StrangeSox

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 6, 2016 -> 09:37 AM) He's not downplaying it, but he's also not "applauding" it either. That line can be read very neutrally. "Then they did this, then they did that..." You guys can't, but reasonable people can. "Throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy, oh he used gas" is not a 'neutral' way to describe this:

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 6, 2016 -> 09:27 AM) I recall a lot of Democrats using that same logic when arguing about the Iraq War. Democrats did not praise Saddam for ethnic cleansing and did not try to downplay his use of chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. Saying that Saddam was a total s***bag but that invading Iraq was a very dumb thing to do is not the same thing as praising Saddam for "taking care of" his enemies. Trump's also offered similar praise for Putin and for Kim Jong-Un QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 6, 2016 -> 09:32 AM) He wasn't applauding sarin gas, first of all. The whole "at least the region was stabilized" argument was been around for a long time. Bill Maher was spouting that for a long time on his show. God I hate defending Trump in any way, but sometimes you guys just see things that aren't there. He absolutely tried to downplay the use of gas when he said "throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy." Saddam violently and brutally stamped out Islamic radicalism within Iraq along with political opponents and various ethnic minorities, and he also funded anti-Israeli suicide bombers. And of course, at the same time he's praising strongman dictators and heavily implying that President Obama is sympathetic with ISIS (something's going on!), Obama in actuality has been bombing the s*** out of ISIS for several years now and ISIS has been losing ground.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 6, 2016 -> 09:12 AM) My bad. Didn't even look in there. Just saw video. Yikes. Had permit to carry and was but wasn't holding gun nor did he reach for it. Cops say body cams "dangled" off. Both of them. What a coincidence. Louisiana passed a Blue Lives Matter law to protect cops in May. Not sure what that means. Just like with Eric Garner and Tamir Rice and Freddie Gray and and and it means they'll face zero consequences for what appears to be murder.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 6, 2016 -> 09:05 AM) The system is rigged yet he's the Republican nominee. He needs to ditch that claim. I don't totally disagree with it, but it doesn't apply. He was still whining as recently as a week or two ago about how delegates in Louisiana are awarded.

imo Trump's "the system is rigged!" response to the non-indictment is the worst possible move. Rather than focusing on all of the negative things said about Clinton and making it about her and her competence, he's making it a broader attack on the FBI, Comey, "the system."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 5, 2016 -> 10:03 PM) Trump praised Sadam hussein today for extrajudicial killings. He's going to push the Clinton non indictment but still not exactly good news off the lead quickly. This is from December: The Iraq-Iran war killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, and Saddam funded suicide bombers against Israel. But no strongman is too terrible for Donald Trump to admire.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 6, 2016 -> 12:01 AM) Wow. They just flat out executed the man. Immediate escalation first, too.

Trump praised Sadam hussein today for extrajudicial killings. He's going to push the Clinton non indictment but still not exactly good news off the lead quickly.

Y2HH and I have gotten each other banned at least once. No real beef there though.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 5, 2016 -> 04:09 PM) I'd say me vs. Victory, but that was more of a one sided smackdown. does anyone still have a link to this? or classic examples of the other "beefs" Honestly I was half-expecting this thread to be about the best Italian Beef just from the title QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 5, 2016 -> 04:23 PM) Me vs Hickory didnt make it? what was this one

CNN is just backing up dumptrucks full of cash to former Trump campaign people for some reason. Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes joins CNN as contributor So far, what they've gotten from Lewandowski for the $500k investment is a guy saying "Trump is actually the best! MAGA!"

Economist Brad DeLong with a collection of articles on the Kansas Economic Miracle Apocalypse unleashed when Gov. Brownback embarked on a campaign of massive tax cuts and gutting social services http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016/07/mon...rably.html#more

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jul 5, 2016 -> 03:26 PM) Ummm... I'd hate to see what greg thought of George W. Bush in July 2008 if he's this harsh on Obama right now...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 5, 2016 -> 12:12 PM) The part where we are supposed to recognize a pattern of behavior from the Trump campaign, but minimize this to an isolated incident that wasn't really a big deal in Clinton's case where there is a long history of intentional deception there, just like with Trump. These are not arguments I'm seeing anyone make in this thread re: Clinton? In fact bmags "classic Clintons" would be the exact opposite of what you're saying? eta: I think I've been pretty clear that my vote for Clinton in November is primarily about the Supreme Court nominations and secondarily federal and executive appointments that won't destroy the liberal gains over the past decade, not because I think Clinton will be a phenomenal President or doesn't have her own flaws.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 5, 2016 -> 12:09 PM) I can't help myself, that is true. The hypocrisy is so deep, it is hard to ignore. What hypocrisy do you think you're seeing here? Where's the contradiction between "Clinton did a really dumb thing with this server, was sloppy, the security was a joke, but it wasn't criminal" and "Trump retweeted an antisemitic image and doubled down on it"

