Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 439 440 [441] 442 443 ... 1342

Author Topic: Murrican Politics Megathread 2016: There Will Be Hell Toupée  (Read 1245690 times)

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #6600 on: November 18, 2015, 08:55:56 am »

So, at least two emails have contained classified information so far, and I am only on page 6 out of 800 something.

Should I continue digging?
B-but she didn't do anything wrong, I heard that on MSNBC :^)

Make that 3. This one is really good. Again, nearly the whole thing is redacted, and even cites a list of G8 people meeting on a certain date and place (and apparently, a brief synopsis of the meeting itself, if the contextual clues mean anything about the redacted text.) Awesome.

Spoiler: message body (click to show/hide)

It sure looks like using email to discuss confidential information was... "Rampant" in the clinton secretary of state admin term.

Quote
5., 6. "Literally nothing is unclassified here, it must be something good!"

By all means, if you wish to continue making mountains, call back your moles and get to work. This scandal won't manufacture itself, after all.

Ahhhh---- But you see, "confidential correspondence", such as the redacted sections mentioned, fall under the previously mentioned policy document, concerning secretary of state internal business!  So, NOT a molehill. ;) It means that Hillary did indeed violate policy, and did indeed communicate confidential information while pursuant to that violation. We will have to wait another 15 years for the information in those sections to become declassified. See you then. ;)

Just to clarify, here is the pertinent section where the term is defined.
Spoiler: legaleese (click to show/hide)

In regard to the previously cited email, containing a list of G8 attendees--- Note how the policy document SPECIFICALLY mentions that kind of information, when it says " travel itineraries, meeting schedules or
attendees" in the examples section. ;)

Basically, Hillary is dirty on this. You can spin and deny all you like, but the proof is in the pudding. You can go see for yourself, the archive was linked previously.  Denial wont make her stop being dirty, any more than denial wont make climate change stop being real.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 09:32:18 am by wierd »
Logged

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #6601 on: November 18, 2015, 09:32:56 am »

I think a policy synposis of the G8 summit would count, don't you? Especially when the summit is still on-going?

Perhaps I am going about this the wrong way-  The state department itself has determined that the content of those messages is classified-- meeting the opening criteria of the definition, since it is clearly NOT in the public domain. So, the fact that it was redacted at all indicates that it meets the critera for the definition, per the definition.

If that is not sufficiently satisfactory, then please state where your boundry for burden of proof is, so that I might reach it without fear of the goalpost being moved.  (I dont feel like playing the political rhetoric version of Zeno's Paradox today, m'kay.)

Thanks.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 09:37:21 am by wierd »
Logged

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #6602 on: November 18, 2015, 09:43:54 am »

And that makes it stop being true?  I think climate change denialism and anti-vaxxing suddenly become quite appropos.
Logged

Helgoland

  • Bay Watcher
  • No man is an island.
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #6603 on: November 18, 2015, 09:46:50 am »

wierd, you're acting like an atheist in the religion thread :P
Logged
The Bay12 postcard club
Arguably he's already a progressive, just one in the style of an enlightened Kaiser.
I'm going to do the smart thing here and disengage. This isn't a hill I paticularly care to die on.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #6604 on: November 18, 2015, 09:52:07 am »

It may seem strange, coming from an american, but I feel that politics should not be in the same ideological category as religion.
Logged

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #6605 on: November 18, 2015, 10:03:20 am »

Maybe it's my mild aspergers-like mode of thought here-- but how can it be construed any other way?

An atheist in the religion thread states an assertion based on empirical data, where a faith-based respondant retorts that the position is based on faith based reasoning. The atheist's view is still valid, in as much as it is a view on a religious matter.

I have previously stated that I am an independent centrist-- and am not aligned with any political movement. I make my judgements based on what factual data I can unearth.

The scandal concerning Hillary and the email server, is that she used the server in violation of policy (proven with policy itself being cited) to transmit information that should not be transmitted on such a system (proven through the citation of redacted email that contained such information, and the definition presented by the policy statement.) This indicates that the premise of the scandal is true-- Hillary did indeed do that. The confidential information could have been Michelle Obama's secret recipie for oatmeal raisin cookies-- that part is immaterial to the factuality of the underlying condition of the scandal. Hillary clearly violated that standing policy with her email server. End of story. Finito. I have cited traceable and verifiable instances of such violations. The burden of proof for denial now changes court.

The insinuation that this is like the religion thread, implies that there are topics or theses that are not subject to this kind of empirical scrutiny, due to the opinionated nature of the discussion. I pointed out that opinion is not fact.

Just like a fundamentalist christian can deny that the earth is not older than 6000 years, Hillary supporters can deny that she violated standing policy with her email server, despite evidence to the contrary being provided to them. That is their prerogative.

