Leave it to Trump to Achieve the Impossible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-08-2016, 11:16 AM
RE: Leave it to Trump to Achieve the Impossible
(29-08-2016 07:20 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Correct, but irrelevant. Do you honestly think that if Russia were to locate those 30,000 emails that they wouldn't find others and possibly more classified ones? If there's one positive thing I can say about Trump, it's that he's not stupid. Surely, he was fully aware of this when he said what he did.
You're one of the only people here who seems to realize that, so kudos to you. The thing is that the e-mails were deleted over a year ago and the hard drives were professionally wiped to prevent them from being restored. I think Trump keeps attacking her on those deleted e-mails precisely because he knows that she wouldn't be able to make them public to prove they really weren't work-related even if she wanted to. He probably knows that the only way the Russians could possibly have them is if they gained access to her server before they were deleted, which would prove that it was not secure, that the top secret information was compromised and that his encouragement came a long time after the fact.

(29-08-2016 07:20 AM)Impulse Wrote:  No, not significant at all. The mindset that decides it's okay to communicate sensitive and classified information on channels that are less secure than the best that we have is identical.
While I'm admittedly not nearly as knowledgeable about the other cases, I would argue that not even the mindset is identical given the implications of their individual actions. Hillary went out of her way to establish a private server at home knowing fully well that it was borderline illegal (FOIA requests revealed documents she signed to acknowledge that she was briefed on the security policies regarding classified information) and when the facts slowly started coming to light, she lied about the details of the scandal for a year and continues to lie about them to this day. I'm surprised that I seem to be one of the only people here who is gravely concerned about this utter lack of integrity, honesty and ownership. She is not very different from her husband in that regard. There was another instance where she claimed that she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia and continued to lie about it even after video footage showed how incredibly distorted her version of the events were. There's a whole bunch of cases like this and it has me very worried about what her presidency would be like. It's virtually guaranteed that she'd try to cover up any future scandals and this time around she would have even more significant means to do so.

(29-08-2016 07:20 AM)Impulse Wrote:  You're correct about the timing - careless wording on my part. What I meant is the change came when his nomination was all but official. I agree Trump says and does a lot to keep attention focused on his campaign, but he's speaking to a world-wide audience and the statements about banning all Muslims have been made now. Yes, he's try to narrow that a bit, but not only does it ring hollow, but it's still too broad-sweeping. There are plenty of people in countries compromised by terrorism who don't agree with terrorist ideology at all, but they too would be banned by Trump. And the numbers aren't small.
One of the questions that the American people will have to ask themselves this year is whether or not allowing immigration from these countries is worth the security risks that come with it. Some are no doubt going to point out that car accidents, for example, kill almost ten times more people every year than Islamic terrorism has in the US in the last 15 years combined, but I would say that the unpredictable and unavoidable nature of terror attacks is a big factor to consider. I can avoid most causes of death with a little bit of caution, but it's borderline impossible to prepare for someone driving a truck through a crowd I'm standing in or to defend myself against an armed terrorist who walks into a cinema I decided to visit with my friends.

(29-08-2016 07:20 AM)Impulse Wrote:  I'm not sure why you're using past tense, but I think you mean "would cause". It will probably come as no surprise that I believe Trump would be very damaging abroad, but Clinton would not be. Clinton would probably be somewhat similar to Obama (not sure how you feel about his performance abroad). I've already said plenty about why I think Trump would be quite damaging.
I'm using the past tense because the consequences of her actions and decisions as Secretary of State have caused untold damage in foreign countries, most notably the military intervention in Libya. Her similarity to Obama is not a good thing as far as I'm concerned. I certainly give the man credit for trying to shut down Guantanamo Bay, for ending the disastrous wars in Afghanistan in Iraq and his attempt at establishing universal healthcare, but at the same time I have to criticize him harshly for strengthening the surveillance state and for not only continuing but expanding the US military's drone programs in the Middle East. She is similar to him in all the wrong ways.

(29-08-2016 07:20 AM)Impulse Wrote:  I'm convinced that you believe so, does that count? Tongue Seriously, yes, I'm sure that's true that you won't likely convince me that the concerns about Clinton are objectively more severe.
Well, then I'll stop trying. Tongue

