Random Politics & Religion #14

Again your lack of understanding is showing here. The conversation was about how the RNC wasn't successful in their collusion and my explanation as to why it wasn't successful is because they weren't colluding with a singular candidate. Context is a lot and you are pulling a lot of it out.


Also you really can't see how a whole party siding behind one candidate before the primaries could influence the popular vote at all? Please tell me you are feigning ignorance.

I don't want to get to far into this but only the court can prove innocent or guilt and when one steps into the court they are innocent. One does not, nor should not be of the mindset that a person is innocent.

If I see someone shoot another person, is it wrong of me to say that they are guilty? Or are you going to spout off the line "Well he is innocent until proven guilty"? That statement only holds true in the court but that doesn't make him not guilty, nor does it make me wrong to say he is guilty. Or if you are implying in that situation I should be like "Well until we can prove in court that shot her he is innocent, why would I prosecute an innocent man?".

Clearly we aren't discussing a smoking gun case in our example though which at that point we can only *** the situation with the information we have. My conclusion doesn't prove guilt but at the same time my conclusion is equally as valid or invalid as someone elses who gets the same information and claims innocence.

You may also just be misunderstanding me.

But St. Ronald the President reset the standard to "never indited." So you not only need a smoking gun, you need a dead body and CSI.

You don't know that for sure though do you? Unless you have access to all their communications how could you say that for certain? The only reason you're saying it in favor of the dnc is because you have access to some of that information... Hence my previous comment about grabbing up the rnc emails...

Your premise that a political party has to throw its influence behind a single candidate to be successful is flawed, incorrect and also you can't even prove that they didn't...

There was a singular nature for both though... The dnc worked to promote Hillary while they rnc worked against trump... So in that you can see that even with influence you don't always get exactly what you want...

You can't find the Divine, and what's more Divine than that flowing toupe mane of gorgeous hair?

For *** sake, I'me so sick of hearing how everything is a damn conspiracy. The DNC and RNC are private organizations whose main purpose is to get their respective party members into office. They strategize the best way to beat the opposition so the party platform can be carried out. You can argue that you don't care for this kind of system, sure, but it's not some sinister collusive effort. Trump had the popularity to overcome it. Bernie did not.

The DNC emails showed talk of a strategy but there's no real evidence they actually carried it out since, yeah, they never really had to. The democratic primaries dragged out and the DNC expressed pretty candidly their frustration because it was putting them months behind Trump. It's admirable of Bernie not to simply give up but it makes sense strategically for the party for him to do it.

The worst part of these emails hacks is how legitimized illegally obtained information has become. I think it's a terrible path to start on and what's funny is that things like journalistic integrity has been compromised (even more so) for two big fat nothingburgers of information. Like, did Podesta ever pick up that basil for his wife? IT'S OUR RIGHT TO KNOW!

tl;dr:

I found it sort of refreshing that Rubio came out and said "Hey guys, let's not get too excited about this, because the next time it could be us". Not exactly a principled stance, but certainly a better one than some of his compatriots have got.

I was with you until this sentence.

We've been using illegally obtained information for many decades and lots of the information released to the public was needed. It has also been upheld by the supreme court for many years that journalists have the right to report on this.

We would not have had a watergate without deep throat.

Granted a lot of these emails have been absolutely an invasion of privacy, but lets not throw out the baby with the bath water.

You are correct in the fact that I can't be certain which is why I tried to avoid certainty. It doesn't appear that they did, but they could have.

I don't understand what is flawed and incorrect about my premise, it clearly happened this past DNC primary. If I enter a popularity contest with you and the people running the popularity contest are boosting me up and putting you down what do you think the results will be?

Your last statement is flawed in the fact that the DNC worked to boost Hillary up while also putting Hillary down. All we can tell from the RNC is that it was apparent they attempted to disparage Trump while not unifying behind a single candidate which is why the results were different between each party.

Better!

I just don't get how they're trying to put her behind bars for "treason" and the like for allegedly exposing American secrets via her email servers then using illegally obtained emails to discredit her and the dnc... Besides aren't wiki leaks articles still technically illegally to peruse in America?