That should not stifle my own ability to make a factual statement that contradicts that belief, no matter how many cheerios it shits in. ;P

Logged

Arx

  • Bay Watcher
  • Iron within, iron without.
    • View Profile
    • Art!
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #6606 on: November 18, 2015, 10:25:54 am »

The difference is that he's not comparing politics to religion, he's comparing you to an atheist. Specifically, an internet atheist.
Logged

I am on Discord as Arx#2415.
Hail to the mind of man! / Fire in the sky
I've been waiting for you / On this day we die.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #6607 on: November 18, 2015, 10:28:02 am »

That would imply that the atheist does not have a valid view on religious matters, no?

More bluntly: Is this a political discussion concerning US politics, or is it the Pro Hillary 2016 Echo Chamber thread?
« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 10:33:54 am by wierd »
Logged

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #6608 on: November 18, 2015, 10:49:44 am »

That would imply that the atheist does not have a valid view on religious matters, no?

More bluntly: Is this a political discussion concerning US politics, or is it the Pro Hillary 2016 Echo Chamber thread?

You're the one who started the Hillary discussion.
Logged

Helgoland

  • Bay Watcher
  • No man is an island.
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #6609 on: November 18, 2015, 10:50:41 am »

I'm saying that you keep going on about the issue even though the majority here has acknowledged your data and arguments while coming to a different judgement about it. In this you're like an atheist in the religion thread insofar as they too keep beating dead horses.
Logged
The Bay12 postcard club
Arguably he's already a progressive, just one in the style of an enlightened Kaiser.
I'm going to do the smart thing here and disengage. This isn't a hill I paticularly care to die on.

Aklyon

  • Bay Watcher
  • Fate~
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #6610 on: November 18, 2015, 10:53:15 am »

Why is she so much the focus, anyway?
Logged
Crystalline (SG)
Sigtext
Quote from: RedKing
It's known as the Oppai-Kaiju effect. The islands of Japan generate a sort anti-gravity field, which allows breasts to behave as if in microgravity. It's also what allows Godzilla and friends to become 50 stories tall, and lets ninjas run up the side of a skyscraper.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #6611 on: November 18, 2015, 10:53:41 am »

SSJames-- Nope. It was the topic when I joined earlier tonight. Mainiac was already discussing it prior.

The progression went like this:

Mainiac makes light of the scandal hearing.
I weigh in that the scandal is true, and provide some limited (and dubious) sources.
The sources are questioned.
Stronger sources are cited.
Denialism rears its head
Denialism is pointed out
People complain about the rigorousness of the source citation/about the "beating of the dead horse" while acting "cute."

Helgoland-- You are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to it being correct. If you feel my evaluation is incorrect, please state why. Otherwise, your argument amounts to "[we] Disagree, therefore wrong." As far as I can tell, I am correct. If I am incorrect, please state why- Being correct/maximally informed is my ultimate goal. If you have contradictory information or evidence, please provide it.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 10:59:56 am by wierd »
Logged

RedKing

  • Bay Watcher
  • hoo hoo motherfucker
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #6612 on: November 18, 2015, 10:59:01 am »

Why is she so much the focus, anyway?
Because she's going to be the nominee for President. If she wasn't running, or had Jeb Bush's kind of poll numbers, no fucks would be given.
Logged

Remember, knowledge is power. The power to make other people feel stupid.
Quote from: Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you.

nenjin

  • Bay Watcher
  • WHERE'S YOUR MOTIVATION!?!?
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #6613 on: November 18, 2015, 11:02:36 am »

I wonder what the dem's field would have looked like had she chosen not to run.
Logged
Cautivo del Milagro seamos, Penitente.
Quote from: Viktor Frankl
When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.
Quote from: Sindain
Its kinda silly to complain that a friendly NPC isn't a well designed boss fight.
Quote from: Eric Blank
How will I cheese now assholes?
Quote from: MrRoboto75
Always spaghetti, never forghetti

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: American Election Megathread- Voting Trump/Wallace in '168
« Reply #6614 on: November 18, 2015, 11:04:51 am »

Why is she so much the focus, anyway?
Because she's going to be the nominee for President. If she wasn't running, or had Jeb Bush's kind of poll numbers, no fucks would be given.

Precisely.  To quote a proverb-- "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much." Luke 16:10.

EG, If Hillary is willing to violate policy with something as trivial as this stupid little email server, she will be willing to violate more important policies as the president.  I would rather that not happen, and is why I consider the implications of the scandal to be important, even if the the information that was transmitted was little more than Michelle Obama's recipe for oatmeal cookies.

I would give precisely zero fucks if she was not running for president.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 439 440 [441] 442 443 ... 1342