Looks as though all the power and wealth she is shielded by has managed to cow even the FBI. This is more disturbing to me than had they continued to investigate. People have gone to jail and had their lives ruined for far less. To be clear, I am not Pro trump. I am anti corporate establishment and that is what she represents in deadly fashion.
General / Off-Topic Depending on their political stances: Clinton or Trump?
- Thread starter Becks
- Start date
Is that a civil trial or a criminal trial?
I dont really give a Damn about Trumps Tax Evasion and Fraud Stuff.
As US Presidents are for most Part Big in Business. Them not being involved in Shady Business and having some Scandals coming up. Is an True Rarity.
The Stuff which Bothers me far far more than this. Would be this stuff here.
https://www.google.de/search?q=trum...firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=2wggWKnOFO-v8wfT-aqIDQ
Edit.
OK.
I cannot Post the Link because it contains the word which describes the harder stage of sexual abuse....
So I am posting the Google link....
As US Presidents are for most Part Big in Business. Them not being involved in Shady Business and having some Scandals coming up. Is an True Rarity.
The Stuff which Bothers me far far more than this. Would be this stuff here.
https://www.google.de/search?q=trum...firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=2wggWKnOFO-v8wfT-aqIDQ
Edit.
OK.
I cannot Post the Link because it contains the word which describes the harder stage of sexual abuse....
So I am posting the Google link....
Last edited:
Pretty funny all these furryners commenting on politics of a country they don't live in and have no clue. I read the news but I don't live in Europe. All I could make is illiterate comments on euro politics, oh just like they do.
AFAIK, the 650k figure is for all the emails on the wiener laptop, not the number of emails, to or from the Clinton private server.
So the first thing to do would be to knock up a simple macro to search through the email headers and exclude any irrelevant emails.
Then, a second macro to compare the headers and meta data of the laptop emails with the emails the FBI have already reviewed. If the FBI already have the email it's already been reviewed.
It's highly likely that a huge chunk of the emails are simply client copies of the server versions the FBI already have.
It is possible that a number are the "missing emails" which might require human intervention. However, simple keyword searches, analysis of the length4nof the emails and threads (it's unlikely a 1 line email contains classified discussion). Attachments could be extracted and simply scanned for keywords.
there's a series of massive logical traps from the trump cramp on this.
The FBI director could be a Clinton stooge, Neutral or a Trump Supporter
lets assume that FBI director is a secret Clinton stooge. He's such a stooge he cleared her in the first investigation despite evidence of criminality.
If that's the case then why did he bring up the new emails all? he'd have had ample cover for not announcing until after the election. the new emails have hurt Clinton, so why did her stooge bring them up in the first place?
On the other hand, if he is neutral, then Clinton is cleared.... twice and Trump has to respect the opinion of a neutral
And if the director is a Trump supporter (or at least anti-Clinton) , which might explain the timing of the second announcement, then Clinton has been cleared twice by someone who dislikes her so much they went against the advice of the DoJ and protocol to try and damage her campaign.
If there is one positive for Clinton out of this is that it should, finally, lay this investigation to rest.
this election is being fought in two parallel universes, somehow the Trump from the universe where the Kenyan born, secret Muslim, Obama took all the guns and put everyone in giant FEMA camps whilst he turned the US in to totalitarian police state under Sharia law has crossed into our universe.
how else could you explain this?...
[video=youtube;4PqpoyOOzeQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PqpoyOOzeQ[/video]
Trump clearly watched a different speech, maybe one of his own....
how else could you explain this?...
[video=youtube;4PqpoyOOzeQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PqpoyOOzeQ[/video]
Trump clearly watched a different speech, maybe one of his own....
Last edited:
Well it seems that the FBI will not prosecute Clinton
Last edited:
Javert
Volunteer Moderator
If they used computer search power to identify that most (or all) of the emails are copies of ones that were already reviewed in a prior investigation, many were duplicates of mails sent out to multiple individuals etc - it would then be pretty quick to conclude that there is nothing much new to see here.
Unfortunately, we are dealing with a situation where once people have decided that one side of the argument are criminals in a conspiracy, they then refuse to listen to or read any evidence to the contrary, and automatically apply much lower levels of proof required to those who they don't like. e.g. if Donald Trump is under investigation for some crime or other, it must be a false allegation, whereas if Hilary Clinton is under investigation, it must be true.
