Donald vs Hillary

[eyeball]

Would it surprise Argus if every government computer system on the planet wasn't just as accessible to our side's (whatever that is) security and intelligence institutions?

I suppose it's perfectly justifiable when we do it.

Edited August 9, 2016 by eyeball

[GostHacked]

Anyone who thinks the Chinese and Russians don't have free access to pretty much every government computer in the US and Canada has very little idea what is going on in the world. Wouldn't surprise me if the Iranians did too.

Yup, the CIA CSIS, MI5 and other 5 Eyes do the same thing to Russia, China, Iran .. tit for tat.

[betsy]

Anyone who thinks the Chinese and Russians don't have free access to pretty much every government computer in the US and Canada has very little idea what is going on in the world. Wouldn't surprise me if the Iranians did too.

Exactly! Everybody knows there's cyber espionage going on at all times!

It's one thing that the Chinese, Russians and all hackers of all shades do their best to hack into our system.....but it's quite another when the Secretary of State hands it to them on a silver platter.

Why does she makes it so easy for them?

[Guest]

Is this poor scientist another casualty of Hillary's negligence?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cotton-clinton-discussed-executed-iranian-scientist-on-email/article/2598807

The scientist was initially hailed as a hero in Iran. However, something had changed and he ended up being executed

for treason.

As it turns out, No. Hillary's emails had nothing to do with the execution of this scientist. Just more BS that trump had no problem tweeting.

Clinton’s email server did not lead to an Iranian scientist’s death

[betsy]

As it turns out, No. Hillary's emails had nothing to do with the execution of this scientist. Just more BS that trump had no problem tweeting.

Clinton’s email server did not lead to an Iranian scientist’s death

It may not have led to his death.....but it's careless nevertheless to discuss something like this in her email!

Read this part from your article.

“I’m not going to comment on what he may or may not have done for the United States government, but in the emails that were on Hillary Clinton’s private server, there were conversations among her senior advisors about this gentleman,” Cotton said. “That goes to show just how reckless and careless her decision was to put that kind of highly classified information on a private server.”

That's the point!

Edited August 9, 2016 by betsy

[Big Guy]

The recent open letter from 50 security "experts" on Donald Trump is worth a read:

Letter

[segnosaur]

Will Assange release more wikileaks that he said would result in Hillary's indictment?

Quite doubtful.

Hillary has been investigated by the FBI, and has been under a microscope by the republicans for years. If there was anything indictable, it likely would have come out long ago. For the most part, Wikileaks and Assange seem to be more of an echo chamber than anything else... providing material for those who are already anti-Clinton to repeat, distort, and then repeat the distortion.

Even the last big anti-Clinton "Wikileak" (that Democratic party insiders preferred Clinton over Sanders) was pretty irrelevant. I have no problem believing Democratic party insiders preferred Clinton... (Its understandable. Clinton was a long time Democrat and until recently, Sanders was not. Plus, Sanders would likely loose any election badly. The idea of an outsider taking over the party and leading the democrats to defeat would be unpleasant to democrats who had spent years working for the party.) But the fact that some Democrats favored Clinton does not mean that they took any steps to rig the primaries to favor her.Even the most damming email (suggesting using Sander's religion against him) didn't actually lead to any actual action.

So while BernieBros and Trumpettes will have their little orgasms over Wikileaks, its unlikely to have any real effect.

It appears that all this is to satisfy the ego of Assange. Seems to go against the idea of Wikileaks being some sort of "open government" initiative.

[segnosaur]

As it turns out, No. Hillary's emails had nothing to do with the execution of this scientist. Just more BS that trump had no problem tweeting.

It may not have led to his death....

Yet that didn't stop you from posting: Is this poor scientist another casualty of Hillary's negligence?.

It would have been easy to google the death of the scientist yourself, yet instead of taking the time to actually create a post based on facts, you jumped in and posted an easy-to-debunk question dealing more in empty rhetoric than the truth.

And that is the problem that many of us have with Trump and the Republican party.

.but it's careless nevertheless to discuss something like this in her email!

Here's the thing... I recognize that Clinton did not properly secure documents. Its unfortunate. Overall, i wish it did not happen. If there was a candidate that had similar policies and similar experience, it would be enough to say "vote for the other person". But, we don't have an infinite number of candidates.

