The 2nd Presidential Debate - The Donald vs The Hillary!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
riverman said:
I actually do...but I don't pretend that it's flawless or has not been altered..that's an assumption. I also don't trust polls...some have the ability to vote multiple times ...I was reading WikiLeaks just yesterday to become familiar and their search options are linked to periodicals and journalists....I know govt is corrupt...I know most banks are corrupt.....I used to work for the Navy in msg processing with a top secret clearance...if you think it's transparent....you sir, do not understand. I sense a growing trend toward folks following an internet based govt and I sure as hell don't trust that either. Hackers can project some amazing data and make you believe it's the real deal. I'm not computer savy enough to trouble shoot their system or methods. There was no internet when I did that job and I promise you....millions of burn bags went up in smoke from military communications for many decades..those msgs are gone forever..poof....if you think Hoover was transparent or Kissinger...the fact is that to do their job, they are trained to be elusive with info.....now you can open this can of email worms and script them to suit your needs. The reason I dreaded a Trump Clinton race was the tons of shit that would be dragged into it....and it has been. You guys can salute the WikiLeaks nation all you want....it's just another set of words and characters in English....
Click to expand...

I just think that Wikileaks is far more transparent than any news media in the USA by far.
 
riverman said:
it may just be....here's an interesting take on it
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/wikileaks--flawed-answer-to-a-flawed-world
Click to expand...


I liked this part from the story you linked;

"
In the long run, WikiLeaks matters for two reasons. The first is that we need a better balance of power between people and power. Information – and specifically the Internet’s power to spread it – is our best defense against bad, unaccountable behavior.

Second, we do want to trust our governments and institutions. The point of openness is to make those in power behave better – and to make us trust them more. Rather than viewing them as enemies, we should know what they are up to, and perhaps have a little more say in what they do."
 
Denny Crane said:
Illegal campaign donations.

Candidates aren't allowed to coordinate with their PACs.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything in there about a PAC... what am I missing?

barfo
 
barfo said:
I don't see anything in there about a PAC... what am I missing?

barfo
Click to expand...

The media is a PAC for her.

upload_2016-10-17_12-2-26.png

Fits them to a "T"
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-10-17_12-2-26.png
    upload_2016-10-17_12-2-26.png
    48.7 KB · Views: 23
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

At the U.S. federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $2,600 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, according to the Federal Election Campaign Act.[3]

(How much $$$ is a column worth? $2600, if not more.)

According to FEC advisories, Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. This restriction is intended to prevent them from operating campaigns that complement or parallel those of the candidates they support or engaging in negotiations that could result in quid pro quobargaining between donors to the PAC and the candidate or officeholder. However, it is legal for candidates and Super PAC managers to discuss campaign strategy and tactics through the media.[24][25]
 
riverman said:
You guys can salute the WikiLeaks nation all you want
Click to expand...

riverman said:
Monday morning....I know Marz
Click to expand...

Ha! I was just about to point out, that Wikileaks is doing the job of informing the American people, like the press did in days gone by.
The press informed us of the shit Nixon did 40 years ago, now we need Wikileaks and perhaps the Russians to do the job for us in Clinton's case.
Otherwise, she would still be blaming a fucking video with the press backing her up.

But the "Monday morning" softened my tone.
 
Denny Crane said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

At the U.S. federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $2,600 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, according to the Federal Election Campaign Act.[3]

(How much $$$ is a column worth? $2600, if not more.)

According to FEC advisories, Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. This restriction is intended to prevent them from operating campaigns that complement or parallel those of the candidates they support or engaging in negotiations that could result in quid pro quobargaining between donors to the PAC and the candidate or officeholder. However, it is legal for candidates and Super PAC managers to discuss campaign strategy and tactics through the media.[24][25]
Click to expand...
By your logic, all media organizations that provide political endorsements are PACs, and then would be prohibited from interviewing any candidate they endorse.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
By your logic, all media organizations that provide political endorsements are PACs, and then would be prohibited from interviewing any candidate they endorse.
Click to expand...

Some really are. Rush Limbaugh's show, for example, has always bothered me as a form of illegal campaign donation.

If the media is impartial, by definition they are not a PAC. If the media organization is deliberately pushing a candidate (beyond editorial), then they are a PAC.

Here we have lots of evidence, from leaked emails, of outright collusion between the crook's campaign and non-editorial arms of the media organizations.
 
MARIS61 said:
He's afraid to acknowledge the truth.

It's that simple.
Click to expand...
You confuse fear with doubt...and truth with interpretation...weren't you the one who said all history is an illusion...forget it all? Go to WikiLeaks and learn the new version? ok.......choices
and by the way....you can just speak directly to me...no fears
 
MarAzul said:
Gosh! Remember when?
Click to expand...
They still haven't adapted to the internet throughout the media....it's clumsy...especially for many of my generation of americans. Remember when nobody cared about most of this crap and we went ahead with life free to think our own thoughts? TOO MUCH INFORMATION is not always such a great thing. I was using the public library computers and a homeless local guy was using one next to me and showed me my property on Google earth..he knows what my truck looks like....is this great?
 
riverman said:
TOO MUCH INFORMATION is not always such a great thing
Click to expand...

