Donald Trump and US politics

"

k1rage wrote:

dont worry ill volunteer to be president

I can golf, have my picture taken, sign my name, shake hands

all that presidential stuff

I can even tweet nonsense if you like

We need a picture of your golf clubs and bag to make sure you are a legitimate candidate for president. Other than being 35 and a natural born citizen, it seems to be the only requirement.

"

pneuma wrote:

ACLU's mission is to be a defender of last resort for our freedoms. This is far from the first or last time you'll see ACLU defending someone you think is abhorrent. Freedom of speech, religion, and assembly should not be abridged.

The extent of their interaction with Sarsour is a little questionable, though. They worked with Sarsour to sue the NYPD over religious profiling and unjust surveillance, which seems like a noble goal and exactly the kind of thing ACLU should be doing, but then they've got this unabashed fluff piece making them sound like pals.

It makes no sense to me why they would want that kind of association. You can defend a neo-nazi in court, but that doesn't mean you have to like them. You can defend someone who thinks blasphemy laws are okay, but that doesn't mean your organization (which runs directly counter to blasphemy laws) wants to support that.

---

EDIT: Also, that twitter account is crazy. Is that supposed to be the views of their organization?

What the fuck does the ACLU have to do with Medicaid?
Or immigration of non-Americans?
Or "election integrity"?

They've fallen pretty far from Scopes and Miranda.

ALCU has repeatedly failed to stand up for freedoms that are politically incorrect. I used to admire them greatly, but now I see them as just another progressive political front organization.

"

Disrupted wrote:

Aside, but god damn should I become a con artist, the world is full of suckers who have more money than they deserve.

Then there's the ~$200K she helped collect to restore a vandalized Jewish cemetery but never paid out. Hmm, will have to find that link again.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Darn

That's some dumb shit...

He is trying to paint the Russians as "good guys only revealing the truth"? When he said that the boyfriend had "some bodies buried" I thought he was talking about the Russians...

I will try to make an analogy of my own:

You are a young and beautiful girl, and you have and honest and handsome boyfriend. Then one day someone tells you that your boyfriend is not so honest, that he has been visiting other girls houses alone, you confront him and question him if he is having sex with all those girls.

"The fact that you think that about me is disgusting" he says, he says that when he went to their houses he was doing anything but having sex with them, he never even had the thought to cheat on you. So you take him for his word.

Then one day you find out that there are some emails in which your boyfriend agrees to have sex to another girl. Latter you also find out that he did went to her house on that day. You wait for your boyfriend to come home and you confront him, but he says:

"Babe, I did try and fuck her. She was married, I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn't get there. And she was married. Since I couldn't fuck her I just drinked a cup of covfefe, and left after an 2 hours..."

So... will you take him for his words? He tried to cheat on you, but didn't succeed? Will you believe that? Will you also believe all the other times he said he wasn't sleeping around?

-----------

IMHO Trump is pimping lady America.

"

soneka101 wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Darn

That's some dumb shit...

He is trying to paint the Russians as "good guys only revealing the truth"? When he said that the boyfriend had "some bodies buried" I thought he was talking about the Russians...

I will try to make an analogy of my own:

You are a young and beautiful girl, and you have and honest and handsome boyfriend. Then one day someone tells you that your boyfriend is not so honest, that he has been visiting other girls houses alone, you confront him and question him if he is having sex with all those girls.

"The fact that you think that about me is disgusting" he says, he says that when he went to their houses he was doing anything but having sex with them, he never even had the thought to cheat on you. So you take him for his word.

Then one day you find out that there are some emails in which your boyfriend agrees to have sex to another girl. Latter you also find out that he did went to her house on that day. You wait for your boyfriend to come home and you confront him, but he says:

"Babe, I did try and fuck her. She was married, I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn't get there. And she was married. Since I couldn't fuck her I just drinked a cup of covfefe, and left after an 2 hours..."

So... will you take him for his words? He tried to cheat on you, but didn't succeed? Will you believe that? Will you also believe all the other times he said he wasn't sleeping around?

You're not really defending Clinton here, you're attempting to distract into an attack on Trump. This is equivalent to the boyfriend from Molyneux's analogy going on the verbal offensive against a his ex's new boyfriend by making accusations matching your analogy... a known cheater as shown by hard evidence, sanctimoniously claiming another man to be a cheater based on on circumstantial evidence. As if the claim, even if true, would constitute exoneration.

Do you doubt the authenticity of the emails WikiLeaks released? And if not, do you understand what DKIM verification is and how it works?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

You're not really defending Clinton here, you're attempting to distract into an attack on Trump. This is equivalent to the boyfriend from Molyneux's analogy going on the verbal offensive against a his ex's new boyfriend by making accusations matching your analogy... a known cheater as shown by hard evidence, sanctimoniously claiming another man to be a cheater based on on circumstantial evidence. As if the claim, even if true, would constitute exoneration.

