Assange never gives out details about who his leakers are, but even he took the time to state categorically that the Podesta leakers are did not come from the Russian government.
Clearly he feels that there is some danger here for him to take this extraordinary step.
Or his source has never clearly identified itself as the Russia government and he's trying to maintain plausible deniability as to not destroy Wikileaks' credibility.
And in other news, we have Obama encouraging illegals to vote, which would appear at first glance to be Obama committing a felony on camera.
Which is why you should take a second glance. Did you notice how her question doesn't actually make sense? That's because someone cut off the first part of it and I'm very suspicious of what they left out. What seems to be the general question and answer is the following:
Interviewer: American citizens who are the children of illegal immigrants are scared to vote because they they'll draw scrutiny and cause their families to be deported.
Obama: That will not happen.
What the fuck is happening to this country?
People are lying to you about the state of the world, and you believe them.
Voter fraud is extremely rare, and the courts are enforcing federal law that makes sure people like you can't use it for cover to disenfranchise minorities.
Not entirely.
It's beyond doubt that a lot of mail-in votes, if they're not actually filled in by a spouse, are done with the spouse's supervision (probably the man) to make sure the right candidate is being chosen.
Of course this kind of fraud is very hard to prove. And since mail-in voters are predominantly Republican no one is trying to suppress it.
... that said "Republicans Against Trump", and then some unidentified asshole yelled "gun!" and the crowd went wild - hope they find the asshole that yelled "Fire in a crowded theater" just for the hell of it, and hang his ass.
The reason that asshole yelled gun is because Trump regularly sicks his crowd on protesters (and the media), and has even directly endorsed violence against protesters. In this clip two of his supporters "took action" against a protester (if you jump to 4:00 it sounds like that includes punches) and Trump's reaction was to bring them on stage to thank and honour them.
The guy who yelled gun probably probably thought Trump would congratulate him on the clever idea, and I'm not sure he was wrong.
That's one of the ways authoritarians work, they don't need to do their own dirty work, they rely on their supporters for that. They just need to make sure their supporters know they're safe to break the rules in going after the enemy. And one thing Trump is pretty consistent on is not acting to restrain the extremists in his base.
- The State Department made deals with the FBI to declassify classified Clinton emails
I thought the State Department merely ATTEMPTED to make deals with the FBI and the FBI responded by telling them to fuck off. So the State Department then refused to sign off on various FBI things in retaliation.
Rather an FBI and a State Dept official discussed an unrelated FBI request during the same phone call where a State Dept official made a failed attempt to have the classification rating on an email modified (it's not know who brought up the unrelated request).
So EITHER the State Department OR the FBI created a situation WHERE SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A DEAL.
Or, more likely, the FBI official simply wasn't thinking about the conflict of interest. So while he had the State Dept official on the line he decided to change topics and ask about the outstanding request he'd made previously.
And thus was born more rock solid evidence of Hillary's corruption.
I'm really hoping that when the FBI finds classified material on Weiner's computer, they'll do their damn jobs and bring Hillary to justice this time. But I suspect that depends on whether the elections are allowed to proceed fairly or not...
The situation you describe is Abedin Huma using an unsecured email account (either private or official) on her husband's laptop and discussing classified information (intentionally or not).
And you think that's reason to throw... Hillary Clinton in jail?
The FBI doesn't exist solely to throw your political opponents in jail.
Not really clear that there's anything here. A news organization always checks with the subject of an article before running the article-- this is standard procedure, and it's also standard procedure to correct errors of fact that are pointed out-- it is desirable to do this BEFORE an article runs. I think they're stretching on this.
It doesn't matter, all the article needs is "Clinton" and "emails" and it creates the vague scent of corruption.
I'll agree the emails dumps are fascinating as they reveal a lot about how campaigns really operate and how politics works. But the middle of an election campaign isn't the best time to run this through the media grinder, every interesting tidbit end sup looking like a fresh scandal.
Where I work, sometimes you want it on-the-record. I want proof I said something, or did something, far more often than I'd ever want to be able to deny such actions later on.
That's because you're a peon. Perhaps well-paid and well-respected, but a peon nonetheless, compared with those who effectively run the world. The farther up people are on the ladder of power, the harder it tends to be to tell the difference between them, and the criminals recognized as such by the justice system. Most of them cover their tracks, live substantially covert lives, and have adopted 'plausible deniability' as a second-nature practice. It might simply be prudence, or it might be the vestige of a guilty conscience in an otherwise sociopathic makeup. Whatever it is, it seems to go with the territory.
Less conspiratorially if you're a peon no one cares enough to go looking through your emails for dirt. If you are important then people will actively go digging for anything with which to remove you as an obstacle.
At best Trump will be "George W. Bush II", I don't see him completing much of anything which may be a good thing for a change.
Imagine the next 9/11 happens on Trump's watch, or the next Perl Harbour, or Cuban Missile Crisis, or even the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Do you really see Trump reacting calmly to that, or being able to deescalate a tense situation?
Rosie O'Donnell did a critical piece on him almost 10 years ago and he still goes after her. A Muslim couple spoke at the DNC and he spent days attacking them (with obviously bad results for his campaign), a former Miss American was brought up in the first debate and he again spend days attacking her (with more obvious bad campaign results).
I have literally seen small children with better self control, and the Presidency is far too powerful a position to put in the hands of an ill-tempered child.
Hey, Slashdot gets visited by Russian IP addresses too! Maybe Slashdot is working with Putin to leak Clinton's E-mails as well?
Seriously, this bullshit coming from Clinton and her minions only shows how desperate they are.
FTA:
I also spoke with academics who vouched for Tea Leaves’ integrity and his unusual access to information. “This is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,” said Camp. “When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.”)
The researchers quickly dismissed their initial fear that the logs represented a malware attack. The communication wasn’t the work of bots. The irregular pattern of server lookups actually resembled the pattern of human conversation—conversations that began during office hours in New York and continued during office hours in Moscow. It dawned on the researchers that this wasn’t an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank.
[...]
Earlier this month, the group of computer scientists passed the logs to Paul Vixie. In the world of DNS experts, there’s no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, “The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.”
The real interesting thing is when people started asking about the server the Trump org took it down, renamed it, and somehow the Russian server knew exactly which hostname to access (suggesting someone from Trump org told them).
Four days later, on Sept. 27, the Trump Organization created a new host name, trump1.contact-client.com, which enabled communication to the very same server via a different route.
These aren't political hacks, nor the result of reporters misunderstanding basic concepts. These are qualified experts with reputations to protect who understand hackers, malware, and misconfigured mail servers. They have looked at the evidence and think this is a secret communication channel.
In Canada we've taken 25k and had absolutely no problem.
History tells us that these things can take time. In terms of ISIS operatives already planning mayhem, I would expect them to wait some years. Patience is explicitly part of their M.O. They know they can't win a lightning war. Their strategy, if you care tor read any of their literature, is explicitly one of long-term attrition to sway public opinion.
Their strategy is to alienate Muslims and Christians as much as possible so that the Muslims all join the caliphate. And there is no long term plan right now, they're doing everything they can to stave off complete collapse. If they had the capability to launch an attack in Canada they would have.
But there is also a much more latent threat of pissed-off second and third generation immigrants, which worryingly enough often tend to be much more prone to jihadi ideology. If those 25k have fairly large families and 1% of their children are involved in some form of nastiness (not necessarily overtly violent) as a result of their conservative upbringing combined with their resentment for the Iraq War or western support of that dirty Shiite Assad... we're still talking about something on the order of a thousand troublemakers here, a thousand people doing things to embolden the right.
So don't alienate those second and third generation immigrants by suggesting the Muslims are a dangerous "other" and fundamentally predisposed to terrorism.
