yeah, I'm sure all those Saudi donors are just throwing away all their oil money because they think she's pretty. Not to mention gak like Bengahzi.
"...gak like Benghazi."? Yeah, after what, seemingly endless hours of redundant Congressional investigations into the tragedy finding her innocent of any wrongdoing, the only gak was the enormous waste of taxpayer's money and the absolute exposure of the "investigations" as little more than a witch hunt by the GOP. Turn off the conspiracy loon click-bait websites and read a newspaper.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/18 17:43:00
The worst thing about the Benghazi affair was that the key "prosecution" witness turned out to be a Republican who has admitted to lying about the evidence he gave.
Nevermind Benghazi, thats old news. Was she ever punished in any way for sending classified emails through insecure private servers and devices, and for deleting thousands of emails? She did break the law, did she not?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/18 17:51:27
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just a note to users that we have a running problem with the site at the moment caused by the massive success of the Gallery feature. Due to technical reasons of capacity, the site is running slowly and needs some upgrades by Legoburner.
The work cannot be done instantly, though and is expected to take a couple of weeks to complete.
However, please be assured the current issue is not the result of general server failure or DoS attack by Fancy Bears etc.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/18 18:16:53
If you look at the relevant section of law, which has been referenced earlier in the thread, it states clearly that the criminal penalties are applicable to deliberately aiding enemies of the state.
I didn't intent my reply as a diss to anyone. I was just voicing my frustration of the same talking points being repeated that have been addressed multiple times in this thread alone.
I realize not everybody has participated in this thread over the years, that's why I suggested searching it.
Anyway, here is probably the best spin-free source of information:
skyth wrote: People keep on saying that Clinton us corrupt, but there is scanr real evidence for that. Compare to Trump where he is bribing attorney generals not to press charges against him...
Simple, she takes huge money from lobbyists, she isn't nearly as corrupt as donald trump might be, but with both candidates there is certainly no likeliness to serve the american people first.
You do realise I'm not American, right? I don't usually follow American news - only when British News reports on the US; and telling someone to go back and read a 78 page thread to "educate" himself is not particularly helpful or friendly. In the time you took to insult me, you could have given a brief explanation ("the emails were found to not be sensitive material, Clinton was given poor legal advice" etc) or at the very least, told me which pages in this 78 page thread to read.
Kilkrazy wrote: Don't diss people, please, it is counter-productive as it tends to annoy users rather than encourage them to look at issues in a different way.
Yeah, no gak. Theres a reason why they're both on my ignore list.
If you look at the relevant section of law, which has been referenced earlier in the thread, it states clearly that the criminal penalties are applicable to deliberately aiding enemies of the state.
There is no evidence for this.
Can you provide a page reference please so I can..."educate" myself?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'll stick my questions in a spoiler so D-USA and Ustrello don't get their knickers in a twist.
Spoiler:
I don't understand...Wikipedia says that Clinton:
-declined to speak with investigators
-took steps to insulate her emails and "circumvent" Congressional subpoena and FOIA requests
-never sought approval from the Legal Advisors for the server
-possibly lied about seeking approval ("Each of these findings contradicted what Clinton and her aides had been saying up to that point")
Section 1924 of Title 18 of the United States Code addresses the deletion and retention of classified documents, under which "knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine, or up to a year in prison.
Did Clinton do this? Were there classified emails on her private server, or were they found to be not sensitive enough? What of the emails she (allegedly) deleted?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: You do realise I'm not American, right? I don't usually follow American news - only when British News reports on the US; and telling someone to go back and read a 78 page thread to "educate" himself is not particularly helpful or friendly. In the time you took to insult me, you could have given a brief explanation ("the emails were found to not be sensitive material, Clinton was given poor legal advice" etc) or at the very least, told me which pages in this 78 page thread to read.
Kilkrazy wrote: Don't diss people, please, it is counter-productive as it tends to annoy users rather than encourage them to look at issues in a different way.
Yeah, no gak. Theres a reason why they're both on my ignore list.
If you look at the relevant section of law, which has been referenced earlier in the thread, it states clearly that the criminal penalties are applicable to deliberately aiding enemies of the state.
There is no evidence for this.
Can you provide a page reference please so I can..."educate" myself?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'll stick my questions in a spoiler so D-USA and Ustrello don't get their knickers in a twist.
