(07-28-2016 09:35 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: Both sides have become full of it. Argument is over which side is more full of it, not if they are at all.
To that:
Nice long shot of Hiliary's GIANT LONG WALL at about :24-:27 in the video--notice she has police manning it so people don't get through illegally. Quite a unique concept. Perhaps it could also work somewhere else where illegal people and drugs now cross freely?
What we could use is leadership that cares about all American citizens, black or white, rich or poor, etc... This administration has been a failure. The previous one had deep, serious flaws, as did the one before that, etc... But don't really see that happening again this round, so we'll hold our noses and again choose which side stinks less this time.
I do find it ironic that a party that lampooned an idea about a wall to keep people out decided to use one to do the same at their convention, definitely tone deaf. But logistically, the two are incomparable, and I think the fact that this wall needs so many bodies to monitor people trying to cross it helps to make that perfectly clear. But really, the wall is just symbolic at this point (both Trump's and the DNC's) and helps to show the differences between each party's stance on and view of immigration.
I think we do have leadership in plentiful numbers that care about our citizens on both sides. Unfortunately, we have two parties who do not see the writing on the walls with regards to how the world is changing around them and they were unable to adjust and put forth candidates that were more caring. I'm just happy only one party succumbed to the fear and anxiety that the post-industrial world has brought, because while I will hold my nose a bit and vote for HRC, I at least won't be voting for someone who I don't trust to be a faithful steward of the country by putting in the hard work to understand the intricacies of governing and interacting with foreign dignitaries. Or, at least I won't be voting for the person that North Korea has endorsed.
(07-28-2016 10:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I do find it ironic that a party that lampooned an idea about a wall to keep people out decided to use one to do the same at their convention, definitely tone deaf. But logistically, the two are incomparable, and I think the fact that this wall needs so many bodies to monitor people trying to cross it helps to make that perfectly clear. But really, the wall is just symbolic at this point (both Trump's and the DNC's) and helps to show the differences between each party's stance on and view of immigration.
I think we do have leadership in plentiful numbers that care about our citizens on both sides. Unfortunately, we have two parties who do not see the writing on the walls with regards to how the world is changing around them and they were unable to adjust and put forth candidates that were more caring. I'm just happy only one party succumbed to the fear and anxiety that the post-industrial world has brought, because while I will hold my nose a bit and vote for HRC, I at least won't be voting for someone who I don't trust to be a faithful steward of the country by putting in the hard work to understand the intricacies of governing and interacting with foreign dignitaries. Or, at least I won't be voting for the person that North Korea has endorsed.
Fair enough, Lad. And I will be holding my nose to vote for Trump, third parties being non-starters (I did vote for Ross the first time), Trump comes with the added bonus that his election to the Presidency will fundamentally change the Republican party, one way or another. HRC to me represents the worst of the entrenced-bought and paid for, money grubbing despot we all need less of in this country, especially the poor and middle class.
Trump has made his money. He's set. So are his family and his friends. He's definitely a loud-mouth, but he's telling you his sincere beliefs or takes on the issue or subject at the time. HRC is so folded-in, manipulative, calculated and untrustworthy that she makes Nixon look like Washington himself.
Trump is more or less an effective executive. You may not agree with him, and he had a good head start (why is that his fault?) but he's done something with it and helped a lot of people and created wealth. He's taken the big banks down when he had to, so what's wrong there? Yes, he's used the laws in place to his benefit, that's what the system is designed to allow you to do. Hiliary certainly has skirted the laws and rules as much as anyone, so that's a non-starter there. Trump is aware of how the system works and at his age and place, I think he'd enjoy blowing it up and getting the country on track to reach its potential. He'd upset the establishment on both sides--he already has, but he'd allow for a more level playing field for the little guy, and he won't hang them out to dry the way Hiliary has and will.
I would love a woman President someday--just not her.
(07-28-2016 10:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: ...faithful steward of the country...