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 5, 2016 -> 12:04 PM) It is a funny transition of posts here on the switch from the Trump anti-semitism stuff, to the Clinton stuff. Mere posts ago we were being told to watch the pattern, and not necessarily the specific deed. The pattern of this stuff from Team Clinton can't be ignored, just like it can't be ignored from Trump. But then again this election seems to have boiled down to which con-artist are you going to believe, so... lmao you just can't help yourself. I'm being pretty openly critical of Clinton here, and I'm not a huge fan of hers. bmags called it "classic Clinton" with all that implies. We're talking about what rises to the level of criminal indictment in this case, and what the FBI said they found/didn't find. That has nothing to do with Trump retweeting unquestionably antisemitic memes.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 5, 2016 -> 12:00 PM) The administrative agencies clearly want a stop to this precedence of SoS and others picking and choosing around their equipment and server security (both the SoS report and FBI now came harshly as seen in that language, even though no criminal activity happened), typically this is where a functioning legislature could act. I would imagine a future President Clinton could put in place administrative rules strictly forbidding anyone from doing what she did while also directing the various agencies to accommodate high-level people with specific requirements. I think the NSA custom-built Obama a Blackberry that could handle multiple emails, Clinton wanted the same and was told no, so she went off and did her dumb server thing.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 5, 2016 -> 11:57 AM) Right, but you throw intent out the window there. "I didn't know it was classified" is incredibly plausible and accurate. How are we enforcing anything at that point? It's not exactly an excuse. You should be able to recognize some information as classified or potentially classified or even "this should be classified even if it isn't" if you have security clearances. Slippage does happen all the time though due to a combination of what both you and Balta are saying: there's tons and tons of classified information out there, there are millions of people with various types of security clearances, and there's no centralized control of everything.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jul 5, 2016 -> 11:57 AM) I understood what he was saying. Just thought it was funny and probably intentional wording it like he did. Ok, I've already seen that same line pop up in a couple of places taken as "he said anyone but Clinton would have been indicted over this!"

Gonna pull this in from the Rep thread: QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jul 5, 2016 -> 10:51 AM) Well I don't think he had a choice. He absolutely buried her for 20 minutes. This line: "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences." Have to think he included that intentionally. His next line was literally that it'd be administrative sanctions, not anything criminal: i.e. you'd probably be stripped of your security clearances and then fired/transferred to another position because you can't do your job without said clearances.

Federal IT as a whole is a gigantic joke, and the fact that State ended up getting hacked anyway sorta shows that even if she had stayed with the federal system, it wasn't exactly secure. That said, the operation to set up and manage her server was Trump Campaign levels of incompetence when it came to security, so no excuses there.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 5, 2016 -> 11:21 AM) You have to have the app "Amazon Video." There's a download button next to each episode/movie. Did not know this, thanks for the info

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jul 5, 2016 -> 11:04 AM) He made it pretty clear during his speech it didn't matter whether it was intentional or not. Edit: Well I should say it mattered. Obviously, if it was intentional, it would have been an easier case. But being intentional was not necessarily grounds for their recommendation. That's true. Negligence isn't an excuse and can still be criminal, but it was always going to be a pretty big stretch to find a prosecutable case here. Right or wrong, if you're going after somebody that high up, you better have an iron-clad argument.

Clinton exercised poor judgement in setting up the private server in the first place, but they've found no evidence of her intentionally and willfully breaking the law. The people shouting "the system is rigged!" don't actually have to show any proof of their claims, and it's a nice "heads I win, tails you lose" argument where either Clinton got indicted or she didn't and they get to say she absolutely should have and her not getting indicted it proof of corruption.

They haven't actually accomplished it yet, though. Parliament still needs to invoke Article 50, and then there needs to be a long, detailed negotiation between the UK and the EU. They just did the easiest part and are leaving the hard work to someone else.