they both have far and above "disqualified" themselves.
Clinton is disqualified only according to the Trump campaign, otherwise such arguments do not survive the harsh light of fact checking. Trump is quite another matter.
What "most countries" see (according to you) does not trump American law. If you disagree then feel free to act through the channels available to you in a functional democracy, but do not flout the law.
Eventually I installed cameras and caught the motherfuckers, who got fined and harassed by the cops...
Your troll would have come across as more credible if you had managed to avoid the temptation to feed your ego with that embellishment. Harassed you say, golly.
Hillary is a run-of-the-mill politician. Far from the worst by any stretch of the imagination...
Wait, no, there is something truly exceptional about Hillary Clinton: she is a woman. As such, she is on the brink of making history. I also think she has a decent shot at turning in a better than average performance as chief executive. I suspect we will see a considerably more assertive stance re Russian adventurism, for one thing. If not then I suppose I would hope for a quick segue to the next impending historical event, a hispanic CiC.
There is a good chance a fanatical supporter was involved, but it doesn't eliminate the leadership or a sympathetic friend either.
In fact, given that "the main IP addresses linked to the attack were found to be Russian", the sympathetic friend theory looks like the winner. However, if the Trump campaign fails to denounce it, then by implication it condones it, and is therefore complicit.
That said, the strategy is idiotic. I could not imagine any more effective way to get the story trending, as it deserves.
Because of the temporal correlation. Actually, suspecting rather than insinuating.
There's no need for that.
There is a need for that, it is a healthy process of investigation. From the article: "the main IP addresses linked to the attack were found to be Russian." Again, this is just correlation, but it certainly does present the appearance of Russian meddling in American politics in favor of Donald Trump. If so, it amounts to state-sponsored cyber-terrorism. Better to err on the side more public scrutiny rather than less.
Slashdot Mirror
Some calls require more courage than anticipated.
"Courage" is Tim Cook's newspeak for "arrogance".
Being an Apple employee means having the courage to downmod instead of present intelligent arguments.
Like they say, the fish begins to rot from the head.
Just tell her her new phone is a Samsung iPhone.
Notice how his mouth looks like a sphinter.
The other day, my kid heard that the new Apple phone does not have a headphone jack. "Really??? rejected."
Some calls require more courage than anticipated.
"Courage" is Tim Cook's newspeak for "arrogance".
Impossible, the test must be rigged. Because Apple says the battery is way better with the headphone jack gone.
Grasping. Heres a fact.
You still have not mentioned a fact. Trump toady much?
Your argument re disqualification of Clinton is entirely rhetoric, devoid of facts.
they both have far and above "disqualified" themselves.
Clinton is disqualified only according to the Trump campaign, otherwise such arguments do not survive the harsh light of fact checking. Trump is quite another matter.
You should know everything a politician says during a campaign is a lie. That's her genuine opinion as she clearly stated.
An opinion may change, not at all the same as a promise. What is your point?
As far as lies go, lies do matter. Trump is off the end of the scale and disqualifies himself by that measure alone.
Most countries see the embargo as...
What "most countries" see (according to you) does not trump American law. If you disagree then feel free to act through the channels available to you in a functional democracy, but do not flout the law.
Might some hacker respond to a Julian Assange story? Maybe.
Days later when the cover story was Trump's Castro Connection?
Grasping.
Did Newsweek publish any other stories that day (or that week)?
Trump's Castro Connection was the front page story.
So you are trying to make a case that Hillary Clinton has "build a wall at the Mexican border" as a campaign plank. Nice try, crank.
Unlike Clinton, Trump is actually guilty much of what he is accused.
DDoS is not the way a nation state conducts counter-propaganda.
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that thugs are smart.
The Trump story was the most hype story of the day by a mile. Your theory = grasping.
How's Trump's underage rape trial going?
Trump, the best president that money can buy. The best. 100 percent.
Eventually I installed cameras and caught the motherfuckers, who got fined and harassed by the cops...
Your troll would have come across as more credible if you had managed to avoid the temptation to feed your ego with that embellishment. Harassed you say, golly.
Seriously, who cares?
Not you, apparently. But law abiding people do.
Hillary is a run-of-the-mill politician. Far from the worst by any stretch of the imagination...
Wait, no, there is something truly exceptional about Hillary Clinton: she is a woman. As such, she is on the brink of making history. I also think she has a decent shot at turning in a better than average performance as chief executive. I suspect we will see a considerably more assertive stance re Russian adventurism, for one thing. If not then I suppose I would hope for a quick segue to the next impending historical event, a hispanic CiC.
There is a good chance a fanatical supporter was involved, but it doesn't eliminate the leadership or a sympathetic friend either.
In fact, given that "the main IP addresses linked to the attack were found to be Russian", the sympathetic friend theory looks like the winner. However, if the Trump campaign fails to denounce it, then by implication it condones it, and is therefore complicit.
That said, the strategy is idiotic. I could not imagine any more effective way to get the story trending, as it deserves.
why are we strongly insinuating causality?
Because of the temporal correlation. Actually, suspecting rather than insinuating.
There's no need for that.
There is a need for that, it is a healthy process of investigation. From the article: "the main IP addresses linked to the attack were found to be Russian." Again, this is just correlation, but it certainly does present the appearance of Russian meddling in American politics in favor of Donald Trump. If so, it amounts to state-sponsored cyber-terrorism. Better to err on the side more public scrutiny rather than less.
why are we strongly insinuating causality?
Because of the temporal correlation. Surprised I should need to explain that to you, or did you feign ignorance.