Okay... Clinton did some questionable things.

Let's talk about Trump's e-mails

Evidence pointed to a Putin - Trump connection before, but now it's a lock.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html

This article is long to explain all the technical details, but the upshot is that one of Putin's closest allies runs Alfa Bank. Alfa Bank has been communicating in secret with Trump during the course of the campaign. Traffic peaks during pivotal campaign moments (conventions, debates, scandals etc.) The server was set up in a way that one computer expert said was the way organized crime does it when two different groups want to collaborate in secret. Once the first findings were published on Reddit, the Trump server suddenly went offline.

A week later, a new Trump server came online and the very first communication from the Internet to that new server was from Alfa Bank. This cannot be random, the Trump server has an unpublished address, so only someone who knew the exact address could contact that server.

I think it's very clear Trump is receiving instructions from Moscow. Probably due to his huge debt load. Draw your own conclusions.

@bobknight33 do you REALLY want a Russian agent in the White House? That's the sort of rhetoric you applied to Clinton, but it turns out it's actually TRUE in Trump's case.

I'm basically done with defending WikiLeaks as well, after the shit they pulled with the leaks of Turkish data. Completely irresponsible, that one.

However, WikiLeaks doesn't need credibility -- the data does. And the data they published vis-á-vis Clinton/Podesta/DNC is, as of now, solid. There was one fake document, but that was shown to have been injected by someone other than WL.

"Strong bias" -- oh, I do have a strong bias. Plural, as in biases, actually. For instance, I'm disinclined to take anything the US intelligence agencies say at face value, given how they manufactured more than one casus belli. I don't put much weight into (un-)official statements in general, but especially since all the misinformation they spread about issues like the coup in Honduras or the actions of Nazi militias in Ukraine.

In this particular case, however, my argument is much simpler: Occam's razor seems much more likely than malicious intent. Propaganda outlets on both sides are run by people. Maybe the propaganda outlet Sputnik intentionally twisted the content of email, or maybe they just fucked up, like people are wont to do. Maybe someone intentionally fed Trump this bad info, maybe his people are just as incompetent as he is.

There are too many parts in this that include people who have more than once proven themselves to be utterly incompetent, or in complete ignorance of even the concept of truth. I don't think Trump gives a shit about truth or facts, he strikes me as the typical blowhard who spouts whatever shit comes to mind, and spins stories on the fly like a 4-year-old when caught red-handing.

No need for a conspiracy there, with all this incompetence, naiveté and plain disregard for facts.

So when they keep on pushing the Russian angle in this, it just seems like a desperate attempt to conjure up the old unifying enemy. Why worry about Russian propaganda when there's plenty on FOX and MSNBC/CNN? Why worry about Russian hackers when you accept the unbelievably insecure method of eletronic votes, partly without paper trails, and completely controlled by private companies?

It's just very strange to an outsider like me to see them focus on perceived external influences when the internals are a complete clusterfuck. And this presidential election is the biggest clusterfuck I've seen in 30 years, which doesn't mean much, admittedly.

That said, we can't just be looking at it from the outside with binoculars, not when people are back to full-blown Cold War rhetoric. When the ruling class in the US and/or the ruling class in Russia start their pissing contests and other forms of grandstanding, it's usually brown people who pay the price, like they have been in Syria for the last couple of years. And Libya. And Yemen. And Somalia. And Afghanistan, And Iraq. And Pakistan.

Personally, all the rhetoric about "standing up to Russian aggression" and similar nonsense makes me keenly aware that the bridge just outside my hometown was constructed with a shaft to place explosives in, to slow down advancing Soviet troops... so yes, I would very much like to bitch-slap all these warmongerers on both sides, but particularly the ones in the US since they are currently the ones racking up the highest death toll.

Edit: I should have made it clearer. Yes, WL is absolutely biased against Clinton and they do seem to act in support of Trump. Assange in particular. Which bums me out to no end, since I actually met the guy in person when they presented WL at the 26C3.

The anti-cop rhetoric will lead to more of them being assassinated like we saw earlier this Summer. BLM dont care about dead cops, do they?

Call it what you will. To me, massive illegal immigration with the goal of territorial control is invasion...no matter why they invaded. Invaders always have a reason.