Unfortunately there have been plenty of psychological studies that show that once a person takes a very strong stance on one or other side of an argument (especially if it's a public stance), their brain will then automatically, and subconsciously, look to filter out or ignore evidence that contradicts their position. Even highly educated people who are aware of this fact already will still all prey to it to some extent. If you are unaware of this, or decide not to believe that it's true, it's very strong, as evidenced by recent debates on these threads and everywhere else.
This is more than just confirmation bias - it's the active ignoring of clear evidence and data that supports the the opposite conclusion.
In a scientific situation, the solution to this is apply the scientific method. In a legal situation, the solution is checks and balances designed to establish the facts to some level of standard, like "beyond reasonable doubt".
In a political situation, unfortunately candidates are not required to prove to any reasonable standard that what they are saying is true. Further, media outlets of all kinds cannot be relied upon to communicate the information correctly in a balanced way.
Finally, due to the internet and massive numbers of TV channels targeted at specific demographics we now live in a time when it's very easy, and even encouraged, for people to surround themselves with a bubble of "news" which is all heavily biased towards items which confirm their own opinion.
On a separate point, and this is not a moderation comment just my personal comment, can I suggest that if posters here are going to post links to articles on other sites that they believe supports their viewpoint, can you please read the article you are linking to first. I've seen several cases on recent pages in this thread where links were posted to support a point, but when I clicked and read the link, it didn't support the point at all, and in at least one case it said the complete opposite. To everyone else, please don't assume that because someone put a link in their post, it must be true.
Last edited:
excellent point about the confirmation bias, and one I try (as best as I can) to avoid.
WRT the email story, we don't need any more facts that the logical analysis I posted.
With some very basic undeniable facts we can rule out (to a high degree of certainty) any theory about pro Clinton bias in the FBI.
Therefore if the FBI is either neutral or pro Trump, can take the "nothing to see here" at face value and say there is nothing to see.
To conclude otherwise would require conjuring up a convoluted conspiracy involving multiple moving parts that is highly likely to be plausible.
We are faced with the fact that there isn't anything to see.
It's simple logic.
Can any pro trumpist provide a clear, logic based refutation of this?
WRT the email story, we don't need any more facts that the logical analysis I posted.
With some very basic undeniable facts we can rule out (to a high degree of certainty) any theory about pro Clinton bias in the FBI.
Therefore if the FBI is either neutral or pro Trump, can take the "nothing to see here" at face value and say there is nothing to see.
To conclude otherwise would require conjuring up a convoluted conspiracy involving multiple moving parts that is highly likely to be plausible.
We are faced with the fact that there isn't anything to see.
It's simple logic.
Can any pro trumpist provide a clear, logic based refutation of this?
We live on the same planet, and it's not funny in the last. "Why do we have nuclear weapons if we never use them?", "Cutting 100 billion from anti-climate change effort"... yeah. What could possibly be at stake for the rest of us? *eyeroll*
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
The FBI is overwhelmingly white, male and republican. Law enforcement agencies tend to be staffed with conservatives in all parts of the world, AFAIK. The idea that despite these 11th hour "revelations" they are actually in the tank for Clinton bends logic to a pretzel. It feels like a lot of the posters in this thread do not want to deal with reality. I'm reminded of the party line in 1984 once again.
Last edited:
I'm not even sure what I just watched.....
was it supposed to be ironic?
Poe's law strikes again....
was it supposed to be ironic?
Poe's law strikes again....
Liberals and conservatives do not understand each other's thinking and priorities. I'm feeling it quite strongly right now. The support for Trump seems to defy all reason, and be viceral rather than rational.
It's almost like people who fall in love. For a while they are oblivious to the faults of the object off their affection.
It's almost like people who fall in love. For a while they are oblivious to the faults of the object off their affection.
I disagree. I think there is a lot that liberals and conservatives can agree on though methods on achieving their shared goals are different. I've had very productive debates with conservatives where we have actually come up with compromises to address major issues that we both felt our peers would be willing to support. Those opportunities are few and far in between, and the policy prescriptions are often regarded as insufficient by either party, however in my view, what each party champions equates to extremist views.
Now, when we start labeling ourselves Democrat and Republican, then we descend into tribalism and the other side (enemy) cannot be reasoned with and is out to destroy the country. Rationalism is lost on either side.
People have forgotten what we are trying to do here and what we have now is similar to the Super Bowl...most people hate both teams but pick a side and rally behind their banner, blindly.