Do you doubt the authenticity of the emails WikiLeaks released? And if not, do you understand what DKIM verification is and how it works?

Yes indeed, I'm not defending Clinton here, I'm saying that regardless of what was in the emails that doesn't make the hacker "a good guy". A crime is still a crime, Russia didn't hack only Clinton and the DNC, they hacked the voters database. In your analogy I'm not the ex-boyfriend, I'm the police.

Your line of thinking seems to be that if Hillary is guilty Trump and Russia are not. If one is the bad guy the others are the good guys, when all that I'm saying is that the law should be enforced(that's why I support the ongoing investigation).

Also, you say that everything they have on Trump and Russia is circumstantial, so what they have on Clinton and the DNC must be smoking guns I suppose? So, when is HRC's trial happening?

Who says Russia hacked anything? Lying NSA whos director lied right in front of congress about PRISM? Or CIA who lied about Iraq WMDs?

You trust them you are a fool. DNC wont even give server to FBI to really determine for themselves who hacked but instead rely on a private DNC security firm for this alleged hack.

Even if they did hack tho. So what? Thats spying. Everyone does it. Even our strongest allies.

Finally if Russia hack and influenced so what again? It's not like we dont do same let alone worse with like 70 coups since WW2.

If anything blame lies on DNC for allowing it with poor security.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Who says Russia hacked anything? Lying NSA whos director lied right in front of congress about PRISM? Or CIA who lied about Iraq WMDs?

You trust them you are a fool. DNC wont even give server to FBI to really determine for themselves who hacked but instead rely on a private DNC security firm for this alleged hack.

Even if they did hack tho. So what? Thats spying. Everyone does it. Even our strongest allies.

Finally if Russia hack and influenced so what again? It's not like we dont do same let alone worse with like 70 coups since WW2.

If anything blame lies on DNC for allowing it with poor security.

Why not disband he whole fucking thing right? You can never trust them again after that right? Unless they find dirt on politicians that you hate, in those cases they will be telling the truth...

Your skepticism is not enough proof that they are lying.

"

soneka101 wrote:

Yes indeed, I'm not defending Clinton here, I'm saying that regardless of what was in the emails that doesn't make the hacker "a good guy". A crime is still a crime, Russia didn't hack only Clinton and the DNC, they hacked the voters database. In your analogy I'm not the ex-boyfriend, I'm the police.

The evidence does not at all point to Russia hacking. The evidence for the DNC emails points to an internal leak. The evidence for the Podesta emails points to a lowtech phishing attempt — not really a hack so much as social engineering — so easy that it could have been virtually anyone (Russia or Russians still a suspect, but so am I, and pretty much anyone with any significant IT skill). The evidence for state voter databases during the Democratic primaries is the Department of Homeland Security hacked them; when asked why they infiltrated those systems, DHS answer was "possible Russian hacking" without any evidence.

We're talking about multiple separate incidents here. The claim that one is Russia is dubious, but the notion that all are Russia is sheer stupidity.

Were cybercrimes committed? Yeah, probably. And I bet someone in the US was busted today for possession of marijuana, but that doesn't mean I, as a noncop, look down upon such behavior. If it's important for us to decriminalize recreational drug use, which is in no way necessary to the health of our society, then it's even more important to decriminalize whistleblowing, which is. That Julian Assange is holed up in an embassy avoiding bogus charges is a sad indictment of our societies.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The evidence does not at all point to Russia hacking. The evidence for the DNC emails points to an internal leak. The evidence for the Podesta emails points to a lowtech phishing attempt — not really a hack so much as social engineering — so easy that it could have been virtually anyone (Russia or Russians still a suspect, but so am I, and pretty much anyone with any significant IT skill). The evidence for state voter databases during the Democratic primaries is the Department of Homeland Security hacked them; when asked why they infiltrated those systems, DHS answer was "possible Russian hacking" without any evidence.

We're talking about multiple separate incidents here. The claim that one is Russia is dubious, but the notion that all are Russia is sheer stupidity.

Were cybercrimes committed? Yeah, probably. And I bet someone in the US was busted today for possession of marijuana, but that doesn't mean I, as a noncop, look down upon such behavior. If it's important for us to decriminalize recreational drug use, which is in no way necessary to the health of our society, then it's even more important to decriminalize whistleblowing, which is. That Julian Assange is holed up in an embassy avoiding bogus charges is a sad indictment of our societies.

So, you are saying that the evidence is weak, and the fact that Senators, both Republicans and Democrats that have access to classified information are all wrong?

Look, I can understand when Trump is able to put you against the free press, what I don't understand is that you will choose to believe his word and Putin's word over the word of the intel community and most of your senators. Who is next? Will you ditch the pentagon too?