Interesting characterization of someone who can't seem to steward her own emails.
It was an intentional choice because it generally implies managing something tangible, like a piece of property, an estate, etc. And while HRC seems a bit inept, at best, with regards to her email server, there is a significant amount of infrastructure in place from supporting institutions (e.g. Pentagon) to make sure a lapse in judgement about electronic communications doesn't happen again. So I don't worry about that too much.
However, unless we do not want Trump to speak in public ever, I don't think there is an effective way to keep him from, at best, shoving his foot so far in his mouth that we actually have to deal with the consequences. This is a man who juste made a very bad joke/tongue-in-cheek comment suggesting a country with a power hungry head of state look into his political enemy's personal communications for a "reward" as Trump put it.
(07-28-2016 10:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I do find it ironic that a party that lampooned an idea about a wall to keep people out decided to use one to do the same at their convention, definitely tone deaf. But logistically, the two are incomparable, and I think the fact that this wall needs so many bodies to monitor people trying to cross it helps to make that perfectly clear. But really, the wall is just symbolic at this point (both Trump's and the DNC's) and helps to show the differences between each party's stance on and view of immigration.
I think we do have leadership in plentiful numbers that care about our citizens on both sides. Unfortunately, we have two parties who do not see the writing on the walls with regards to how the world is changing around them and they were unable to adjust and put forth candidates that were more caring. I'm just happy only one party succumbed to the fear and anxiety that the post-industrial world has brought, because while I will hold my nose a bit and vote for HRC, I at least won't be voting for someone who I don't trust to be a faithful steward of the country by putting in the hard work to understand the intricacies of governing and interacting with foreign dignitaries. Or, at least I won't be voting for the person that North Korea has endorsed.
Fair enough, Lad. And I will be holding my nose to vote for Trump, third parties being non-starters (I did vote for Ross the first time), Trump comes with the added bonus that his election to the Presidency will fundamentally change the Republican party, one way or another. HRC to me represents the worst of the entrenced-bought and paid for, money grubbing despot we all need less of in this country, especially the poor and middle class.
Trump has made his money. He's set. So are his family and his friends. He's definitely a loud-mouth, but he's telling you his sincere beliefs or takes on the issue or subject at the time. HRC is so folded-in, manipulative, calculated and untrustworthy that she makes Nixon look like Washington himself.
Trump is more or less an effective executive. You may not agree with him, and he had a good head start (why is that his fault?) but he's done something with it and helped a lot of people and created wealth. He's taken the big banks down when he had to, so what's wrong there? Yes, he's used the laws in place to his benefit, that's what the system is designed to allow you to do. Hiliary certainly has skirted the laws and rules as much as anyone, so that's a non-starter there. Trump is aware of how the system works and at his age and place, I think he'd enjoy blowing it up and getting the country on track to reach its potential. He'd upset the establishment on both sides--he already has, but he'd allow for a more level playing field for the little guy, and he won't hang them out to dry the way Hiliary has and will.
I would love a woman President someday--just not her.
Trump's nomination has already fundamentally changed the Republican party. Just look at how the RNC went - loud cheers for government programs and mandates (early childhood education, equal pay, and maternity leave), anti-trade (strong anti-TPP stance), and for someone who did not say that his policies would help people help themselves, but who would just do it for them and "Make America Great Again." The Republican party as we knew it died last week, and for at least the next few months is the Trump Party.
(07-28-2016 10:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: ...faithful steward of the country...
Interesting characterization of someone who can't seem to steward her own emails.
It was an intentional choice because it generally implies managing something tangible, like a piece of property, an estate, etc. And while HRC seems a bit inept, at best, with regards to her email server, there is a significant amount of infrastructure in place from supporting institutions (e.g. Pentagon) to make sure a lapse in judgement about electronic communications doesn't happen again. So I don't worry about that too much.
