Kim Campbell Needs a Head Shake.....Badly.

Wilber · October 12, 2016

4 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

And treating them like meat qualifies you for the presidency.

Yes, treating them like meat qualifies you for the presidency. Not treating them like meat qualifies you for sainthood.

msj · October 13, 2016

The funny thing is that the "moral majority" is getting caught out for being neither moral nor a majority. :lol:

Ash74 · October 13, 2016

Trump has not been charged with anything because of his locker room talk. He has the right to voice his opinion.

Just as those that disagree with his opinion have the right not to agree with him and would be a moot issue except for the small detail that he is running for public office. Now those people that disagree with him are excising their right and not voting for him and expressing their right to saying why.

I don't get the issue?

Because a former PM does not agree with Trump?

It is a small matter that gives the Trump people something to use their right and complain about it.

Wilber · October 13, 2016

Can't imagine any former PM agreeing with Trump.

betsy · October 13, 2016

15 hours ago, cybercoma said:

Betsy, you don't even understand the simplest matter here: criticizing the content of someone's speech does not violate their free speech. Until you get over that hurdle, there's not much else to say to you.

Boy, you're really having a difficult time. Let's try again. Try to wrap your head around these, Cyber.

There is no speech to criticize had that private banter between Trump and Bush remained private.

There is no private speech to criticize if that tape hadn't come out.

If no one knows about that private speech between Trump and Bush......there'll be no such private speech to criticize.

Someone violated someone's privacy and had exposed a banter that was meant to be private.

Instead of defending one's Constitutional right to free expression, Hillary Clinton instead, had used that exposed private banter and lead the lynch mob to demonize two men - with total disregard too, for all the other people that may've been hurt by the revelation.

Shows too, she has no qualms throwing the Constitution - and people - under the bus, when it suits her.

Kim Campbell - a former PM of all people - had failed to recognize that! Which is such a shame.

She not only revealed her own lack of judgement, she also demeaned her status as a former PM by wading in the muck with all the rest of them!

Kim Campbell took the lowest road in marching with the rest of the dumb mob!

Run along now.....and contemplate on that. That should keep you busy for quite a while.

Edited October 13, 2016 by betsy

betsy · October 13, 2016

6 hours ago, Wilber said:

Can't imagine any former PM agreeing with Trump.

:rolleyes: Oh boy.

Who said anything about "agreeing with Trump?" Read my response to Cyber above.

Edited October 13, 2016 by betsy

betsy · October 13, 2016

13 hours ago, Wilber said:

Yes betsy, everyone should shut up and pretend it didn't happen because in Trumpland, not treating women like meat qualifies you for sainthood.

BTW, it is your beloved Donald who has threatened to try and do away the First Amendment plus make it easier to sue people for exercising their free speech.

:rolleyes:

I don't know about your claim regarding Trump trying to do away with the First Amendment.....but I'm betting you misunderstood something along the way. Care to explain and cite?

Free expression comes with responsibility.

You're responsible for your speech. If you're spreading lies and slandering/defaming people with it.....you should be prepared for the consequences.

Surely, even you would be suing people who spread malicious lies about you, your wife or daughter!

Especially when those lies will cost you, one way or another.

Edited October 13, 2016 by betsy

?Impact · October 13, 2016

2 hours ago, betsy said:

There is no speech to criticize had that private banter between Trump and Bush remained private.

Translation: Trump ad Bush are complete imbecilic jerks, it is not their fault you know this.

BubberMiley · October 13, 2016

1 hour ago, betsy said:

Run along now ... and contemplate on that

You're taking the contemptuous route when you don't even have the courage to acknowledge Trump/Putin's wikileaks, which is the most severe and illegal potential violation of privacy from any election ever? Who told you that all you have to do is be abrasive to win arguments? It doesn't really work that way. It just makes you look bitter because your candidate has self-destructed.

cybercoma · October 13, 2016

9 hours ago, Ash74 said:

Trump has not been charged with anything because of his locker room talk. He has the right to voice his opinion.

Bragging about molesting women is not an opinion, but whatever. You're right. He has a right to say whatever he wants. And hopefully he does continue saying whatever he wants because it shows people what kind of scumbag he is.

dialamah · October 13, 2016

16 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Bragging about molesting women is not an opinion, but whatever. You're right. He has a right to say whatever he wants. And hopefully he does continue saying whatever he wants because it shows people what kind of scumbag he is.

But it does prove his point - he can offer people any amount of disrespect, and if they've a mind to, they'll swallow it and ask for more.

