At 7/3/17 08:26 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: You post too many talking points many of which have already been discussed to death.

Examples? I'm happy to learn. Last post didn't seem to be talking points to me...because it was an actually a refutation of all the talking points you yourself have posted around here (mostly in your attempt to demonize the extreme left and somehow try to act like it's some sort of a more mainstream threat that's being ignored....while you yourself ignore the more sinister, and more mainstream actual Left threats).

Also there is no proof that russia was behind that cyber attack,

No, there's no proof that YOU have seen. But there is widespread, bi-partisan agreement because of all the evidence of the intelligence agencies and the last administration, and even Republican Central Fox New has changed their talking points from "nothing happened" to "Well, even if he did collude....collusion is not in this case illegal" which is wrong...but the fact that they shifted so widely suggests that they have now seen something that presents with the idea that even they can't spin the "nothing to see here" idea anymore.

but a company in the ukraine is facing charges of criminal negligence by the Ukrainian authorities, or cyber security neglect to be more precise.

Wow, way to try to throw up a smokescreen that in no way proves your "nothing to see here" point, and only does a basic level of distraction that would only work in pro-Trump circles on the net....was this just something where you forgot which forum you were posting to for a sec? It's cool if you did. If you're in a few, that kind of thing is bound to happen.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-03/cyber-attack-charge-ukarine/8675006

This article has nothing to do with the 2016 Campaign Hack. Nor does it purport to. This isn't even rising to the level of "lame dodge" it's a bag of nothing.

if there is any proof that russia did this too we'll see since patient zero of the cyber attack is being investigated.

Lol. You just proved reading comprehension is not your strong suit....They are "Patient Zero for a damaging Global attack" which is in no way, nowhere in the article linked back to the campaign hack. You drew a line out of NOWHERE to NOTHING. This is the Fox News type approach. "This sounds like it's a related thing....but we can't prove it....quick, just lie it up for awhile, and hope the critics are dumb enough to in some way during their refutation act like it's credible". But points for using a source people would accept (ABC which has credibility) then just praying nobody would actually read (or hell even just skim) the link to see how baseless your causal link is.

At 7/3/17 08:54 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote:

At 7/3/17 08:32 PM, EdyKel wrote:
Obviously, you don't know too much about the people who watch World Wrestling . It's fake as fake can be, but there are many who watch it and believe it's real.

Yes lets forget that you didn't even know it was from from WWE, or that it was actually trump in the video until I told you those facts.

Man, I must of pissed you off for you to go off trolling like this. It's all a deflection from the fact that you don't want to hold Trump to the same standard as the left, or the fact that it's especially wrong for a person to do this shit if he the fucking president, because it's send a wrong message to the public.

At 7/3/17 09:15 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote:

At 7/3/17 09:09 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 7/3/17 08:54 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote:

At 7/3/17 08:32 PM, EdyKel wrote:
Obviously, you don't know too much about the people who watch World Wrestling . It's fake as fake can be, but there are many who watch it and believe it's real.

Yes lets forget that you didn't even know it was from from WWE, or that it was actually trump in the video until I told you those facts.

Man, I must of pissed you off for you to go off trolling like this. It's all a deflection from the fact that you don't want to hold Trump to the same standard as the left, or the fact that it's especially wrong for a person to do this shit if he the fucking president, because it's send a wrong message to the public.

Except that I said earlier that those who condemn griffin but find find trump ok when they do similar things are hypocrites, and i did hold him to the same standard you argued anyway, and then you made an insane claim that people think the video in the tweet is real. Now you are simply self projecting instead of admitting that what you said is ridiculous. You can call it trolling if you want what you said is still ridiculous. You also have an incredibly short memory.

Again, the difference was that she apologized, and was fired, for what she did, while Trump didn't apologize, and nothing was done about what he did. And you trying to to downplay what he did by disputing the video, while also holding Griffin to a standard that you clearly don't have for Trump, who is in an entirely different position from her.

And you got distracted by a comment I made, and I won't discuss it any further because that will just gives you fuel to deflect - as I know you are already thinking about doing it at this point.

At 7/3/17 09:36 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote:

At 7/3/17 09:27 PM, EdyKel wrote:
Again, the difference was that she apologized, and was fired, for what she did, while Trump didn't apologize, and nothing was done about what he did.

That's because the white house puts party before country. It also only happened after advertisers pulled funding when it initially happened her employers downplayed it just like the white house is downplaying his behavior. It's the prinsoners dilemma like i said earlier.

And you trying to to downplay what he did by disputing the video, while also holding Griffin to a standard that you clearly don't have for Trump, who is in an entirely different position from her.

Except that I am not downplaying it I'm challenging a very obvious lie that you won't admit to.

Son, you're jumping all over the place like a rabbit from hole to hole. You're are making multiple argument, and trying to have everything your way, while half those arguments either contradict each other or they deflect.