Incidentally, as a Canadian, you should be outraged by the way Tarek Fatah was treated by your senator Mitchell, and I suspect he was not alone in that attitude amongst your left. The most nauseating and damaging thing the "progressive" left has done (mostly in the UK, but to some extent in the New World as well) is to imply that only vilely conservative Muslims are "true" Muslims.
I haven't followed this and I can't view the video right now. But in general my philosophy is that while some people have a highly unusual interpretation of Christianity/Islam/Judaism, no one who considers themselves a Christian/Muslim/Jew is anymore "true" than anyone else.
That's why you need to rely on tone and subtext.
The tone and subtext is cynical populism tinged with narcissism combined with an inability to properly phrase things to clearly illustrate his intended focus.
So if it's just populism and narcissism then why are self-identified white nationalists acting like he's their saviour? Why are his rallies filled with people shouting incredibly racist things without getting shut down by the rest of the attendees?
They're not imagining things. Does he realize how racist his campaign is? I don't know. But it's a real phenomena.
I don't know how racist he is personally, though he does have a long history of racially questionable statements and actions.
This new low-level McCarthyism is extremely damaging. Don't weaken the word racism like that. There used to be words like "insensitivity" or even "political incorrectness" to describe people who weren't actually racist but just didn't care about carefully mincing words to describe their position, but it's all gone by the wayside. They're all "racists" now, and this weakening of the term has emboldened millions of actual racists.
That's a legitimate concern. I think there is something we can call racial anxiety, basically a fear that a bunch of people from another ethnicity and another culture are going to come in and fundamentally change your community.
I think that's what's driving most of Trump's base. But there's also stuff that I'd consider straight racism. He himself might be more oblivious than racist, but that doesn't mean he's not making racist statements.
Saudi Arabia took a long time to accept even the 100k, and that's a drop in the bucket compared to what Europe is taking. It's more than what we're taking, true, but at the end of the day America and Europe are proposing to take both moderates and extremists out of the Arabic-speaking parts of the Middle East.
Geographic reality suggests that Arab nations are going to take a lot of refugees. I think a lot of the reason they're so hesitant to officially accept them is the moment they agree to accept some everyone else will come there.
As for Europe, again geographic reality suggests they're getting a ton, and they don't have a lot of choice as to the composition.
The US on the other hand is taking in a very tiny number by comparison, and they get to choose the cream of the crop. In Canada we've taken 25k and had absolutely no problem.
I'm saying that dissecting the words of a man who is known to blurt out dumb shit gets old and isn't a good indicator of his political leanings. He leans pro-police and anti-immigration. You caricature these positions as "racist" at your (and the nation's) own peril.
That's why you need to rely on tone and subtext.
Donald Trump does not strike me, in any way, as a person with racist leanings. He's merely a demagogue and a populist and an airhead, and not very long ago he was a registered Democrat.
I don't know how racist he is personally, though he does have a long history of racially questionable statements and actions.
No no.... argh. I don't feel like repeating myself here. The point is that he's not engaged in any overt campaign of "othering". If he were keeping Latinos at arms length in all areas then you might have a slightly more reasonable case for parsing his comments about the "Mexican" judge as racist.
Again, subtext. Notice how blacks and latinos are always "the blacks" and "the latinos"? That's because blacks and latinos are not part of his group.
Illegal immigration thing is really only an issue when it's non-whites, and even if he doesn't directly say racist things he does nothing to contradict or restrain his supporters who do.
Yes, more or less. According to that logic. I already said (and you quoted where I said it) that I think this logic isn't reasonable, but by itself it's not racist. It's just dumb. Your case against Trump as a dumb person is much, much stronger than your case against him as a racist. Play to your strengths, damnit.
Do you think Trump would agree with you about the white judge and the black panther? I'd be shocked if he did.
Do you want to call that racism or stupidity him for not realizing he's holding different races to different standards?
Do black people commit more crimes per capita or are police just more likely to arrest them?
Both. It's tricky but they're measurable. (and poverty may play a role)
The second aspect doesn't even require racism on the part of cops. Police accountability is extremely poor,
Yes, yes yes yes. Yes. YES. That was my entire point. Effective solutions involve increasing accountability--body cams, better body cams (none of this "falling off" / "wasn't working" bullshit), better body cam policies (to make it harder for police to say it wasn't working or they forgot to turn it back on), and indictment reform. I would even go beyond indictment reform and advocate some form of private prosecution in this country, though there are all kinds of tricky areas there and there will be a tremendous amount of opposition from the establishment.
But the reason such a bad situation is allowed to persist is the typical victim is black and not deemed important. Hence the insistence that black lives matter.
I've never been a fan of Merkel (wrong party anyway), but I'm pretty sure that her emails wouldn't reveal anything but hard work and things we already know. Whether you agree with her or not, this woman earns some respect, especially since she has clearly chosen her Christian and humanist ideals over her political future when she decided a refugee politics that is compatible with the German constitution instead of carving in to dumb populism.
Of course they would.
In all her years of doing her job you never think she nor her close advisors have never bad mouthed a political ally, used a dirty trick to handle a political opponent, endorsed a policy they didn't believe in for political convenience, buried a potential scandal, or talked about doing a favour for an influential private citizen?
Sure, these are all things we know politicians do, but they're rarely publicly visible. Angela Merkel is human, therefore if her emails are being used for any serious work they contain some dirty laundry. Dump them for the world to see and she's looking at months of scandal.
Yes. That is what we do. We find a rich Arab nation (doesn't have to be Saudi Arabia, could be UAE or whatever) and give them some huge incentives to take the refugees. They speak the same language. They mostly have the same religion.
As a nation of 30 million Saudi Arabia has already accepted 100k. Sure they could do more, especially considering they're the source of the whabbism driving ISIS, but it's not true that Arab nations aren't accepting refugees. Sure there's a few holdouts but many, especially Turkey, are doing a lot.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. The background checks would not have caught many of the attackers of the past few years.
Which attackers in specific? Because all the ones I remember were radicalized in the US. And the best way to avoid homegrown radicalization is to avoid demonizing the minority.
I don't keep up with Trump quotes nor am I particularly fond of the typical progressive Trump quote dissection. The man has all the nuance of... you know, I can't think of a good hyperbolic way to end this analogy. THAT'S how bad it is, but as a consequence it does mean that the etiquette police wear out their welcome pretty fast. I don't care. This point was conclusively made like a year ago.
This isn't some obscure quote, this is almost every time he talks about black people.
Yes it is. He repeatedly made a big deal of the Latinos who supported him.
Which is basically saying "I can't be racist! I have black friends!" (I can explain why this argument is false).
Given that, please explain to me the logic of calling it "racist" to say that someone's ethnicity might cloud their judgement. I don't think it's *reasonable*--a Ku Klux Klan member probably shouldn't be permitted to objecting to having a black judge, for instance, but the fact is the internal logic of the objection itself (provided it's based on an accusation of bias) is not racist.
So according to logic a Black Panther couldn't be judged by a white judge. Or an accused rapist judged by a female.
There's a reason we trust judges to do as they're supposed to and avoid most sources of bias.
Trump says dumb shit. Film at 11.
On the one hand you're using a careful literal parsing to defend Trump from charges of racism.
At the same time you're claiming he can't be called racist based on his words, because can't take Trump's words seriously.
The role is fairly minor when our concern here is pursuing real solutions. (If your concern is harping about the damage done trying to drum up outrage, that it might be considerably less minor.)
There are lots of cases of white cop on white suspect violence. There are lots of cases of black cop on black suspect violence. The apparent solutions to these issues are the same regardless of the race of the cops and the suspects. If it happens more often to black people then addressing the problems in general will help black people more often than it helps white people (adjusted for population % differences.) This is a very simple concept that people nonetheless appear to overlook... I'd like to make a video on it when I get the chance.