Its also true that Trump never mishandled secure documents. But on the other hand, he's never actually been in a position to do so. (And unlike Clinton, he has also never negotiated a middle east cease fire, nor was he in the situation room when Bin Laden was killed), He has, however, been in the business world, where several of his businesses have declared bankruptcy and he is currently being sued by former students of Trump University. So, both presidential candidates may have had some success, but they have also made mistakes. So, if you're going to suggest a failure of Clinton disqualifies her from the presidency, shouldn't Trump's failures likewise disqualify him from the office?

[betsy]

Quite doubtful.

Hillary has been investigated by the FBI, and has been under a microscope by the republicans for years. If there was anything indictable, it likely would have come out long ago. For the most part, Wikileaks and Assange seem to be more of an echo chamber than anything else... providing material for those who are already anti-Clinton to repeat, distort, and then repeat the distortion.

Even the last big anti-Clinton "Wikileak" (that Democratic party insiders preferred Clinton over Sanders) was pretty irrelevant. I have no problem believing Democratic party insiders preferred Clinton... (Its understandable. Clinton was a long time Democrat and until recently, Sanders was not. Plus, Sanders would likely loose any election badly. The idea of an outsider taking over the party and leading the democrats to defeat would be unpleasant to democrats who had spent years working for the party.) But the fact that some Democrats favored Clinton does not mean that they took any steps to rig the primaries to favor her.Even the most damming email (suggesting using Sander's religion against him) didn't actually lead to any actual action.

So while BernieBros and Trumpettes will have their little orgasms over Wikileaks, its unlikely to have any real effect.

It appears that all this is to satisfy the ego of Assange. Seems to go against the idea of Wikileaks being some sort of "open government" initiative.

We have to wait and see. I've read that Assange might release them sometime in October.

[Guest]

The recent open letter from 50 security "experts" on Donald Trump is worth a read:

Letter

Wow. That is an impressive list of very important, experienced, experts using very clear language about Trump. The problem is I'm not sure their very direct message is clear enough for those who would support the Donald, they do struggle with multiple syllables after all. Basically, 50 security and foreign affairs experts just asked Republicans and Trump supporters to pull their heads out of their assess and condemn a very dangerous, man-baby, fool.

Still, I expect some mouthbreathers will respond with some BS comment about the corrupt, elite establishment trying to keep the keep the poor billionaire, scam artists down...and that is why education and critical thinking skills are important, even if both are bad for current conservative policy positions.

A President must be disciplined, control emotions, and act only after reflection and careful deliberation. A President must maintain cordial relationships with leaders of countries of different backgrounds and must have their respect and trust.

In our judgment, Mr. Trump has none of these critical qualities. He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood. He does not encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior. All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be President and Commanderin-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

We understand that many Americans are profoundly frustrated with the federal government and its inability to solve pressing domestic and international problems. We also know that many have doubts about Hillary Clinton, as do many of us. But Donald Trump is not the answer to America’s daunting challenges and to this crucial election. We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Guest

[segnosaur]

Wow. That is an impressive list of very important, experienced, experts using very clear language about Trump. The problem is I'm not sure their very direct message is clear enough for those who would support the Donald, they do struggle with multiple syllables after all. .

They could have just said "Trump not great".

[Guest]

They could have just said "Trump not great".

For some reason the phrases 'Yuuuge', 'believe me' and 'ok' seem necessary when communicating with those who would support Trump, along with grade 2 level insults and repetition. For instance they respond well to Hillary Rotten Clinton, apparently they feel that is witty and important. So if the security and foreign affairs experts said "Donald Jackass Trump, not great, OK? Yuuuuge Jackass, believe me. I mean everyone is saying that Delusional Donald is really, yuuugely, not great. OK?" they might get the point.

Ah, wait the word delusional is too complicated.

[Guest]

Did the lunatic, a-hole just suggest gun nuts should kill Clinton?

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment," Trump said to the crowd of supporters gathered in the Trask Coliseum at North Carolina University in Wilmington. "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.

"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-2nd-amendment-folks-stop-clintons-supreme-court/story?id=41239648

It's a sad state of affairs brought on by this freak show and the dysfunctional GOP that unleashed him on itself, America and the world, that we even have to contemplate questions like this.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Guest

[Hal 9000]

Did the lunatic, a-hole just suggest gun nuts should kill Clinton?

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment," Trump said to the crowd of supporters gathered in the Trask Coliseum at North Carolina University in Wilmington. "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.

"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-2nd-amendment-folks-stop-clintons-supreme-court/story?id=41239648

It's a sad state of affairs brought on by this freak show and the dysfunctional GOP that unleashed him on itself, America and the world, that we even have to contemplate questions like this.