First, you can't say that what Trump did is on the same level as what Griffin did, when he's the fucking president who's words, unfortunately, carries a lot more weight than that of some peonic political commentator, and where he can pretty much get away with this shit. Secondly, you keep bringing up of Griffin, when no one is defending her here, no one, but you keep bringing her and her defenders up as hypocrites, as if that somehow mitigates what Trump did, or his defenders, in some way. All that shit does is make you look like a hypocrite for trying to bring it up as if to downplay what he did, or claiming that people are overreacting over the video he posted. No matter how you spin it, you keep trying to downplay what trump did, even if you don't want to admit it.And the whole Griffin thing has become just one huge deflection to focouse on her, and less on what Trump just did.

And Lastly, I don't give a shit if you think everyone thinks World Wrestling isn't fake, I've known people who believed it was real because of the physical damage it can do, and they'll argue until their faces turn blue by pointing that shit out- and I have been around since it was known as WWF.

Anyways, I'm done with your silly nonsense. I'll let you have the last word.

At 7/3/17 09:03 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: Well we had a recent cyber attack Russia was also accused of versus the same shit we have been hearing about for half a year.

No, we are not doing this. You do not get to shift the goalpost like that. You made the implicit claim that this article showed that two different cyber attacks were the same cyber attack. You need to own that. Then you need to either prove that you're right and I'm wrong, or you need to admit you fucked up, and we can just say "mistakes happen, it's how we learn".

As for my "reading comprehension" you did not clarify you were still droning on about the campaign.

No, I did clarify. The problem is you still seem to not get that your article doesn't say what you wanted it to say. That's where the reading comprehension comes in. That article says nothing about the campaign, and is in reference to last week's "ransomware" attack. The two things have no causal relation so far that I've seen. You surely didn't provide any. Again, you fucked up, and you're attempts to get around that are per usual, really quite comically bad.

And if you look up the definition of cyber attack is is "an attempt by hackers to damage or destroy a computer network or system."

Neat. But not all cyber attacks are the same, committed by the same people, or for the same purpose. So again....comically bad defense. You need to just start admitting when you're wrong. It makes things easier.

Now answer me this did any computer networks or systems suffer any damage from russia during the 2016 campaign? Looks like you don't know your vocabulary as well as I know mine.

No, it looks like you're just very ignorant on the fact that multiple sources can hack. State governments can hack, organized groups can hack (like Anonymous for instance), hell even a reasonably intelligent 14 year old can hack and do some parlor tricks.

You're saying that all cyber attacks are the same, and come from the same source. This is easily proven false. That you can't seem to grasp this basic fact just proves to all the world that once and for all we never need to take you seriously again. Thanks.

At 7/3/17 08:54 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: Also the wrestling organizations came out ages ago and admitted that wrestling was fake. This was years ago. Must be nice under that rock.

If you understand the point and purpose of wrestling...it is to simulate violence. It's goal, like a movie (but in some ways to an even more realistic and viable degree since it must to be effective present a certain veneer of "realism" and "sport) is to present it's violence as real, and that the persons involved in the violence legitimately hate and are attacking each other. It is also clear that the poster (HanAssholeSolo, look him up) is an anti-Semite, anti-Muslim, and racist....the President chose to use that persons video as a source, giving him legitimacy. The President posted a video clearly designed to show him violently taking down a competitor. Sure, it's simulated, sure it's an old clip. But this is a President who encouraged people to "Hit him! Knock the crap out of him!" at rallies when it came to hecklers. That said "Second Amendment people could do something about Hillary Clinton". Taken together, this is clearly a President who if not out and out encourages violence against critics, he at least doesn't see a problem with it. When a POTUS does that, it should be condemned. If you really want to stand on the "Party over Country is always wrong plank" then there can be no "yeah, but....". You're posts are full of "yeah, but..."

Cathy Griffin was wrong as fuck. But she's a Z-Level comedian no one takes seriously. Donald Trump is The President of the United States. Both of them did a rotten thing that needs to be excoriated and condemned unequivocally....but given their positions in the world? One of them is demonstrably more damaging in their wrongness then the other. That does not excuse either of them, nor does it lessen the issue. But a false equivalency of saying the offenses are equal is just as dangerous as excusing one to damn the other.

A new development in the case.

At 7/5/17 02:23 AM, wildfire4461 wrote: A new development in the case.

Does anybody actual listens to Putin's dog anymore?

At 7/5/17 02:53 AM, EdyKel wrote:

At 7/5/17 02:23 AM, wildfire4461 wrote: A new development in the case.

Does anybody actual listens to Putin's dog anymore?

It's not something he created. It's a full blown tag on Twitter now.
Even fuckin' Brianna Wu finds it problematic.

At 7/5/17 09:49 AM, Sause wrote: Basically, CNN intimidated some kid on Reddit.