(29-08-2016 07:20 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Got it. I'm admittedly not as educated about either of those countries as you seem to be about the U.S. so I'm sure that isn't helping me to understand your perspective.
I didn't care much about the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections because the implications of the outcome for my own situation were relatively insignificant. This time around, either choice could really shake things up in my part of the world. Germany is already having a hard time dealing with the absurd amount of war refugees and it's only going to get worse if they continue the interventionist policy of past presidents. Trump on the other hand is uncomfortably friendly with Russia. I'm in favor of improving relations with Russia, but the sketchy history of his now-resigned campaign manager Manafort gave me quite some pause.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
29-08-2016, 12:34 PM
RE: Leave it to Trump to Achieve the Impossible
(29-08-2016 11:16 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You're one of the only people here who seems to realize that, so kudos to you. The thing is that the e-mails were deleted over a year ago and the hard drives were professionally wiped to prevent them from being restored. I think Trump keeps attacking her on those deleted e-mails precisely because he knows that she wouldn't be able to make them public to prove they really weren't work-related even if she wanted to. He probably knows that the only way the Russians could possibly have them is if they gained access to her server before they were deleted, which would prove that it was not secure, that the top secret information was compromised and that his encouragement came a long time after the fact.
Maybe, but Clinton's server isn't the only place those email messages existed and they can still possibly be found. Granted, it's much more difficult than having them centrally located, but that frankly makes it worse. It would require hacking many servers to locate them which would require viewing far more emails and potentially finding far more confidential information.

(29-08-2016 11:16 AM)Vosur Wrote:  While I'm admittedly not nearly as knowledgeable about the other cases, I would argue that not even the mindset is identical given the implications of their individual actions. Hillary went out of her way to establish a private server at home knowing fully well that it was borderline illegal (FOIA requests revealed documents she signed to acknowledge that she was briefed on the security policies regarding classified information) and when the facts slowly started coming to light, she lied about the details of the scandal for a year and continues to lie about them to this day. I'm surprised that I seem to be one of the only people here who is gravely concerned about this utter lack of integrity, honesty and ownership. She is not very different from her husband in that regard. There was another instance where she claimed that she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia and continued to lie about it even after video footage showed how incredibly distorted her version of the events were. There's a whole bunch of cases like this and it has me very worried about what her presidency would be like. It's virtually guaranteed that she'd try to cover up any future scandals and this time around she would have even more significant means to do so.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I am concerned about those actually. As I said in my first post in this thread, I'm not a big fan of either candidate. This election is definitely about choosing the lesser of two evils. You and I just disagree about which one that is.

(29-08-2016 11:16 AM)Vosur Wrote:  One of the questions that the American people will have to ask themselves this year is whether or not allowing immigration from these countries is worth the security risks that come with it. Some are no doubt going to point out that car accidents, for example, kill almost ten times more people every year than Islamic terrorism has in the US in the last 15 years combined, but I would say that the unpredictable and unavoidable nature of terror attacks is a big factor to consider. I can avoid most causes of death with a little bit of caution, but it's borderline impossible to prepare for someone driving a truck through a crowd I'm standing in or to defend myself against an armed terrorist who walks into a cinema I decided to visit with my friends.
It's a valid concern, but as you pointed out, there is little that can be done to prevent a terrorist attack. Intelligence is the main "weapon" it seems in order to stop any incident before it gets fully in motion. Failing that, it really doesn't take much to kill a crowd of people somewhere at some time. That's precisely why any blanket ban is silly in my view. Terrorists will still find a way. They will enter the country illegally or they will recruit some white people who don't fit the stereotype and they will show up at some random location and massacre a crowd. For Trump to be presenting any kind of ban as a key part of his strategy betrays the absolute shallowness of thinking that concerns me to no end. The shallowness is not stupidity, but a lack of understanding/education in that subject area and a lack of informed support from those around him.

(29-08-2016 11:16 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I'm using the past tense because the consequences of her actions and decisions as Secretary of State have caused untold damage in foreign countries, most notably the military intervention in Libya. Her similarity to Obama is not a good thing as far as I'm concerned. I certainly give the man credit for trying to shut down Guantanamo Bay, for ending the disastrous wars in Afghanistan in Iraq and his attempt at establishing universal healthcare, but at the same time I have to criticize him harshly for strengthening the surveillance state and for not only continuing but expanding the US military's drone programs in the Middle East. She is similar to him in all the wrong ways.
Since I reside in the US, my perspective on some of those is different. But Republicans tend to lean more toward military build-ups and interventions than Democrats. What makes you think Trump, a Republican, would be better? Do you think Clinton has been worse than G.W. Bush in terms of damage to foreign countries?

(29-08-2016 11:16 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I didn't care much about the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections because the implications of the outcome for my own situation were relatively insignificant. This time around, either choice could really shake things up in my part of the world. Germany is already having a hard time dealing with the absurd amount of war refugees and it's only going to get worse if they continue the interventionist policy of past presidents. Trump on the other hand is uncomfortably friendly with Russia. I'm in favor of improving relations with Russia, but the sketchy history of his now-resigned campaign manager Manafort gave me quite some pause.
Ideally, improved relations with Russia would, of course, be a good thing, but I don't see the kind of trust needed for that being present any time soon. That's one reason Trump's friendliness toward Russia is so concerning. First, where does that come from? Second, what does he really think he can realistically accomplish toward that end right now? (Both are rhetorical questions.)

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
29-08-2016, 02:47 PM
RE: Leave it to Trump to Achieve the Impossible
Good discussion, I'm reading with interest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: