Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 30, 2016 at 10:42 pm in reply to: Trump channeling Gertrude Stein as Holden Caulfield. #54179
Billy_TParticipantI love this Samantha Bee staff picture. This is what they think about Trump after his “fat-shaming” of Alicia Machado.
Machado’s done a great job of shaming herself on TV. While screwing a fellow contestant of a reality show she says
” ‘ Oh your d*** my love, what a tasty d***, your d*** is divine”
That is some appetite she has for sausage. But that is Trump’s fault?
bnw,
Keep digging. You’re just like Trump.
And you’re back on ignore.
September 30, 2016 at 10:39 pm in reply to: Trump channeling Gertrude Stein as Holden Caulfield. #54178Billy_TParticipantYou didn’t even read my post.
Yes, I read it, bnw. I think you’re dead wrong. And, yeah I read it.
Can you honestly say that you ever click on the links we supply regarding Trump’s malfeasance, endless lies, demagoguery, racist and otherwise? Can you honestly say you read those articles? I don’t recall you ever responding to any of the points made; you just dismiss them out of hand, and try to change the subject to Clinton.
Remember, no one, with the possible exception of Waterfield, is a Clinton supporter here. So when we critique Trump, your attempt to redirect things away from him and toward Clinton, without admitting to any valid criticism of Trump, evah, just doesn’t cut it. It just sounds desperate.
Oh, and speaking of desperation and panic, you keep saying “the left” shows that when it’s critical of Trump. I guess you’ve missed all the right-wingers who despise him too, like Jennifer Rubin, Kathleen Parker and George Will at the WaPo. He’s managed to piss off folks all across the political spectrum, left, right and center. It’s not just “the left.”
September 30, 2016 at 10:08 pm in reply to: Trump channeling Gertrude Stein as Holden Caulfield. #54175Billy_TParticipantNot only is the substance of his remarks a key indication of his stupidity and ignorance, but the rhythm of it all, the sense that this is a child speaking, at best an arrested adolescent, is, well, scary, given what he’s trying to do.
He’s trying to win by getting more votes than Hildabeast and he’s been exceptional at it. Even with all the usual democrat vote fraud and now with Hildabeast exceptional level of cheating by democrats within their failed big cities Trump is still going to win. The desperation and now panic on the left is gratifying.
bnw, wake up. If there is fraud in this election, it will be perpetrated on behalf of Trump, not against him. His buddy Putin has been trying to tilt the election in his favor for months and months, and he’s had a lot of help via wikileaks. Ever wonder why they don’t go after the Republicans, and are just going after the Dems? And the GOP has conducted a partisan witch hunt against Clinton for years, ever since they realized she would run.
Our politics are playing out asymmetrically, bnw. Trump has an overwhelming advantage in the “rigging” category of things, and it’s not close.
He’s also quite lucky the media is only now starting to look into all of his crooked business dealings, his endless lies about his (non-existent) charitable giving, his refusal to come clean about them and his taxes, his using the Trump Foundation as a slush fund to pay for his thousands of lawsuits, and to avoid taxes. And now we know he broke the law by doing business with Cuba under the embargo. I’ve always been against it, but Trump broke the law and lied about it.
As I’ve said so many times, I can’t for the life of me understand why you support him. He’s been thoroughly exposed as a serial liar, cheat, conman, crook, criminal, bully, racist and misogynist. And for all of his talk about what’s wrong with America, he’s never told you or anyone else how he’d fix a thing. Never. He has no plan. He’s just conning you and everyone else.
Wake up its so obvious that it is a red herring. Putin has nothing to do with this election other than the establishment’s fear mongering meant to get into a war with Russia. The US is trying to goad Russia into a war. The leaked emails were from the murdered DNC staffer not the russians.
bnw, it would be a little easier to accept some of your defenses regarding Trump if not for the fact that you dismiss all criticism of him and say it’s all part of some conspiracy. All of it. To you, he can do no wrong, ever. Despite mountains and mountains of evidence proving he’s a crook, a conman, a serial liar, you dismiss all of that — automatically.
No one on earth is that great, bnw. In effect, you’re saying he’s a god-like being without fault or flaws.
Aside from all the massive evidence contradicting that take, this refusal to ever, ever admit that he’s not absolutely perfect in every way possible . . . well, it makes it impossible for me to take your defense seriously. It’s just so incredibly, blindly partisan.
September 30, 2016 at 9:59 pm in reply to: Trump channeling Gertrude Stein as Holden Caulfield. #54173Billy_TParticipantI love this Samantha Bee staff picture. This is what they think about Trump after his “fat-shaming” of Alicia Machado.