However, unless we do not want Trump to speak in public ever, I don't think there is an effective way to keep him from, at best, shoving his foot so far in his mouth that we actually have to deal with the consequences. This is a man who juste made a very bad joke/tongue-in-cheek comment suggesting a country with a power hungry head of state look into his political enemy's personal communications for a "reward" as Trump put it.
I would say classified information, including top secret information, is pretty tangible and the FBI (not me) said she did a lousy job of managing such, not to mention lying about it.
(07-28-2016 10:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: ...faithful steward of the country...
Interesting characterization of someone who can't seem to steward her own emails.
It was an intentional choice because it generally implies managing something tangible, like a piece of property, an estate, etc. And while HRC seems a bit inept, at best, with regards to her email server, there is a significant amount of infrastructure in place from supporting institutions (e.g. Pentagon) to make sure a lapse in judgement about electronic communications doesn't happen again. So I don't worry about that too much.
However, unless we do not want Trump to speak in public ever, I don't think there is an effective way to keep him from, at best, shoving his foot so far in his mouth that we actually have to deal with the consequences. This is a man who juste made a very bad joke/tongue-in-cheek comment suggesting a country with a power hungry head of state look into his political enemy's personal communications for a "reward" as Trump put it.
I would say classified information, including top secret information, is pretty tangible and the FBI (not me) said she did a lousy job of managing such, not to mention lying about it.
Electronic documents are not tangible, and since she wasn't getting in trouble for printing these documents out... But anyways, as I said, she was inept at best. I agree that she did a poor job handling her emails, just as the FBI said.
But, like the majority of my comment that you disregarded, POTUS will have a lot more people looking out for them to make sure that the information is handled appropriately, especially since this concern was made public. I have little faith in Trump acting like a diplomat in PUBLIC for four whole years.
(07-28-2016 10:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: ...faithful steward of the country...
Interesting characterization of someone who can't seem to steward her own emails.
It was an intentional choice because it generally implies managing something tangible, like a piece of property, an estate, etc. And while HRC seems a bit inept, at best, with regards to her email server, there is a significant amount of infrastructure in place from supporting institutions (e.g. Pentagon) to make sure a lapse in judgement about electronic communications doesn't happen again. So I don't worry about that too much.
However, unless we do not want Trump to speak in public ever, I don't think there is an effective way to keep him from, at best, shoving his foot so far in his mouth that we actually have to deal with the consequences. This is a man who juste made a very bad joke/tongue-in-cheek comment suggesting a country with a power hungry head of state look into his political enemy's personal communications for a "reward" as Trump put it.
I would say classified information, including top secret information, is pretty tangible and the FBI (not me) said she did a lousy job of managing such, not to mention lying about it.
Electronic documents are not tangible, and since she wasn't getting in trouble for printing these documents out... But anyways, as I said, she was inept at best. I agree that she did a poor job handling her emails, just as the FBI said.
But, like the majority of my comment that you disregarded, POTUS will have a lot more people looking out for them to make sure that the information is handled appropriately, especially since this concern was made public. I have little faith in Trump acting like a diplomat in PUBLIC for four whole years.
And you ignored or missed the fact I was referring to the information itself, not an electronic document. I'm not a lawyer or an accountant, but one definition of the adjective tangible is "material or substantial", which I certainly believe classified information to be.
At least we agree she "did a poor job handling her emails, just as the FBI said", but I'd add 1) another four letter adjective in front of "poor" that starts with "p" and 2) after "emails" the phrase "and the classified information contained therein".
(07-28-2016 11:55 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote: Interesting characterization of someone who can't seem to steward her own emails.
It was an intentional choice because it generally implies managing something tangible, like a piece of property, an estate, etc. And while HRC seems a bit inept, at best, with regards to her email server, there is a significant amount of infrastructure in place from supporting institutions (e.g. Pentagon) to make sure a lapse in judgement about electronic communications doesn't happen again. So I don't worry about that too much.
