You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Smoking Guns wrote:What a fucking joke our stupid fucking voters are. Jesus Christ. 330 million fuckers in this country and we get these 2 cock suckers as our only real options.
SG, you keep throwing out generic terms that she's terrible, but I really have no idea what Hillary did that infuriates you so much.
Her email scandal and willful violation and subversion of the law is a great start. Her lies about taking sniper fire, lying to the parents of Benghazi victims and changing her position on virtually every issue is a good starting point. But you've made it clear nothing can persuade you from seeing her as a competent and qualified candidate. Just because Trump is a huge turd doesn't make Clinton any better.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
misterID wrote:Smoking Guns wrote:What a fucking joke our stupid fucking voters are. Jesus Christ. 330 million fuckers in this country and we get these 2 cock suckers as our only real options.
SG, you keep throwing out generic terms that she's terrible, but I really have no idea what Hillary did that infuriates you so much.
Her email scandal and willful violation and subversion of the law is a great start. Her lies about taking sniper fire, lying to the parents of Benghazi victims and changing her position on virtually every issue is a good starting point. But you've made it clear nothing can persuade you from seeing her as a competent and qualified candidate. Just because Trump is a huge turd doesn't make Clinton any better.
You keep blowing out the same shit but never answered what confidential information she emailed that caused a horrific catastrophe? That she told someone a foreign leader had died? Or are you conveniently not mentioning some of those classified documents were mistakenly labeled classified? http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the … ror-225194 After years and millions of dollars republicans spent to get her convicted of something or anything, she was cleared. Where is your proof she lied to Benghazi victims? Because the families who are not on right wing media had a different experience http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … ople-who-/ and bringing up the sniper fire is WEAK and a totally Breithart move. Again, typical right wing bullshit.
I can freely say she did stupid things, and she's changed positions on things like I have, and everyone does, but your voluntary conservative brainwashed mentality is the thing that logic can't penetrate. You are too smart to be a human right wing talking point, man.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
So we have to prove her mishandling of classified information resulted in harm? I guess as long as i don't plow into anyone, I can drive drunk.
This is what I did for 7 years - protect classified information. The opinion of some journalist trying to defend Clinton is meaningless to me. There is no such thing as incorrectly classified. If it originates on a secure system, it's classified until the originating authority declassifies it under protocol.
She encouraged her employees to scrub markings and send classified information over an unsecure, unclassified network. End of discussion.
If you want to ignore it or have wave it, just say you don't care. Don't try to pretend she didn't violate the law.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
So we have to prove her mishandling of classified information resulted in harm? I guess as long as i don't plow into anyone, I can drive drunk.
This is what I did for 7 years - protect classified information. The opinion of some journalist trying to defend Clinton is meaningless to me. There is no such thing as incorrectly classified. If it originates on a secure system, it's classified until the originating authority declassifies it under protocol.
She encouraged her employees to scrub markings and send classified information over an unsecure, unclassified network. End of discussion.
If you want to ignore it or have wave it, just say you don't care. Don't try to pretend she didn't violate the law.
Those were not democratic leaning sites. No one was protecting her, it was fact checking, and it is very telling that you took that position when presented with the facts. And now you want to dismiss human error misclassifying articles as confidential, while others were retroactively classified. Okay... And its pretty disingenuous of you to ignore an independent journalist, while at the same time only listening to journalists who want to attack and destroy her. That's very hypocritical.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:So we have to prove her mishandling of classified information resulted in harm? I guess as long as i don't plow into anyone, I can drive drunk.
This is what I did for 7 years - protect classified information. The opinion of some journalist trying to defend Clinton is meaningless to me. There is no such thing as incorrectly classified. If it originates on a secure system, it's classified until the originating authority declassifies it under protocol.
She encouraged her employees to scrub markings and send classified information over an unsecure, unclassified network. End of discussion.
If you want to ignore it or have wave it, just say you don't care. Don't try to pretend she didn't violate the law.
Those were not democratic leaning sites. No one was protecting her, it was fact checking, and it is very telling that you took that position when presented with the facts. And now you want to dismiss human error misclassifying articles as confidential, while others were retroactively classified. Okay... And its pretty disingenuous of you to ignore an independent journalist, while at the same time only listening to journalists who want to attack and destroy her. That's very hypocritical.