The Jewish population didn't want to be mixed, nor did the Arabs by then from my readings, so there was no chance of peaceful coexistence.

Wait...what?! So...after the Nazis were gone it was too late to go home?!? How do you figure? Many if not most of them were still in Europe then.
They didn't need a promise, they needed to return to their properties, then demand reparations. They weren't promised anything by Palestine either....right?

They should have said that when the Nazis showed up, not after they were defeated...and should have fought the Nazis, not the mostly blameless (for the atrocities) Palestinians.

Again, civil wars are between native populations, not immigrants. Immigrants fighting natives is called invasion. Period.

HA!!!!! So, when neighbors and allies try to secure their borders that are being crossed by invaders, you call THEM invaders, but not the immigrant army. WTF, man?

EDIT: Should I think you call Turkey an invader of Daesh, and you a supporter of Daesh? They were in the same boat as the Jews, being ostracized and destroyed around the globe, until they came together in an area where a small portion of the natives gave them support and the majorities ignored their rise to power, they grasped territories and power, formed their separate nation, and since then have simply 'defended' themselves from the aggressive natives....right? Um....no.

No...far from the most open place, Palestine was openly hostile to them, but incapable of stopping the invasion. The U.S. was open...if they could get here. There was no separate Jewish Palestine then. I have sympathy for the European Jews until the day they tried to become a separate nation by force. Since that day, they've been the aggressive invaders doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to them without the gas chambers.

Perhaps you don't know that >90% of rockets are fired at expansionist settlements in Palestine, not Israel, met with exponentially more force against civilians. (And before you balk, there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian, they are all, 100%, military....by law).

Neighbors and allies fighting invaders of their allies are absolutely not more at fault than the invaders for the continuing tragedy...not that I support their rhetoric or actions.
The single cause of the conflict is foreign invaders taking territory by force and constant expansion ever since. Their continuing inhumanity towards the natives is another topic, morality.

The problem remains the Supreme Court. Ginsburg is 83, Kennedy is 80, and Breyer is 78... So the next 4 years is likely to see up to 4 replacements in the court. While Scalia was a conservative, and a conservative replacement wouldn't be overly bad, Ginsburg and Breyer, were they to be replaced with a far right justice... and the Republicans would push as far right as they can, would bring about the end of most of the progress this nation has seen. We'd see them retake on abortion and rule it out, gar marriage illegal again... all this is not only possible, but most likely with any Republican in the Presidency... the Conservatives know this, in fact it is the main reason they are going out and voting this election, even if they hate Trump. They will not only hold onto the lead the Conservatives have in the court, they will be able to tilt it very far in a Conservative direction that will be that way for a very long time as they serve for life (or until they want to step down). Every President of late has done 2 appointments (Obama would have done 3 had Congress done it's job and moved on his nomination for Scalia's replacement), and the next likely has 3 to 4 in the next 4 years counting Scalia. This is the long term danger... beyond the rhetoric making it far more likely for lone wolf attacks, which I'd put up with if it meant a better turn in the Supreme Court.

@ChaosEngine

I think we're getting a bit far off from the original topic, so I'll try to stay focused on my original point: you're still saying this guy in the video was presented with evidence and refused to change his mind.

He wasn't.

He was asked a rhetorical question to which he spontaneously replied in the way that he felt would be most in line with the thinking of his political party since he knew he was going to be on TV. His throwaway answer triggered your angry throwaway comment and here we are, with you apparently unable to grasp the irony of how your demonizing a group of "wooly thinking" bogeymen (who according to you are responsible for slavery, homophobia, and the drug war among other things) is completely mirroring the rhetoric of all the people in the video who are demonizing the BLM movement and the rhetoric of Trump in general regarding Mexicans, Muslims, etc.

You can see how well that approach is working for the Republicans, so it's baffling to me why you'd take that approach in dealing with something that is a real problem--convincing people to change their minds about beliefs that are deeply held but also based on what others would say is faulty reasoning (but seems perfectly reasonable to the person holding the belief). I think you'll find, along with the Republicans, that this approach of demonizing the "other" (who exists only in your mind--when was the last time you met someone who actually believed they were possessed by demons when they caught a cold?) does nothing to solve problems but in fact exacerbates them instead.

And that concludes all I have to say on the subject. I'll read whatever response you post but won't be replying in this thread again.

