-
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
So if I'm reading this right, we've got Trump supporters saying that past elections have had nefarious goings on, despite there being no evidence. Then we've got Trump supporters saying that nothing nefarious happened with Trump Jr because there's no evidence of it happening?
It's all rather confusing.
It isnt confusing at all unless you are trying to spin this into something terrible, then of course it would get tricky getting all the threads you fantasise about into something.
For example. I am still waiting for anyone to tell me what Trump jnr did that was illegal. Pretty vital BEFORE he is accused of treason and put to death. Yes really... Democrats senators have gone that far. Let that sink in for a minute.
I dont think anyone here has made the claim Don Jr has definitely acted illegally so may need to get your fix from somewhere else. There is evidence that members of the Trump campaign wilfully engaged with who they thought were Russian representatives in order to win the election which is vastly different to how they presented themselves during and after the election and there are real concerns about the credibility of Kushner. If anything, the recent revelations give us a small taster of what Mueller is investigating and its likely there is plenty more to come.
Illegality was certainly mentioned, insinuated and fantasized about by a few. But glad we can put the absurd claim of illegality to rest. ..that leaves political games...
-
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
That summary is misrepresentations and deflection. Chelsea Clinton has nothing to do with this. No one claimed its never happened.
No, its really not obvious and I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. Firewalls are a security measure used to manage inbound and outbound traffic. One might use a firewall to augment their defence against hackers (amongst other reasons) but it would offer limited protection against a phishing attack. I have no idea how one might use a firewall to cover their tracks though. No one ever said "I need to be covert so I don't get caught, better get me a firewall". If Don Jr wanted to engage in discrete secure digital communications, he might have used a tor client through numerous anonymous vpns to drop off pgp encrypted messages however thats beyond the ability of IT novices. Perhaps he could have used an encrypted email service... At the very least, he might have anonymously bought a new device and installed signal / telegram / viber / whatsapp etc which is very easy to do. All that being said, its still not bulletproof so codeword substitutions are a further obfuscation measure that could be undertaken.Podesta was the victim of a phishing attack - he asked an assistant if an email was legitimate, the assistant recognised it was illegitimate and erroneously replied "its legitimate" facepalm.
I was talking about firewalls from themselves being implicated not in a bloody IT context. I'm done wasting time on you.
😂 Ive never known anyone to use the term firewall in that context.
Chinese Walls, yeah maybe, its not a great fit but its a much better fit than firewall and certainly less misleading.
I thought to myself "maybe theres some obscure use of firewall that Im not aware of" but even wikipedia has no idea what you are talking about.You asked what I meant by firewall and I answered. I can't help it if you then waste time typing IT porn and reading wikipedia.
One now knows what one meant bro.
Perhaps next time talk about measures to ensure plausible deniability. Dont use firewalls in that context again, even with your explanation it made no sense. Or you can dig your heels in and continue to misuse it, that's your call too "bro".
I can use whatever term I like and it makes perfect sense, i.e. walling off or protecting the campaign from any culpability. Does one seriously believe it only applies in an IT context and never existed before computers bro, amigo, cobber?
-
@canefan
Shep Smith has always been very anti-Trump - and Chris Wallace, Charles Krauthammer and a host of other right wing guys don't like him that much either. They also have Never-Trumpers from The National Review on regularly.The most pro-Trump guys on Fox are Hannity and Lou Dobbs.
Fox is the most balanced channel (in terms of pro-anti Trump) in America by far
There is not a single pro-Trump host on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS or NBC.
If Trump succeeds, there is big gap in the market for a pro-Trump channel, because his policies are not establishment Republican in many ways.
There is a big outfit called Sinclair that looks promising in terms of getting the big cable licenses + OANN but it seems to lack big funding. -
@canefan said in US Politics:
Mr Smith going off the network reservation
You seem confused. Fox has been the only network that actually debated this. What network reservation are you talking about? I can only assume you never actually watch Fox.
I can guarantee that for every piece of Trump praise all the other networks combined I can find 5 negative reports on Fox about Trump.