Spoiler:
I don't understand...Wikipedia says that Clinton:
-declined to speak with investigators
-took steps to insulate her emails and "circumvent" Congressional subpoena and FOIA requests
-never sought approval from the Legal Advisors for the server
-possibly lied about seeking approval ("Each of these findings contradicted what Clinton and her aides had been saying up to that point")
Section 1924 of Title 18 of the United States Code addresses the deletion and retention of classified documents, under which "knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine, or up to a year in prison.
Did Clinton do this? Were there classified emails on her private server, or were they found to be not sensitive enough? What of the emails she (allegedly) deleted?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: You do realise I'm not American, right? I don't usually follow American news - only when British News reports on the US; and telling someone to go back and read a 78 page thread to "educate" himself is not particularly helpful or friendly. In the time you took to insult me, you could have given a brief explanation ("the emails were found to not be sensitive material, Clinton was given poor legal advice" etc) or at the very least, told me which pages in this 78 page thread to read.
Kilkrazy wrote: Don't diss people, please, it is counter-productive as it tends to annoy users rather than encourage them to look at issues in a different way.
Yeah, no gak. Theres a reason why they're both on my ignore list.
If you look at the relevant section of law, which has been referenced earlier in the thread, it states clearly that the criminal penalties are applicable to deliberately aiding enemies of the state.
There is no evidence for this.
Can you provide a page reference please so I can..."educate" myself?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'll stick my questions in a spoiler so D-USA and Ustrello don't get their knickers in a twist.
Spoiler:
I don't understand...Wikipedia says that Clinton:
-declined to speak with investigators
-took steps to insulate her emails and "circumvent" Congressional subpoena and FOIA requests
-never sought approval from the Legal Advisors for the server
-possibly lied about seeking approval ("Each of these findings contradicted what Clinton and her aides had been saying up to that point")
Section 1924 of Title 18 of the United States Code addresses the deletion and retention of classified documents, under which "knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine, or up to a year in prison.
Did Clinton do this? Were there classified emails on her private server, or were they found to be not sensitive enough? What of the emails she (allegedly) deleted?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: You do realise I'm not American, right? I don't usually follow American news - only when British News reports on the US; and telling someone to go back and read a 78 page thread to "educate" himself is not particularly helpful or friendly. In the time you took to insult me, you could have given a brief explanation ("the emails were found to not be sensitive material, Clinton was given poor legal advice" etc) or at the very least, told me which pages in this 78 page thread to read.
Kilkrazy wrote: Don't diss people, please, it is counter-productive as it tends to annoy users rather than encourage them to look at issues in a different way.
Yeah, no gak. Theres a reason why they're both on my ignore list.
If you look at the relevant section of law, which has been referenced earlier in the thread, it states clearly that the criminal penalties are applicable to deliberately aiding enemies of the state.
There is no evidence for this.
Can you provide a page reference please so I can..."educate" myself?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'll stick my questions in a spoiler so D-USA and Ustrello don't get their knickers in a twist.
Spoiler:
I don't understand...Wikipedia says that Clinton:
-declined to speak with investigators
-took steps to insulate her emails and "circumvent" Congressional subpoena and FOIA requests
-never sought approval from the Legal Advisors for the server
-possibly lied about seeking approval ("Each of these findings contradicted what Clinton and her aides had been saying up to that point")
Section 1924 of Title 18 of the United States Code addresses the deletion and retention of classified documents, under which "knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine, or up to a year in prison.
Did Clinton do this? Were there classified emails on her private server, or were they found to be not sensitive enough? What of the emails she (allegedly) deleted?
Yes she did. She was not charged for breaking the law. There is a difference.
... I'm not sure thats how the law works...
Well, it most certainly is how it works. You can break laws all willy nilly. If a prosecutor doesn't press charges though, then there are no consequences.
Remarking that the FBI had uncovered more than 100 classified emails that went through the same server, Chaffetz then asked whether Clinton possessed documents and materials with classified information through the private server.
“That is correct,” Comey said.
Illegally retained and transmitted classified data on an unapproved, insecure, server.
Now, the argument that people will make against this is that she didn't "know". Well, if you believe she is that stupid, then why support her to be President? I mean, we have her signature on documents that said she completed the required training to know how to identify classified documents. So, either she can't be bothered to learn how to handle national secrets appropriately, and falsified the training certificate, or she just didn't give a gak about the laws.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/18 21:13:33
Moving on from boasting about who is ignoring who, and obsessing over the classified material found on Clinton's server, while utterly ignoring how it got there (i.e. ALL THE DOZENS OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO WERE DEMONSTRABLY MISHANDLING IT EVEN WORSE THAN SHE WAS), and going over the same points regarding it that we've done 20 times or more now with no progress, how about we find something else to discuss?
