(October 30, 2016 at 12:42 am)Aractus Wrote: As I've been saying for months, I don't think Clinton will win. True I don't understand the US political system all that well, but I do understand that she's horrendously corrupt.

Well, what you'd like to be true has no bearing on reality.

Nate Silver has been freakishly correct on most US elections.

(October 30, 2016 at 12:42 am)Aractus Wrote: You even have Bernie Sanders now saying he will work AGAINST Clinton with like-minded Senators to get his agenda through! I think he's realised Clinton does not intend to keep the promises she made to him, evidenced by the coaching she requires for her "policies", eg:

Man, do you ever get tired of getting baited by headlines? Do you have even one ounce of skepticism in your brain? Bernie is merely saying he is holding Clinton to the Democratic Party Platform that she is running on.

(October 30, 2016 at 12:42 am)Aractus Wrote: You can't make that shit up! Anyway, I think the Guardian article makes it pretty clear that Bernie distrusts Clinton's policy positions as evidenced by the fact he made those statements against Hillary just days out from the election.

You can make that shit up. You got click baited. Hope you feel good about that. Bernie was asked a question, and he answered it. He didn't make a statement to the press unprompted. He was asked "What if Clinton reneges on the party platform?" He answered.

(October 30, 2016 at 12:42 am)Aractus Wrote: I also want to say that the reporting around Wikileaks has been horrendously bad. I've seem a number of news sites in recent days claim that Wikileaks hacked the emails! Plenty more are claiming Assange is trying to help Trump win, and that Russia hacked the emails. We have no idea who hacked them - it could have been China for all we know. It could have been India, it could have been someone in the US, or it could even have been leaked and not hacked. As far as Russia goes, I think that's unlikely. I think Russia would have handed the emails to mainstream media, not to Wikileaks.

It must feel awesome parroting Donald Trump.

To even say that we have "no idea who hacked them" and that it is unlikely that it was Russia---shows once again that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. You are making a pretty solid habit of that. I'm starting to think that you are just regularly full of shit. Your MO is to take a grain of reality, load it up with all of your preconceived notions, and then spread it around like it is truth.

You think it's unlikely that it is Russia... which makes you different than all of the US intelligence agencies and most cybersecurity experts.

Politifact Wrote:The tactics of the hack resembled traits of two Russian intelligence groups, dubbed APT28 and APT29, also known as Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, according to cybersecurity experts who examined the hack.

Following the hackers’ breadcrumb trail, cybersecurity experts have posited that Guccifer 2.0 (not to be confused with the original Guccifer, who is a known lone hacker) is not really an independent hacker. Rather, he is a Russian government decoy to deflect attention from the DNC breach.

The U.S. government is not ready to publicly name the suspected perpetrators behind the DNC hack, but the New York Times has reported that intelligence agencies have "high confidence" regarding the Russian government’s involvement.

Translation: The agencies have likely corroborated the technical evidence with other intelligence, like human or financial sources, said Susan Hennessey, a Brookings Institution fellow and a former lawyer for the National Security Agency.

As of yet, there’s no evidence anyone other than Russia breached the DNC. So unless someone hacked the Russian agencies, the Russian government is likely WikiLeaks’ source, Hennessey said. Additionally, Assange and the Russian government have a well-documented relationship, for example the fact that Assange has hosted a television show on RT, a state-owned network.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...mail-leak/

So, we're back to false equivalency. You're like a theist who says since we don't know for sure, the answer cloud be God--or in this case fucking India. Why the fuck not. Could be the Australians, right?

(October 30, 2016 at 2:47 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(October 30, 2016 at 12:42 am)Aractus Wrote: As I've been saying for months, I don't think Clinton will win. True I don't understand the US political system all that well, but I do understand that she's horrendously corrupt.

Well, what you'd like to be true has no bearing on reality.

Nate Silver has been freakishly correct on most US elections.

Nate Silver? Cenk Uygur says his predictions are rubbish this election cycle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNsqyjjDOPs

Alan Lichtman predicts Trump:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DAmkRr8Ddo

(October 30, 2016 at 2:47 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Man, do you ever get tired of getting baited by headlines? Do you have even one ounce of skepticism in your brain? Bernie is merely saying he is holding Clinton to the Democratic Party Platform that she is running on.

I read the article.

(October 30, 2016 at 2:47 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: It must feel awesome parroting Donald Trump.

To even say that we have "no idea who hacked them" and that it is unlikely that it was Russia---shows once again that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. You are making a pretty solid habit of that. I'm starting to think that you are just regularly full of shit. Your MO is to take a grain of reality, load it up with all of your preconceived notions, and then spread it around like it is truth.

You think it's unlikely that it is Russia... which makes you different than all of the US intelligence agencies and most cybersecurity experts.