There is a message in that if people care to look. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
Illegality was certainly mentioned, insinuated and fantasized about by a few. But glad we can put the absurd claim of illegality to rest. ..that leaves political games...MSM use the word "collusion". Collusion is not a statutory crime.
Funnily enough, that is not mentioned unless they are challenged on it.To be fair, I have read that Don Jr. might have broken campaign finance laws or something. I note the media is now shifting their focus to Jared Kushner - more valuable target.
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
Illegality was certainly mentioned, insinuated and fantasized about by a few. But glad we can put the absurd claim of illegality to rest. ..that leaves political games...MSM use the word "collusion". Collusion is not a statutory crime.
Funnily enough, that is not mentioned unless they are challenged on it.To be fair, I have read that Don Jr. might have broken campaign finance laws or something. I note the media is now shifting their focus to Jared Kushner - more valuable target.
That's bollox as well though. ..until someone can point out what was given to the Trump campaign. And they cannot.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
Illegality was certainly mentioned, insinuated and fantasized about by a few. But glad we can put the absurd claim of illegality to rest. ..that leaves political games...MSM use the word "collusion". Collusion is not a statutory crime.
Funnily enough, that is not mentioned unless they are challenged on it.To be fair, I have read that Don Jr. might have broken campaign finance laws or something. I note the media is now shifting their focus to Jared Kushner - more valuable target.
Kushner has always been the one with the most to lose as Don Jr has no official position in the Whitehouse and Manafort is long gone.
Theres plenty of stuff thats legal but broadly considered wrong which would undermine the integrity of the Whitehouse. Colluding with the Russians is one of them.
This whole "Ah! But its not illegal!" defence is pretty weak given only a few weeks ago the standard defence was "Theres absolutely zero evidence and its a disgusting conspiracy theory masterminded by the democrats because they lost the election!". -
This post is deleted!
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
So if I'm reading this right, we've got Trump supporters saying that past elections have had nefarious goings on, despite there being no evidence. Then we've got Trump supporters saying that nothing nefarious happened with Trump Jr because there's no evidence of it happening?
It's all rather confusing.
It isnt confusing at all unless you are trying to spin this into something terrible, then of course it would get tricky getting all the threads you fantasise about into something.
For example. I am still waiting for anyone to tell me what Trump jnr did that was illegal. Pretty vital BEFORE he is accused of treason and put to death. Yes really... Democrats senators have gone that far. Let that sink in for a minute.
I'm not trying to spin anything, just trying to understand why Trump has done nothing wrong because there's no evidence, yet all other elections have done something wrong even though there's no evidence. And we'd be stupid to think otherwise?
That just doesn't seem like very sane logic to me.
-
Watching a story on 'Sunday' on the Mexico-USA border, pretty fucking shocking stuff. An old couple who own a ranch have 3000+ armed drug smugglers coming through their property every year. The "wall" is nothing more than a barbed wire fence.
Say what you want about Trump but the situation there is completely out of hand and needs a solution. NZ is lucky to be an island, fuck having criminals coming into your country on a daily basis with all manner of drugs, let alone the hordes of people that just want to enter illegally to live here. Tough situation alright.
Since Trump became president illegal crossings have dropped 40%. So he's doing something right in that regard!
-
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
So if I'm reading this right, we've got Trump supporters saying that past elections have had nefarious goings on, despite there being no evidence. Then we've got Trump supporters saying that nothing nefarious happened with Trump Jr because there's no evidence of it happening?
It's all rather confusing.
It isnt confusing at all unless you are trying to spin this into something terrible, then of course it would get tricky getting all the threads you fantasise about into something.
For example. I am still waiting for anyone to tell me what Trump jnr did that was illegal. Pretty vital BEFORE he is accused of treason and put to death. Yes really... Democrats senators have gone that far. Let that sink in for a minute.
I'm not trying to spin anything, just trying to understand why Trump has done nothing wrong because there's no evidence, yet all other elections have done something wrong even though there's no evidence. And we'd be stupid to think otherwise?
That just doesn't seem like very sane logic to me.