However, unless we do not want Trump to speak in public ever, I don't think there is an effective way to keep him from, at best, shoving his foot so far in his mouth that we actually have to deal with the consequences. This is a man who juste made a very bad joke/tongue-in-cheek comment suggesting a country with a power hungry head of state look into his political enemy's personal communications for a "reward" as Trump put it.
I would say classified information, including top secret information, is pretty tangible and the FBI (not me) said she did a lousy job of managing such, not to mention lying about it.
Electronic documents are not tangible, and since she wasn't getting in trouble for printing these documents out... But anyways, as I said, she was inept at best. I agree that she did a poor job handling her emails, just as the FBI said.
But, like the majority of my comment that you disregarded, POTUS will have a lot more people looking out for them to make sure that the information is handled appropriately, especially since this concern was made public. I have little faith in Trump acting like a diplomat in PUBLIC for four whole years.
And you ignored or missed the fact I was referring to the information itself, not an electronic document. I'm not a lawyer or an accountant, but one definition of the adjective tangible is "material or substantial", which I certainly believe classified information to be.
At least we agree she "did a poor job handling her emails, just as the FBI said", but I'd add 1) another four letter adjective in front of "poor" that starts with "p" and 2) after "emails" the phrase "and the classified information contained therein".
Regardless of the adjectives being added/subtracted.
The point remains, I'd rather have someone whose faults can be more easily controlled.
What is your preference? Would you prefer a person who publicly "makes tongue-in-cheek" comments offering rewards to other countries for hacking private information of US citizens? Or someone who was publicly endorsed by North Korea? Or someone who is running to be the commander-in-chief but has not done enough homework to know what the nuclear triad is?
(07-28-2016 04:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Regardless of the adjectives being added/subtracted.
The point remains, I'd rather have someone whose faults can be more easily controlled.
What is your preference? Would you prefer a person who publicly "makes tongue-in-cheek" comments offering rewards to other countries for hacking private information of US citizens? Or someone who was publicly endorsed by North Korea? Or someone who is running to be the commander-in-chief but has not done enough homework to know what the nuclear triad is?
What if the infamous Romney video had come from an outside source like these emails? Would you have rather not have had that information?
In today's internet age, if the leaders are going to hide these things and the press is not going to do its job, then, yeah, I'd like to see those emails she deleted after she was subpoenaed no matter who has them. To quote a famous person, who has the utmost integrity herself: "What difference does it make?"
(07-28-2016 04:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Regardless of the adjectives being added/subtracted.
The point remains, I'd rather have someone whose faults can be more easily controlled.
What is your preference? Would you prefer a person who publicly "makes tongue-in-cheek" comments offering rewards to other countries for hacking private information of US citizens? Or someone who was publicly endorsed by North Korea? Or someone who is running to be the commander-in-chief but has not done enough homework to know what the nuclear triad is?
What if the infamous Romney video had come from an outside source like these emails? Would you have rather not have had that information?
In today's internet age, if the leaders are going to hide these things and the press is not going to do its job, then, yeah, I'd like to see those emails she deleted after she was subpoenaed no matter who has them. To quote a famous person, who has the utmost integrity herself: "What difference does it make?"
My goodness, it's impressive to see so many people openly support a presidential candidate so flippantly suggest that other countries spy on our citizens. What has the political situation in our country come to when it's deemed perfectly acceptable to ask a foreign nation to spy on one of our own.
While I agree that it is better to have this information than not. Do you know what I want our President to avoid doing? Asking other countries, especially ones that we have severe disagreements with, to spy on our citizens. Because we are talking about nations and not private groups/organizations (e.g. Anonymous), you begin to go down a path where serious consequences could be felt with regards to our international relationships and what constitutes hostile actions.
I think in this situation, the difference matters, for two reasons. One, we should not like that foreign countries are meddling in our campaigns, nor should we be happy that one of the presidential candidates seems very willing to let that happen. Those other countries have their own agenda, and let me tell you, it does not involve putting our country first.