I'm not parroting Trump. Trump is just as unsuitable for the presidency. And we don't know who supplied the hacked the emails. Some CIA spoof saying there's evidence for it doesn't mean shit, the CIA routinely lies.

(October 30, 2016 at 3:45 am)Aractus Wrote:

(October 30, 2016 at 2:47 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Well, what you'd like to be true has no bearing on reality.

Nate Silver has been freakishly correct on most US elections.

Nate Silver? Cenk Uygur says his predictions are rubbish this election cycle:

>YouTube Video<
Alan Lichtman predicts Trump:

>YouTube Video<

Did you.. just... quote a YT vid from Cenk Uygur as evidence? From June? You surely didn't mean to do that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you messed up there and left something out. This was before even the fucking primaries were over, and Nate Silver was doing his rounds apologizing for a major oversight in his analytics, which has been corrected. (He now does polls-forward and polls-only projections.)

Also, the Lichtman video was from September, before all three debates, before the sexual assault admission video and subsequent slew of accusations. I would have told you that I thought Trump was going to win at that time. Nate Silver had Trump ahead or too close to call during that time.

You truly are just a bullshit machine. You scrambled to find some evidence to back your wild ass claims and posted them here like I wasn't going to check into them. You suck at this.

(October 30, 2016 at 3:45 am)Aractus Wrote:

(October 30, 2016 at 2:47 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Man, do you ever get tired of getting baited by headlines? Do you have even one ounce of skepticism in your brain? Bernie is merely saying he is holding Clinton to the Democratic Party Platform that she is running on.

I read the article.

(October 30, 2016 at 2:47 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: It must feel awesome parroting Donald Trump.

To even say that we have "no idea who hacked them" and that it is unlikely that it was Russia---shows once again that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. You are making a pretty solid habit of that. I'm starting to think that you are just regularly full of shit. Your MO is to take a grain of reality, load it up with all of your preconceived notions, and then spread it around like it is truth.

You think it's unlikely that it is Russia... which makes you different than all of the US intelligence agencies and most cybersecurity experts.

I'm not parroting Trump. Trump is just as unsuitable for the presidency. And we don't know who supplied the hacked the emails. Some CIA spoof saying there's evidence for it doesn't mean shit, the CIA routinely lies.

But you are parroting Trump. This is Trump's campaign line, crafted after he got caught encouraging a foreign government to tamper with our election. His only recourse was to obfuscate and claim that "we don't know who it was."

You are now doing the same obfuscation. No one is claiming to know that it was for sure the Russian government. We know a lot of things that point in that direction, and we know of zero things that point to China, or India for that matter, chucklefuck. All of the US Intelligence entities =/= "some CIA spoof." Most non-government cybersecurity experts who have examined the hack have the same conclusion. The only ones who aren't sure are merely skeptical. This whole "we don't know for sure but it could be the Indians" gambit is right out of the Trump playbook. Congrats.

Got to agree with SteelCurtain on this one.

(October 29, 2016 at 8:09 pm)Aroura Wrote: Look Tazi, it all changes depending on what people feel is most important. (also, stop saying Drumpf andstuff, it just looks childish, really no better than when people say Hitlery).

CL may be willing to overlook Trumps faults and lack of any experience because he is on the side of an important issue to her.  I'm guessing, abortion (possibly immigration?  I don't know much of her social views, just the abortion stance).  He wants to make abortion illegal again at the federal level.  Other people dislike Trump but are willing to vote for him because of the supreme court issues (they want to repeal gay marriage, abortion, and see this country become more socially conservative again), or about immigration (they fear the other, and Trump play hard to those fears), etc.

She would not be the only person who looks sideways at Hillary for her social policies, the same policies you and I see as reasons to vote for her, are reasons CL may not like her.  Everyone has different priorities.  IT doesn't make CL blind or stupid, just different from you.  If we can't stop name calling and being insulting, how do you think we will ever come together as a country?  Hear her out.  Find common ground.  If you really believe Hillary is going to help our country and Trump hurt it, then give better reasoning ON THOSE COMMON GROUNDS than that Trump is an a-hole.  We already all know that.

This is one of the reasons I think are politics have become more polorized, is because they have come to revolve more and more around social issues.  

So here is my reasoning, CL, as to why I think Hillary will be better than Trump for all Americans, Liberal and conservative.  
1) Experience. You may not like the fact that she is a lifelong politician, but would you hire an inexperienced person to do...well...anything important? The president is the highest level of politics in our country.  It seems best, to me, to hire someone experienced at the job, even if her experience isn't all good.  Would you hire someone who had never taken an engineering class to design and build a highrise building?

2) Diplomacy.  She will keep foreign relations stable (regardless of rhetoric you may have heard).  We have very good foreign relations right now in comparison to what they were in 2004.  Trump insults, attacks, and sues literally everyone who he perceives has slighted him.  How well do you think that will work when a country leader insults him, even on accident?  Do you honestly believe he would be able to handle it in a mature and political manor?