@ChaosEngine

Comparing your joke to Jim Jeffries joke is a bit unfair, I think. @Chairman_woo gave an excellent analysis of why Jeffries's joke was masterfully crafted, with multiple levels of irony that all orchestrate beatifully together to subvert the listeners' expectations--even if you disagree with the subject matter of the joke.

Your joke, on the other hand, has none of that. It belongs in the same category as Dave Tosh's joke to the female heckler in the audience:

“Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by, like, five guys right now? Like right now?”

Tosh said that in anger and frustration. I see yours and newtboy's comments coming from the same place. Both are jokes filled with malice and lacking cleverness, and therefore I find them to be wholly unfunny and in fact disturbing. Of course, YMMV.

Now, as far as the rest of your post goes, I think you might have missed the point of my previous post: your anger is misguided because the gentleman who made the comment that outraged you said what he said because he was put under pressure to make a statement that opposes his own party's rhetoric at his party's national convention during a Presidential election year!

It's pretty easy to see how someone, knowing they were likely going to be on TV and seen by millions, might make an overzealous statement to show support for their party that in hindsight turns out to be asinine. In fact I'm sure that's what the show's producers were banking on when they originally came up with the idea for the segment. Whether this particular person--or really any person--will ignore evidence that is contrary to their beliefs is unknown no matter what they may say in public. And their statement is especially suspect when being asked to give an unrehearsed response to a question on TV.

You say your are angry at "woolly thinking" but I think what you really mean is you are angry at ignorance. Personally, I agree with you that feigned ignorance is something to be angry at--politicians who know the facts but continue to say despicable things (i.e. Trump) that they know their people want to hear in order to further their own careers are most certainly deserving of our anger and possibly some form of appropriate punishment, such as being removed from office, if it can proven that they were being dishonest with the public.

But I can't be angry at actual ignorance--people don't know what they don't know. Or even worse, people who think they know when in fact they only have some (but not all) of the facts. Not everyone is lucky enough to grow up in an environment that values education, critical thinking, and seeking out multiple opinions. And even growing up in such an environment is no guarantee that a person is going take advantage of the priviledges presented and become a reasonable and reasoned adult. But my own personal belief is that all of us who are healthy individuals have the capacity to learn, grow, and change our minds given the proper environment and time, regardless of the current state of our knowledge or beliefs. All those things you mentioned--slavery, homophobia, the drug war, etc.--it's pretty clear we are in fact learning and moving on. The transition may be painful but it is happening.

One thing I find interesting about your thinking on this matter is how it exactly mirrors that of the Republicans presented in the video. You see "wholly thinkers" or ignorant people or whatever you'd like to call them exactly as these Republicans see Black Lives Matter activists--as some nefarious and dangerous group of "others" that should be distrusted. I prefer to see them as human beings who are, admittedly, flawed... as am I in a great many ways. I guess it just comes down to having a more optomistic view of humanity.

EDIT: "Would you reconsider in the face of new evidence?" is not a simple question at all. For example, I don't believe torture is an acceptable method of intelligence gathering. You could show me study after study "proving" its effectiveness and I still would never approve of it. On the other hand, if you showed me a study that found a competing laundry detergent got stains out better than the one I was using, I'd probably switch detergents the next time I went shopping.

@bobknight33

i wasn't making a claim that using labor and solidarity rhetoric has helped black or working poor communities.i was simply saying that was the tactic the democrats used to garner and solidify votes.

see:FDR

the current state of republican/democrat power structure is almost purely a machine to retain political power.it may go one way one election cycle and another the next,but BOTH parties attempt to crush any dissenting voice from the current narrative of power,and neither really offer any substantive change.

go ahead and ask your friends who gary johnson and jill stein are,chances are they never even heard of them.

because americans taken as a whole,are pretty fucking stupid.

"Trumps brand of right-wing, racist, anti-immigrant demagoguery isn't American; it's a European import"

Well, if by that you mean that the Europeans who came to America originally brought this, then yeah, but other than that, you're talking shite, Sam.

American is just as good as Europe with anti-immigrant rhetoric. The difference is that in modern Europe, these guys are mostly fringe parties rather than one of the two mainstream parties.

I love civil liberties.

I wish the 'float all boats' rhetoric was as taken to heart as its claimed to be.