Second, when was the last time you heard a POTUS publicly advocate for another country, let alone one that we are not on good terms with, to meddle with our own affairs? By going down this path, we start to set precedents that we should not be setting, about how much control we want to have over ourselves and what sort of incursions by other state that we would tolerate.
As a hypothetical, would you have care if Obama had held a press conference where he joked that the Chinese should try and steal some dirt on Mitch McConnell while he was trying to pass Obamacare? Or what about if he had publicly alluded to wanting the Russians to try and dig up Romney's tax returns after he initially declined to release them? Both of those acts would have been crossing the line as to what a POTUS should be saying publicly, or even privately for that matter.
(07-28-2016 05:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: My goodness, it's impressive to see so many people openly support a presidential candidate so flippantly suggest that other countries spy on our citizens. What has the political situation in our country come to when it's deemed perfectly acceptable to ask a foreign nation to spy on one of our own.
While I agree that it is better to have this information than not. Do you know what I want our President to avoid doing? Asking other countries, especially ones that we have severe disagreements with, to spy on our citizens. Because we are talking about nations and not private groups/organizations (e.g. Anonymous), you begin to go down a path where serious consequences could be felt with regards to our international relationships and what constitutes hostile actions.
I think in this situation, the difference matters, for two reasons. One, we should not like that foreign countries are meddling in our campaigns, nor should we be happy that one of the presidential candidates seems very willing to let that happen. Those other countries have their own agenda, and let me tell you, it does not involve putting our country first.
Second, when was the last time you heard a POTUS publicly advocate for another country, let alone one that we are not on good terms with, to meddle with our own affairs? By going down this path, we start to set precedents that we should not be setting, about how much control we want to have over ourselves and what sort of incursions by other state that we would tolerate.
As a hypothetical, would you have care if Obama had held a press conference where he joked that the Chinese should try and steal some dirt on Mitch McConnell while he was trying to pass Obamacare? Or what about if he had publicly alluded to wanting the Russians to try and dig up Romney's tax returns after he initially declined to release them? Both of those acts would have been crossing the line as to what a POTUS should be saying publicly, or even privately for that matter.
I took his statement as "If anyone already has the info, post it for all to see." Which is different from what you're saying.
2nd, yeah, if there was dirt on the turtle that the American people should know, and that was being suppressed, then post that too.
The press just doesn't act like journalists anymore. It's one thing for us to post our partisan perspectives on a message board--we're not journalists. heck, we're purportedly supposed to be sports fans. That's one reason I don't often take this place as serious as a funeral parlor, though some may. Sports is supposed to be entertaining and fun, otherwise why bother? I have too many other places in my life I have to be dead serious, and sometimes there is a need to blow off some steam in between.
Getting back to your post, though. If McConnell had deleted 30,000 emails after he was subpoenaed for them, then yeah, I'd want whoever had them to disclose them for all to see, because destroying that evidence is just plain wrong for a Sec of State, a leader of the Senate, a POTUS (remember Nixon?)
Honestly, the one thing I'd hope is that whoever is president would have the brains to make hard copy backups of sensitiev documents and keep less stuff on computers because: they are NEVER secure, no matter what they say, they can be destroyed by "accidents" and real accidents, and they leave us vulnerable to EMP/ magnet attacks, etc... which is what I'm more worried about than someone posting some illegally deleted email that belong to the American people.
I think the Press' job is not to break the law and hack into someone's private servers - their job is to ask questions and investigate what is going on. Those are distinctly two different things, so I'm not sure why you brought the quality of the press into this conversation.
But if you look at the situation as you do, then I understand your point to an extent. How those documents were obtained by a foreign state matters - I view physical and electronic espionage as similar in nature, and I don't think we should be encouraging and rewarding foreign states to do either when it comes to US citizens. These are not whistle blowers who deserve to be protected - people working in an organization who may have a political agenda but don't necessarily have ulterior motives to help a foreign state by releasing information. These are other countries trying to gain the upper hand through gathering information and then releasing said information.