Now, on merit, I feel Donald Trump brings a platform that is net negative for the American people while further pushing the trickle down agenda (which really needs to be renamed to starve the beast) that has been shown to fail rather spectacularly in recent memory. His claim to expertise lies in his business experience which, by my observations was handed to him on a silver platter and he has been chipping away at that fortune for decades. Multiple failed properties, incredibly terrible responses to his products, fraudulent activity and more litigious than the greatest patent trolls of Silicon Valley. His overtly hostile attitude towards foreign governments makes me glad I'm no longer eligible for the draft and his position on dismantling NATO is just about biggest invitation to another world conflict as any. If there is one thing that I think he does correctly it is that he has been very effective at representing a group in America that hasn't had a voice in their party. While I am strongly opposed to what that group of people would like to see for the nation, I think it is important that the rest of American hear it. Not to be convinced but to understand the struggles associated with the swift social change we have seen in the last decade.
As for HRC, well, I'm in line with much of the party platform (though costs always concern me). I believe she can be a strong leader who won't let the nation's strength and respect be compromised in the world. However, in my eyes, she is a conservative. I don't expect her to advance progressive issues after the campaign has ended. I don't expect her to champion the big changes I think the country still needs. I also expect she will be faced with an obstructionist congress and that very little significant legislation will come about for another 4 years (census opportunity for redistricting), at least.
Last edited:
Some of the Trump support is based on the frustration of what the current view of the government represents: Greed, detachment from the needs and concerns of the American public. Trump is viewed by people as someone who is just as fed up with this as they are. While you can disagree with his views, you can not dismiss his addressing of the anger people are feeling.
Couple that with the horrendous choice people think they have to make in this election and you have, well, the angry, frustrated and often overly emotional outbursts that are on display.
Yesterday there was a segment on 60 Minutes that reported on a focus group expressing their view on the status of the election. What was noted by the person conducting this was the out right anger and lack of control by both sides when defending or attacking each other. The only thing that the entire group seemed to be in agreement on was the frustration with our government and the main party candidates both being terrible. And both sides wanted one common thing from the candidates: When the final tally is in, both candidates should openly state their acceptance of the results. No excuses, no accusations. Just put it behind and find a way to work together for the future.
Beyond that it was just yelling and disrespecting of each other to the point that some of the group expressed concern for speaking their mind, lest they be attacked by the other side.
Tomorrow the election process will conclude. I hope the next step is putting all this crap behind us and focusing on the future. As it stands now, it feels like we are all standing on a powder keg.
Last edited:
Some of the Trump support is based (albeit wrongly) on the frustration of what the current view of the government represents: Greed, detachment from the needs and concerns of the American public. Trump is viewed by people as someone who is just as fed up with this as they are. While you can disagree with his views, you can not dismiss his addressing of the anger people are feeling.
Couple that with the horrendous choice people think they have to make in this election and you have, well, the angry, frustrated and often overly emotional outbursts that are on display.
Yesterday there was a segment on 60 Minutes that reported on a focus group expressing their view on the status of the election. What was noted by the person conducting this was the out right anger and lack of control by both sides when defending or attacking each other. The only thing that the entire group seemed to be in agreement on was the frustration with our government and the main party candidates both being terrible. And both sides wanted one common thing from the candidates: When the final tally is in, both candidates should openly state their acceptance of the results. No excuses, no accusations. Just put it behind and find a way to work together for the future.
Beyond that it was just yelling and disrespecting of each other to the point that some of the group expressed concern for speaking their mind, lest they be attacked by the other side.
Tomorrow the election process will conclude. I hope the next step is putting all this crap behind us and focusing on the future. As it stands now, it feels like we are all standing on a powder keg.
Hit the nail on the head, mostly. Yes, anger is rampant and partisanship has it hit astronomical levels. The discussion space has completely collapsed and folks are just tossing poo across an ever widening canyon. Driving that divide is the two party system which is where I think a lot of the anger is rooted. Both parties have painted people such that we are enemies. Anyone who tries to bridge the middle falls to the bottom of the canyon and is forgotten. I think a lot of the anger comes from being a divided nation, I think it more comes from seeing one side make progress that disagrees with your team colors. THEY have made us angry. I see very little in government to get as upset as people are expressing. Generally, the machinations of government are working for most people. Most of the things people are angry about are manufactured for them to get angry about it. I see a whole lot of privileged Americans whining and boasting without taking the time to make independent decisions (b/c why not let the party do it for me).
I can't wait for this to be over and we can get back to work producing wealth and focusing on improving our communities and families. Do I believe one candidate will help progress in my neighborhood and city, yes, but ultimately the responsibility rests on me and my community to make the most of what the Washington elite has left us to work with.