September 30, 2016 at 9:42 pm in reply to: Trump channeling Gertrude Stein as Holden Caulfield. #54171Billy_TParticipantMy wife’s grandmother was born in Germany and her father(my father in-law) spoke only German until he went to grade school in the early 40’s. So, their whole family was influenced by this and to a person they have an odd to the ear way of speaking. Their phrasing is sometimes backwards and certain phrases are continuously misspoken with the verb being kind of stuck into the sentence or phrase in the wrong place. It’s carried over to my wife and her siblings as well. It’s hard to explain unless one lives around them for forty years. Her grandmother immigrated to the US in the early to mid 30’s – she’s 104 now and still going strong. I think she said she was 14 when she came here and from the area known as Prussia.
For a long time I thought maybe they were Nazi spies who had been planted by Hitler en masse to at some point conquer the town of Hosmer South Dakota and rule it with an iron fist. But, it turns out they just grew up sort of secluded from the rest of American society, TV, and radio even and the willy nilly rules of the English language.
I don’t know – Trump sometimes sounds like a total idiot. I think there’s something to his phrasing that kind of reminds me of my wife’s family when they speak. But, regardless of what his IQ or mental abilities are, he’s always an asshole as far as I’m concerned.
That’s a really interesting family story, SD. Thanks for sharing that.
September 30, 2016 at 9:40 pm in reply to: Trump channeling Gertrude Stein as Holden Caulfield. #54170Billy_TParticipantNot only is the substance of his remarks a key indication of his stupidity and ignorance, but the rhythm of it all, the sense that this is a child speaking, at best an arrested adolescent, is, well, scary, given what he’s trying to do.
He’s trying to win by getting more votes than Hildabeast and he’s been exceptional at it. Even with all the usual democrat vote fraud and now with Hildabeast exceptional level of cheating by democrats within their failed big cities Trump is still going to win. The desperation and now panic on the left is gratifying.
bnw, wake up. If there is fraud in this election, it will be perpetrated on behalf of Trump, not against him. His buddy Putin has been trying to tilt the election in his favor for months and months, and he’s had a lot of help via wikileaks. Ever wonder why they don’t go after the Republicans, and are just going after the Dems? And the GOP has conducted a partisan witch hunt against Clinton for years, ever since they realized she would run.
Our politics are playing out asymmetrically, bnw. Trump has an overwhelming advantage in the “rigging” category of things, and it’s not close.
He’s also quite lucky the media is only now starting to look into all of his crooked business dealings, his endless lies about his (non-existent) charitable giving, his refusal to come clean about them and his taxes, his using the Trump Foundation as a slush fund to pay for his thousands of lawsuits, and to avoid taxes. And now we know he broke the law by doing business with Cuba under the embargo. I’ve always been against it, but Trump broke the law and lied about it.
As I’ve said so many times, I can’t for the life of me understand why you support him. He’s been thoroughly exposed as a serial liar, cheat, conman, crook, criminal, bully, racist and misogynist. And for all of his talk about what’s wrong with America, he’s never told you or anyone else how he’d fix a thing. Never. He has no plan. He’s just conning you and everyone else.
September 30, 2016 at 9:28 pm in reply to: Trump channeling Gertrude Stein as Holden Caulfield. #54169Billy_TParticipantI think…I’d rather have Holden Caulfield as president.
The guy was at least reflective, cared about other people, and possessed something of an artist’s soul. As self-absorbed and unable to read people as he was, he at least had those three virtues. Trump doesn’t have any. He is totally despicable. I cannot think of one thing about him that I find admirable. He is unintelligent and bellicose, chauvinistic, racist, a bully, and a liar. A compulsive liar that lies so much by habit that he isn’t even aware of the fact that he is lying much of the time. He has no understanding of laws, of diplomacy, the constitution, or how government works. He is so completely unfit for office that it is mind-boggling.
Trump is the worst candidate this country has ever seen. No-one this unqualified, both in terms of character and experience, has ever come anywhere near the office before.
Zooey,
I agree with you completely about Trump. I wasn’t trying to compare him with Holden via “character.” Holden, for all his flaws, is a hell of a lot better person, and it’s not close. Just language. Just the way Trump speaks. His arrested adolescent way of speaking, though worse than Salinger’s character, with all of that word salad thrown in, jumping back and forth, against and outside itself.