There are two aspects where race is important. Both white and black cops can be racist against black civilians, that's actually well established research wise. When the person is black, police are much quicker to suspect the person of a crime, and then they are much quicker to escalate the situation to where force is required, and finally they are more prepared to actually open fire when a situation has escalated.
I know there was a big splash when some researcher came out with a paper saying blacks and whites were shot at roughly the same rate in police interactions, which is true. What the paper missed i
I approve of governments hacking each other and sharing each other's dirty little secrets with the public. Adversarial systems work well in the service of justice and honesty.
I hope someone hacks Merkel's and May's E-mails too and publishes them. Unfortunately, the Germans are likely too careful to let that happen.
Russia is using its hacks to run a smear campaign against one candidate to interfere with the Democratic election in another country.
IF the US is behind this hack, it's using the hacks to expose the Russian dictator's attempts to secretly invade another country.
Jumping down one level of abstraction really changes things.
2) person is guilty but the accusers couldn't come up with enough evidence and/or the person is very good at dodging the legal system (perhaps because they're a trained lawyer)
It's pretty fucking clear by now that Clinton belongs in category 2)
Consider the fact that people are aware that a lot of people will assume #2, and as such people will happily launch baseless investigations.
In practice, everyone realizes he's most likely the least anti-abortion Republican we've seen in recent years.
His running mate signed a bill ordering that people bury or cremate abortions or miscarriages, and was one of the leaders behind the concept of simply forcing abortion clinics to close.
If Trump was content to let the VP do what he wanted on issues he didn't care about to appease the GOP (which is what he's signalled) then he'd have the most anti-abortion administration in a very long time.
(but the mainstream BLM party line on this isn't any more nuanced; it's just biased in the other direction.)
That you don't see the nuance in the mainstream BLM party line doesn't mean it's not there.
I mean the Bundys who took over a federal facility, making very serious threats of a shootout in the process, were just found "Not Guilty". Do you really think a group of black men would have found a similar result? Can you understand the complaint now?
He's never made it about race.
Except for the fact the only time he talks about blacks is from the perspective they all live in inner city warzones.
And frankly, to combat police brutality (which is still a problem, obviously) you really should leave the race arguments at home.
If you don't acknowledge the role that race plays you don't understand the problem.
I've very little patience for most of these arguments. First off, his criticism of the "Mexican" judge was dumb, not racist, but even his own party couldn't properly parse that one (he was arguing that the man was biased due to his own ethnic group. This is not a racist thing to allege unless you are saying that all Mexicans are biased against him, which given his other comments he very clearly was not saying.)
It's not clear at all. Besides, he only raises ethnic bias when the ethnicity isn't white. Do you really think Trump would claim a white judge wasn't qualified to judge a Black Panther?
As far as the "rapes and murderers" thing, there is indeed a shitton of terrifying violence along the border of Mexico and some of it does spill over.
Yet crimes rates among illegal immigrants are lower.
He also said "Mexico is sending", like there was a conspiracy to dump undesirables into the US. The weird foreign country secretly conspiring against you is a racist concept.
Easy option #1: We stay out of peoples' business, keep to ourselves and don't go looking for trouble.
You know you caused this trouble? It's a short path from the invasion of Iraq to the refugee crisis in Syria. If any country has a moral obligation to take in refugee's it's the US.
That last bit means we certainly don't import any significant number of immigrants from places like Syria (I said "immigrants" because it is wrong to blanketly call them all "refugees",
So because a few aren't being faced with the choice of living under a brutal dictator or horrific theocrats the whole lot of them are just being selfish.
because we've seen a mountain of evidence that many of them are obviously economic migrants. Many of them aren't even from Syria.)
So keep out Syrian refugees because some different refugees aren't from Syria!
Why? Because terrorist attacks are disruptive in every way imaginable (including politically) and these background screening processes are not impressive to anyone who has been paying attention.
Said with the confidence of someone who doesn't actually know what he's talking about.
"But Europe is taking an orders of magnitude more!" is not an argument that sways me much--most of th
How about Kristian Saucier, was was sentenced to 1 year in prison for taking 6 photographs that were later classified "confidential" (the lowest possible classification besides FIUO), and the prosecution actually asked for 6 years sentence.
He definitely knew he was in the wrong and there were even suspicions he was looking to sell the data.
How about Stephen Kim, who was sentance to 13 months in prison for sharing one classified report on North Korea with Fox News? http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
How about Thomas Drake, a former NSA employee who blew the whistle on waste and abuse INTERNALLY to his agency which was eventually upheld by a DoD IG, and then he was prosecuted and convicted of leaking classified data, although he didnt serve any time?
The aggressiveness with which the government goes after people who leak to the media is a worthwhile discussion. But it's a completely different discussion.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. While there might be cases where people get a slap on the wrist, there are plenty of cases in which people have their careers ruined and go to jail for far less than Clinton is suspected of.
Though none in your examples.
She mishandled the highest possible levels of classified data that our nation holds,
Along with a bunch of other people in the State Department.
she lied about
Possibly, also quite possible she didn't realize the data, that wasn't obviously marked classified, actually was classified.
she destoryed evidence, and she allowed action to be taken that made it nearly impossible to a complete investigation of.
When she asked for the emails to be deleted she allegedly didn't think they were evidence any more. And when the IT guy delayed carrying out the request until after the subpoena it sounds like he was just being a moron.
And then the FBI destroyed the relevant devices for her !
Maybe they didn't want to be told to conduct 7 more investigations.
What's the damning stuff? The hint that big donations lead to influence with the candidate? That's completely standard politics, if you want to be sure you can meet with a politician donate a pile of cash to them, the only difference here is the donations went to a charity rather than the candidate's campaign fund.
This is exactly my point. We should be outraged at the corruption - buying influence for money? Never in our country! But instead you ask "What's the damning stuff?"
The answer, BTW, it that it's very illegal to sell influence to foreign powers. Could I get a rousing "meh" from the crowd?
Then where's the outrage over all the Chinese businessmen funnelling money to Republicans?
And the point isn't that buying influence is fine, it isn't.
The first point is that HRC is most definitely not "the most corrupt politician in US history", I'm not even sure she's more corrupt than an average presidential candidate, and she's certainly far less corrupt than Trump.
The second point is that if since it is a completely standard practice then why is it suddenly such an outrage? It would be like if you were going 15 over the speed limit and got thrown in jail for a year. Sure it's wrong, but that is clearly not a typical punishment.
As SecState, she concealed Qatar's monetary support for ISIS (not just Qatar, of course), according to the email dump.
Which is fine. The reality is that other countries have complex politics and motives of their own, and that sometimes causes them to do things like give some support to ISIS. The job of a SecState is to deal with that reality as best they can, concealing that support is sometimes the best strategy.
Quid for tat. As if anyone still cares.
Heck, even the Clinton Foundation event is right up there with throwing a "hooray for slavery" party while wearing the Confederate flag, but no one cares because those evil fuckers are over there, nothing to do with us.
Again, other countries are real places with lots of internal complications. There are good people, bad people, and people who are good or bad depending on the topic and circumstance.
They're not just a bunch of "evil fuckers" who must be avoided by the plague.
I don't think 99.9% of Trump supporters have a problem with a female president. They have a problem with THIS female as president. If she supported their positions on things and wasn't horrible corruption incarnate, they would be more than happy to vote for her.
I don't think they have a problem with a female president.
But I do think they are much better prepared to accept evidence of corruption, health issues, poor temperament, and incompetence when it's a female president.
There's some pretty damning stuff about the Clinton Foundation in those emails (the crime Hillary was hiding by the felonies she committed with the server). No one cares, of course, because we're all struggling under the weight of corruption fatigue.
What's the damning stuff? The hint that big donations lead to influence with the candidate? That's completely standard politics, if you want to be sure you can meet with a politician donate a pile of cash to them, the only difference here is the donations went to a charity rather than the candidate's campaign fund.