Yeah. I sort of appreciated this too.

I think this is a theme around the whole DNC leaks, they are pretty difficult to use as hard evidence in general. They can easily show intent but you can't prove guilt with intent alone.




I think you are missing the point of the leaks and underestimate their value. The method to obtain then doesn't matter as much as their content. If anything it is helping validate peoples fears that the government is against them.

Not true.

Some journalists have said this and it is not true.

If you hold security clearance and you view leaked security documents you are technically breaking the law. Otherwise, no.

article
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161019/07004935835/cnn-tells-viewers-illegal-them-to-read-wikileaks-document-dumps-cnn-is-wrong.shtml

I actually agree with this. I think treason is probably one of the few accusations so may just be free of. Obstruction of Justice, perjury and whatever allegation her pay-to-play schemes fall under are really what she should be on trial for.

Hillary has been a civil servant for many years and even fought for some important things like Women's rights. I don't think she should be allowed to run for president with these allegations but I think that if she is indicted a pardon would be understandable - just not a pardon from herself.

Also -- and maybe I'm being too nice here -- but...***...come on. These people are old. I don't care how smart they are politically. When was the last 70-year-old you knew who was really tech savvy? Yeah they can manage to send and receive e-mail, but as far as they're concerned they hit the little "encrypt" button, what else do they need to do?

A lot of politicians got into politics when the most you had to do to ensure no one else read a top secret file was to shred it and burn it with your cigarette lighter. Which you had, because everybody *** smoked back then.

When I worked at Walmart there was a government retiree who worked there for some gambling money on the side. He was in data protection for the federal government. He spent 30+ years safekeeping and protecting data, paper and electronic alike. He was really good with all the older technology, databases, etc.

The Nintendo DS and smartphones were a *** mystery to him.

I just don't give a *** about the e-mails. Sorry. It's something someone has to unfuck, but I don't care who you work for, private or public workplaces, people at the top theorize and come up with ideas. They manage the people who manage the technology. Executives rarely deal with the dirty work themselves.

It's like expecting the owner of a hotel chain to know the best way to get *** stains out of a sheet. You know how s/he does it?

He says, "Hey. Laundry room worker. Do your job."

Now, I'm not saying that's how it should be.

But that's how it is.

Now, all that said, the same executive walks up to the laundry room worker and grabs them by the genitals, that's way more *** up to me.

Unfortunately this is true on multiple levels of government.

Most judges asked to rule on "tech" cases have no idea what they are ruling on. Most do not code, understand electronics or chemistry at a basic level, sometimes even measurements*.

Hell, the Supreme Court doesn't use email. They use pages that run messages.

*had a chemistry teacher give us an example of why understanding standard measurements were important. Not just in the lab, not just in the kitchen....but even in a court of law. She was on jury duty for a drug case. The defendant had 2 grams of drugs on him. The judge asked the prosecutor to demonstrate how large that would be...."bigger than a breadbox or smaller?". The prosecutor said, "Bigger".

There are many other examples of just crap understanding of the world around us. Anyone remember this guy?

Are you using old age an as excuse for mishandling classified documents, lying and attempting to erase any evidence of your mishandling?

I don't care what you know about emails you know what the implications of these things are. Especially a recent secretary of the state.

You're blind baby!



it's not near because the DNC went way past watergate a long time ago

Colin Powell and his @aol.com handle while Secretary of State comes to mind.

Hmmm well...

"I got a letter from the government the other day. I opened and read it. It said that they were SUCKAS

mmmhmmm... a likely story!

but it is difficult to explain why liquid measure in ounces and weight in ounces is different...unless it's water...

explination

The Inspector General came out and said that the rules regarding email use became more detailed and sophisticated over time. It doesn't matter what Powell did, because it wasn't a problem at the time. Clinton knew the new rules and broke them anyway.

Might want to check the year that rule was implemented.

But I'm not comparing them, I'm making a comment on Ramyrez point about old people and their use of technology.

Also, they really refined the rule in 2014 because the rules drafted in 97 and 05' apparently were too vague for department officials.

Anything else we want to turn into partisan talking points?