Perhaps it’s a clumsy comparison, and me stretching things too much. But it’s struck me for sometime that Trump’s transcripts read in such a disjointed way, non-sequitur following non-sequitur . . . It’s almost like Dada.
Anyway, yes. He’s easily the worst candidate for president we’ve ever seen — at least in our lifetimes.
Billy_TParticipantIn short, full self-rule, egalitarian, democratic, cooperative. I don’t think we can do this from the top down. We’re much too big. So it needs to be small communities, democratic, egalitarian, linked together — cooperative within each community, and cooperating with all the other communities . . . . IMO, held together by a constitution, with full input from 315 million citizens.
Dreams, I know. But without them, without that start, we’re just slaves to the few.
Billy_TParticipantTo me, this isn’t rocket science. Pretty much from the beginning of organized societies, the few have ruled the many. It’s still that way, obviously. Capitalism was supposed to “liberate” the masses from the yoke of tyrannical kings and queens and aristocracy in general — and most conservatives believe it has. But it’s really just created a legal set of fictions to control the masses by other means — their bodies, their time at work, at home as consumers, and so on. It just created a new kind of ruling class.
———–
Agreed.This new form of empire-oppression that modern corporate-capitalism imposed
is in some ways the same ole sorry ass repression. Ya know. The few oppressing the many.But the ‘way’ the few are doing it is interesting. The many have had their minds colonized.
Maybe thats how its always been done, i dunno. Maybe the many used to ‘believe’ in the divine right of the few to rule. And now they believe in the divine right of the ‘free market’. I dunno.
But i do know that the entire biosphere was not being poisoned back in the olden days. Etc.
w
vIt’s pretty clever, if you think about it. Being simplistic here, to save space: In the past, under kings and queens, people kinda had to do what they were told or they were jailed, tortured or killed out right.
Under capitalism, there’s a bargain of sorts. People think they’re getting something in return for giving up their personal autonomy. They get bright, shiny objects in return for being compliant with the masters. They probably don’t realize that with each transaction, they’re more and more dependent upon those masters, and more slave-like, because they have their Netflix and their Iphones and their washing machines, etc. etc. And, over time, we’ve all been conditioned — as you say, colonized — that there is no other way.
And, without a complete break with this system, there isn’t, really. We’re too far removed from self-provisioning to make it on our own now. We’re too dependent on machines and gadgets and “the markets” to get us what we need to survive. We used to do the vast majority of this ourselves, and what we couldn’t do, we got from our neighbors, and what they couldn’t do, they got from us and so on.
We’re “evolving” into more and more dependence on fewer and fewer corporations for our survival. And all that talk from “conservatives” about dependence on government is absurd, because it totally leaves out the part about dependence on far off, unaccountable, unseen men (and a few women) in suits — in the private sector.
True independence means independence from both the private and the public sectors. It means a return to community, small is beautiful, independent markets and as much self-provisioning as humanly possible. And that’s the way out of poverty too.
As things stand right now, IMO, we can’t put the genie back in the bottle, unless we ditch capitalism altogether. Unless we ditch the legal concept of one person owning the work of many, or a few people owning the work of the many, we’re far, far from “independent,” by definition, and we’re even further away from being able to solve poverty, hunger, homelessness and the like.
Billy_TParticipantWell, there’s two memes that the middle and upper class believe about the poor that are so ridiculous it’s impossible to fathom. Yet they believe them anyway…
1. The poor have it easy.
2. The poor are poor by choice (ie they don’t want to work).
I see those ideas repeated endlessly in conversations among friends and coworkers and on social media.
As long as that sort of attitude exists among the ‘haves’ the politicians trying to win their votes won’t see a percentage in talking about the ‘havenots’.
—————–
There might be a third meme — something along the lines of“Well, golly shucks, there’s always been poor people, and as tragic as it is,
there’s nothing we can do about it. Its the natural order of things. Best we can do
is build some homeless shelters and contribute to charities”Ya know. Anything but examining the ‘system’.
w
vGreat points, WV — and Nittany.
To me, this isn’t rocket science. Pretty much from the beginning of organized societies, the few have ruled the many. It’s still that way, obviously. Capitalism was supposed to “liberate” the masses from the yoke of tyrannical kings and queens and aristocracy in general — and most conservatives believe it has. But it’s really just created a legal set of fictions to control the masses by other means — their bodies, their time at work, at home as consumers, and so on. It just created a new kind of ruling class.
The few still set the price for the many. They tell us how much we’re supposedly worth as humans, and what we can do and can’t do while at work. It’s a far more sophisticated sort of tyranny, but it’s tyranny of the few over the many all the same.