Hell, it's standard practice for President's to give Ambassadorships to big donors. Are you going to claim that the possibility that Clinton gave extra access to charity donors is really so much worse?
The smoking gun that Hillary took millions to support the likes of Qatar
By "took millions" you apparently mean accepted a donation to her charity.
And by "support", you mean arranged a meeting and/or Clinton Foundation event in Qatar, ie, exactly the thing that charities do. Oh yeah, and she did it while being a private citizen.
I suggest you use it. There is never anything to gain from talking to the police. Ever. The idea of the policeman as keeper of the peace is dead in Canada as one by one rights in the charter are ignored "for the public good".
Fortunately the right to remain silent is still valid.
True, there is a possibility that in talking to the police you will inaccurately draw some suspicion towards yourself.
However, the stronger possibility is that you will accurately direct some suspicion towards the guilty party, and perhaps prevent future crimes.
I, for one, believe in motives other than pure self-interest.
Again your interpretation is contradicted by the first sentence of your source!
Read that again. Arranged the donation in 2014, this was started in 2013. I know, it's so out there...especially in context. Also re-read the first source, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt where you missed the important part.
Considering the stuff that's come out from leaked emails including stuff like Hillary knowingly ordering the destruction of data even after demands for the data under law? You can take the link as you want, it does have backlinks to all of the previous leaked emails, previous statements and so on. That means she/they was lying, ignored official requirements, or simply believe they're so big they can avoid prosecution.
You might want to have a closer look at your source (and the actual evidence your source is using).
In Dec 2014, after delivering the first batch of emails to the FBI, Clinton decided to change the retention policy to 60-days (which would nuke all the old emails), but the sysadmin didn't actually do it.
In early March 2014 the House Committee issues a subpoena, in late March 2014 the sysadmin realized he hadn't carried out the request from back in December.
What Clinton and her team have maintained is that the sysadmin made the decision to violate the subpoena by belatedly carrying out the deletions on his own.
You may not believe it, but neither the sysadmin (who got immunity) nor the emails you're citing here, actually contradict that narrative.
Again your interpretation is contradicted by the first sentence of your source!
"Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arranged a $12 million donation from Moroccan King Mohammed VI to her family’s charity in 2014 in return for the Clinton Global Initiative hosting its international meeting in the North African Muslim nation, according to an email made public Thursday by Wikileaks."
Of course it's not entirely your fault, the Daily Caller is apparently convinced that a charity doing something for a major donor is somehow wrong.
Sacrifice our principals to stop Hillary? Hell yeah!
Well that's a glorious way of summing up your own bias that you could possibly parse it that way. Advocating that people vote for a third party is clearly not favoring one of those over the other. Advocating people vote for Johnson or Stein is obviously a way to not sacrifice my principles to either.
It's ironic that you complain of how I parsed your statement, because you completely misparsed mine.
I didn't say you were abandoning your principles by supporting a 3rd party.
I said you were abandoning your principles by endorsing the actions of a major power using spycraft to try and sway the election.
Neither candidate so dangerous as to be worth sacrificing one's principles over. At the end of the day they are both pathetic and craven. Neither one will cause armageddon; they're too vain to.
GWB went into Iraq based on his gut feeling that it was the right thing to do.
As a result of that action hundreds of thousands have died, the EU is experiencing a migrant crisis that threatens breakup, and the global recession was a lot worse than it likely should have been.
And GWB was orders of magnitude better suited to be president than Trump. Don't underestimate just how much damage Trump could cause.
What a shocking revelation! Next you'll tell us that wrestling is fixed!!
Actually, it is a bit shocking. Most politicians are not so pathetic and chameleon as to openly state this to their backers.
How would you know? We've only seen Clinton's dirty laundry.
Romney for certain was at least as guilty as Clinton with his 47% comments.
There are ways to openly and honestly separate one's personal opinions from one's politics whilst not lying to the people about the positions one will be fighting for.
If you're looking to confuse the public and cause needless controversies. Do you really think Obama only came around to the idea of gay marriage in 2012?
Clinton's personal opinions are kept personal because they're irrelevant. It's the positions she campaigns on that will show how she'll govern.
Even Trump managed to do this, at least once and at least briefly regarding the transsexual bathroom thing. He's for letting transwomen use the bathrooms in Trump Tower, but he defers to the party when it comes to national policy--he'll veto legislation that tries to protect transsexuals on the national stage because he's "in favor of letting the states decide." (Maybe he's walked this back since then; I don't know.)
That's not nuance, that's incoherence. On everything except immigration Trump's policies are under-defined and incoherent. Unless it has to do with immigration, Muslims, or the military, Trump is just trying to repeat what he thinks the GOP wants to hear.
I don't respond well to this sort of fear-mongering or this protectionist attitude toward unrepentant liars. Leaks have always happened. They are an essential tool for keeping our democracy at least semi-functional. But suddenly they're not leaks any more--they're "hacks" ! Oh noes!
And there's a strong ethos that the media, who is the one typically digging for and exposing leaks, will pursue both sides more or less equally. Because the power to expose leaks is the power to sway elections.
I appreciate lies being exposed. If it's true that the Russian government is the only one doing it at this moment in time then kudos to them! I encourage anyone and everyone to leak/hack Trump's dirty little secrets as well, though I must say that (as I am with Bill Clinton) I'm much more interested in his lies on policy than his lies about his pers
Arguing a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his ethnicity is the very definition of racism. The textbook definition mind you of what Racism is.
Correction: He argued a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his parents' nationality. Mexicans are not necessarily Hispanic, just as Americans are not necessarily European, African or Asian.
It was because the judge was of Hispanic ethnicity and still embraced some portion of Mexican culture. Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico, did you hear Trump bring it up once? No? Ok. I hope we can forget about that absurd position and agree that Trump was talking about race and culture, not the nationality of the parents.
Note that Rubio and Cruz probably escaped similar remarks because they've publicly embraced white European culture.
And even *if* he had made a racist statement, that still doesn't mean all of his supporters are racist. That's a hasty generalization.
No one sane claims all of his supporters are racist, just a lot of them.
Oh, and this is a lovely flip of the standard "just because a lot of Trump's supporters are racist doesn't mean he is!"
It just floors me when liberals are for free speech *except* when it's speech they disagree with...
If floors me when some conservatives demonstrate that they have no clue what free speech means.
Wanting to keep out members of a "religion" that openly-stated goal of which is the takeover of the world
Islam is a political philosophy of conquest that happens to contain a religion. It's one of several political philosophies that we could live without.
Islam is whatever the hell the particular believer happens to believe.
If you're a member of ISIS, Islam is the one true faith and should be spread by the sword.
If you're a farmer, Islam might be a religion preaching peace and compassion.
If you're a student, Islam might be an annoying set of dietary restrictions.
To claim that Muslim is a political philosophy of conquest is no more valid than an atheist like myself claiming that Christianity is a political philosophy that demands theocracy, the repression and even killing of gays, and Jews should control Biblical Israel to bring the Second Coming.
Those Christians exist, but if you claimed those beliefs broadly represented all Christians people would rightly regard you as a lunatic.
Assuming that anyone who embraces the label Islam is a member of your "political philosophy of conquest" is inaccurately stereotyping a lot of people (probably over a billion). It is the definition of bigotry. If you object to that label then reconsider how readily you categorize 1.7 billion people with a very diverse set of beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
Assange never gives out details about who his leakers are, but even he took the time to state categorically that the Podesta leakers are did not come from the Russian government.
Clearly he feels that there is some danger here for him to take this extraordinary step.
Or his source has never clearly identified itself as the Russia government and he's trying to maintain plausible deniability as to not destroy Wikileaks' credibility.