3) Guts.  Hillary has been under deep scrutiny, and even attack, her entire career.  She can stand cool and calm while someone calls her terrible names right to her face.  She has fought on with her career of choice, even though people dislike her, against all odds, she fights on.
Trump gives up and files bankrupcy, and blames everyone else for all of his woes, on a regular basis.  Who do you want as president, a fighter or a quitter?

Yes, some policy may be against your personal opinion.  I don't like all of her policies either.  But these are the fundamental questions that we need to ask about ANY person we wish to vote for as president.

Also, hi, and hope you are feeling well.

Well, you base your choice on the person who says they follow your principles and give you what you want in a few areas (and lets be honest here, pols like that tend to take away far more important stuff you need rather than give you what you think you want), or you can take an objective look at what the pol actually is and make your choice based on that.

And while I do vulgarise Trump an awful lot, at this stage in the race even a cursory glance, when looked at objectively, will show I'm not far off, in substance.

(October 29, 2016 at 8:47 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I actually don't consider Trump to be pro life at all. I know he claims to be, but I am hard pressed to believe him. I think the only person he cares about is himself quite honestly.

Two things for you:
1) Anti abortion =/= pro life. Firstly you're prvileging a group of cells over a living breathing woman. Second you are forcing that same woman into a course of action which she doesn't want to take and which will radically change her life.
2) Very few republican pols are anti abortion. They simply don't care about having anti abortion laws where they are, because they can afford to travel to where abortion is legal, and poor people don't count in their eyes.

(October 29, 2016 at 7:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: As far as their character and integrity go, they both seem equally pretty bad. Hilary is just more politically correct with how she says things. At the end of the day they are both greedy and dishonest and only out for themselves. I can't and won't stand behind either of them.

Good for you, C_L!

I don't mean that in a sarcastic way by the way.

(October 30, 2016 at 5:35 am)Bella Morte Wrote:

(October 29, 2016 at 7:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: As far as their character and integrity go, they both seem equally pretty bad. Hilary is just more politically correct with how she says things. At the end of the day they are both greedy and dishonest and only out for themselves. I can't and won't stand behind either of them.

Good for you, C_L!

I don't mean that in a sarcastic way by the way.  

Not to mention the anti-Catholic vibes coming out of the Clinton Campaign:

CatholicVote.org Demands Clinton’s Anti-Catholic Spokeswoman Resign

and

Clinton staffers' anti-Catholic bias chilling


But we're "stronger together", whatever that means. The new pope seems nice. After all, there are many differing views within Catholicism, which is what we would expect of such a huge Church.

(October 30, 2016 at 6:13 am)ReptilianPeon Wrote:

(October 30, 2016 at 5:35 am)Bella Morte Wrote: Good for you, C_L!

I don't mean that in a sarcastic way by the way.  

Not to mention the anti-Catholic vibes coming out of the Clinton Campaign:

CatholicVote.org Demands Clinton’s Anti-Catholic Spokeswoman Resign

and

Clinton staffers' anti-Catholic bias chilling


But we're "stronger together", whatever that means. The new pope seems nice. After all, there are many differing views within Catholicism, which is what we would expect of such a huge Church.

Trump is considerably worse in every way to Clinton.
She is a practiced polition with a fine track record of successful government.
He is a dangerous man who should not even be being considered as president. He is a chancer, a con man who makes decisions without consideration or knowledge of the facts.

Quote:Here's a sample of the public disapproval. Germany's Der Spiegel has called Trump the most dangerous man in the world. Britain's David Cameron says his plan to ban Muslims is divisive and unhelpful.

The French liberal newspaper Liberation has described him as a nightmare turned reality. JK Rowling tweeted that he's worse than Voldemort. A recent Economist cover has a picture of Trump dressed as Uncle Sam with just one word, "Really?" That pretty much sums up the mood of global elites.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35702584

(October 30, 2016 at 6:13 am)ReptilianPeon Wrote:

(October 30, 2016 at 5:35 am)Bella Morte Wrote: Good for you, C_L!

I don't mean that in a sarcastic way by the way.  

Not to mention the anti-Catholic vibes coming out of the Clinton Campaign:

CatholicVote.org Demands Clinton’s Anti-Catholic Spokeswoman Resign

and

Clinton staffers' anti-Catholic bias chilling


But we're "stronger together", whatever that means. The new pope seems nice. After all, there are many differing views within Catholicism, which is what we would expect of such a huge Church.

Ok, let's start adopting better critical thinking skills.

Was it Clinton who said whatever it that was said that is being referred to here? If not, could it be reasonably argued that she was accountable for what was said? How?

What was being said exactly about the Catholics? Link directly to the portion of the text being referred to, and allow us to view the portion within context.

Thank you.