No, I'm saying my opinion is more valid on this very unique subject than a journalist who spent a week writing an article. Hillary was sure to yuck it up and toss plenty of misinformation into the public discourse. Nothing was retroactively classified. That's now how classification works. I know this because I have an intimate and personal relationship with this very unique situation. Information is deemed classified if it originates on a classified system (all the drone images her aides shared is de facto classified because all drone systems operate on a classified network). Information is also automatically classified when you combine several key facts into one document. Saying I'm going to Afghanistan is fine. Saying I'm going to Afghanistan at 1300 tomorrow on flight 4576 departing LAX and Landing in Kandahar at 1430 local time is classified.
There isn't some magic button that makes something classified. There's not a man in a suit in a backroom with a stamp that marks things Secret or Top Secret. That's now how information classification works. Clinton knowingly had aides take classified information, remove their "Secret" markers, and send them to her. That is a crime. That she turned over information to her lawyer (to protect her) who lacks a clearance, where said information had classified material is against the law.
That our standards of what is classified are too stringent or that something didn't have a big red mark on it at the time is not part of the discussion. If you knew how our classification system works, you'd know this, but instead you read articles by someone who doesn't even know what color cable a Secret network runs on (may seem trivial to you, but huge deal in the government) and allows Clintons lies and distortions to affect your article.
I have no reason to continue discussing this point with you, other than to show you that maybe there are people out there more informed than you are. Clinton broke the law. The FBI said she acted recklessly and mishandled classified information. Any citizen would be charged for that. Clinton is able to walk around and continue to lie. Feel free to lookup the fact checkers and how they rate Clinton on this issue.
But it's done and over with. She won't be charged and nothing will change that. Feel free to think she did nothing wrong and it was all a conspiracy, or recognize she broke the law and there are 21 year old kids whose name isn't Clinton doing hard time for mishandling information in the same manner she did. I know, cause I helped send them there.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
misterID wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:So we have to prove her mishandling of classified information resulted in harm? I guess as long as i don't plow into anyone, I can drive drunk.
This is what I did for 7 years - protect classified information. The opinion of some journalist trying to defend Clinton is meaningless to me. There is no such thing as incorrectly classified. If it originates on a secure system, it's classified until the originating authority declassifies it under protocol.
She encouraged her employees to scrub markings and send classified information over an unsecure, unclassified network. End of discussion.
If you want to ignore it or have wave it, just say you don't care. Don't try to pretend she didn't violate the law.
Those were not democratic leaning sites. No one was protecting her, it was fact checking, and it is very telling that you took that position when presented with the facts. And now you want to dismiss human error misclassifying articles as confidential, while others were retroactively classified. Okay... And its pretty disingenuous of you to ignore an independent journalist, while at the same time only listening to journalists who want to attack and destroy her. That's very hypocritical.
No, I'm saying my opinion is more valid on this very unique subject than a journalist who spent a week writing an article. Hillary was sure to yuck it up and toss plenty of misinformation into the public discourse. Nothing was retroactively classified. That's now how classification works. I know this because I have an intimate and personal relationship with this very unique situation. Information is deemed classified if it originates on a classified system (all the drone images her aides shared is de facto classified because all drone systems operate on a classified network). Information is also automatically classified when you combine several key facts into one document. Saying I'm going to Afghanistan is fine. Saying I'm going to Afghanistan at 1300 tomorrow on flight 4576 departing LAX and Landing in Kandahar at 1430 local time is classified.
There isn't some magic button that makes something classified. There's not a man in a suit in a backroom with a stamp that marks things Secret or Top Secret. That's now how information classification works. Clinton knowingly had aides take classified information, remove their "Secret" markers, and send them to her. That is a crime. That she turned over information to her lawyer (to protect her) who lacks a clearance, where said information had classified material is against the law.
That our standards of what is classified are too stringent or that something didn't have a big red mark on it at the time is not part of the discussion. If you knew how our classification system works, you'd know this, but instead you read articles by someone who doesn't even know what color cable a Secret network runs on (may seem trivial to you, but huge deal in the government) and allows Clintons lies and distortions to affect your article.
I have no reason to continue discussing this point with you, other than to show you that maybe there are people out there more informed than you are. Clinton broke the law. The FBI said she acted recklessly and mishandled classified information. Any citizen would be charged for that. Clinton is able to walk around and continue to lie. Feel free to lookup the fact checkers and how they rate Clinton on this issue.
But it's done and over with. She won't be charged and nothing will change that. Feel free to think she did nothing wrong and it was all a conspiracy, or recognize she broke the law and there are 21 year old kids whose name isn't Clinton doing hard time for mishandling information in the same manner she did. I know, cause I helped send them there.
Just curious...and I admit that these things are at best loosely related....but do you hold the Bush/Cheney administration to the same standards?