And in other news, we have Obama encouraging illegals to vote, which would appear at first glance to be Obama committing a felony on camera.
Which is why you should take a second glance. Did you notice how her question doesn't actually make sense? That's because someone cut off the first part of it and I'm very suspicious of what they left out. What seems to be the general question and answer is the following:
Interviewer: American citizens who are the children of illegal immigrants are scared to vote because they they'll draw scrutiny and cause their families to be deported.
Obama: That will not happen.
What the fuck is happening to this country?
People are lying to you about the state of the world, and you believe them.
Voter fraud is extremely rare, and the courts are enforcing federal law that makes sure people like you can't use it for cover to disenfranchise minorities.
Not entirely.
It's beyond doubt that a lot of mail-in votes, if they're not actually filled in by a spouse, are done with the spouse's supervision (probably the man) to make sure the right candidate is being chosen.
Of course this kind of fraud is very hard to prove. And since mail-in voters are predominantly Republican no one is trying to suppress it.
... that said "Republicans Against Trump", and then some unidentified asshole yelled "gun!" and the crowd went wild - hope they find the asshole that yelled "Fire in a crowded theater" just for the hell of it, and hang his ass.
The reason that asshole yelled gun is because Trump regularly sicks his crowd on protesters (and the media), and has even directly endorsed violence against protesters. In this clip two of his supporters "took action" against a protester (if you jump to 4:00 it sounds like that includes punches) and Trump's reaction was to bring them on stage to thank and honour them.
The guy who yelled gun probably probably thought Trump would congratulate him on the clever idea, and I'm not sure he was wrong.
That's one of the ways authoritarians work, they don't need to do their own dirty work, they rely on their supporters for that. They just need to make sure their supporters know they're safe to break the rules in going after the enemy. And one thing Trump is pretty consistent on is not acting to restrain the extremists in his base.
By contrast here's how a proper president handles a protester.
- The State Department made deals with the FBI to declassify classified Clinton emails
I thought the State Department merely ATTEMPTED to make deals with the FBI and the FBI responded by telling them to fuck off. So the State Department then refused to sign off on various FBI things in retaliation.
Rather an FBI and a State Dept official discussed an unrelated FBI request during the same phone call where a State Dept official made a failed attempt to have the classification rating on an email modified (it's not know who brought up the unrelated request).
So EITHER the State Department OR the FBI created a situation WHERE SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A DEAL.
Or, more likely, the FBI official simply wasn't thinking about the conflict of interest. So while he had the State Dept official on the line he decided to change topics and ask about the outstanding request he'd made previously.
And thus was born more rock solid evidence of Hillary's corruption.
I'm really hoping that when the FBI finds classified material on Weiner's computer, they'll do their damn jobs and bring Hillary to justice this time. But I suspect that depends on whether the elections are allowed to proceed fairly or not...
The situation you describe is Abedin Huma using an unsecured email account (either private or official) on her husband's laptop and discussing classified information (intentionally or not).
And you think that's reason to throw... Hillary Clinton in jail?
The FBI doesn't exist solely to throw your political opponents in jail.
Not really clear that there's anything here. A news organization always checks with the subject of an article before running the article-- this is standard procedure, and it's also standard procedure to correct errors of fact that are pointed out-- it is desirable to do this BEFORE an article runs.
I think they're stretching on this.
It doesn't matter, all the article needs is "Clinton" and "emails" and it creates the vague scent of corruption.
I'll agree the emails dumps are fascinating as they reveal a lot about how campaigns really operate and how politics works. But the middle of an election campaign isn't the best time to run this through the media grinder, every interesting tidbit end sup looking like a fresh scandal.
Where I work, sometimes you want it on-the-record. I want proof I said something, or did something, far more often than I'd ever want to be able to deny such actions later on.
That's because you're a peon. Perhaps well-paid and well-respected, but a peon nonetheless, compared with those who effectively run the world. The farther up people are on the ladder of power, the harder it tends to be to tell the difference between them, and the criminals recognized as such by the justice system. Most of them cover their tracks, live substantially covert lives, and have adopted 'plausible deniability' as a second-nature practice. It might simply be prudence, or it might be the vestige of a guilty conscience in an otherwise sociopathic makeup. Whatever it is, it seems to go with the territory.
Less conspiratorially if you're a peon no one cares enough to go looking through your emails for dirt. If you are important then people will actively go digging for anything with which to remove you as an obstacle.
As was once written: Give me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough in them to hang him.
Richelieu was guilty of a bit of hyperbole, but with thousands of emails to choose from there's bound to be something with which to hang you.
At best Trump will be "George W. Bush II", I don't see him completing much of anything which may be a good thing for a change.
Imagine the next 9/11 happens on Trump's watch, or the next Perl Harbour, or Cuban Missile Crisis, or even the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Do you really see Trump reacting calmly to that, or being able to deescalate a tense situation?
Rosie O'Donnell did a critical piece on him almost 10 years ago and he still goes after her. A Muslim couple spoke at the DNC and he spent days attacking them (with obviously bad results for his campaign), a former Miss American was brought up in the first debate and he again spend days attacking her (with more obvious bad campaign results).
I have literally seen small children with better self control, and the Presidency is far too powerful a position to put in the hands of an ill-tempered child.
Hey, Slashdot gets visited by Russian IP addresses too! Maybe Slashdot is working with Putin to leak Clinton's E-mails as well?
Seriously, this bullshit coming from Clinton and her minions only shows how desperate they are.
FTA:
I also spoke with academics who vouched for Tea Leaves’ integrity and his unusual access to information. “This is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,” said Camp. “When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.”)
The researchers quickly dismissed their initial fear that the logs represented a malware attack. The communication wasn’t the work of bots. The irregular pattern of server lookups actually resembled the pattern of human conversation—conversations that began during office hours in New York and continued during office hours in Moscow. It dawned on the researchers that this wasn’t an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank.
[...]
Earlier this month, the group of computer scientists passed the logs to Paul Vixie. In the world of DNS experts, there’s no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, “The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.”
The real interesting thing is when people started asking about the server the Trump org took it down, renamed it, and somehow the Russian server knew exactly which hostname to access (suggesting someone from Trump org told them).
Four days later, on Sept. 27, the Trump Organization created a new host name, trump1.contact-client.com, which enabled communication to the very same server via a different route.
These aren't political hacks, nor the result of reporters misunderstanding basic concepts. These are qualified experts with reputations to protect who understand hackers, malware, and misconfigured mail servers. They have looked at the evidence and think this is a secret communication channel.
In Canada we've taken 25k and had absolutely no problem.
History tells us that these things can take time. In terms of ISIS operatives already planning mayhem, I would expect them to wait some years. Patience is explicitly part of their M.O. They know they can't win a lightning war. Their strategy, if you care tor read any of their literature, is explicitly one of long-term attrition to sway public opinion.
Their strategy is to alienate Muslims and Christians as much as possible so that the Muslims all join the caliphate. And there is no long term plan right now, they're doing everything they can to stave off complete collapse. If they had the capability to launch an attack in Canada they would have.
But there is also a much more latent threat of pissed-off second and third generation immigrants, which worryingly enough often tend to be much more prone to jihadi ideology. If those 25k have fairly large families and 1% of their children are involved in some form of nastiness (not necessarily overtly violent) as a result of their conservative upbringing combined with their resentment for the Iraq War or western support of that dirty Shiite Assad... we're still talking about something on the order of a thousand troublemakers here, a thousand people doing things to embolden the right.
So don't alienate those second and third generation immigrants by suggesting the Muslims are a dangerous "other" and fundamentally predisposed to terrorism.
Incidentally, as a Canadian, you should be outraged by the way Tarek Fatah was treated by your senator Mitchell, and I suspect he was not alone in that attitude amongst your left. The most nauseating and damaging thing the "progressive" left has done (mostly in the UK, but to some extent in the New World as well) is to imply that only vilely conservative Muslims are "true" Muslims.