But none of that is inevitable, or destiny, or natural. It’s a system, designed for the powerful, by the powerful, to perpetuate the rule of the few over the many.
All it would take to end poverty, homelessness, hunger, famine and the like is to have the many rule themselves. True democratic self-rule. There is just no way that a system designed by the many for the many would allow the many to be screwed by the few again. It’s ONLY because it’s always been the few ruling everything that we’ve had this perpetuation of neck-breaking hierarchies, massive inequalities, poverty, etc.
We outnumber them — overwhelmingly.
Billy_TParticipantBlaming the poor for not having plumbing… See this is why I hate politicians who only wanna talk about “the middle class” and the problems of the middle class…
w
vA Toilet, but No Proper Plumbing: A Reality in 500,000 U.S. Homes
…Ms. Rudolph, a retired seamstress, and her husband, a carpenter, live in a tiny, white clapboard house that he built after he, his parents and his siblings fled their home on land owned by a white man who forbade the family to vote. She remembers, as a young girl in the 1950s, not having electricity. They obtained running water in the early 1990s, she said, and used an outhouse until the mid-1990s.
So their white toilet with a fuzzy green cover was a marker of progress.
……The state health department begs, cajoles, and eventually cites people who have problems and do not fix them. In the early 2000s, the authorities even tried arresting people. That prompted a public outcry and the practice soon stopped, but one person spent a weekend in jail and others were left with criminal records.
The department cited about 700 people in the 12 months that ended in March, often because someone complained…. see link
Sanders rarely talked about the poor. And he’s well to the left of the Dems on most issues. Which tells me that being “radical” these days is equivalent to being a mainstream “liberal” forty years ago.
RFK, when he ran in 1968, spoke repeatedly about the actual poor, went to the Delta to see it real time; went to the Native American reservations to see it real time; quoted Camus on social justice and equality and human rights. I can’t remember the last US politician since RFK was killed who has done that. Even just talking about it, much less offering actual programs and policies to remedy it — which RFK also did.
And, in 1968, there would have been a goodly bit of real estate to RFK’s left, of course. A ton. He was probably “left-liberal” at the time, but not “radical,” relatively speaking.
Today? No one gives speeches on those subjects anymore. The Greens rarely break out of the “middle class” paradigm either.
Thinking about my younger self, projecting how the world would look in the future from that point . . . . and now, thinking about it now, on the edge of a card carrying “senior citizen” . . . . Makes me want to weep — mostly for what never happened and how much ground was lost.
Billy_TParticipantI challenged the veracity of his statement. He conceded the point. However your post is directed solely about me which is against the rules here.
It was directed at your rhetorical strategy (of throwing out red herrings) which is fair game.
And you didn’t succeed in challenging the veracity of anything Billy said. All you succeeded in doing was getting Billy to admit that alcohol and tobacco kill more people than guns. Which is completely irrelevant, however correct it may be, and however much anyone agrees with you that the numbers are correct. That doesn’t mean in any way that guns are not a problem, or that you succeeded in winning the argument that guns are over-regulated. Nobody conceded that.
You want to know some other things that kill fewer people than tobacco and alcohol?
Muslims.
Illegal Immigrants.
But, hey, you wouldn’t mind seeing a little more government action there, would you, bnw?
400,000 tobacco deaths a year.
In 2015, 19 people killed by terrorists in the US. But let’s support a candidate for president who wants to respond to Muslims with a policy equivalent to banning the manufacture of firearms altogether. Who wants to respond to illegal immigrants with a policy equivalent to rounding up all firearms and destroying them.
Oh…………..suddenly tobacco and alcohol numbers are completely irrelevant, huh? Because “that’s different.”
Yeah. That’s different.
Tobacco and alcohol are irrelevant to the gun conversation.
Excellent analogies, Zooey.
As you know, pretty much anytime gun violence is mentioned, gun, uh, hem, “advocates” will respond with deflection and redirection. They’ll mention car deaths or something else. They just don’t want to deal with the fact that gun proliferation in America is out of control, that it creates death and destruction where it wouldn’t exist if not for those guns.
To me, this nation should think about it as a public health and safety hazard issue. The right has managed to twist it beyond recognition into a crusade for “freedom.” Guns have absolutely nothing to do with “freedom,” just death and destruction. Unless one wants to talk about making murderers, rapists, kidnappers, etc. etc. etc. “free” to do as they please.