Maybe if you didn't make up things you wouldnt be so confused? Nobody has said anyone doing this in previous elections were doing anything wrong. So yeah I think you were spinning.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
So if I'm reading this right, we've got Trump supporters saying that past elections have had nefarious goings on, despite there being no evidence. Then we've got Trump supporters saying that nothing nefarious happened with Trump Jr because there's no evidence of it happening?
It's all rather confusing.
It isnt confusing at all unless you are trying to spin this into something terrible, then of course it would get tricky getting all the threads you fantasise about into something.
For example. I am still waiting for anyone to tell me what Trump jnr did that was illegal. Pretty vital BEFORE he is accused of treason and put to death. Yes really... Democrats senators have gone that far. Let that sink in for a minute.
I'm not trying to spin anything, just trying to understand why Trump has done nothing wrong because there's no evidence, yet all other elections have done something wrong even though there's no evidence. And we'd be stupid to think otherwise?
That just doesn't seem like very sane logic to me.
Maybe if you didn't make up things you wouldnt be so confused? Nobody has said anyone doing this in previous elections were doing anything wrong. So yeah I think you were spinning.
Hah, so defensive. What am I trying to spin? I'm not making things up, I couldn't give a shit either way, I'm finding the whole discussion interesting and I'm sure you know what I meant, but be pedantic and pick up not having the exact wording if you want.
I just don't understand the logic where evidence is required of Trump's wrongdoing but we can say it's happened loads in the past without any evidence. That sounds like conspiracy theorist logic.
-
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
So if I'm reading this right, we've got Trump supporters saying that past elections have had nefarious goings on, despite there being no evidence. Then we've got Trump supporters saying that nothing nefarious happened with Trump Jr because there's no evidence of it happening?
It's all rather confusing.
It isnt confusing at all unless you are trying to spin this into something terrible, then of course it would get tricky getting all the threads you fantasise about into something.
For example. I am still waiting for anyone to tell me what Trump jnr did that was illegal. Pretty vital BEFORE he is accused of treason and put to death. Yes really... Democrats senators have gone that far. Let that sink in for a minute.
I'm not trying to spin anything, just trying to understand why Trump has done nothing wrong because there's no evidence, yet all other elections have done something wrong even though there's no evidence. And we'd be stupid to think otherwise?
That just doesn't seem like very sane logic to me.
Maybe if you didn't make up things you wouldnt be so confused? Nobody has said anyone doing this in previous elections were doing anything wrong. So yeah I think you were spinning.
Hah, so defensive. What am I trying to spin? I'm not making things up, I couldn't give a shit either way, I'm finding the whole discussion interesting and I'm sure you know what I meant, but be pedantic and pick up not having the exact wording if you want.
I just don't understand the logic where evidence is required of Trump's wrongdoing but we can say it's happened loads in the past without any evidence. That sounds like conspiracy theorist logic.
Now you are changing what you are saying. Get specific about who said it has happened loads in the past and that it was wrong and failed to provide evidence. You clearly do give a shit because you are trying really hard to find an issue with something nobody said.
It is not pedantic to point out that the whole key to your supposed confusion is based on something that nobody said.And it isn't defensive to call someone out for making stuff up.
I find it more strange that people still cannot tell me what he did that was illegal, if you really want to be confused.. try that. It is working for me.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
So if I'm reading this right, we've got Trump supporters saying that past elections have had nefarious goings on, despite there being no evidence. Then we've got Trump supporters saying that nothing nefarious happened with Trump Jr because there's no evidence of it happening?
It's all rather confusing.
It isnt confusing at all unless you are trying to spin this into something terrible, then of course it would get tricky getting all the threads you fantasise about into something.
For example. I am still waiting for anyone to tell me what Trump jnr did that was illegal. Pretty vital BEFORE he is accused of treason and put to death. Yes really... Democrats senators have gone that far. Let that sink in for a minutebolded text.
have you got a link for that nothing shows up in my news feeds
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback I'm sure we can all read back in the thread where @Rancid-Schnitzel is saying that previous election campaigns have had meetings with foreign representatives to gather dirt on the opposition and that it's naive to think otherwise, despite there being no evidence.
Yet nothing illegal happened in Trump's meeting because there's no evidence.
US Politics