Say that, in those 30k+ emails there was classified information about our own covert operatives, and that the only reason those emails are ever found is because Trump goaded someone into believe they would be rewarded for releasing them. And that information being obtained and released by Russia directly causes the lose of lives of US service men. Would it have been an overall good goal to poke that bear? Would the ability to say "Gotcha' to HRC and prosecute her have been worth it, because at this point, we now have loss of life due to the direct actions of another nation.
There's a big difference in our response to Russia getting a number of our soldiers killed and some organization like Anonymous doing it. You straddle a very thin line between moral/immoral when you start talking about breaking the law to dig up some dirt on someone or get to the bottom of something, and I guess I just don't like that someone with the potential to wield so much power doesn't seem to understand that.
Anyways, enough rambling on that - I just think that Trump hasn't yet taken the potential role of President seriously, and nothing that he has done indicates that he will.
(07-28-2016 06:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: There's a big difference in our response to Russia getting a number of our soldiers killed and some organization like Anonymous doing it.
Can you explain this statement to me? I don't think I agree with it, but certainly would like to understand what you meant before passing judgment.
I won't defend Trump or analyze his intention in calling for 'help' in finding emails . . .
but the hacking of the DNC emails would seem to me to be ample evidence of the problems HRC created by having private email accounts used for secure State Department emails, some of them classified.
The argument that we can control her screw-ups more easily than we can Trumps may be true after a fashion, but the fact remains that we shouldn't be electing people who've demonstrated a penchant for screwing things up in the first place.
Given the huge advantages Clinton had, the fact that the DNC was actively working against the Sanders campaign is totally disgusting.
I, honest to God, would've voted for Sanders over Trump, even though I disagree with many of his positions, simply because he is the only person left running (at least late in the game) who I believed was honest and who I could trust. Any damage he could've done would've been severely limited by Congress.
As it is, I'm almost certainly going to throw my vote away voting for one of the '3rd party' candidates, because I don't believe either of the mainstream candidates deserves my vote.
And that is truly sad.
(This post was last modified: 07-28-2016 07:57 PM by Rick Gerlach.)
(07-28-2016 06:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: There's a big difference in our response to Russia getting a number of our soldiers killed and some organization like Anonymous doing it.
Can you explain this statement to me? I don't think I agree with it, but certainly would like to understand what you meant before passing judgment.
I won't defend Trump or analyze his intention in calling for 'help' in finding emails . . .
but the hacking of the DNC emails would seem to me to be ample evidence of the problems HRC created by having private email accounts used for secure State Department emails, some of them classified.
The argument that we can control her screw-ups more easily than we can Trumps may be true after a fashion, but the fact remains that we shouldn't be electing people who've demonstrated a penchant for screwing things up in the first place.
Given the huge advantages Clinton had, the fact that the DNC was actively working against the Sanders campaign is totally disgusting.
I, honest to God, would've voted for Sanders over Trump, even though I disagree with many of his positions, simply because he is the only person left running (at least late in the game) who I believed was honest and who I could trust. Any damage he could've done would've been severely limited by Congress.
As it is, I'm almost certainly going to throw my vote away voting for one of the '3rd party' candidates, because I don't believe either of the mainstream candidates deserves my vote.
And that is truly sad.
Not what needs to be explained given the context of that statement due to the rest of the post, but I'll try and give it a shot.