I can only hope he doesn't apologize by saying "he got carried away", because that's an obvious admission of rape now.

[kimmy]

I can only hope he doesn't apologize by saying "he got carried away", because that's an obvious admission of rape now.

His campaign damage control media relations team is trying to spin it that Trump was talking about "2nd Amendment people" voting this fall, even though that's clearly not the context of Trump's comment.

A bad joke from a guy who is completely oblivious.

-k

[kimmy]

How disconnected from reality is Trump? He''s so detached from reality that he thinks he's winning.

-k

[TimG]

How disconnected from reality is Trump?

Don't know if 'Bagdad Bob' is from before your time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXl1GkWWGmA

Edited August 10, 2016 by Charles Anthony
video link

[Hal 9000]

How disconnected from reality is Trump? He''s so detached from reality that he thinks he's winning.

-k

Have we not learned from ..well, everybody involved that if something is said enough that people will believe it.

[jacee]

His campaign damage control media relations team is trying to spin it that Trump was talking about "2nd Amendment people" voting this fall, even though that's clearly not the context of Trump's comment.

A bad joke from a guy who is completely oblivious.

-k

Oh nice recoverup. Voting. Right.

There might be some Trump people who think they're just gonna die or kill somebody if he can't win.

It's not a joke.

.

.

Edited August 10, 2016 by jacee

[cybercoma]

Ask Gabby Giffords about the joke Sarah Palin made about painting targets on political adversaries.

[Smeelious]

Don't know if 'Bagdad Bob' is from before your time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXl1GkWWGmA

Thank you for this...I was trying to remember this guy last week and couldn't find it.

[kimmy]

Oh nice recoverup. Voting. Right.

There might be some Trump people who think they're just gonna die or kill somebody if he can't win.

It's not a joke.

Ask Gabby Giffords about the joke Sarah Palin made about painting targets on political adversaries.

I don't think he seriously wants Hilary or her hypothetical future Supreme Court nominee to be assassinated. I think it was an off-the-cuff attempt at humor, consistent with his other off-the-cuff remarks. And obviously it's not something anybody should joke about, given America's long history of assassination attempts and current hyper-polarized political climate.

I think it's another indictment of his character that he'd joke about something like that, but I don't think even his harshest critics honestly believe he's calling for the assassination of Clinton or her Supreme Court nominees should she become president.

-k

[kimmy]

Don't know if 'Bagdad Bob' is from before your time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXl1GkWWGmA

Perfect! I think Trump fired Corey Lewandisky... maybe there's a job opening at Trump HQ.

-k

{"...in fact some Democrats did cross the border into Georgia but they were quickly defeated and beaten to death with their own shoes!"}

[jacee]

I don't think he seriously wants Hilary or her hypothetical future Supreme Court nominee to be assassinated. I think it was an off-the-cuff attempt at humor, consistent with his other off-the-cuff remarks. And obviously it's not something anybody should joke about, given America's long history of assassination attempts and current hyper-polarized political climate.

I think it's another indictment of his character that he'd joke about something like that, but I don't think even his harshest critics honestly believe he's calling for the assassination of Clinton or her Supreme Court nominees should she become president.

-k

Do you think he cares if she does get assassinated by some of his zealous dimwit gun nuts?

Not.one.iota.

His comment was as serious as anyone wants to take it.

And he's blameless because 'it was just a joke'.

Don't make the mistake of assuming anything Trump says is 'a mistake' 'off the cuff' 'just a joke'.

That assumes he has a conscience and wouldn't do that 'for real'.

But of course he would.

He has no conscience.

If a gun nut pops her off ... it's not going to stick to him.

That's all that matters to him.

.

[cybercoma]

I don't think he seriously wants Hilary or her hypothetical future Supreme Court nominee to be assassinated. I think it was an off-the-cuff attempt at humor, consistent with his other off-the-cuff remarks. And obviously it's not something anybody should joke about, given America's long history of assassination attempts and current hyper-polarized political climate.

I think it's another indictment of his character that he'd joke about something like that, but I don't think even his harshest critics honestly believe he's calling for the assassination of Clinton or her Supreme Court nominees should she become president.

-k

This is not something that should ever be dismissed so lightly, especially coming from someone who's a candidate for POTUS. It wasn't a joke. He wasn't trying to be funny. It was an invitation to violence, the antithesis of democracy. He needs to be taken at his word and taken seriously. The Secret Service has already said publicly that they now have to increase Hillary's security thanks to his remarks. This issue could only be more serious if he attempted to assassinate her himself.