By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - FBI Released Proof of Russian DNC Hacking - US expels 35 Russian diplomats & Sanctioned Two Compounds

SvennoJ on 30 December 2016
Bandorr said:
pokoko said:

What the fuck are you talking about?  Don't make up shit like that in a civil discussion.  Just don't do it.  That kind of garbage is uncalled for.

I am not defending what happened at the DNC at all.  In no way shape or form did I say anything like that whatsoever.  Why would I even defend that when I would take Sanders over Clinton and refused to vote for her (or Trump)?  That makes no damn sense.  Personally, I think a lot more needs to be done to address the problem with political corruption and those involved need to be freaking ruined.  What I'm saying now, however, has absolutely nothing to do with that.  Do you really, honestly not understand what I said or are you just trying to do some party-line bullshit?

According to our justice system, if you break the law while you are trying to prove that someone else broke the law then you are still responsible for breaking the law.  Period.  Do you understand that?

What you are saying is that you don't believe breaking and entering, search and seizure, or entrapment should be illegal as long as someone says they are searching for evidence of something nefarious.  It's fine if you want to live in a place like that but that is not how our justice system works.  That would be chaos and open the door to some scary abuse.

As someone who despises both parties, I don't give a damn who it affected this time or who it did not.  Can you honestly say the same?

This is the part that it seems a lot of people are missing. They are just saying "well stuff got revealed so  it is good". Yet if someone broke into their house, looked through their browsing history, tapped into their phones etc etc - I am sure they would be the first to be very not ok with it.

The ends do not justify the means.

Have you checked your rights recently or paid attention to what been happening the past decade?
Replace something nefarious with something terrorism and all bets are off.



Around the Network
Nem on 30 December 2016
Azuren said:
Nem said:

The map looks like an improvement to me.

I mean, i'm sure things will eventually walk in that direction if the outdated electoral system isnt changed. Also, its clear different parts of the US have different cultural and religious values.

There is a reason why theres so many countries in europe. So, it's not a surprising development if it came to pass.

I really wonder if Texas would become a republic though... the poor guys on Austin...

By poor guys in Austin, are you referring to the native Austinites with somewhat liberal ideals, or the Californian transplants that are ruining literally everything here?

 

And for the record, the "Texas Republic" would come to own Mexico, not the other way around. The rednecks here are armed to the teeth and would love to wipe out the cartel (or try) to annex Mexico. There's also enough Mexicans here to want that, as well as enough Mexicans in Mexico who want their country to be freed from druglords. 

You make it sound like the rest of the world would just be ok with it. We're are past the time where one can just invade another country without consequence.



method114 on 30 December 2016

Wow this proof is flimsy at best. This is basically the hacks came from Russia. Are we responsible for every hacker in America?



Rab on 30 December 2016
Bandorr said:
pokoko said:

What the fuck are you talking about?  Don't make up shit like that in a civil discussion.  Just don't do it.  That kind of garbage is uncalled for.

I am not defending what happened at the DNC at all.  In no way shape or form did I say anything like that whatsoever.  Why would I even defend that when I would take Sanders over Clinton and refused to vote for her (or Trump)?  That makes no damn sense.  Personally, I think a lot more needs to be done to address the problem with political corruption and those involved need to be freaking ruined.  What I'm saying now, however, has absolutely nothing to do with that.  Do you really, honestly not understand what I said or are you just trying to do some party-line bullshit?

According to our justice system, if you break the law while you are trying to prove that someone else broke the law then you are still responsible for breaking the law.  Period.  Do you understand that?

What you are saying is that you don't believe breaking and entering, search and seizure, or entrapment should be illegal as long as someone says they are searching for evidence of something nefarious.  It's fine if you want to live in a place like that but that is not how our justice system works.  That would be chaos and open the door to some scary abuse.

As someone who despises both parties, I don't give a damn who it affected this time or who it did not.  Can you honestly say the same?

This is the part that it seems a lot of people are missing. They are just saying "well stuff got revealed so  it is good". Yet if someone broke into their house, looked through their browsing history, tapped into their phones etc etc - I am sure they would be the first to be very not ok with it.

The ends do not justify the means.

Laws evolve, they are man made, they are not fixed, if enough people break them for good reason they often get changed, times are changing and the perception of existing laws will have to change as well, evolving into amended laws or new laws, laws have always changed to suit the times

If most people feel hacking to expose corruption is valid, then laws that stand in it's way are seen as unjust and will eventually change 



AsGryffynn on 31 December 2016
etking said:
Someone may have hacked the US but there is no proof that the Russians are the source. It could have been done by any public or private organization in the world.

Most importantly, nothing they'd have done might warrant responses. They literally aired Clinton's dirty laundry and didn't air Trump's and hacked into political parties, not the government. Political parties ARE NOT the government and shouldn't be considered part of it. Barry's literally taking a very partisan approach to this and capitalizing on Republican fears. After all, who says they are safe, it might have been them and not the Democratic Party that was scared. 

But in the end, it all points to one thing and one thing only: Lack of transparency. 



Around the Network
sethnintendo on 01 January 2017
AsGryffynn said:
etking said:
Someone may have hacked the US but there is no proof that the Russians are the source. It could have been done by any public or private organization in the world.

Most importantly, nothing they'd have done might warrant responses. They literally aired Clinton's dirty laundry and didn't air Trump's and hacked into political parties, not the government. Political parties ARE NOT the government and shouldn't be considered part of it. Barry's literally taking a very partisan approach to this and capitalizing on Republican fears. After all, who says they are safe, it might have been them and not the Democratic Party that was scared. 

But in the end, it all points to one thing and one thing only: Lack of transparency. 

God only knows what dirt they uncovered on the Republicans.  Republicans like to think they stand on the high moral ground cause of anti abortion, religion, etc...  However, when you have people like Dennis Hastert, Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford, Mark Foley, and many more in your party then you know there are many uncovered skeletons in the closet.



teamsilent13 on 02 January 2017
sethnintendo said:
AsGryffynn said:

Most importantly, nothing they'd have done might warrant responses. They literally aired Clinton's dirty laundry and didn't air Trump's and hacked into political parties, not the government. Political parties ARE NOT the government and shouldn't be considered part of it. Barry's literally taking a very partisan approach to this and capitalizing on Republican fears. After all, who says they are safe, it might have been them and not the Democratic Party that was scared. 

But in the end, it all points to one thing and one thing only: Lack of transparency. 

God only knows what dirt they uncovered on the Republicans.  Republicans like to think they stand on the high moral ground cause of anti abortion, religion, etc...  However, when you have people like Dennis Hastert, Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford, Mark Foley, and many more in your party then you know there are many uncovered skeletons in the closet.

I am sure wikileaks has things on the Republican Party, but I doubt it's that damning. Trump himself has already been relieved of all or almost all of his skeletons and he still won the election. The whole point of draining the swamp is to get the hypocritical Republicans out so we can get people who walk the walk as well as less neocons. It really just depends on the timing when it comes to the leaks because if they wait till general elections then obviously it's too late for the GOP to react and they will be stuck with bad candidates with scandal. However, it would actually benefit the party if done prior to the primaries. Using Hastert or Foley as proof of anything when they represent two people versus 300+ of Republicans currently in congress. Having 1 or 2 scandals by a politician that is no where near the top of the party per cycle isn't very much to go off of. Democrats meanwhile had corruption at the highest level of the party including fixing the primary election for Hillary and controlling the media in her favor. It's a night and day difference.



Azuren on 04 January 2017
Bandorr said:
pokoko said:

What the fuck are you talking about?  Don't make up shit like that in a civil discussion.  Just don't do it.  That kind of garbage is uncalled for.

I am not defending what happened at the DNC at all.  In no way shape or form did I say anything like that whatsoever.  Why would I even defend that when I would take Sanders over Clinton and refused to vote for her (or Trump)?  That makes no damn sense.  Personally, I think a lot more needs to be done to address the problem with political corruption and those involved need to be freaking ruined.  What I'm saying now, however, has absolutely nothing to do with that.  Do you really, honestly not understand what I said or are you just trying to do some party-line bullshit?

According to our justice system, if you break the law while you are trying to prove that someone else broke the law then you are still responsible for breaking the law.  Period.  Do you understand that?

What you are saying is that you don't believe breaking and entering, search and seizure, or entrapment should be illegal as long as someone says they are searching for evidence of something nefarious.  It's fine if you want to live in a place like that but that is not how our justice system works.  That would be chaos and open the door to some scary abuse.

As someone who despises both parties, I don't give a damn who it affected this time or who it did not.  Can you honestly say the same?

This is the part that it seems a lot of people are missing. They are just saying "well stuff got revealed so  it is good". Yet if someone broke into their house, looked through their browsing history, tapped into their phones etc etc - I am sure they would be the first to be very not ok with it.

The ends do not justify the means.

So if someone breaks into someone else's house and finds a sexslave ring, should the sexslave ring be swept under the rug and the intruder punished severely for revealing it?

 

Or should, I dunno, both parties be punished?



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Soundwave on 04 January 2017
Azuren said:
Bandorr said:

This is the part that it seems a lot of people are missing. They are just saying "well stuff got revealed so  it is good". Yet if someone broke into their house, looked through their browsing history, tapped into their phones etc etc - I am sure they would be the first to be very not ok with it.

The ends do not justify the means.

So if someone breaks into someone else's house and finds a sexslave ring, should the sexslave ring be swept under the rug and the intruder punished severely for revealing it?

 

Or should, I dunno, both parties be punished?

Are you naive enough to think Russia is doing this just for milk and cookies? They want and will expect something back for this, they're not doing this to "help" the American electorate, they want a puppet in the White House. They then have leverage over the American political system, and it's also naive to think if it worked for them once that they'll never do it again, they will try this now every election. 



DrDoomz on 04 January 2017
Soundwave said:
Azuren said:

So if someone breaks into someone else's house and finds a sexslave ring, should the sexslave ring be swept under the rug and the intruder punished severely for revealing it?

 

Or should, I dunno, both parties be punished?

Are you naive enough to think Russia is doing this just for milk and cookies? They want and will expect something back for this, they're not doing this to "help" the American electorate, they want a puppet in the White House. They then have leverage over the American political system, and it's also naive to think if it worked for them once that they'll never do it again, they will try this now every election. 

Wouldn't that mean that each party should just be better at keeping their communications secure/be less scummy/be more honest?

No secrets/skeletons/better security = no leverage.

We can't just assume that no one learned a lesson from this.