They didn't leak information - but they sure did lie a lot - or spread misinformation as you call it.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
The Greatest Cognitive Dissonance Trap of All Time
by Scott Adams
Here’s the set-up:
1. The mainstream media knows they are smarter than Donald Trump. They see evidence of this truth all the time, although much of that evidence is confirmation bias.
Then…
2. Trump does something smart – accusing Obama and Clinton of being “founders” of ISIS. This is a clever way to get the world to debate Clinton and Obama’s ineffectiveness during a time when ISIS expanded. In other words, it is brilliant media manipulation, and it worked.
3. CNN and other Clinton supporters interpret Trump’s statement about ISIS as absurd and uninformed because they can’t imagine a scenario in which Trump does something brilliant. Trump being brilliant isn’t one of the options, as far as they know.
The reality of Trump’s clever persuasion is crystal-clear to anyone who thinks Trump is smart. Trump was clearly joking about the “founder” part to get people squawking, and it worked. Total success. Brilliant technique.
Now the media has a big problem. They can’t admit that they were extraordinarily dumb in this situation and Trump was brilliant. That reality is invisible to them because it doesn’t fit their worldview.
So…cognitive dissonance happens.
This is a textbook set-up for cognitive dissonance. The facts we observe (Trump is smart, the media is gullible) is opposite of the media’s worldview in which they are smart and Trump is uninformed. So what do they do?
They act as if Trump is the dumb one in this situation. Because that fits their worldview.
And…they…fact-check his claim.
Meanwhile, the unhypnotized laugh themselves into a stupor watching this spectacle of cognitive dissonance. Humor aside, it is a marvelous and incredible thing to behold.
One of my smartest friends just emailed me to say he thinks Trump really believes that Obama and Clinton “founded” ISIS. My friend has a very high IQ and he’s well-informed. But cognitive dissonance isn’t influenced by intelligence. He believes whatever fits his worldview. Just like the rest of us.
The fun part is that we can see cognitive dissonance when it happens to others – such as with my friend, and CNN – but we can’t see it when it happens to us. So don’t get too smug about this. You’re probably next.
I think this story will end up in psychology textbooks. You rarely see such a clean example of cognitive dissonance in public.
Oh, and Trump hates babies, and he also wants a 2nd amendment supporter to assassinate his opponent. As long as the media is being dumbasses, they might as well fact-check that stuff too.
I have never been so entertained.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:misterID wrote:Those were not democratic leaning sites. No one was protecting her, it was fact checking, and it is very telling that you took that position when presented with the facts. And now you want to dismiss human error misclassifying articles as confidential, while others were retroactively classified. Okay... And its pretty disingenuous of you to ignore an independent journalist, while at the same time only listening to journalists who want to attack and destroy her. That's very hypocritical.
No, I'm saying my opinion is more valid on this very unique subject than a journalist who spent a week writing an article. Hillary was sure to yuck it up and toss plenty of misinformation into the public discourse. Nothing was retroactively classified. That's now how classification works. I know this because I have an intimate and personal relationship with this very unique situation. Information is deemed classified if it originates on a classified system (all the drone images her aides shared is de facto classified because all drone systems operate on a classified network). Information is also automatically classified when you combine several key facts into one document. Saying I'm going to Afghanistan is fine. Saying I'm going to Afghanistan at 1300 tomorrow on flight 4576 departing LAX and Landing in Kandahar at 1430 local time is classified.
There isn't some magic button that makes something classified. There's not a man in a suit in a backroom with a stamp that marks things Secret or Top Secret. That's now how information classification works. Clinton knowingly had aides take classified information, remove their "Secret" markers, and send them to her. That is a crime. That she turned over information to her lawyer (to protect her) who lacks a clearance, where said information had classified material is against the law.
That our standards of what is classified are too stringent or that something didn't have a big red mark on it at the time is not part of the discussion. If you knew how our classification system works, you'd know this, but instead you read articles by someone who doesn't even know what color cable a Secret network runs on (may seem trivial to you, but huge deal in the government) and allows Clintons lies and distortions to affect your article.
I have no reason to continue discussing this point with you, other than to show you that maybe there are people out there more informed than you are. Clinton broke the law. The FBI said she acted recklessly and mishandled classified information. Any citizen would be charged for that. Clinton is able to walk around and continue to lie. Feel free to lookup the fact checkers and how they rate Clinton on this issue.
But it's done and over with. She won't be charged and nothing will change that. Feel free to think she did nothing wrong and it was all a conspiracy, or recognize she broke the law and there are 21 year old kids whose name isn't Clinton doing hard time for mishandling information in the same manner she did. I know, cause I helped send them there.