Sorry river. It has always been a great thing to know when your leader is lying through her(his) teeth. This is the reason the press has special protections in our law.
We now are in a very dangerous place where our leaders collude with the press so that we only see the lies. Now we only get information from a source that our government has issued a warrant to arrest the person!??!?? Damn man! We are in trouble. It ought to scare the hell out of every person, no one should find a way to support this scenario.
 
MarAzul said:
Sorry river. It has always been a great thing to know when your leader is lying through her(his) teeth. This is the reason the press has special protections in our law.
We now are in a very dangerous place where our leaders collude with the press so that we only see the lies. Now we only get information from a source that our government has issued a warrant to arrest the person!??!?? Damn man! We are in trouble. It ought to scare the hell out of every person, no one should find a way to support this scenario.
Click to expand...
I understand the concerns but my point is...how is anyone surprised by any of this....our politicians have always manipulated the press...sometimes with just cause, sometimes not...but I don't think this is a media problem, but a dysfunctional partisan problem. Vote Gary Johnson....he won't lie to you or pretend to have info he doesn't have...that's my solution
 
riverman said:
They still haven't adapted to the internet throughout the media....it's clumsy...especially for many of my generation of americans. Remember when nobody cared about most of this crap and we went ahead with life free to think our own thoughts? TOO MUCH INFORMATION is not always such a great thing. I was using the public library computers and a homeless local guy was using one next to me and showed me my property on Google earth..he knows what my truck looks like....is this great?
Click to expand...

Abu Grahib. Too much information?

If you say no, then you're just cherry picking.
 
Denny Crane said:
Abu Grahib. Too much information?

If you say no, then you're just cherry picking.
Click to expand...
we can define each other all day....I don't deny Abu Grahib at all....I'm not voting for her either...you trust news that rings true to your agenda and so do I....we didn't get to pick cherries this season...birds got them but the pear crop was great,,,,,and yes...this campaign has way too much information...so many people have stopped thinking for themselves and just practice regurgitating news feeds...it's hard to have heartfelt conversations around here because one ends up talking to a story instead of a human being
 
Denny Crane said:
Abu Grahib. Too much information?

If you say no, then you're just cherry picking.
Click to expand...
We've had this Abu Grahib discussion by the way....you should know where I stand on the issue..you blame Hillary for it....she does shoulder responsibility for her part in it but I blame the terrorist that killed those folks..
 
riverman said:
We've had this Abu Grahib discussion by the way....you should know where I stand on the issue..you blame Hillary for it....she does shoulder responsibility for her part in it but I blame the terrorist that killed those folks..
Click to expand...

Abu Grahib is the prison in Iraq where US soldiers were busted treating the prisoners cruelly.

Thanks WikiLeaks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/22/wikileaks-iraq-war-logs-i_n_772658.html

WikiLeaks’ Iraq War Logs: U.S. Troops Abused Prisoners For Years After Abu Ghraib

Despite a vigorous attempt by the Pentagon to stop WikiLeaks from releasing 400,000 pages of classified military documents about the Iraq War, the group has gone ahead with its latest document dump.

To search the documents, click here. And if you find something interesting, tell us about it by emailing wikileaks@huffingtonpost.com

Most shockingly, the documents allegedly show that U.S. troops abused prisoners for years even after the Abu Ghraib scandal and that the U.S. ignored systemic abuse, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers, according to several news reports.

In one of the most devastating reports, a U.S. Apache helicopter engaged insurgents involved in a mortar attack upon coalition forces near Baghdad. After firing a series of 30mm rounds, the helicopter’s crew (with the callsign “Crazyhorse”) radioed to their command, explaining that the insurgents “wanted to surrender.” The response was stark: “CRAZYHORSE cleared to engage ... Lawyer stated they cannot surrender to aircraft.”

The Apache crew killed the men, according to the report:
 
Denny Crane said:
Abu Grahib is the prison in Iraq where US soldiers were busted treating the prisoners cruelly.

Thanks WikiLeaks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/22/wikileaks-iraq-war-logs-i_n_772658.html

WikiLeaks’ Iraq War Logs: U.S. Troops Abused Prisoners For Years After Abu Ghraib

Despite a vigorous attempt by the Pentagon to stop WikiLeaks from releasing 400,000 pages of classified military documents about the Iraq War, the group has gone ahead with its latest document dump.

To search the documents, click here. And if you find something interesting, tell us about it by emailing wikileaks@huffingtonpost.com

Most shockingly, the documents allegedly show that U.S. troops abused prisoners for years even after the Abu Ghraib scandal and that the U.S. ignored systemic abuse, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers, according to several news reports.

In one of the most devastating reports, a U.S. Apache helicopter engaged insurgents involved in a mortar attack upon coalition forces near Baghdad. After firing a series of 30mm rounds, the helicopter’s crew (with the callsign “Crazyhorse”) radioed to their command, explaining that the insurgents “wanted to surrender.” The response was stark: “CRAZYHORSE cleared to engage ... Lawyer stated they cannot surrender to aircraft.”

The Apache crew killed the men, according to the report:
Click to expand...
Good catch...my bad, I was thinking of the embassy.....sleep deprived when I wrote that...Abu Grahib torture doesn't surprise me...horrible that shit like that happens.
 
riverman said:
you meant thanks huffington post though
Click to expand...

No, I meant WikiLeaks. They became famous for dumping documents during the Bush administration that made the Iraq thing look worse than it already did.

HuffPost would gladly glom onto bad news for Bush from WikiLeaks. But bad news for the liar?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top