I'm actually on your side of the issue, for once. It was awful for Trump to post the gif on his twitter for reasons related to his seat of power, so I get the upset that caused too. The kid who made the gif had every right to make it, though, and honestly CNN had no place to put his name on display. They didn't break any laws that I know of (they just "posted publically available information"... much like doxxing), but it was 110% a dick move on their part (also much like doxxing).

Stupid.

At 7/4/17 09:31 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: Then we should ban wrestling....

No, you missed the point entirely. You're not helping the case that I'm wrong about your reading comprehension....

He gave that guy so much legitimacy that that person apologized for his post, and had them all deleted, and is now laughably advocating against "chronic trolling." is that your idea of legitimacy? Because it sounds like a load of tripe.

Trump? Or the poster I mentioned? You didn't provide a link, and you've gotten so many other things wrong lately I can't just take your word for things anymore. Sorry.

Who on earth thought it was real? Why can't either of you provide examples. Could it be because that was a ridiculous and claim. How about some honesty.

You're focused on the wrong thing. It's not that anybody "thought it was real" it's the implied message of it. Kathy Griffin was the same. Nobody thought she actually beheaded Donald Trump and was taking credit for it. They were outraged at the implication of violence against Donald Trump. This is the same thing, implied violence against a person or group, and people are outraged. You're a hypocrite to get offended by one, and laugh off the other. That the President by showing and thereby endorsing that video, and that coupled with the past statements I DID provide examples for (that you ignored), that this President thinks criticism can, and is permissible, to be met with violence. You continue to not grasp the issue. I'm not sure why. It's the macro, not the micro here.

True.

Glad we agree.

It's also honest.

It can't be a "false equivalency" and also "honest" dude. False and Honest have two completely opposite meanings.

CNN gave an interview to Tommy DiMassino 2 days after he tried to the rush the stage and attack Trump. Briton Michael Sandford who literally tried to kill Trump in 2016 has his own documentary. But you are going to argue about legitimizing violence over a re tweet.

No, I'm going to argue over THE PRESIDENT doing it, in the macro, with the campaign examples that were recorded and replayed, I'm also going to point out that this particular re-tweet is part of a pattern. The macro, not the micro. I've also not heard of those other folks, again, please provide some links for my edification. They're actions are not the point though.

Your media personalities joke about assassinating, and depict white house staffers heads on sticks.

Not the point. But also not really getting it on their end.

The same network CNN depicted cross hairs on Steve Bannon. Pretty reminiscent of the Palin scandal back in 2011 if you ask me. The rhetoric pushed daily inspired James T. Hodgkinson to shoot up a baseball game and nearly kill Steve Scalise.

Again, this is that "yeah, but...." stuff you seemed to agree with me earlier was not acceptable....then you go right back to it. These things are NOT. THE. POINT. of what we're talking about here. They are odious and you continue to push a false narrative that they are not being condemned by people who condemn the President. They are. All of it is wrong and rotten. But it also doesn't all belong on the same level or in the same pot.

The left...

Save it for your other topic of convenience, ignorance, and whatever else. I already asked you to change this record because I'm tired of it. "The Right" (because clearly it's all one big monolithic thing right?) used to depict Obama as being hung, burned in effigy, and etc. I didn't see you around then complaining about that.

2 wrongs don't make a right...

Except when Solid who says "Yeah, but...." is not a defense, then makes another long post full of "Yeah, but...."

Let's deal with that next post here too....

When and where did I make such a claim?

It is implied by you very strongly in the language of what you're saying that you believed the cyber attack your article mentioned was perpetrated by the same people who hacked the 2016 election. Here, let me repost your words and you tell me I'm not right:

"Also there is no proof that russia was behind that cyber attack, but a company in the ukraine is facing charges of criminal negligence by the Ukrainian authorities, or cyber security neglect to be more precise.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-03/cyber-attack-charge-ukarine/8675006

if there is any proof that russia did this too we'll see since patient zero of the cyber attack is being investigated. Hopefully it does not talk half a year and they actually find proof."

Now, the first part is wrong. There is no publicly shown proof, that you have seen. Which is not the same as "no proof". There's enough proof that the last administration took held many meetings and took many high level actions to sanction Russia (although the punishment was quite light all things considered). But look at the rest, you conflated the two issues together. Now you're saying you didn't?

Sure I was mistaken over what you were talking about but only because you used the wrong terminology. Not all instances of hacking are classified as cyber attacks. Damage actually has to be done to the networks or systems.

Goal post shift, and it seems like you're saying "Yeah I did that....but". You really like the "yeah, but..." argument don't you?

Not once did I imply that.

Yes you did. That post absolutely shows you were, since you mentioned one attack and conflated it with the other.

Russia was blamed for both last weeks cyber attack, and Hillary's loss of the 2016 campaign in both cases no proof has yet to be found.

