Trump vs Hillary 2016

Quote: terapined

No I don't
That's what's wonderful about texting and message boards
no interruptions
I am surprised you don't get that

What I do not get is how often you miss the point of these things.

"Interruptions" is not the point.

Pointing out failure to man up and back one's statement was the point.

Quote: terapined

I don't need to man up and explain anything
Putin helped Trump win the presidency

And a hardy THANK YOU VLADIMIR!!!!!!!

Quote: AZDuffman

What I do not get is how often you miss the point of these things.

"Interruptions" is not the point.

Pointing out failure to man up and back one's statement was the point.

Hey now. This was my original answer.

Quote:

Intelligence agencies say he was targeting Hillary with the hacks to her hurt campaign. It's impossible to measure the effect, and the unlike Trump's daffy comment that it had no effect on the outcome, the intelligence agencies didn't assess.

Trump assessed that himself. He's daff.

And I posted a link to the report shortly after that. Hardly an inadequate answer.

Explaining it beyond that is strictly voluntary. No manning up required. You don't like it, fine and too bad.

Next time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuNJq_wI1ns

Quote: rxwine

And I posted a link to the report shortly after that. Hardly an inadequate answer.

Explaining it beyond that is strictly voluntary. No manning up required. You don't like it, fine and too bad.

You still have yet to say *how* Putin and the hacks helped Trump.

Quoting an incomplete source does not back up your argument.

The man-up challenge remains, back up your statement with HOW the hacks made a difference?


And FWIW I find it just so sweet that the same people who said internet security was not important before the election now say hacks affected the same election!

Quote: pew

And a hardy THANK YOU VLADIMIR!!!!!!!

+1
I had a chuckle
Humor in this thread very much appreciated regardless if its from the right or left :-)

Quote: AZDuffman

The man-up challenge remains, back up your statement with HOW the hacks made a difference?

So weird AZ is so serious determined regarding "man up"
Dude, lighten up and read the links provided by RX

Quote: AZDuffman

back up your statement with HOW the hacks made a difference?

It's the seriousness of the charge that
counts to Libs, not the actual facts.
Like the parade of women who
accused Trump of sexual abuse. Not
one of them had proof, but just the
charge was enough to convict. That's
the screwy world they live in. To
them just saying will he be impeached
means he's already 95% there. It's
called living in fantasyland.

An incomplete source? What would you like to see that I would have access to? It's a totally bogus request. Might as well ask me the names of CIA, FBI and NSA members who did the work in the field.

You're just being petty and ridiculous and acting small brained.

Quote: rxwine

You're just being petty and ridiculous and acting small brained.

No, I am asking you to man up and explain your charge.

I'm not asking you to hack the CIA. I am asking you to explain further. If you think that Putin affected the election, then tell me HOW he did it and WHAT he did? Even if you have to speculate.

IOW, I am asking you to make an intelligent argument as to how and why the election was affected and not act like a freshman troll just saying "PUTIN HACKED" then running to your safe space.

So, what do you think he did? How do you think it affected the election?

How tiresome. I already stated the general idea to SOOPOO. I will repeat myself ONCE,

Quote:

Unless you're the original sinless Jesus, someone stealing your private correspondence is damaging anyway. First of all, most political statements are crafted to avoid ambiguity, so political opponents can't spin them easily the other way. Normal conversation often isn't so careful, the damage is done, both because the original private context is lost, and things like a jest can be taken seriously.

(Read above several times - thanks.)

Only the sinless Jesus (yes that Jesus) could have his private correspondence dumped on his potential employer and not being harmed. (and I'm not even sure of that) The potential employer is the public, in this case.

Second thing I would note, is what Republican would ever say a similar hack of the Republican party would not be harmful? Yeah, they are pure as the driven snow, or the sinless Jesus maybe, but I don't really think so. If you're going to say it doesn't hurt one and then say it wouldn't hurt the other even if they only reported true things. And I say, you drown in bullshit trying to claim that. That claim would never happen.

Quote: rxwine

How tiresome. I already stated the general idea to SOOPOO. I will repeat myself ONCE,


(Read above several times - thanks.)

I've read it. And sounds like the lefties are crying about being caught in the same conversations they try to catch conservatives in all the time. Heck, in the 1990s two lefties taped a cell call between two GOPers, IIRC one was Gingrich. And of course we remember the Trump hot-mic that NBC released. So a big boo-hoo-flipping-hoo.

Quote:

Second thing I would note, is what Republican would ever say a similar hack of the Republican party would not be harmful?

Actually, FNS had someone from the GOP on today. He said the FBI told both parties to watch for hacks. The GOP took their security advice seriously, the DNC ignored it. Same as liberals said that internet security was not important as to Hillary's emails for two years.

To me it is all a popcorn-worthy thing!