Did Trump say anything we can complain about? Did Johnson manage a 0.1% boost in ratings? Anything?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/18 21:17:59
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: You do realise I'm not American, right? I don't usually follow American news - only when British News reports on the US; and telling someone to go back and read a 78 page thread to "educate" himself is not particularly helpful or friendly. In the time you took to insult me, you could have given a brief explanation ("the emails were found to not be sensitive material, Clinton was given poor legal advice" etc) or at the very least, told me which pages in this 78 page thread to read.
Kilkrazy wrote: Don't diss people, please, it is counter-productive as it tends to annoy users rather than encourage them to look at issues in a different way.
Yeah, no gak. Theres a reason why they're both on my ignore list.
If you look at the relevant section of law, which has been referenced earlier in the thread, it states clearly that the criminal penalties are applicable to deliberately aiding enemies of the state.
There is no evidence for this.
Can you provide a page reference please so I can..."educate" myself?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'll stick my questions in a spoiler so D-USA and Ustrello don't get their knickers in a twist.
Spoiler:
I don't understand...Wikipedia says that Clinton:
-declined to speak with investigators
-took steps to insulate her emails and "circumvent" Congressional subpoena and FOIA requests
-never sought approval from the Legal Advisors for the server
-possibly lied about seeking approval ("Each of these findings contradicted what Clinton and her aides had been saying up to that point")
Section 1924 of Title 18 of the United States Code addresses the deletion and retention of classified documents, under which "knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine, or up to a year in prison.
Did Clinton do this? Were there classified emails on her private server, or were they found to be not sensitive enough? What of the emails she (allegedly) deleted?
In the time it took to write that you could have clicked the link to the FBI documents.
I'd already gone back to ignoring you by the time you posted that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thanks Whembly.
Before you thank Wembley too much, you might be interested to know that Sharyl Atkinson is a discredited conspiracy theorist..http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/10/02/sharyl-attkisson-got-a-show-after-years-of-push/205931
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Tannhauser42 wrote: Moving on from boasting about who is ignoring who, and obsessing over the classified material found on Clinton's server, while utterly ignoring how it got there (i.e. ALL THE DOZENS OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO WERE DEMONSTRABLY MISHANDLING IT EVEN WORSE THAN SHE WAS), and going over the same points regarding it that we've done 20 times or more now with no progress, how about we find something else to discuss?
Nice to know how exactly you feel about this issue.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: You do realise I'm not American, right? I don't usually follow American news - only when British News reports on the US; and telling someone to go back and read a 78 page thread to "educate" himself is not particularly helpful or friendly. In the time you took to insult me, you could have given a brief explanation ("the emails were found to not be sensitive material, Clinton was given poor legal advice" etc) or at the very least, told me which pages in this 78 page thread to read.
Kilkrazy wrote: Don't diss people, please, it is counter-productive as it tends to annoy users rather than encourage them to look at issues in a different way.
Yeah, no gak. Theres a reason why they're both on my ignore list.
If you look at the relevant section of law, which has been referenced earlier in the thread, it states clearly that the criminal penalties are applicable to deliberately aiding enemies of the state.
There is no evidence for this.
Can you provide a page reference please so I can..."educate" myself?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'll stick my questions in a spoiler so D-USA and Ustrello don't get their knickers in a twist.
[spoiler]
I don't understand...Wikipedia says that Clinton:
-declined to speak with investigators
-took steps to insulate her emails and "circumvent" Congressional subpoena and FOIA requests
-never sought approval from the Legal Advisors for the server
-possibly lied about seeking approval ("Each of these findings contradicted what Clinton and her aides had been saying up to that point")
Section 1924 of Title 18 of the United States Code addresses the deletion and retention of classified documents, under which "knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine, or up to a year in prison.
Did Clinton do this? Were there classified emails on her private server, or were they found to be not sensitive enough? What of the emails she (allegedly) deleted?
In the time it took to write that you could have clicked the link to the FBI documents.
I'd already gone back to ignoring you by the time you posted that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thanks Whembly.
[/spoiler][/spoiler]
Before you thank Wembley too much, you might be interested to know that Sharyl Atkinson is a discredited conspiracy theorist..http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/10/02/sharyl-attkisson-got-a-show-after-years-of-push/205931
Media fething Matters?
The most leftist of lefty punditry on the planet?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/09/18 21:29:02
The Empire 
1500 pts
: 