I haven't followed this and I can't view the video right now. But in general my philosophy is that while some people have a highly unusual interpretation of Christianity/Islam/Judaism, no one who considers themselves a Christian/Muslim/Jew is anymore "true" than anyone else.
That's why you need to rely on tone and subtext.
The tone and subtext is cynical populism tinged with narcissism combined with an inability to properly phrase things to clearly illustrate his intended focus.
So if it's just populism and narcissism then why are self-identified white nationalists acting like he's their saviour? Why are his rallies filled with people shouting incredibly racist things without getting shut down by the rest of the attendees?
They're not imagining things. Does he realize how racist his campaign is? I don't know. But it's a real phenomena.
I don't know how racist he is personally, though he does have a long history of racially questionable statements and actions.
This new low-level McCarthyism is extremely damaging. Don't weaken the word racism like that. There used to be words like "insensitivity" or even "political incorrectness" to describe people who weren't actually racist but just didn't care about carefully mincing words to describe their position, but it's all gone by the wayside. They're all "racists" now, and this weakening of the term has emboldened millions of actual racists.
That's a legitimate concern. I think there is something we can call racial anxiety, basically a fear that a bunch of people from another ethnicity and another culture are going to come in and fundamentally change your community.
I think that's what's driving most of Trump's base. But there's also stuff that I'd consider straight racism. He himself might be more oblivious than racist, but that doesn't mean he's not making racist statements.
Turkey is not an Arabic nation.
A fair point.
Saudi Arabia took a long time to accept even the 100k, and that's a drop in the bucket compared to what Europe is taking. It's more than what we're taking, true, but at the end of the day America and Europe are proposing to take both moderates and extremists out of the Arabic-speaking parts of the Middle East.
Geographic reality suggests that Arab nations are going to take a lot of refugees. I think a lot of the reason they're so hesitant to officially accept them is the moment they agree to accept some everyone else will come there.
As for Europe, again geographic reality suggests they're getting a ton, and they don't have a lot of choice as to the composition.
The US on the other hand is taking in a very tiny number by comparison, and they get to choose the cream of the crop. In Canada we've taken 25k and had absolutely no problem.
I'm saying that dissecting the words of a man who is known to blurt out dumb shit gets old and isn't a good indicator of his political leanings. He leans pro-police and anti-immigration. You caricature these positions as "racist" at your (and the nation's) own peril.
That's why you need to rely on tone and subtext.
Donald Trump does not strike me, in any way, as a person with racist leanings. He's merely a demagogue and a populist and an airhead, and not very long ago he was a registered Democrat.
I don't know how racist he is personally, though he does have a long history of racially questionable statements and actions.
No no.... argh. I don't feel like repeating myself here. The point is that he's not engaged in any overt campaign of "othering". If he were keeping Latinos at arms length in all areas then you might have a slightly more reasonable case for parsing his comments about the "Mexican" judge as racist.
Again, subtext. Notice how blacks and latinos are always "the blacks" and "the latinos"? That's because blacks and latinos are not part of his group.
Illegal immigration thing is really only an issue when it's non-whites, and even if he doesn't directly say racist things he does nothing to contradict or restrain his supporters who do.
Yes, more or less. According to that logic. I already said (and you quoted where I said it) that I think this logic isn't reasonable, but by itself it's not racist. It's just dumb. Your case against Trump as a dumb person is much, much stronger than your case against him as a racist. Play to your strengths, damnit.
Do you think Trump would agree with you about the white judge and the black panther? I'd be shocked if he did.
Do you want to call that racism or stupidity him for not realizing he's holding different races to different standards?
Do black people commit more crimes per capita or are police just more likely to arrest them?
Both. It's tricky but they're measurable. (and poverty may play a role)
The second aspect doesn't even require racism on the part of cops. Police accountability is extremely poor,
Yes, yes yes yes. Yes. YES. That was my entire point. Effective solutions involve increasing accountability--body cams, better body cams (none of this "falling off" / "wasn't working" bullshit), better body cam policies (to make it harder for police to say it wasn't working or they forgot to turn it back on), and indictment reform. I would even go beyond indictment reform and advocate some form of private prosecution in this country, though there are all kinds of tricky areas there and there will be a tremendous amount of opposition from the establishment.
But the reason such a bad situation is allowed to persist is the typical victim is black and not deemed important. Hence the insistence that black lives matter.
I've never been a fan of Merkel (wrong party anyway), but I'm pretty sure that her emails wouldn't reveal anything but hard work and things we already know. Whether you agree with her or not, this woman earns some respect, especially since she has clearly chosen her Christian and humanist ideals over her political future when she decided a refugee politics that is compatible with the German constitution instead of carving in to dumb populism.
Of course they would.
In all her years of doing her job you never think she nor her close advisors have never bad mouthed a political ally, used a dirty trick to handle a political opponent, endorsed a policy they didn't believe in for political convenience, buried a potential scandal, or talked about doing a favour for an influential private citizen?
Sure, these are all things we know politicians do, but they're rarely publicly visible. Angela Merkel is human, therefore if her emails are being used for any serious work they contain some dirty laundry. Dump them for the world to see and she's looking at months of scandal.
Yes. That is what we do. We find a rich Arab nation (doesn't have to be Saudi Arabia, could be UAE or whatever) and give them some huge incentives to take the refugees. They speak the same language. They mostly have the same religion.
As a nation of 30 million Saudi Arabia has already accepted 100k. Sure they could do more, especially considering they're the source of the whabbism driving ISIS, but it's not true that Arab nations aren't accepting refugees. Sure there's a few holdouts but many, especially Turkey, are doing a lot.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. The background checks would not have caught many of the attackers of the past few years.
Which attackers in specific? Because all the ones I remember were radicalized in the US. And the best way to avoid homegrown radicalization is to avoid demonizing the minority.
I don't keep up with Trump quotes nor am I particularly fond of the typical progressive Trump quote dissection. The man has all the nuance of... you know, I can't think of a good hyperbolic way to end this analogy. THAT'S how bad it is, but as a consequence it does mean that the etiquette police wear out their welcome pretty fast. I don't care. This point was conclusively made like a year ago.
This isn't some obscure quote, this is almost every time he talks about black people.
Yes it is. He repeatedly made a big deal of the Latinos who supported him.
Which is basically saying "I can't be racist! I have black friends!" (I can explain why this argument is false).
Given that, please explain to me the logic of calling it "racist" to say that someone's ethnicity might cloud their judgement. I don't think it's *reasonable*--a Ku Klux Klan member probably shouldn't be permitted to objecting to having a black judge, for instance, but the fact is the internal logic of the objection itself (provided it's based on an accusation of bias) is not racist.
So according to logic a Black Panther couldn't be judged by a white judge. Or an accused rapist judged by a female.
There's a reason we trust judges to do as they're supposed to and avoid most sources of bias.
Trump says dumb shit. Film at 11.
On the one hand you're using a careful literal parsing to defend Trump from charges of racism.
At the same time you're claiming he can't be called racist based on his words, because can't take Trump's words seriously.
The role is fairly minor when our concern here is pursuing real solutions. (If your concern is harping about the damage done trying to drum up outrage, that it might be considerably less minor.)
There are lots of cases of white cop on white suspect violence. There are lots of cases of black cop on black suspect violence. The apparent solutions to these issues are the same regardless of the race of the cops and the suspects. If it happens more often to black people then addressing the problems in general will help black people more often than it helps white people (adjusted for population % differences.) This is a very simple concept that people nonetheless appear to overlook... I'd like to make a video on it when I get the chance.
There are two aspects where race is important.