No, this is NOT true. Every intelligence agency we have says they did it. There is bi-partisan agreement they did it. It's just that you haven't seen the documents or whatever else that is fueling these public declarations that Russia interefered released. You just continue to prove your ignorance and why no one should take you seriously. You also made a false equivalency here and a claim that is completely wrong and baseless.

You're using straw man arguments claiming I put them forth when I did not.

No, I'm using reading comprehension to follow the point you made to the logical conclusion. If you badly phrase your arguments (and you seem to admit you did) that's on you, not on me.

Yes I made a mistake over the subject you were talking about.

Which lead to my response to it....so how am I the guilty party again?

But to imply I was making arguments I was not is both factually and intellectually dishonest.

We have the post, it absolutely reads as you were conflating the two things together....which you continue to do, it's just that you lacked the clarity of exactly how you conflated them the first time. You did that. There's no intellectual or factual dishonesty on my part that I can see there. But there's LOADS of it in your posts here, and just about every other thing you post here.

At 7/5/17 05:11 AM, wildfire4461 wrote:

At 7/5/17 02:53 AM, EdyKel wrote:

At 7/5/17 02:23 AM, wildfire4461 wrote: A new development in the case.

Does anybody actual listens to Putin's dog anymore?

It's not something he created. It's a full blown tag on Twitter now.
Even fuckin' Brianna Wu finds it problematic.

So, let me get this straight, the guy who was behind the video that Trump used that showed him beating the shit out of a guy with a CNN logo on his face, as a veiled threat against CNN, and was condemned by the media, the public, and many politicians, but the Trump admin, and many conservatives, is now the victim, by the very news agency that was the subject of the video he made, who seemed to have threatened him.

Now, if this threat by CNN is true then that would be concerning, but then, I would not be surprised that CNN has been receiving all sorts of death threats against them by Trump supporters for the past couple of weeks (if not longer), like the journalist who found out the person who did this video, and did something stupid in response to that. Now, who is in the wrong in all this? I see Trump supporters trying to use this to absolve Trump of all wrong doing, more than anything else, and to deflect from all the things he did to create this situation - and he did create it.

All the way back to George Washington, our first president, the media has played a role in showering presidents with criticism and unfavorable stories, as the 4th institution, to keep presidents in check from becoming tyrannical. But Trump, started this war against them, especially against any that are critical of him, and he has publicly attacked, threatened, bullied,and tried to undermine them, with his fervent supporters in tow, because he is a thinned skinned narcissist, who praises dictators, and is use to getting his own way in life. He created this whole mess we are in with his immature antics, because he can't stand criticism like other presidents have for the past 200 years.

So, this is the heart of the issue, and this story about CNN threatening a kid, because of the palatable tension that Trump seems to delight in creating in this country, is just a mere distraction to that larger issue.

At 7/5/17 01:23 PM, Sause wrote: Shalom

I hope you like this. I kinda did a rush job on it, though.

*Damn, forgot to add gays to the list. Trump would be pissed if we forgot that.
** oh, and imigrants.

Interesting article from NPR. Americans Say Civility Has Worsened Under Trump; Trust In Institutions Down. Wonder why this could be? *Eyes the Trump twitter attacks.

There's also a few other polls that show trust in media by each party, and opinions on how fair elections are. Not really surprised by the results.

Also, another poll came out showing that more people trusted CNN than Trump. Take that for what it's worth. :/

At 6/28/17 04:50 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 6/28/17 02:27 PM, EdyKel wrote: More bad news for Trump. The world views Putin more favorably than him. Ouch.

At the very least, the majority of people still views American people positively, which probably include those who voted for Donald Trump, so yeah. They also said that relations aren't going to chance much from where they're at under Obama, so make of that what you will.

Having said that, we probably should be concerned that our image is being tainted because of Trump, even if it ultimately turns out to be nothing more than hurt feelings.

Look how big of an international joke we were under Bush. Obama really dragged us out of the pit in terms of international diplomacy and imagery. I'm just glad that most world leaders are acknowledging this time around that Trump and America in general are not the same and we're not as a country taking shit internationally. Trump himself on the other hand is being internationally mocked and its hilarious. Shouldn't be, he is our leader, but it really is. Australia wins the mockathon too.

At 7/3/17 02:15 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 7/3/17 01:45 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote:

At 7/3/17 11:46 AM, EdyKel wrote:

At 7/3/17 06:10 AM, Sause wrote: I think he meant it to be funny

So, a video of a guy with Trump hair, beating up a guy with a CNN logo on his head, with the reference clear, and posted by our president is meant to be funny? I wonder what else you find funny. If Reporters weer beaten up more often, because some idiot people took it literally?

What are your thoughts about Kathy griffin or Shakespeare in the park depicting literally killing him?

