First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Trump catches up to Clinton Aug. 26 to Sept. 1
18678 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Online
Posted 9/4/16

Rujikin wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

If he can win an election by talk shit he deserves to win.


At least he isn't threatening war with Russia because the DNC got hacked... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k4aIIpCDsLU


I show this to people and they still say she is the lesser of two evils, FUCKING HOW
31059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles, CA
Offline
Posted 9/4/16
I have voted Republican my entire life, including 4 Republican candidates out of 5 Presidential elections so far. I am voting for Hilary this year and so are my family, relatives, and many friends who have historically all voted Republican.
27253 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Online
Posted 9/4/16
Well, Hillary's the next president anyways but heck, this latest thing with her selective amnesia about not remembering anything regarding her security training is ridiculous
34999 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/4/16 , edited 9/4/16

redokami wrote:

I show this to people and they still say she is the lesser of two evils, FUCKING HOW


What Clinton seems to mean is that she'd treat the threat of cyber attacks as a matter of equivalent significance for national defence as more conventional forms of warfare and put emphasis on securing the USA's electronic infrastructure. She'd identify vulnerabilities in that infrastructure, improve counterintelligence protocols meant to protect government and federal contractors' systems, assess the extent of any damage that's already been done, and (in the event that the Russian Federation is implicated in a cyber attack against the United States government's systems) respond with whatever diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military options prove most prudent at the time. It's tricky to say what that response would be specifically, and it would likely depend on the nature and extent of whatever attack Russia launched, but a safer bet than Clinton deciding to burn humankind away in nuclear fire would be that she'd officially condemn the Russian Federation for its actions, impose diplomatic and economic sanctions proportional to the extent of the attack's damage, bulk up defences in European NATO countries, maybe engage in joint training exercises and provide arms to the Ukrainian government's forces, and just generally be a gigantic pain in Russia's arse.
10809 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 9/4/16
"In America, there are two political parties: the stupid party, and the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party."
15271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
58 / M
Offline
Posted 9/4/16
Just remember, if you vote for the lesser of two evils you are choosing to vote for evil.

If enough people choose to vote for evil we lose the mandate of heaven and God only has to take care of drunkards and fools.
608 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/5/16

BlueOni wrote:


redokami wrote:

I show this to people and they still say she is the lesser of two evils, FUCKING HOW


What Clinton seems to mean is that she'd treat the threat of cyber attacks as a matter of equivalent significance for national defence as more conventional forms of warfare and put emphasis on securing the USA's electronic infrastructure. She'd identify vulnerabilities in that infrastructure, improve counterintelligence protocols meant to protect government and federal contractors' systems, assess the extent of any damage that's already been done, and (in the event that the Russian Federation is implicated in a cyber attack against the United States government's systems) respond with whatever diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military options prove most prudent at the time. It's tricky to say what that response would be specifically, and it would likely depend on the nature and extent of whatever attack Russia launched, but a safer bet than Clinton deciding to burn humankind away in nuclear fire would be that she'd officially condemn the Russian Federation for its actions, impose diplomatic and economic sanctions proportional to the extent of the attack's damage, bulk up defences in European NATO countries, maybe engage in joint training exercises and provide arms to the Ukrainian government's forces, and just generally be a gigantic pain in Russia's arse.


I'm glad someone pointed this out. I was not willing to start that conversation with people who clearly don't care about what was actually being said by Clinton.
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/5/16 , edited 9/5/16

EichiXIII wrote:


BlueOni wrote:


redokami wrote:

I show this to people and they still say she is the lesser of two evils, FUCKING HOW


What Clinton seems to mean is that she'd treat the threat of cyber attacks as a matter of equivalent significance for national defence as more conventional forms of warfare and put emphasis on securing the USA's electronic infrastructure. She'd identify vulnerabilities in that infrastructure, improve counterintelligence protocols meant to protect government and federal contractors' systems, assess the extent of any damage that's already been done, and (in the event that the Russian Federation is implicated in a cyber attack against the United States government's systems) respond with whatever diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military options prove most prudent at the time. It's tricky to say what that response would be specifically, and it would likely depend on the nature and extent of whatever attack Russia launched, but a safer bet than Clinton deciding to burn humankind away in nuclear fire would be that she'd officially condemn the Russian Federation for its actions, impose diplomatic and economic sanctions proportional to the extent of the attack's damage, bulk up defences in European NATO countries, maybe engage in joint training exercises and provide arms to the Ukrainian government's forces, and just generally be a gigantic pain in Russia's arse.


I'm glad someone pointed this out. I was not willing to start that conversation with people who clearly don't care about what was actually being said by Clinton.