It’s time to rethink guns in America and consider them what they really are: Death machines, in direct opposition to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Billy_TParticipantI don’t think there is anyway around the fact that we have been insanely “liberal” in our gun policies, protecting the virtually unlimited purchase and usage of deadly pieces of metal. No other product gets this kind of pass on public safety concerns, and no other product kills or maims more often.
Use of tobacco and alcohol both kill and maim far more than private ownership of firearms.
We have strong regulations when it comes to tobacco and alcohol. Our gun regulations, OTOH, are extremely lax.
And, yes, tobacco is worse. Tobacco kills roughly 400,000 smokers a year, and more than 40,000 non-smokers, through secondhand smoke.
Alcohol is the fourth leading, preventable cause of death, at roughly 88,000 a year. Still trying to track down info on accidents.
Gun deaths and accidents combined number over 100,000 per year. Gun fatalities — accidents, homicides, suicides — come to roughly 33,000 a year.
Gun regulations are already far more stringent than those for either alcohol or tobacco.
We disagree about that. I think we’re about as far apart on this issue and can be. I see our gun laws as insanely lax and dangerously permissive. You see them as far too strict. There’s a Grand Canyon between us on this topic.
Billy_TParticipantI don’t think there is anyway around the fact that we have been insanely “liberal” in our gun policies, protecting the virtually unlimited purchase and usage of deadly pieces of metal. No other product gets this kind of pass on public safety concerns, and no other product kills or maims more often.
Use of tobacco and alcohol both kill and maim far more than private ownership of firearms.
We have strong regulations when it comes to tobacco and alcohol. Our gun regulations, OTOH, are extremely lax.
And, yes, tobacco is worse. Tobacco kills roughly 400,000 smokers a year, and more than 40,000 non-smokers, through secondhand smoke.
Alcohol is the fourth leading, preventable cause of death, at roughly 88,000 a year. Still trying to track down info on accidents.
Gun deaths and accidents combined number over 100,000 per year. Gun fatalities — accidents, homicides, suicides — come to roughly 33,000 a year.
Billy_TParticipantIt is heart-breaking.
I don’t think there is anyway around the fact that we have been insanely “liberal” in our gun policies, protecting the virtually unlimited purchase and usage of deadly pieces of metal. No other product gets this kind of pass on public safety concerns, and no other product kills or maims more often.
It’s absolutely insane. And so much of it is based upon a recent, irrational, illogical, rabidly emotional misreading and reinterpretation of the 2nd amendment. Nothing in that amendment ever gave anyone the right to unlimited consumer choice of weaponry, and if we actually do take it as intended, it was meant solely for white males in state government militias — which no longer exist.
Time to return to sanity. IMO, we need to get rid of conceal carry, nationally, impose a ban on all weapons with removable, detachable ammo containers, limit legal guns to those with internal chambers only, six bullets max, and these must be hand-loaded. No capacity for any kind of auto-loading.
License and registration for all guns and gun owners. Like our cars.
Smart tech ASAP on all guns.
Change the way we do our ratings on media. The depiction of deadly violence should get restricted ratings. We should flip the emphasis from sex and sexuality to violence. Without censorship, we should mount public safety campaigns that push for a mass reduction in any kind of glorification of guns, gun violence or violence, period.
We have had amazing success reducing smoking levels. They’re now under 20%. We should do the same with guns and all things regarding guns.
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 1 month ago by
Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantThanks, WV.
I like quirky, avant-garde movies. Synecdoche, New York was a fairly recent film along those lines, and really good. Charlie Kaufman does a lot of those.
Also really liked two films by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, both starring the wonderful Audrey Tautoo: Amélie (2001), which I’m guessing you’ve already seen . . . and the (to me) even better A Very Long Engagement (2004).
Just a few off the top of my head.
Btw, Léa Seydoux, from The Lobster, was in one of my favorite movies of all time: Blue is the Warmest Color. Depending on one’s place of work, it may be NSFW to pull that one up on your computer screen.
Billy_TParticipantSame ole Candy Crawley moderator but in drag and black face last night. Argues against Trump about success of stop and frisk in NY, questions repeatedly about Trump minutia while never asking Hildabeast about Email scandal, Benghazi or the Clinton Foundation pay to play.
I think Lester was a little too kind to Donna Trump.
Next moderator needs a taser and keep Donna’s mouth shut the next time Orange Julius..err I mean Orange Julie interrupts a rebuttal.