In that regard, negatively invoking the NRA requires some cognitive dissonance. NRA members are regular people, and they're all around. 1/3 of U.S. homes are armed. The NRA guards those people's rights. That's why the NRA is so strong.

Civil liberties also includes the freedom of expression. That's at odds with curtailing anti-<name a group> rhetoric.

I'm all for maximal civil liberties. But folks need to realize that it involves letting others live their lives in a way that you might not like - and that you might be living a life that others don't like.

I'm ok with that. But there are a lot of people that can't stand other people going about their own business in a disapproved of manner. And there are a lot of people that can't stand being disliked (even when left alone). These sorts of people inevitably cause problems when they feel compelled to do something about how other people live.

-scheherazade

To understand the wording of the second amendment, you have to take into account the history behind it. I'm not sure how familiar you are with American history, but this scholarly article is a great read on the topic, and demonstrates that guns have been kept and regulated (the most important terms of the amendment that often get completely overlooked by guns rights advocates) by Americans for both personal and collective defense since the Colonial period.

It's important to note that the Revolutionary War was literally started at Lexington and Concord when the British government, "Came fer our gunz!" That event informs a great deal of the rhetoric, and it is not at all an exaggeration to say that had the British government successfully disarmed the populace earlier, the Revolution might never have had a chance for success.

Regardless, there are an overwhelming number of legal precedents now that support the notion that the Constitution allows guns to be owned by U.S. citizens for self-defense purposes. That horse has long been out of the barn, so arguing that the constitution does not specifically use the words "self-defense" is a complete waste of time. What is not a waste of time is arguing how far the government (state and federal) can go in "regulating" the sale, carrying, and use of firearms.

there's kind of this weird rhetoric that i keep noticing that implies that "gays" and "islam" are the same category of thing and can be compared but can't be prioritized because they're somehow equal. they're not.

homosexuality is an inherent quality. there is nothing to critique or change other than our views of it.

islam, however, is just an idea and needs to be treated as such. it absolutely can be critiqued and changed and i would argue this is required.

the tricky part i see is the conflating of "islam" with "muslims" and using the ugliness of islam as justification for mistreatment and ostracizing of muslims. sometimes to the extent of treating them as sub human, most notably in refugee conversations. islam is gross, imo, and should be criticized (fervently) but muslims are still people and need to be treated as such, just as the gay community should. they both have the right to live and have the opportunity to live with some semblance of safety. people deserve compassion. ideas do not.

The number of attacks on this country will skyrocket if Trump wins, simply because it would be far easier to radicalize people after that. Trump and the Republican party are doing everything they can to appease what ISIS wants us to do, making their job easier.

And while this guy was a Muslim, the constant labeling of him as being with ISIS is a bit out there. Yes he claimed allegiance to ISIS, but he also claimed allegiance to Hezbollah, a group opposed to ISIS that is in fact doing a lot of the fighting against them. So it seems more likely that he was taken in by the anti-gay rhetoric of religion (one shared by the far right Christians) and stepped it up to a mass murder rampage.

Nobody would call those guy who took over the Oregon facility Radicalized Christian Terrorists, though that's what they were. They did it in the name of Christ, saying that God was the one who told them to do it. You don't blame a whole religion for an act of a few radical members. The right then complains that regular Muslims don't do enough to protest the actions of those few, but I don't see masses of Christians counter protesting the God Hates Fags people who are protesting soldier funerals, or will be at the funerals of the people killed at this club... in fact I saw the God Hates Fags people there at the scene and there wasn't a big crowd of Christians fighting against the radicalized Christians spreading hate... Matthew 7:5 may apply to their attitude towards the situation...

I'd call him a political candidate. He hasn't been elected to office yet.

As before, he is qualified to be president by virtue of his birth right.

My question was a semi rhetorical poke. You can't disqualify anyone from being eligible to be president. The one thing you can do is vote for someone else. That vote, in conjunction with millions of others, will determine who wins by popular vote.

Aside from all the ridiculous and seemingly evidence free rhetoric of bogeymen in dresses attacking girls in bathrooms, I'm curious to know how they handle the locker room/shower situation.

Am I mistaken to assume they're saying a trans girl with a boys body would be accepted by girls in the locker room, and its just old prejudices holding that up?