Both white and black cops can be racist against black civilians, that's actually well established research wise. When the person is black, police are much quicker to suspect the person of a crime, and then they are much quicker to escalate the situation to where force is required, and finally they are more prepared to actually open fire when a situation has escalated.
I know there was a big splash when some researcher came out with a paper saying blacks and whites were shot at roughly the same rate in police interactions, which is true. What the paper missed i
I approve of governments hacking each other and sharing each other's dirty little secrets with the public. Adversarial systems work well in the service of justice and honesty.
I hope someone hacks Merkel's and May's E-mails too and publishes them. Unfortunately, the Germans are likely too careful to let that happen.
Russia is using its hacks to run a smear campaign against one candidate to interfere with the Democratic election in another country.
IF the US is behind this hack, it's using the hacks to expose the Russian dictator's attempts to secretly invade another country.
Jumping down one level of abstraction really changes things.
2) person is guilty but the accusers couldn't come up with enough evidence and/or the person is very good at dodging the legal system (perhaps because they're a trained lawyer)
It's pretty fucking clear by now that Clinton belongs in category 2)
Consider the fact that people are aware that a lot of people will assume #2, and as such people will happily launch baseless investigations.
In practice, everyone realizes he's most likely the least anti-abortion Republican we've seen in recent years.
His running mate signed a bill ordering that people bury or cremate abortions or miscarriages, and was one of the leaders behind the concept of simply forcing abortion clinics to close.
If Trump was content to let the VP do what he wanted on issues he didn't care about to appease the GOP (which is what he's signalled) then he'd have the most anti-abortion administration in a very long time.
(but the mainstream BLM party line on this isn't any more nuanced; it's just biased in the other direction.)
That you don't see the nuance in the mainstream BLM party line doesn't mean it's not there.
I mean the Bundys who took over a federal facility, making very serious threats of a shootout in the process, were just found "Not Guilty". Do you really think a group of black men would have found a similar result? Can you understand the complaint now?
He's never made it about race.
Except for the fact the only time he talks about blacks is from the perspective they all live in inner city warzones.
And frankly, to combat police brutality (which is still a problem, obviously) you really should leave the race arguments at home.
If you don't acknowledge the role that race plays you don't understand the problem.
I've very little patience for most of these arguments. First off, his criticism of the "Mexican" judge was dumb, not racist, but even his own party couldn't properly parse that one (he was arguing that the man was biased due to his own ethnic group. This is not a racist thing to allege unless you are saying that all Mexicans are biased against him, which given his other comments he very clearly was not saying.)
It's not clear at all. Besides, he only raises ethnic bias when the ethnicity isn't white. Do you really think Trump would claim a white judge wasn't qualified to judge a Black Panther?
As far as the "rapes and murderers" thing, there is indeed a shitton of terrifying violence along the border of Mexico and some of it does spill over.
Yet crimes rates among illegal immigrants are lower.
He also said "Mexico is sending", like there was a conspiracy to dump undesirables into the US. The weird foreign country secretly conspiring against you is a racist concept.
Easy option #1: We stay out of peoples' business, keep to ourselves and don't go looking for trouble.
You know you caused this trouble? It's a short path from the invasion of Iraq to the refugee crisis in Syria. If any country has a moral obligation to take in refugee's it's the US.
That last bit means we certainly don't import any significant number of immigrants from places like Syria (I said "immigrants" because it is wrong to blanketly call them all "refugees",
So because a few aren't being faced with the choice of living under a brutal dictator or horrific theocrats the whole lot of them are just being selfish.
because we've seen a mountain of evidence that many of them are obviously economic migrants. Many of them aren't even from Syria.)
So keep out Syrian refugees because some different refugees aren't from Syria!
Why? Because terrorist attacks are disruptive in every way imaginable (including politically) and these background screening processes are not impressive to anyone who has been paying attention.
Said with the confidence of someone who doesn't actually know what he's talking about.
"But Europe is taking an orders of magnitude more!" is not an argument that sways me much--most of th
How about Kristian Saucier, was was sentenced to 1 year in prison for taking 6 photographs that were later classified "confidential" (the lowest possible classification besides FIUO), and the prosecution actually asked for 6 years sentence.
(http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-19/sailor-denied-clinton-deal-gets-1-year-in-prison-for-6-photos-of-sub)
He definitely knew he was in the wrong and there were even suspicions he was looking to sell the data.
How about Stephen Kim, who was sentance to 13 months in prison for sharing one classified report on North Korea with Fox News?
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
How about Thomas Drake, a former NSA employee who blew the whistle on waste and abuse INTERNALLY to his agency which was eventually upheld by a DoD IG, and then he was prosecuted and convicted of leaking classified data, although he didnt serve any time?
The aggressiveness with which the government goes after people who leak to the media is a worthwhile discussion. But it's a completely different discussion.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. While there might be cases where people get a slap on the wrist, there are plenty of cases in which people have their careers ruined and go to jail for far less than Clinton is suspected of.
Though none in your examples.
She mishandled the highest possible levels of classified data that our nation holds,
Along with a bunch of other people in the State Department.
she lied about
Possibly, also quite possible she didn't realize the data, that wasn't obviously marked classified, actually was classified.
she destoryed evidence, and she allowed action to be taken that made it nearly impossible to a complete investigation of.
When she asked for the emails to be deleted she allegedly didn't think they were evidence any more. And when the IT guy delayed carrying out the request until after the subpoena it sounds like he was just being a moron.
And then the FBI destroyed the relevant devices for her !
Maybe they didn't want to be told to conduct 7 more investigations.
What's the damning stuff? The hint that big donations lead to influence with the candidate? That's completely standard politics, if you want to be sure you can meet with a politician donate a pile of cash to them, the only difference here is the donations went to a charity rather than the candidate's campaign fund.
This is exactly my point. We should be outraged at the corruption - buying influence for money? Never in our country! But instead you ask "What's the damning stuff?"
The answer, BTW, it that it's very illegal to sell influence to foreign powers. Could I get a rousing "meh" from the crowd?
Then where's the outrage over all the Chinese businessmen funnelling money to Republicans?
And the point isn't that buying influence is fine, it isn't.
The first point is that HRC is most definitely not "the most corrupt politician in US history", I'm not even sure she's more corrupt than an average presidential candidate, and she's certainly far less corrupt than Trump.
The second point is that if since it is a completely standard practice then why is it suddenly such an outrage? It would be like if you were going 15 over the speed limit and got thrown in jail for a year. Sure it's wrong, but that is clearly not a typical punishment.
As SecState, she concealed Qatar's monetary support for ISIS (not just Qatar, of course), according to the email dump.
Which is fine. The reality is that other countries have complex politics and motives of their own, and that sometimes causes them to do things like give some support to ISIS. The job of a SecState is to deal with that reality as best they can, concealing that support is sometimes the best strategy.
Quid for tat. As if anyone still cares.
Heck, even the Clinton Foundation event is right up there with throwing a "hooray for slavery" party while wearing the Confederate flag, but no one cares because those evil fuckers are over there, nothing to do with us.
Again, other countries are real places with lots of internal complications. There are good people, bad people, and people who are good or bad depending on the topic and circumstance.
They're not just a bunch of "evil fuckers" who must be avoided by the plague.
I don't think 99.9% of Trump supporters have a problem with a female president. They have a problem with THIS female as president. If she supported their positions on things and wasn't horrible corruption incarnate, they would be more than happy to vote for her.
I don't think they have a problem with a female president.
But I do think they are much better prepared to accept evidence of corruption, health issues, poor temperament, and incompetence when it's a female president.
There's some pretty damning stuff about the Clinton Foundation in those emails (the crime Hillary was hiding by the felonies she committed with the server). No one cares, of course, because we're all struggling under the weight of corruption fatigue.