This ain’t twitter Donna, it’s a debate……..and sometimes you need to shut the fuck up……
Agreed. Holt let Trump bully him. He needed to take control and talk over the bully, cut his mic if needbe. Trump spoke over Clinton and Holt, interrupting both of them repeatedly. To me, anyone who thinks Holt helped Clinton wasn’t watching this debate. They were tuned into post-debate spin rooms.
Speaking of those. Trump bragged that he won the CBS post-debate poll. Trouble is, Major Garrett posted on twitter that they didn’t have one.
Major Garrett Verified account
@MajorCBSOn @foxandfriends @realDonaldTrump said he won a @CBSNews post-debate poll. We did not conduct a post-debate poll.
Trump has a very bad habit of lying about things that are easily fact-checked. Like meeting with top police officials in Chicago, who later said that never happened. Like that supposed letter from the NFL concerning debate times that also never happened.
And now he’s complaining about his mic, suggesting there was a conspiracy to make him sound bad.
He’s such a little baby.
Billy_TParticipantI watched the Mickey and Minnie Mouse show last night.
I think Hillary just won the election. And I’m as anti-Hillary as they come. It was raucous through most of the evening, but when The Donald started his rant about stamina and fortitude, I think it brought the debate to a new low.
But again, Wikileaks isn’t done yet.
—————
I didn’t watch it. I watched a very weird movie called “Lobster”
instead.It’ll be interesting to see if the polls change any now that there’s
been a ‘debate’.w
vI’ve got that in my Netflix queue. Wanted to see it when it came out, but missed the chance.
Did you like it?
Billy_TParticipantOf course, when it comes to government secrets, spying, counter-spying, it’s difficult to be sure of anything. It may well have come from a disaffected DNC worker. But there is no evidence to support that yet.
The problem with the right is, it’s just never cared about such inconveniences. Like the total absence of evidence.
Implicitly, if not explicitly, its motto is, “Facts? Who the hell needs facts? We appeal to fear and paranoia, which always works best in political matters.”
Billy_TParticipantGuccifer2.0 is the likely hacker and source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0
“Guccifer 2.0” is a hacker (or hackers) who hacked into the Democratic National Committee computer network and then leaked its documents to the newspaper The Hill,[1][2] the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] and a conference event.[10]
WikiLeaks has not revealed its source. However, some cybersecurity experts and firms have speculated, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica,[11] that the leak was part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC committed by two Russian intelligence groups.[12][13][14][15][16] U.S. intelligence agencies agree, concluding with “high confidence” that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the DNC.[11] The Russian government said it had no involvement in the theft.[17] Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said that there was no proof that Russia was behind the attack.[18]
Various cybersecurity experts have stated that “Guccifer 2.0” is likely a creation of the Russian state-sponsored hacking groups thought to have executed the attack, invented to coverup Russian responsibility.[19][20] The cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike, which analyzed the data breach, “posits that Guccifer 2.0 could be ‘part of a Russian Intelligence disinformation campaign'”—i.e., a creation to deflect blame for the theft.[19] Russia has made use of the invention of “a lone hacker or an hacktivist to deflect blame” in the past, deploying this strategy in previous cyberattacks on the German government and the French network TV5Monde.[20] Thomas Rid of King’s College London, a cybersecurity expert, states that it is “‘more likely than not’ that the whole operation, including the Guccifer 2.0 part, was orchestrated by Russian spies,” and others concur.[20]
Billy_TParticipantI disagree about Wikileaks. Assange said he would release the documents before the debate and to expect it to be big. You only announce an impending release if you want to make it known that a deal can be made to not release. I suspect Assange got his deal and that deal wouldn’t benefit Trump.
Are you saying the total absence of evidence to support this conjecture is evidence that it happened?
Given the fact that Assange has leaked nothing whatsoever about Republicans, and tons of damaging info on the Dems, why do you think your speculation makes any sense?
The lopsided nature of the leaks is unprecedented. It’s ONLY against the Dems.
I want the sunshine to pour in, on all centers of power. All of them. Transparency to the max. But that’s not what is happening here. As mentioned, Wikileaks has avoided exposing private sector malfeasance, and the GOP. It’s as if Trump and the Republican Party were paying him directly. I don’t think that’s the case. But if anyone is doing the paying, it’s Trump and the GOP, not Clinton and the Dems. Just look at the actual results.
The documents came from the DNC staffer who died shortly after leaking the documents. Therefore the documents could only be damaging to Democrats and Hildabeast. For Assange to not release what he claimed he would and when tells me he got his deal. Most likey a combination of legal immunity and cash.