This is a huge, huge, huge, huge, cannot be understated how large, leap. Firstly and most obviously is the fact that she nor Trump nor anyone with any level of sanity would take a cyberattack as "an act of war" at this point in time, it is just plain stupid when wikileaks has brought so clearly into the light of day our OWN cyberattacks on foreign nations enemies and allies alike to then turn around and say "but when Russia does it, it is now grounds on the international stage for military action". No reasonable person would enhance tensions over cyber warfare when they themselves are one of, if not the the greatest perpetrators (and more importantly, perpetrators who have been CAUGHT in the act very recently) , that is a recipe for armed conflict. Secondly,"She'd identify vulnerabilities in infrastructure, improve counterintelligence protocols, assess damage and respond" not that SHE actually does any of that, but it's ALREADY being done, that's pretty much what the DoD does, so unless you are suggesting she would increase funding to these operations (highly unlikely if you can believe anything she's said so far, but you can't actually) then that is just completely not true. Thirdly, not only do the sanctions you spoke of not exist inside any of her comments there, when Russia attempts to annex Crimea which would have severe repercussions for our actions in the middle-east, and multiple European nations cry out for sanctions, and still sanctions are resisted and never enforced, you can be pretty sure HC will not enact sanctions over something like a hacking. Not that she would do any of that stuff even if it were plausible because again, those are you inferences and not at all what she said in any way or form.

Let's look at what this really is; HC tried to deflect media attention from her emails to the bad old Russians as she has done with a plethora of issues in the last few weeks, it is a tactic her campaign team has adopted as we move towards the debates. It is entirely disingenuous. You have read way too far into this and built a backing through inferences and wishful thinking for what is a stupid and failed political promise made with the interest of dodging a hot button issue and swaying voters. It was a stupid comment, she should feel stupid for having said it; she is probably getting a taste of what the Trump campaign feels like.

I also agree with the guy before you; I can understand debate onto which candidates policies are in the better interests of the US, which would be better or worse through proposed actions, but if you do just about any research at all, I don't think there can be any argument against the fact that Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt and vile candidate we have had in decades at least.
608 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/5/16


Based on some of that I assume most, if not all, of it is actually directed at the person who said what you are replying to rather than me. If this is the case then you might want to quote BlueOni instead. If you meant to quote me then I am afraid you wasted your time. I am not going to debate any of this with anyone.
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/5/16



Lol, there were like 3 people there, I am sure they will come back to take a look at the comment section. Interesting that you would chime in on a thread about politics without wanting to actually talk about them though, does indeed seem like a waste of time.
608 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/5/16

Punk_Mela wrote:




Lol, there were like 3 people there, I am sure they will come back to take a look at the comment section. Interesting that you would chime in on a thread about politics without wanting to actually talk about them though, does indeed seem like a waste of time.


It's one of the 5 days off I get a year so I haven't really found anything to do with my time. And so I read threads even if I don't want to really bother participating in them. Figured posting a reply to what they said wouldn't result in any meaningful conversation being started and was safe.
Banned
1408 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Virginia, USA
Offline
Posted 9/5/16
I'm sure we'll be back into the talking points of "skewed polls" after the next Trump-oops moment
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/5/16



Well I won't take up any more of your time that appears to be so precious even labor laws don't have a hold on it. than to point out the obvious fact that nothing really "results" in meaningful conversation if you follow it up by saying you refuse to talk about the matter. (which you did while you were commenting not reading, which just circles back to my question "why would you comment on a thread you have no interest in discussing?"), Word of advice, maybe spend your remaining 4 days speaking to your labor union or looking for a new job rather than stating an opinion you don't want to discuss on a thread on an anime website.
608 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/5/16 , edited 9/5/16

Punk_Mela wrote:




Well I won't take up any more of your time that appears to be so precious even labor laws don't have a hold on it. than to point out the obvious fact that nothing really "results" in meaningful conversation if you follow it up by saying you refuse to talk about the matter. (which you did while you were commenting not reading, which just circles back to my question "why would you comment on a thread you have no interest in discussing?"), Word of advice, maybe spend your remaining 4 days speaking to your labor union or looking for a new job rather than stating an opinion you don't want to discuss on a thread on an anime website.


Independent contractor. No labor union. The job works fine enough for me that I do not feel the need to go find another at this time. I was just saying that the days off come so rarely that when they do I often find myself with too much time on my hands.

And I answered your question by saying that I commented on it because given who I was talking to I knew it wouldn't result in anything with them in particular. I also did not expect someone else to quote my comment since it really didn't add to the discussion at all.

It is simply what I felt like doing at the time and since I am free to do as I please, I did.
Banned
1408 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Virginia, USA
Offline
Posted 9/5/16 , edited 9/5/16
You sure are posting a lot about not wanting to post about stuff

Like, uh I don't have time to talk about politics nor the energy, but I will go on and on about my excuses all day.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.