Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Okay, just found a story that does possibly point towards some bad stuff at the State Department, potentially.

BBC link to the story.

Lots of denial, lots of accusations.

Hm, I had seen http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/fbi-state-department-clinton-email-229880 on the homepage of Politico earlier today but didn't look at it.

It does sound pretty bad, though it doesn't look like a direct connection to Clinton. I mean, nobody's saying that Clinton directly orchestrated it, but still....

Also, would be nice to know what the heck the email is that they tried to make a deal over.

[smjjames]

Someone hit me with a trout, Trump proposes some ethics reforms for lobbying that actually seem reasonable at first glance.

Doesn't say anything regarding the legislative branch (Congress) though, which is a much larger source of lobbyists.

[WealthyRadish]

Someone hit me with a trout, Trump proposes some ethics reforms for lobbying that actually seem reasonable at first glance.

Doesn't say anything regarding the legislative branch (Congress) though, which is a much larger source of lobbyists.

I think you're being generous, these proposed regulations are all aimed at exactly one person.

[Xeron]

https://sli.mg/a/yCsMAE
Woman from video: https://beta.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?two_year_transaction_period=2016&recipient_name=ZULEMA+RODRIGUEZ&min_date=01%2F01%2F2015&max_date=12%2F31%2F2016

[smjjames]

Someone hit me with a trout, Trump proposes some ethics reforms for lobbying that actually seem reasonable at first glance.

Doesn't say anything regarding the legislative branch (Congress) though, which is a much larger source of lobbyists.

I think you're being generous, these proposed regulations are all aimed at exactly one person.

Yeah, I did notice that it seemed overly focused on the executive branch. So, yeah, targeted at either Obama or Clinton, or both.

[Rolepgeek]

...Really, Xeron?

That's your source?

A text file with no surrounding info, where someone specifically says 'because I have become a hack'?

You find that credible?

[Xeron]

Wilkileaks has a track record of being creidble, do look at the second link and this https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY?t=10m27s

[alway]

Okay, just found a story that does possibly point towards some bad stuff at the State Department, potentially.

BBC link to the story.

Lots of denial, lots of accusations.

Hm, I had seen http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/fbi-state-department-clinton-email-229880 on the homepage of Politico earlier today but didn't look at it.

It does sound pretty bad, though it doesn't look like a direct connection to Clinton. I mean, nobody's saying that Clinton directly orchestrated it, but still....

Also, would be nice to know what the heck the email is that they tried to make a deal over.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-state-department-say-no-quid-pro-quo-clinton-email-n667926
Pretty lame stuff being yet again mischaracterized.

The official then reported his contact with Kennedy to another FBI employee, saying he thought that Kennedy might be willing to consider office space in return for a change in classification. According to the FBI report, that employee then told a colleague that he felt "pressured" over what he believed was a "quid pro quo."
In the end, the FBI won the classification argument, and the State Department agreed to upgrade the email to "secret." No increase in the FBI's slots in Baghdad resulted from the conversation, and the FBI ordered a review of the conduct of the now-retired FBI official.

But just the appearance of the words "quid pro quo" was enough for both Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan to respond. Both reacted as if Kennedy, and not the FBI, had proposed the deal.

Nothing to see here folks, just another case of Republicans ignoring the truth and sticking to headlines instead.

I'm done with this thread

Bye

[smjjames]

Wilkileaks has a track record of being creidble, do look at the second link and this https://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY?t=10m27s

Could you link directly to the wikileaks page that shows that? I don't know what the sli.mg site is and you could have edited it yourself, not saying you DID edit it, I'm saying show the source.

All the donation thing you posted a link of shows that she is a Hillary supporter, not sure what you're trying to prove with that link.

And honestly, that one video is all we have atm. I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it would be best to see whether more info aside from that source comes to light.

[Max™]

Wilkileaks has a track record of being creidble

You can provide a better source than a youtube video, I'm not turning the volume up for some political shit unless it's Florence Welch singing it.

As for Wikileaks, isn't that the same people we were just talking about releasing blurbs where they specifically used out of context quotes to imply the exact opposite of what Clinton was saying regarding environmentalists, super credible.

[UXLZ]

Conversely, if it doesn't support your viewpoint, it becomes non-credible. Both sides are guilty of this.

Honestly, there's almost no media agency in existence that's credible. Wikileaks is probably a bit more credible than the big mainstream news agencies, but by exactly how much I cannot really say.

[smjjames]

Conversely, if it doesn't support your viewpoint, it becomes non-credible. Both sides are guilty of this.

Honestly, there's almost no media agency in existence that's credible. Wikileaks is probably a bit more credible than the big mainstream news agencies, but by exactly how much I cannot really say.

Just out of curiosity, which media agencies in existence do you regard as credible? Besides wikileaks.

It's true that just about all media agencies have some level of bias, that's just human nature really, it's how they handle the bias that makes the difference.

[RedKing]

Yeahh, no.

AP, Reuters, AFP -- these are pretty damn credible because they have a proven track record of decades of verifiably getting the story accurate within an acceptable range of error.

To say "Oh well, no one is credible, so just believe what you want and trust your intuition" is like the journalistic equivalent of moral relativism. If you're going to be a solipsist, then why waste time arguing with any of us? We may not even ACTUALLY exist!

[smjjames]

Yeahh, no.

AP, Reuters, AFP -- these are pretty damn credible because they have a proven track record of decades of verifiably getting the story accurate within an acceptable range of error.

To say "Oh well, no one is credible, so just believe what you want and trust your intuition" is like the journalistic equivalent of moral relativism. If you're going to be a solipsist, then why waste time arguing with any of us? We may not even ACTUALLY exist!

Hence my question of what news agencies he regards as credible as he said 'almost no', therefore, there must be some that he regards as credible.

Also, sounded like he was waxing philosophical a bit there.

[Max™]

Hillary Clinton: "I want to defend fracking." Climate change environmentalists should "Get a life,"

[The Keystone XL issue is] symbolic and it's not going to go away. They're all hanging on to it. So you know Bernie Sanders is getting lots of support from the most radical environmentalists because he's out there every day bashing the Keystone pipeline. And, you know, I'm not into it for that. I've been-- my view is I want to defend natural gas. I want to defend repairing and building the pipelines we need to fuel our economy. I want to defend fracking under the right circumstances. I want to defend, you know, new, modern [inaudible]. I want to defend this stuff. And you know, I'm already at odds with the most organized and wildest. They come to my rallies and they yell at me and, you know, all the rest of it. They say, 'Will you promise never to take any fossil fuels out of the earth ever again?' No. I won't promise that. Get a life, you know. So I want to get the right balance and that's what I'm [inaudible] about-- getting all the stakeholders together. Everybody's not going to get everything they want, that's not the way it's supposed to work in a democracy, but everybody needs to listen to each other.

When you can't present context without changing the entire meaning of something you're telling other people, you lose credibility.