Also that actually is Trump not just a guy in trump hair.

I already posted that I thought the Kathy Griffin thing was terrible and stupid idea - and it was strange that no one had any common sense to point out what a bad idea it was who worked on it to thee time it was published.

As for the Caesar in the park... That is something I'm less sure of. The lead actor playing Caesar could just look like Trump by coincidence. And the play is about a conspiracy that leads to his assassination, where the actors who participated in his assassination are close to him, friends and family members, who do it to save Rome from someone who is who is becoming to powerful and to tyrannical.

And I only saw a few pictures of the video, not the video itself, so my bad.

Caesar in the park was 100% intentionally meant to look like Trump, however, in the past renditions of it were done with a guy meant to look like Obama. Kathy Griffin didn't do anything more shocking than we've all seen from the right, burning and hanging Obama effigy, let alone Ted Nugent running his awful mouth. So in both of Caesar and Kathy, its just another example of something being okay to do for the past decade, but isn't acceptable to do now because Trump isn't allowed to be treated like Obama was.

Sorry for the triple post. Just caught up. I'm surprised we're still talking about the wrestling thing and the hacking. I was really hoping to hear everyone's feelings on the President wanting to gather up and make public all our voter data to prove he should have won the popular vote, because you know... We still also need to be talking about that.

At 7/5/17 08:58 PM, MasterStalker wrote:

At 7/3/17 02:15 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 7/3/17 01:45 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote:

At 7/3/17 11:46 AM, EdyKel wrote:

At 7/3/17 06:10 AM, Sause wrote: I think he meant it to be funny

So, a video of a guy with Trump hair, beating up a guy with a CNN logo on his head, with the reference clear, and posted by our president is meant to be funny? I wonder what else you find funny. If Reporters weer beaten up more often, because some idiot people took it literally?

What are your thoughts about Kathy griffin or Shakespeare in the park depicting literally killing him?

Also that actually is Trump not just a guy in trump hair.

I already posted that I thought the Kathy Griffin thing was terrible and stupid idea - and it was strange that no one had any common sense to point out what a bad idea it was who worked on it to thee time it was published.

As for the Caesar in the park... That is something I'm less sure of. The lead actor playing Caesar could just look like Trump by coincidence. And the play is about a conspiracy that leads to his assassination, where the actors who participated in his assassination are close to him, friends and family members, who do it to save Rome from someone who is who is becoming to powerful and to tyrannical.

And I only saw a few pictures of the video, not the video itself, so my bad.

Caesar in the park was 100% intentionally meant to look like Trump, however, in the past renditions of it were done with a guy meant to look like Obama. Kathy Griffin didn't do anything more shocking than we've all seen from the right, burning and hanging Obama effigy, let alone Ted Nugent running his awful mouth. So in both of Caesar and Kathy, its just another example of something being okay to do for the past decade, but isn't acceptable to do now because Trump isn't allowed to be treated like Obama was.

I don't really follow this stuff that closely. I know it happens, happens under many presidents. There is always people espousing their wish that a certain president would die, or making death threats against them. That's kinda normal, in a sad way. I mean, I read an article that death threats rose 300% when Obama was in office, taxing the secret service. But most of them didn't go to jail, because, they weren't credible threats, just people vocalizing their feeling out loud, and nothing more. And it's their right, it's their 1st amendment right's to free speech. So, when people come out with their effigies of presidents, or joke, or wish, for a president to die, it's their right to do so, because otherwise, it would be sign of a much too controlling government, which is what our founding fathers were concerned about, if people weren't allowed to express these views.

But having said all this, I think it's always in bad taste, when someone expresses such views. I'm inclined to give the Caesar performance a pass, because it is a cautionary tale, and it's been around for ages, popularized by Shakespeare, during Queens Elizabeth I reign in England, and could be interpreted as a reason not to kill Trump, because of the tragedies that befell those who assassinated him.

But, while people have the right to wish for the death of the president, the president, like any other politician, does not have the right to do the same thing against anyone in the country. We have seen Trump encourage violence at his rallies, call the press the enemies of the people - accuse them of promoting fake news - and generally lashing out against his critics or anyone he believed wronged him. This is unacceptable behavior, and sends a frightening message of fear and intimidation towards American citizens. This type of behavior is what you see from wannabee tyrants, who are use to getting their way on things, and are not afraid to encourage bad behavior from their followers towards those who oppose them by vocalizing their views.

At 7/5/17 09:35 PM, MasterStalker wrote: Sorry for the triple post. Just caught up. I'm surprised we're still talking about the wrestling thing and the hacking. I was really hoping to hear everyone's feelings on the President wanting to gather up and make public all our voter data to prove he should have won the popular vote, because you know... We still also need to be talking about that.

Oh, I think that deserves it's own topic. I've been planning to do one, but I've been busy and distracted. I'll try to post it in the next day or so. I'm still gathering articles, and reading through them...

At 7/6/17 03:39 AM, lapis wrote: I just learned that BuzzFeed thinks that I'm a member of the far right (or Donald Trump Jr.) for thinking that CNN's statement contains a "threat to eventually reveal HanAssholeSolo's identity if he ever decides to post racist memes again".

I'm not sure that the threat here (and yes, it is undoubtedly a threat) is that they will eventually reveal his identity irregardless of anything, rather, they'd reveal it if he continued the bad behavior. Sort of like when your parent threatens to take something away from you when you're bad.

But CNN is not this posters parent, is not a law enforcement official, is not the arbiter of good taste and what is moral. I understand CNN's frustration with an internet troll (and by all accounts, that's at the least what this guy is), anybody who's spent any time online has dealt with them, and it can feel even worse if you feel or you are in a position to "do something about it". But you can't lose sight of your own values, or the greater overall point.

HanAssholeSolo is probably never going to do anything like this ever again....in fact, I'd wager you'll never see that account on reddit ever again....but will you see somebody incredibly like him with the same posting style and content sooner or later? I'd wager yeah, yeah you will. Which is the other issue. CNN isn't going to do the work to track this guy down, he's going to just change his screen name and go back to business as usual and CNN is just going to look extremely stupid and have lost anything even approaching the moral high ground with this threat.

At 7/6/17 07:53 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: No I didn't miss the point I am making fun of your point. because it is the same exact shit I have heard over and over. Like I said you sound like a fox news commentator complaining about violent videogames, or just a plain old soccer mom who hates football, wrestling, boxing, etc. Just like them you don't have a leg to stand on with this.

Yet you just doubled down on proving you don't understand it. You think I'm talking about banning something I'm a fan of, I'm not. I don't necessarily object to the video itself, I object to the video being endorsed by The President. It's something that's beneath the dignity of the office. I thought that was clear.

Are you a complete social retard? Of course i'm talking about the poster.

Ah, ad hominem.

Also you are going to complain about me not providing a link after telling me to look him up which I did, and now you can't just do the same.

I would have done that if I was clear on who you were talking about so....

How did you find out about the offensive post in the first place? I did my homework now you can do yours.

Now that I got the clarification I asked for (with some really needless insults to boot), yeah, I can, and actually if you had bothered to read my follow up post on the issue a couple hours ago, you would have seen I've done so and this was kind of a waste of time and just made you look petulant.

Yawn for the last time edy laughably claimed people thought it was real.

I'm not edy. I've honestly stopped reading any exchanges between you and edy. I find them tedious. So unless you can show me something where I claimed people thought the video depicted something real, drop this bullshit narrative (it's funny how you keep doing stuff you accuse other people of). My objection is solely to the intent made with the video (that it'd be great if Donald Trump beat up his critics) and that The President should not be endorsing it. Especially considering the source.

Yet here you are arguing with me anyway for not agreeing enough.

Nah, that's usually your bag man. But we can agree on a particular point, but disagree on the larger issue. Which is true here. On that point we agreed, but I don't agree with the rest of your points. We're talking about a few different shades of the same issue (and then some other stuff came up too....much to unpack).

Fine so now we are both being vocabulary nazis.

I'm just insisting that you can't use two words that have opposing definitions together. That's not being a vocabulary nazi, that's insisting we don't break the tools we've invented to keep the conversation on track. Also, isn't that kind of a Godwin's Law? At least the way you and one or two other people have tried to use it?

First of all...

I could care less about it honestly. I find it's existence extremely useful since it's been a great way to confine what I think are rather ugly and divisive (but not rule breaking ideas) in one space that people on this forum can engage or ignore at their leisure. I dislike the content sure, but for that aspect, I like that it exists. But screeds against the left really don't have any place in a catch all thread about what Donald Trump does personally or in the course of his job, unless you can find something about a left wing person, group, etc. trying to attack him. This particular tempest isn't that.

Second of all effigies of the president being hanged are commonplace and not exclusive to obama, the right, or the left.

I never claimed they were exclusive. I think a hanging effigy takes on a more sinister tone (intended or not) when it involves a black man in America. But let's put that aside for a second, because this is where the rhetorical break downs seem to incur with you: Is your statement here intending to say "everyone has done it, therefore it's ok and why are we complaining" or is it a case of "everybody has done it, it should always be condemned, I don't see evidence of condemnation in equal measure....why are you guys playing that?" Because personally. I think all displays like that suck, however they also aren't really the point since you don't see that as an activity that modern POTUS's engage in.

After all, what started this discussion is Donald Trump's actions related to retweeting this, and whether or not that's an activity we find acceptable for a President to do. We sort of wandered off of that to this thing about effigies.

But I already addressed another poster about this. Plus I wasn't around then complaining about that because I wasn't even posting on the politics forum back then.

Ah, ok so we seem to have found another area we agree on, that this is always a rather poor taste form of protest. So I guess then we could walk it back to "Should behavior like that be encouraged, or engaged in by a sitting POTUS?" which is really the central question of the discussion.

People in the ukraine, and the states implied that it was perpetuated by russia. As for me I was simply being coy from now on I will begin such quotes with sarcasm marks to avoid future confusion.

I've heard that too. But it has no connection to the 2016 Campaign Hacks. You implied it did. Now after a couple posts you've decided it was sarcasm? Seems fishy to me, but I guess we've explored this as far as it can really go. Next up you just kind of becomes a never ending loop of "no I didn't" "Yes you did" and that's tiring for everybody.

Because a cyber attack is not the same as "what might have happened" in the 2016 election.

This attack is not that attack. It's two different attacks. That's my point. You seemed to be linking them together with no evidence to support it. If you ever run across such evidence, I'd be very interested to read it.

Well I believe that you believe that.

I do.

There where is the evidence?

You ever hear of words like "classified" "top secret" "eyes only" etc? You do know the government doesn't just release everything to everybody especially if it's an act of aggression by the other side. The Intelligence community isn't in the habit of releasing everything it works on for some pretty obvious reasons. You think because they haven't told you that means they don't have anything....and you bitch at other people about convenient narratives....

You mistook my sarcasm and took it literal.

Why didn't you mention before it was all "sarcasm"? Also dude, sarcasm doesn't translate well online. This is known, has been known for years.

Glad you quoted the part that had you confused, and helped me clarify where you came to this conclusion from. Funny that you bitch so much about reading comprehension when you can't tell people are being coy with you. Also you couldn't tell I was referring to the poster(Hanassholesolo) and thought I was talking about trump. The pot calls the kettle black.

The pot suspects the kettle isn't being entirely honest here....but the pot will never be able to prove it, so he'd just like to end this particular part of the pissing contest here.

Because a cyber attack is not what you think it is.

Huh? I don't understand what you're getting at here. The issue to me isn't one of definition, it's an issue of you linking two different events together because they were both cyber attacks, and they may have been committed by the same perpetrator....but why even respond to this? Wasn't the whole thing "sarcasm"?

At 7/6/17 08:26 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: as for the links you have requested.

Article on Sandford,and link about the bbc documentary on him. Includes director credits and everything.

Article about Tommy saying he'd do it again,and the interview i mentioned.

I know you might point out that did not provide a link about hanassholesolo in my other post. That's only because you told me to "look him up" and then asked me for a link after the fact. Instead of "politely" requesting links like you did here, so you get your links this time.

Appreciated. Last time I was trying to find an article on theatlantic.com that had mentioned hanassholesolo and had some links to his posting history, but couldn't find it. So then I settled for what I said. You've got a point though that I could have just explained this the first time out. Mea Culpa.

You want to decide the rules and then you don't want the other party in the conversation to back up or defend their claims with examples.

No. I want to keep us focused on the subject, and not get off on tangents. Is it acceptable for Donald Trump to do what he did? Yes or no. I say no. I don't think a sitting President should act that way. I think it also puts Twitter in an awkward position given their stated rules, and his position. The other stuff to me is just you obscuring the issue to somehow do the "yeah Trump is wrong, but let's talk about my pet hatred of anything I see as the left...." that's not the point of the discussion or this thread.

Sorry Avi but that's not how it works in the real world.

Lol. Oh yes, please do lecture me about the "real world".

Not everyone lives in the vacuum you do, or has their head in the sand, or has a conveniently selective memory. You might want to pretend these things didn't happen, don't happen, or won't keep happening but they do, they have, and they will.

I don't argue they didn't happen. I'm arguing they aren't relevant to the discussion and it's point. It's point is: Should Donald Trump be retweeting videos made by racist, anti-semetic, xenophobes, that allow him some kind of violent (even if simulated) catharsis on his critics?

If that is the question (and it is) the other stuff you've raised isn't germaine to it, it's smoke meant to obscure.

At 7/5/17 09:35 PM, MasterStalker wrote: Sorry for the triple post. Just caught up. I'm surprised we're still talking about the wrestling thing and the hacking. I was really hoping to hear everyone's feelings on the President wanting to gather up and make public all our voter data to prove he should have won the popular vote, because you know... We still also need to be talking about that.

We do indeed. But that one is very much an evolving issue. For now there's no real power to compel or subpoena the info, it's up to individual states how much they want to release. In safely Blue states like mine (NJ) I fully expect them to refuse to comply (which they've already indicated the agency gets nothing but the most basic already available data). The issue is states that have already been engaged in voter suppression (especially states that have been caught at it, or had suppression laws struck down like SC). There There is even a good amount of Republican push back. Since I don't think Trump has a ton of investment in this project (I think it mostly exists like the article said as a cynical ploy to cover up for yet another Trumpian falsehood), if the states stand resolute against it, it should stem any major potential damage.

At 7/6/17 08:46 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: (sarcasm)Since you are so good a knowing when I imply things(sarcasm) please refer to 2 pages back when i said people who thought it was ok were hypocrites because maybe it was implied that I don't think it's ok for trump to tweet such things.

Then why not just say that and be done? Why all the tangents and other shit? At bottom, it turns out we agree, it's inappropriate for the POTUS to be doing that.

So you didn't even know what you were responding to and backing up. Well I'm not surprised.

I was pure and simple responding to you dude. This started with you making a case (which you now say was sarcasm I misinterpreted and ok, I'll take your word for it) for something with an article that didn't back up what you said. Then it went into what the President was doing and some unrelated tangents. Purely you and me having a difference of opinion that to my mind has now resolved in us cutting through the shit and agreeing on the principal issue at discussion here: Trump's tweet. Had nothing to do with your continued feud with Eddy, it really didn't. You've got to stop seeing everyone with a leftward bent as one big hive mind or something.

Looks like the whole CNN Trump feud is still going on with reports that the Trump admin is trying to blackmail Times Warner (the parent company of CNN) in not allowing their proposed merger with AT&T to commence, demanding that the president of CNN, Jeff Zucker, not be part of the deal. Most business watchers see no reason why the merger should not be allowed to happen, despite Trump's anger with the network.

At 7/7/17 04:08 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: Well I tried to, but you were going on about false equivalency.

Which you agreed with, but then did a "yeah, but...". Then I had to attack that because trying to add a definition to a word when the definition is the OPPOSITE of the word is how the word loses efficacy and meaning. Think about how we destroyed "literally" by allowing the way people misused literally to be part of the definition instead of saying "you mean figuratively. Use figuratively instead". Minor point, but it has larger value.

It's kind of hard to do when you guys will casually claim people thought something was real, and defend obvious bullshit.

I never claimed the video was real. Also you agreed with me about Trump being wrong in tweeting the video, which was my point all along: It's not an action the President should be doing. Is it really that hard to live with the idea that we could agree on something that you have to keep returning to items of falsehood we already disposed of to get to the meat of the matter and once we did that we found a place to agree?

You know, I'm no longer surprised by anything Trump comes up with anymore.

Trump claims he discussed the idea with Putin about forming a joint US/Russian cyber security unit that guarantees "election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded and safe". This after asking Putin if Russia meddled in our election, which he "vehemently" denied.

In response to this Republican Senator Marco Rubio tweeted: "Partnering with Putin on a "Cyber Security Unit" is akin to partnering with (Syrian President Bashar al) Assad on a "Chemical Weapons Unit,"

Whether this is a joke, or not, it is sure to fuel the idea that Trump, and his administration, colluded with Russia on the hacking of our election.

At 7/9/17 12:16 PM, EdyKel wrote: Trump claims he discussed the idea with Putin about forming a joint US/Russian cyber security unit that guarantees "election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded and safe". This after asking Putin if Russia meddled in our election, which he "vehemently" denied.

So, he contradicts his own Seccy of State and backs up the Russian version. I'd feel bad for Tillerson, but it's the same thing as the "Spicer Rule": You know what you were getting into, and if you didn't, then you're an idiot and you still deserve what you got.

The worst impediment to anything getting done in the Trump Administration is the President....I really think we're headed back to the days of a weaker Executive as Legislative (Congress) takes back large amounts of power because Executive just can't be trusted to do anything competent with it. The sad part is Trump will most likely welcome it.

This stupid and self-centered child, so-called "President", should be kept at home and not allowed to travel abroad. He'll do less damage that way.

At 7/9/17 02:59 PM, HexMagnificus wrote: This stupid and self-centered child, so-called "President", should be kept at home and not allowed to travel abroad. He'll do less damage that way.

That's a catch 22 though, because then he'll try to pass more controversial bills. Lets be realistic, he'll get flak on no matter what he does.

At 7/9/17 02:54 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 7/9/17 12:16 PM, EdyKel wrote: Trump claims he discussed the idea with Putin about forming a joint US/Russian cyber security unit that guarantees "election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded and safe". This after asking Putin if Russia meddled in our election, which he "vehemently" denied.

The worst impediment to anything getting done in the Trump Administration is the President....I really think we're headed back to the days of a weaker Executive as Legislative (Congress) takes back large amounts of power because Executive just can't be trusted to do anything competent with it. The sad part is Trump will most likely welcome it.

I'm not sure what Republicans can do to take away any more executive powers, under Trump, than just opposing things he does. I mean, from the time of Bush, who was given a lot of war time powers because of 9-11, Congress has been chipping away at them - mostly for partisan reasons.