I posed a very unlikely hypothetical to help explain why I think that the organization that would obtain and release hacked emails matters, and that the situation is more complicated than was suggested. The situation is more complicated and deserves a more thoughtful analysis that does take into consideration who "hacked" those emails. Like I said, if information obtained via illegal methods and then released to the public, and that release of information leads to the death of US servicemen, I think it matters who released the information. If it was a foreign nation, we need to start debating whether we take military actions against them or impose diplomatic sanctions. These are actions that could easily escalate any situation into something more consequential, especially if it is a tense situation like with Russia. If it is a group like Anonymous, we can work with our allies to bring them to justice if so desired and we have a route that may not step on other nations toes. That's why I think saying that it doesn't matter who releases the information isn't true.
I hope that helped clear up what seemed unclear to you.
And agreed about the DNC and Sanders - I know that the DNC is a private organization, but c'mon, the whole point is to be impartial and then support a candidate that the people of your party choose. To me, the worst and most idiotic part about the apparent collusion to try and hurt Bernie's chances, was that even if Sanders found some way to eek out a victory for the party, Sanders polls very well versus Trump and likely would have beat him as well.
(07-28-2016 06:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: There's a big difference in our response to Russia getting a number of our soldiers killed and some organization like Anonymous doing it.
Can you explain this statement to me? I don't think I agree with it, but certainly would like to understand what you meant before passing judgment.
I won't defend Trump or analyze his intention in calling for 'help' in finding emails . . .
but the hacking of the DNC emails would seem to me to be ample evidence of the problems HRC created by having private email accounts used for secure State Department emails, some of them classified.
The argument that we can control her screw-ups more easily than we can Trumps may be true after a fashion, but the fact remains that we shouldn't be electing people who've demonstrated a penchant for screwing things up in the first place.
Given the huge advantages Clinton had, the fact that the DNC was actively working against the Sanders campaign is totally disgusting.
I, honest to God, would've voted for Sanders over Trump, even though I disagree with many of his positions, simply because he is the only person left running (at least late in the game) who I believed was honest and who I could trust. Any damage he could've done would've been severely limited by Congress.
As it is, I'm almost certainly going to throw my vote away voting for one of the '3rd party' candidates, because I don't believe either of the mainstream candidates deserves my vote.
And that is truly sad.
Not what needs to be explained given the context of that statement due to the rest of the post, but I'll try and give it a shot.
I posed a very unlikely hypothetical to help explain why I think that the organization that would obtain and release hacked emails matters, and that the situation is more complicated than was suggested. The situation is more complicated and deserves a more thoughtful analysis that does take into consideration who "hacked" those emails. Like I said, if information obtained via illegal methods and then released to the public, and that release of information leads to the death of US servicemen, I think it matters who released the information. If it was a foreign nation, we need to start debating whether we take military actions against them or impose diplomatic sanctions. These are actions that could easily escalate any situation into something more consequential, especially if it is a tense situation like with Russia. If it is a group like Anonymous, we can work with our allies to bring them to justice if so desired and we have a route that may not step on other nations toes. That's why I think saying that it doesn't matter who releases the information isn't true.
I hope that helped clear up what seemed unclear to you.
And agreed about the DNC and Sanders - I know that the DNC is a private organization, but c'mon, the whole point is to be impartial and then support a candidate that the people of your party choose. To me, the worst and most idiotic part about the apparent collusion to try and hurt Bernie's chances, was that even if Sanders found some way to eek out a victory for the party, Sanders polls very well versus Trump and likely would have beat him as well.
fair enough. I didn't read what your wrote carefully enough.
(07-28-2016 07:55 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: I, honest to God, would've voted for Sanders over Trump, even though I disagree with many of his positions, simply because he is the only person left running (at least late in the game) who I believed was honest and who I could trust. Any damage he could've done would've been severely limited by Congress.
I would trust Hillary or Trump far more than I would trust Sanders.
/
Presidential Horse Race Thread
![[Image: 13882500_1600593363566661_77631992422653...e=5821707B]](https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13882500_1600593363566661_7763199242265313029_n.jpg?oh=d1406fb07aac8cf7c77cb127e825b5f4&oe=5821707B)
He just needs to get someone named "Rod" to run with him!