Just curious...and I admit that these things are at best loosely related....but do you hold the Bush/Cheney administration to the same standards?
They didn't leak information - but they sure did lie a lot - or spread misinformation as you call it.
You'd have to be more specific, but in general, yes. I assume you're referring to Iraq and their possession of WMDs.
Everyone believed they had them and Sadam's behavior certainly indicated he had them. But do I believe Bush intentionally misled the public in the same manner Clinton misled is regarding her emails or the root cause behind the rise up in Benghazi, no I do not.
That doesn't mean I agreed with our action there, despite spending 12 months of my life in the most violent regions of Iraq. But making a decision on conflicting intelligence is different than intentionally making false statements you know to be false.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Why The Media Disinformation Campaign Against Donald Trump Will Fail
2nd Amendment. Babies. Purple hearts. The NFL. Breastfeeding. Immigration law. EB-5. H1-B. Iranian press footage. Endorsements. Deli meat. As someone who is involved in the Presidential election, I couldn’t be more confused as to the types of comments I’ve received in the past week. Here are a few of the best:
“Is it true Donald is dropping out?”
“Which side of the feud are you on, Lewandowski or Manafort?”
“Donald needs to control his erratic behavior.”
“Why won’t Donald listen to anyone on the campaign?”
To say I didn’t know how to answer would be understatement in the least. At one point on a concall, I muted and turned to an associate and we each had to shrug our shoulders and carry on, explaining what sarcasm is—all in attempts to mollify certain members of the media who have the stunning ability to find fault with every single thing Donald did this week. If he crosses his arms and looks to the side, then “Aha! He’s Mussolini!” If he furrows his brow at a reporter, then “Aha! He’s Rudolph Hess!”
To say the media onslaught is brought on by a pack of blithering idiots would be an insult to blithering idiots. The simple fact of the matter is that this is still a very close race and the media is falling over themselves to try and trip up Donald. The same tactics were employed in the primary by 17 very qualified opponents, and all I really need to say is—where are they today?
It is interesting that the media is now taking an “All of the above” approach to their endless attacks, and this is rather noteworthy. Gone are the blanket recitations of “Trump is a racist” or “Trump is a sexist.” Instead, the media is employing a tactic the Marines refer to as “spray and pray.” They don’t have any specific targets, but they know they are cornered, so they are wildly swinging about with their finger down on the full auto trigger. Hillary herself seems like an inexperienced boxer flailing about looking for an early K.O. since she knows she will not last the 15 rounds.
The further rumors of the dropout of the race or dissension within the campaign are, in a word, slapstick. The mood within Team Trump is full-steam ahead, with any sign of a feud or rift within our ranks as pure media artifice. Sure, people have differences of opinion on tactics for a specific issue, or timing and roll-out of a specific announcement or endorsement, but nothing that would be any different from a group of friends trying to decide what kind of pizza to get or what movie to see on the weekend (though none of us would ever choose this new Ghostfrumpers monstrosity).
The team remains laser-beam focused on long-term strategy and while the media of course refuses to report on it, many of the statements Donald are making now are laying the groundwork for things to come later in the Fall. Little nuggets of foreshadowing, we call them.
Some of the team has prior military service, and its interesting the parallels they draw between what the media is doing to Donald and a military disinformation campaign. Essentially, good disinformation plants seeds of doubt in the mind of your opponent, demoralizing them, and causing dissension in their ranks. On the flipside, the same disinformation should serve to energize and enliven your own side. These are the same tactics the US military has used in conflicts from Germany to Vietnam to Afghanistan. Demoralize, Disrupt, Discredit. Without firing a shot, your enemy can become so fractured and anxious that internally, they have already defeated themselves.
The clearest example of this is the (widely ridiculed) Reuters and CNN polls which are practically sampling Democrats over Republicans at a 2:1 ratio. Such a high ratio is not reflective in any reasonable nationwide accounting of party registration, but hey, who cares? Let’s just run it anyway since it makes for endless grumbling and gnashing of teeth!
The biggest single factor working against this narrative is social media. In 2016, 78% of Americans have at least one social media account. Americans spend on average 3 hours a day on social media. Contrasted with that is what more and more people are referring to as The Death of Television. Mobile viewing, cord cutting, online video, and yes even torrents, are all cutting deeply into the traditional TV market. The majority of millennials (who are voting for the first time in 2016) do not own at TV. Overall, 18 to 34-year-olds spend nearly as much time using digital devices (smartphones, tablets and computers) as they do watching TV.