What's the damning stuff? The hint that big donations lead to influence with the candidate? That's completely standard politics, if you want to be sure you can meet with a politician donate a pile of cash to them, the only difference here is the donations went to a charity rather than the candidate's campaign fund.
Hell, it's standard practice for President's to give Ambassadorships to big donors. Are you going to claim that the possibility that Clinton gave extra access to charity donors is really so much worse?
The smoking gun that Hillary took millions to support the likes of Qatar
By "took millions" you apparently mean accepted a donation to her charity.
And by "support", you mean arranged a meeting and/or Clinton Foundation event in Qatar, ie, exactly the thing that charities do. Oh yeah, and she did it while being a private citizen.
I suggest you use it. There is never anything to gain from talking to the police. Ever. The idea of the policeman as keeper of the peace is dead in Canada as one by one rights in the charter are ignored "for the public good".
Fortunately the right to remain silent is still valid.
True, there is a possibility that in talking to the police you will inaccurately draw some suspicion towards yourself.
However, the stronger possibility is that you will accurately direct some suspicion towards the guilty party, and perhaps prevent future crimes.
I, for one, believe in motives other than pure self-interest.
Again your interpretation is contradicted by the first sentence of your source!
Read that again. Arranged the donation in 2014, this was started in 2013. I know, it's so out there...especially in context. Also re-read the first source, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt where you missed the important part.
Her term as Secretary of State ended in 2012.
Considering the stuff that's come out from leaked emails including stuff like Hillary knowingly ordering the destruction of data even after demands for the data under law? You can take the link as you want, it does have backlinks to all of the previous leaked emails, previous statements and so on. That means she/they was lying, ignored official requirements, or simply believe they're so big they can avoid prosecution.
You might want to have a closer look at your source (and the actual evidence your source is using).
In Dec 2014, after delivering the first batch of emails to the FBI, Clinton decided to change the retention policy to 60-days (which would nuke all the old emails), but the sysadmin didn't actually do it.
In early March 2014 the House Committee issues a subpoena, in late March 2014 the sysadmin realized he hadn't carried out the request from back in December.
What Clinton and her team have maintained is that the sysadmin made the decision to violate the subpoena by belatedly carrying out the deletions on his own.
You may not believe it, but neither the sysadmin (who got immunity) nor the emails you're citing here, actually contradict that narrative.
This isn't even touching the pay-for-play stuff including the 12m payment to the clinton foundation while she was still sec. of state for her to come speak to the king of morocco.
Again your interpretation is contradicted by the first sentence of your source!
"Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arranged a $12 million donation from Moroccan King Mohammed VI to her family’s charity in 2014 in return for the Clinton Global Initiative hosting its international meeting in the North African Muslim nation, according to an email made public Thursday by Wikileaks."
Of course it's not entirely your fault, the Daily Caller is apparently convinced that a charity doing something for a major donor is somehow wrong.
This is basically what I take from your position:
Sacrifice our principals to stop Trump? Never!
Sacrifice our principals to stop Hillary? Hell yeah!
Well that's a glorious way of summing up your own bias that you could possibly parse it that way. Advocating that people vote for a third party is clearly not favoring one of those over the other. Advocating people vote for Johnson or Stein is obviously a way to not sacrifice my principles to either.
It's ironic that you complain of how I parsed your statement, because you completely misparsed mine.
I didn't say you were abandoning your principles by supporting a 3rd party.
I said you were abandoning your principles by endorsing the actions of a major power using spycraft to try and sway the election.
Neither candidate so dangerous as to be worth sacrificing one's principles over. At the end of the day they are both pathetic and craven. Neither one will cause armageddon; they're too vain to.
GWB went into Iraq based on his gut feeling that it was the right thing to do.
As a result of that action hundreds of thousands have died, the EU is experiencing a migrant crisis that threatens breakup, and the global recession was a lot worse than it likely should have been.
And GWB was orders of magnitude better suited to be president than Trump. Don't underestimate just how much damage Trump could cause.
What a shocking revelation! Next you'll tell us that wrestling is fixed!!
Actually, it is a bit shocking. Most politicians are not so pathetic and chameleon as to openly state this to their backers.
How would you know? We've only seen Clinton's dirty laundry.
Romney for certain was at least as guilty as Clinton with his 47% comments.
There are ways to openly and honestly separate one's personal opinions from one's politics whilst not lying to the people about the positions one will be fighting for.
If you're looking to confuse the public and cause needless controversies. Do you really think Obama only came around to the idea of gay marriage in 2012?
Clinton's personal opinions are kept personal because they're irrelevant. It's the positions she campaigns on that will show how she'll govern.
Even Trump managed to do this, at least once and at least briefly regarding the transsexual bathroom thing. He's for letting transwomen use the bathrooms in Trump Tower, but he defers to the party when it comes to national policy--he'll veto legislation that tries to protect transsexuals on the national stage because he's "in favor of letting the states decide." (Maybe he's walked this back since then; I don't know.)
That's not nuance, that's incoherence. On everything except immigration Trump's policies are under-defined and incoherent. Unless it has to do with immigration, Muslims, or the military, Trump is just trying to repeat what he thinks the GOP wants to hear.
I don't respond well to this sort of fear-mongering or this protectionist attitude toward unrepentant liars. Leaks have always happened. They are an essential tool for keeping our democracy at least semi-functional. But suddenly they're not leaks any more--they're "hacks" ! Oh noes!
And there's a strong ethos that the media, who is the one typically digging for and exposing leaks, will pursue both sides more or less equally. Because the power to expose leaks is the power to sway elections.
I appreciate lies being exposed. If it's true that the Russian government is the only one doing it at this moment in time then kudos to them! I encourage anyone and everyone to leak/hack Trump's dirty little secrets as well, though I must say that (as I am with Bill Clinton) I'm much more interested in his lies on policy than his lies about his pers
Arguing a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his ethnicity is the very definition of racism. The textbook definition mind you of what Racism is.
Correction: He argued a federal judge cannot fairly adjudicate a case before him because of his parents' nationality. Mexicans are not necessarily Hispanic, just as Americans are not necessarily European, African or Asian.
It was because the judge was of Hispanic ethnicity and still embraced some portion of Mexican culture. Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico, did you hear Trump bring it up once? No? Ok. I hope we can forget about that absurd position and agree that Trump was talking about race and culture, not the nationality of the parents.
Note that Rubio and Cruz probably escaped similar remarks because they've publicly embraced white European culture.
And even *if* he had made a racist statement, that still doesn't mean all of his supporters are racist. That's a hasty generalization.
No one sane claims all of his supporters are racist, just a lot of them.
Oh, and this is a lovely flip of the standard "just because a lot of Trump's supporters are racist doesn't mean he is!"
It just floors me when liberals are for free speech *except* when it's speech they disagree with...
If floors me when some conservatives demonstrate that they have no clue what free speech means.
Wanting to keep out members of a "religion" that openly-stated goal of which is the takeover of the world
Islam is a political philosophy of conquest that happens to contain a religion. It's one of several political philosophies that we could live without.
Islam is whatever the hell the particular believer happens to believe.
If you're a member of ISIS, Islam is the one true faith and should be spread by the sword.
If you're a farmer, Islam might be a religion preaching peace and compassion.
If you're a student, Islam might be an annoying set of dietary restrictions.
To claim that Muslim is a political philosophy of conquest is no more valid than an atheist like myself claiming that Christianity is a political philosophy that demands theocracy, the repression and even killing of gays, and Jews should control Biblical Israel to bring the Second Coming.
Those Christians exist, but if you claimed those beliefs broadly represented all Christians people would rightly regard you as a lunatic.
Assuming that anyone who embraces the label Islam is a member of your "political philosophy of conquest" is inaccurately stereotyping a lot of people (probably over a billion). It is the definition of bigotry. If you object to that label then reconsider how readily you categorize 1.7 billion people with a very diverse set of beliefs.