Edited October 13, 2016 by dialamah

betsy · October 13, 2016

16 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

Rather than avoiding relevant comparisons, do you have the courage to explain how you feel about how the Trump camp and media should be responding to the Wikileaks emails? Should they have remained private? How about Donald quoting yesterday from the one he received directly from the Kremlin that wound up being fake? Is it still an invasion of privacy when it's all just lies?

APPLES and ORANGES!

Funny thing, I just responded to practically the same question. Here's my response to that:

True, emails are private. But let's not lose sight why everyone's harping on Hillary.

The uproar over Hillary's emails is due to her poor judgement of using her own server (which may affect national security), when she should've known better!

Due to her sensitive position, she should've followed rules.

Hacking emails was nothing new before hers was hacked. That alone, should've been enough to make her more cautious.

Hillary and Trump/Bush were all careless/negligent. There's no room for outright negligence when you're sitting as the State Secretary, or any position that handles classified information!

Trump and Bush were simply bantering about something they'd wish no one ever heard about! They were careless......

...................but Hillary (being in a position she was in), was stupid!

Hillary was a sitting HIGH-RANKING public officer, while Trump/Bush were just regular civilians when their privacy was violated!

Furthermore, her privacy doesn't enter into it when you're talking about government-related documents! Her privacy isn't a matter of interest!

She used her own personal server for government-related matters, along with her own personal stuffs.

If she's mixing her own personal matters with government-related matters - that's the problem that she, willfully, created herself!

That's the HUGE difference!

Edited October 13, 2016 by betsy

cybercoma · October 13, 2016

YUGE difference. The best difference. Really smart differences.

betsy · October 13, 2016

11 hours ago, Ash74 said:

Trump has not been charged with anything because of his locker room talk. He has the right to voice his opinion.

Just as those that disagree with his opinion have the right not to agree with him and would be a moot issue except for the small detail that he is running for public office. Now those people that disagree with him are excising their right and not voting for him and expressing their right to saying why.

I don't get the issue?

Because a former PM does not agree with Trump?

It is a small matter that gives the Trump people something to use their right and complain about it.

It's not about agreeing with Trump. Here....

Instead of defending one's Constitutional right to free expression, Hillary Clinton instead, had used that exposed private banter and lead the lynch mob to demonize two men - with total disregard too, for all the other people that may've been hurt by the revelation.

Shows too, she has no qualms throwing the Constitution - and people - under the bus, when it suits her.

cybercoma · October 13, 2016

Again, you don't even understand free speech, let alone criticizing anyone else for violating it. You don't even see how your argument, which is fundamentally illogical, can apply to exactly what you're doing. You're violating Hillary Clinton's free speech (you're not, but according to your understanding of free speech you are).

Wilber · October 13, 2016

4 hours ago, betsy said:

Oh boy.

Who said anything about "agreeing with Trump?" Read my response to Cyber above.

Wasn't responding to you. Your response to Cyber was nonsense.

Like Hillary, Campbell is eminently qualified for the position of PM. Certainly more qualified than the person occupying the position now. Maybe that is why he has asked her to chair the committee that is compiling a short list for the next Supreme Court appointment.

When Trump relaxes the libel laws and the thousands of times he has called her "crooked Hillary" in public, I wonder how many millions she is going to sue for.

Trump has committed more libel and slander during this nomination and election campaign than any candidate in history.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Wilber
wasn't finished

cybercoma · October 13, 2016

I could be wrong, but I think they have immunity from slander and libel during an election campaign.

Wilber · October 13, 2016

Just now, cybercoma said:

I could be wrong, but I think they have immunity from slander and libel during an election campaign.

According to Donald, they won't have immunity to anything. He's going to put her in JAIL remember.

cybercoma · October 13, 2016

Yes. Jailing political opponents has been a tactic of tyrants and despots for generations. I wouldn't expect anything less from the guy who called for the gun-rights activists to "deal with Hillary" if she wins the election.

Wilber · October 13, 2016

4 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Yes. Jailing political opponents has been a tactic of tyrants and despots for generations. I wouldn't expect anything less from the guy who called for the gun-rights activists to "deal with Hillary" if she wins the election.

Been musing a bit on something that never occurred to me before. A favourite line of the gun crowd is that people need to be armed so they can prevent a dictator from coming to power. Considering the present political climate in the US, might it not also be used to put one in power. A year ago I would have thought such a possibility to be ridiculous. Now, not quite as much.

cybercoma · October 13, 2016

12 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Been musing a bit on something that never occurred to me before. A favourite line of the gun crowd is that people need to be armed so they can prevent a dictator from coming to power. Considering the present political climate in the US, might it not also be used to put one in power. A year ago I would have thought such a possibility to be ridiculous. Now, not quite as much.