All of this has massive implications for the Hillary Clinton campaign. She is spending millions on TV ads that simply do not move the needle. Donald is not. Her Twitter posts are ridiculed and her messaging is amateur. Her main slogan has our candidate’s name in it and not hers. Repetition is the key to retention, that’s Marketing 101. Even more importantly, the media narratives do not survive on social media as well as they do for TV-only watchers.
Instead, CNN, NY Times, WaPo, etc are merely only one of many voices twittering about, and fact-checking is easier to do than ever. Hillary and her media dogs spend millions on messaging, while all Donald has to do is send a tweet and his narrative is immediately absorbed. Furthermore, in terms of numbers, she has a gang of bullies on social media, while we have amassed an army. Take a look at Reddit sometime if you don’t believe me.
The media is run by extremely clever people who know what they are doing. Their onslaught against Donald will almost certainly have some scratching their heads about what is going on with the campaign, and why Donald seems, for once, to be on the defensive.
All I will say to that is, there is a plan. There is a strategy. There is a method at work here. When the enemy has you surrounded—that only means there’s no way for them to escape. We are right where we want to be in August.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
misterID wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:So we have to prove her mishandling of classified information resulted in harm? I guess as long as i don't plow into anyone, I can drive drunk.
This is what I did for 7 years - protect classified information. The opinion of some journalist trying to defend Clinton is meaningless to me. There is no such thing as incorrectly classified. If it originates on a secure system, it's classified until the originating authority declassifies it under protocol.
She encouraged her employees to scrub markings and send classified information over an unsecure, unclassified network. End of discussion.
If you want to ignore it or have wave it, just say you don't care. Don't try to pretend she didn't violate the law.
Those were not democratic leaning sites. No one was protecting her, it was fact checking, and it is very telling that you took that position when presented with the facts. And now you want to dismiss human error misclassifying articles as confidential, while others were retroactively classified. Okay... And its pretty disingenuous of you to ignore an independent journalist, while at the same time only listening to journalists who want to attack and destroy her. That's very hypocritical.
No, I'm saying my opinion is more valid on this very unique subject than a journalist who spent a week writing an article. Hillary was sure to yuck it up and toss plenty of misinformation into the public discourse. Nothing was retroactively classified. That's now how classification works. I know this because I have an intimate and personal relationship with this very unique situation. Information is deemed classified if it originates on a classified system (all the drone images her aides shared is de facto classified because all drone systems operate on a classified network). Information is also automatically classified when you combine several key facts into one document. Saying I'm going to Afghanistan is fine. Saying I'm going to Afghanistan at 1300 tomorrow on flight 4576 departing LAX and Landing in Kandahar at 1430 local time is classified.
There isn't some magic button that makes something classified. There's not a man in a suit in a backroom with a stamp that marks things Secret or Top Secret. That's now how information classification works. Clinton knowingly had aides take classified information, remove their "Secret" markers, and send them to her. That is a crime. That she turned over information to her lawyer (to protect her) who lacks a clearance, where said information had classified material is against the law.
That our standards of what is classified are too stringent or that something didn't have a big red mark on it at the time is not part of the discussion. If you knew how our classification system works, you'd know this, but instead you read articles by someone who doesn't even know what color cable a Secret network runs on (may seem trivial to you, but huge deal in the government) and allows Clintons lies and distortions to affect your article.
I have no reason to continue discussing this point with you, other than to show you that maybe there are people out there more informed than you are. Clinton broke the law. The FBI said she acted recklessly and mishandled classified information. Any citizen would be charged for that. Clinton is able to walk around and continue to lie. Feel free to lookup the fact checkers and how they rate Clinton on this issue.
But it's done and over with. She won't be charged and nothing will change that. Feel free to think she did nothing wrong and it was all a conspiracy, or recognize she broke the law and there are 21 year old kids whose name isn't Clinton doing hard time for mishandling information in the same manner she did. I know, cause I helped send them there.
No, unless you were in the Bush cabinet, and if you were, shame on you, there have been people who work in the intelligence community that say differently, that there are problems in classification, to the fact some have to use their own equipment and hardware because state department equipment is woefully inadequate. I'm not arguing, because you're locked into her being something malevolent. The fact you uttered Benghazi in comparison with Iraq and intentionally misleading the public is laughable. cheney lied to Dick Armey... Dick friggin Armey, about super, top secret info about Saddam Hussein that was an out right lie to get his vote to go to war. That's kind of disgusting you would say that.
Again, republican led investigations, republican FBI director, millions of dollars in investigations spent over years = no charges. And don't ever quote anything you learned from any journalist or news outlet ever again. Apparently they don't count.