There is no evidence that the leaks came from a DNC staffer, much less that he or she died after doing so. None. That’s yet one more right-wing fever-swamp conspiracy theory. And, as far as we know, our intel agencies believe that Russia is likely behind the hacks.
Billy_TParticipantSame ole Candy Crawley moderator but in drag and black face last night. Argues against Trump about success of stop and frisk in NY, questions repeatedly about Trump minutia while never asking Hildabeast about Email scandal, Benghazi or the Clinton Foundation pay to play.
Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional, and there is absolutely no evidence that it worked.
Holt, by the way, contrary to Trump’s claim, is a registered Republican.
There is no email scandal. It was always a nothingburger, trumped up by the GOP. If she hadn’t been running for the presidency, the GOP wouldn’t have bothered. Same with Benghazi, another phony “scandal.” Umpteen, endless hearings on both failed to produce any evidence of wrong-doing.
As mentioned before, the GOP forever makes shit up and avoids going after the Dems on legit issues, because they’re fully complicit in them. There is a TON to attack, but they can’t. Because it would implicate them too. So they have to manufacture bogus nonsense.
And today, the little baby Trump is trying to claim there was something wrong with his mic, and that this was done on purpose — even though for those of us listening and watching at home, both mics sounded the same. He never stops whining, being a spoiled, boorish child and bully, lying endlessly and showing his supreme ignorance.
He lost, fair and square.
Stop and Frisk worked great. Trump won the ‘debate’.
Again, there is no evidence that it worked at all. None. And it was ruled unconstitutional, regardless. I thought the Constitution was important to you.
No one outside the Trump camp thinks he won. It’s just a matter of the range of Clinton’s debate victory. I can’t stand either candidate. But she stomped him. It wasn’t close.
Billy_TParticipantI disagree about Wikileaks. Assange said he would release the documents before the debate and to expect it to be big. You only announce an impending release if you want to make it known that a deal can be made to not release. I suspect Assange got his deal and that deal wouldn’t benefit Trump.
Are you saying the total absence of evidence to support this conjecture is evidence that it happened?
Given the fact that Assange has leaked nothing whatsoever about Republicans, and tons of damaging info on the Dems, why do you think your speculation makes any sense?
The lopsided nature of the leaks is unprecedented. It’s ONLY against the Dems.
I want the sunshine to pour in, on all centers of power. All of them. Transparency to the max. But that’s not what is happening here. As mentioned, Wikileaks has avoided exposing private sector malfeasance, and the GOP. It’s as if Trump and the Republican Party were paying him directly. I don’t think that’s the case. But if anyone is doing the paying, it’s Trump and the GOP, not Clinton and the Dems. Just look at the actual results.
Billy_TParticipantSame ole Candy Crawley moderator but in drag and black face last night. Argues against Trump about success of stop and frisk in NY, questions repeatedly about Trump minutia while never asking Hildabeast about Email scandal, Benghazi or the Clinton Foundation pay to play.
Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional, and there is absolutely no evidence that it worked.
Holt, by the way, contrary to Trump’s claim, is a registered Republican.
There is no email scandal. It was always a nothingburger, trumped up by the GOP. If she hadn’t been running for the presidency, the GOP wouldn’t have bothered. Same with Benghazi, another phony “scandal.” Umpteen, endless hearings on both failed to produce any evidence of wrong-doing.
As mentioned before, the GOP forever makes shit up and avoids going after the Dems on legit issues, because they’re fully complicit in them. There is a TON to attack, but they can’t. Because it would implicate them too. So they have to manufacture bogus nonsense.
And today, the little baby Trump is trying to claim there was something wrong with his mic, and that this was done on purpose — even though for those of us listening and watching at home, both mics sounded the same. He never stops whining, being a spoiled, boorish child and bully, lying endlessly and showing his supreme ignorance.
He lost, fair and square.
Billy_TParticipantFor anyone interested, this is a pretty good fact-check on the debate:
And for those worried about “liberal bias”, Kessler leans center-right.
Billy_TParticipantI watched the Mickey and Minnie Mouse show last night.
I think Hillary just won the election. And I’m as anti-Hillary as they come. It was raucous through most of the evening, but when The Donald started his rant about stamina and fortitude, I think it brought the debate to a new low.
But again, Wikileaks isn’t done yet.
Hey, NMR, hope all is well.
I just now commented about it in the earlier, pre-debate thread.