Absolutely. That's why advanced, free democratic societies aren't armed to the gills. The aim should be the peaceful transfer of power. The current climate of post-truth politics, which is the appeal to emotions rather than discussions about policy, undermines the peaceful transition of power. Politicians of every persuasion have used emotional rhetoric to drum up support barely articulating any intelligent plan or course for future policy. They've used psychological warfare against the electorate in order to "win" at politics. In The Republic, Plato wrote that those who want power are probably the least suited to it. Well, politicians today are literally abusing the electorate in order to win, not to serve. These misinformation campaigns of emotional propaganda serves no one's interest but the politicians themselves. People who vote need information. They need to know what policies and legislative practices a candidate will back. That discussion is disgustingly thin. So what we end up with is an electorate that is an emotional wreck. Give them all guns and tell them that it's their right to overthrow the government if it "abuses" its power. What do you think is going to happen? It's a powder keg created entirely by the current push towards post-truth politics, coupled with a massive distrust of third-party expert opinions and information from the media. You have armed, emotionally abused voters, acting on emotional impulse. It's a matter of time.

BubberMiley · October 13, 2016

3 hours ago, betsy said:

APPLES and ORANGES!

No, neither of those fruit are illegal. Apple juice and cocaine (sniff!) would be a better analogy. It was actually the person that Hillary was emailing that was hacked in the latest Putinleak, which Donald quoted from within minutes of its release (unfortunately no one told Donald it was plagiarized from someone else's writing and was a fake). Did you get that? It wasn't actually Hillary's email that was hacked. It was a private citizen with whom she was corresponding.

I'll let that sink in a bit. Maybe you can enlarge your fonts and change the colour of your text to try to disguise the hole you're digging.

Edited October 13, 2016 by BubberMiley

cybercoma · October 13, 2016

1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

No, neither of those fruit are illegal. Apple juice and cocaine (sniff!) would be a better analogy. It was actually the person that Hillary was emailing that was hacked in the latest Putinleak, which Donald quoted from within minutes of its release (unfortunately no one told Donald it was plagiarized from someone else's writing and was a fake). Did you get that? It wasn't actually Hillary's email that was hacked. It was a private citizen with whom she was corresponding.

I'll let that sink in a bit. Maybe you can enlarge your fonts and change the colour of your text to try to disguise the hole you're digging.

Literally nothing you say will matter in this discussion.

betsy · October 13, 2016

1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

No, neither of those fruit are illegal. Apple juice and cocaine (sniff!) would be a better analogy. It was actually the person that Hillary was emailing that was hacked in the latest Putinleak, which Donald quoted from within minutes of its release (unfortunately no one told Donald it was plagiarized from someone else's writing and was a fake). Did you get that? It wasn't actually Hillary's email that was hacked. It was a private citizen with whom she was corresponding.

I'll let that sink in a bit. Maybe you can enlarge your fonts and change the colour of your text to try to disguise the hole you're digging.

Why do you think hackers are going for the Dems? Because of Hillary!

They're looking for the deleted emails, or any other related stuffs!

Not that I condone hacking......but that's the reality we live in now. How many high-profile hackings happened prior to Hillary's case? Many! Using a private server was a big mistake (which she already acknowledged).

Being a State Secretary who handles tons of classified information - there should be no room for mistakes, especially stupid ones, which could've been avoided had she followed the rules!

What makes you think I'm not outraged by hackings? What do you expect us to do???

Being outraged won't do any good when we don't even know for sure who they are! Surely you're not suggesting we ought to protest and demand USA nuke Russia, just because Dems says it's Putin and Trump?

Could Hillary even be willing to make war.........for the sake of winning? Shades of Bill Clinton bombing Iraq to distract from the Lewinski scandal?

Edited October 13, 2016 by betsy

BubberMiley · October 13, 2016

33 minutes ago, betsy said:

Why do you think hackers are going for the Dems? Because of Hillary!

Being outraged won't do any good when we don't even know for sure who they are! Surely you're not suggesting we ought to protest and demand USA nuke Russia, just because Dems says it's Putin and Trump?

Could Hillary even be willing to make war.........for the sake of winning? Shades of Bill Clinton bombing Iraq to distract from the Lewinski scandal?

Russian hackers are going for the Dems because they want Trump in power. Why Putin is so desperate to get Trump elected is anyone's guess, but chances are it's to advance Russia's interests.

And the Dems aren't the ones saying it's Russia doing the hacking. It's U.S. intelligence.

Regarding your tangent about nuking and starting wars, I have no idea what you're going on about so I'll just reserve comment.

I'm just hoping you try and say that talking about Trump's admission of barging in on naked beauty pageant contestants is an invasion of his privacy. :lol:

Edited October 13, 2016 by BubberMiley