Interesting point about Wikileaks. One thing a lot of his fans never will cop to: Trump is being helped tremendously by outside forces — likely Putin — who really, really want him to win. Trump’s egged them on to do more hacking as well. Assange and company have lost a ton of credibility by NOT going after the RNC — at all — and before that, corporate America. The real powers behind the throne, they seem to leave untouched. I’m no expert on Wikileaks, by any means, and probably need to take a much closer look at their history . . . but, right now, it seems they’re decidedly in the tank for Republicans and Trump. There have been no leaks of RNC communications, and, again, corporate America have been entirely left off the hook.
Sunshine is needed, and it’s beautiful. But it should shine on all of them, not just the Dems.
Billy_TParticipantTrump scored biggest, IMO, when he talked about Clinton and the Dems being there for thirty years with nothing to show for it. Basically, to paraphrase him — his word salad needs translators like Chaucer to modern English — endless promises and no action. Which I agree with. The Dems make all of these promises but end up compromising with the enemy — Trump’s party — over and over again, watering down legislation or caving into them entirely. The Dems haven’t produced anything worthwhile, with a couple of exceptions, since the early 1970s.
Problem for Trump is this: He has no legit answers to this parade of false promises. His economic plan is just warmed over freshwater, Chicago School, Reagan/Thatcher bullshit. Voodoo economics, as Bush Sr. once called it before he accepted the VP spot.
He’s absolutely right to point out the epic failure of the Dems. But his answers are to replay the epic failures of the Republicans, on steroids, and with the element of his own “ugly American”ism thrown in for bad measure.
Billy_TParticipantI feel guilty for doing this, but I watched it. It was, as you would expect, nails on a blackboard. Trump, for the most part, was a bully and a buffoon, who came close to reverting to his puerile antics of the Republican debates. Very close. Sniffled throughout, smirked, was nearly always incoherent. He interrupted Clinton and Holt (the moderator) constantly, refused to stop when his time was up, and basically made an ass out of himself. But he did score a few direct hits. I have no doubt his followers loved every second of it and likely thought he won big.
Clinton, relatively speaking, was solid, but never inspiring. She had command of mainstream givens, knew the facts, and didn’t let Trump get to her. I think she let him off the hook a coupla times, especially when the subject turned to race. She should have mentioned that Trump hired a white supremacist as his manager (Steve Bannon), but I’m guessing her handlers told her not to go there, because of the “basket of deplorables” backlash. From my point of view, that had been a mistake only insofar as she brought voters into the mix. Had she stayed with politicians and other public figures, it would have been fine. Don’t punch down. Punch up, etc. Regardless, she should have brought up the white supremacists who either work for him or support him, while staying away from voters . . .
Billy_TParticipantNittany,
Congrats!!
Will we be able to see your essay online?
And that is a pretty cool title. I have a feeling HBO is going to bid on the rights, and soon. The Night of Direct Oral Anticoagulants has the sound of classic Film Noir.
;>)
Billy_TParticipant… impression was that HRC comes off as a mean old hag too often.
Trump comes off as kind of a dopey, moronic drunken uncle who’s pissed about how his life turned out..—————-
My impression is that she is a mean old hag and she supports policies that will contribute to the destruction of the entire Biosphere.My impression of him is he’s a dopey, moronic drunken uncle who’s pissed about how his life turned out and he supports policies that will contribute to the destruction of the entire Biosphere.
…btw, I’m wondering which nitwit-pundit will be the first to say “He (or she) “seemed presidential.”
w
vThey both do support planet-killing policies. Trump plans to speed up the process:
excerpt:
BISMARCK, N.D. — Donald J. Trump traveled Thursday to the heart of America’s oil and gas boom, where he called for more fossil fuel drilling and fewer environmental regulations while vowing to “cancel the Paris climate agreement,” the 2015 accord committing nearly every nation to taking action to curb climate change.
Laying out his positions on energy and the environment at an oil industry conference in North Dakota, he vowed to rescind President Obama’s signature climate change rules and revive construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring petroleum from Canada’s oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries.
[and . . .]
A central question confronting the next president will be how to address climate change. Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly denied the established science that climate change is caused by humans, vowed in his speech to undo many of Mr. Obama’s initiatives.
He did not explicitly address the scientific legitimacy of human-caused climate change, but said, “We’re going to deal with real environmental challenges, not the phony ones we’ve been hearing about.”
Mr. Trump said that in his first 100 days in office, he would “rescind” Environmental Protection Agency regulations established under Mr. Obama to curb planet-warming emissions from coal-fired power plants.
“Regulations that shut down hundreds of coal-fired power plants and block the construction of new ones — how stupid is that?” Mr. Trump said.
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 1 month ago by
-
AuthorPosts
