or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › OFFICIAL Trump v. Clinton Debate Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OFFICIAL Trump v. Clinton Debate Thread - Page 11

post #151 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

it wasn't that, Hillary wanted to distract from actual corruption at DNC by blaming russian hackers, while Trump wanted to come back to the issue saying it doesn't matter who it was(and that we don't know)

It's quite surprising you are believing DNC claims and taking them at face value

The person who is said to be behind it is Guccifer 2.0 - this is the original Guccifer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer some romanian guy,). There's ZERO proof it was russian intelligence. In fact groups and indviduals cooperating with for example wiki leaks realeased this type of information for years now.

And instead of focusing on what was in the emails you are focusing on who allegedly obtained them and you are supposed to be the one of the smarter ones

so well played HRC, well played

I'm going to assume that you didn't actually watch the debate? Because you've got the context completely wrong.

Like otc said, the question wasn't about the DNC. It was about cybersecurity.

It doesn't really matter in this context whether Russia was behind the hacks or not. The point is why would Trump defend them? He has limited time, and he chose to use some of it to defend Russia. He's not up there to be Russia's advocate. So...why? You foreigners have a reason to care, but that's a damn weird thing to fixate on as an American Presidential candidate.

And it led him into a jabbering incoherent mess of an answer.
post #152 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

His campaign made this point about how he wasn't preparing. Everyone thought they were just trying to manage expectations, but apparently it was for real.

He let himself be led around by the nose by Clinton for the last hour. Everyone knew that "rattle Trump and bait him into saying stupid things" was the whole plan, and he completely fell for it. Did he land any real blows on Clinton? She certainly got some in on him, and he created his own self-inflicted wounds too.


Maybe it was all part of his strategy for the night. How do you debate a man when you can't make sense of what he's saying?
post #153 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

Except the question wasn't about the DNC issues.

The question was about cyber-security, the DNC emails were just an example. Deflecting it back to the DNC is in fact dodging the question.

well deflecting it back at vladimir putin was even more so, everytime you have a hacker a whistleblower he has to be a russian spy right(but there's absolutely zero proof of that)? Convinient I would say.

In fact if this shitty ass moderator did his job with Hillary as well as he did with Trump he would ask about the contents of the emails because that's what really mattered there. These two computer illiterate morons talking about 'cyber' was a waste of time. Ofc they have zero clue about it.
post #154 of 724
I think brokencycle nailed it- reading from text it seems very stream of consciousness. He starts on one example, drops it, moves to another, and never ties it all back in, and ends up on something totally different. It's really hard to follow.
post #155 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

it wasn't that, Hillary wanted to distract from actual corruption at DNC by blaming russian hackers, while Trump wanted to come back to the issue saying it doesn't matter who it was(and that we don't know)

It's quite surprising you are believing DNC claims and taking them at face value

The person who is said to be behind it is Guccifer 2.0 - this is the original Guccifer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer some romanian guy,). There's ZERO proof it was russian intelligence. In fact groups and indviduals cooperating with for example wiki leaks realeased this type of information for years now.

And instead of focusing on what was in the emails you are focusing on who allegedly obtained them and you are supposed to be the one of the smarter ones

so well played HRC, well played

Oh, if "it's said", then I guess we know the real answer.
post #156 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

It doesn't really matter in this context whether Russia was behind the hacks or not. The point is why would Trump defend them? He has limited time, and he chose to use some of it to defend Russia. He's not up there to be Russia's advocate. So...why? You foreigners have a reason to care, but that's a damn weird thing to fixate on as an American Presidential candidate.

And it led him into a jabbering incoherent mess of an answer.

ok, fine i did not understand your point that way since I did not interpret it as a defense of Russia
post #157 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

well deflecting it back at vladimir putin was even more so, everytime you have a hacker a whistleblower he has to be a russian spy right(but there's absolutely zero proof of that)? Convinient I would say.

To be clear, what kind of proof are you looking for in this case?
post #158 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Oh, if "it's said", then I guess we know the real answer.

Trump 'Many people are saying it'
post #159 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post


Trump 'Many people are saying it'


Believe me.

post #160 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Oh, if "it's said", then I guess we know the real answer.

it was released via wiki leaks too and i remember them saying there's no proof it's a state sponsored russian hacker, not saying it can't be, be there's no clue so far to his identity or to his affiliation, so conviently framing him as a russian spy serves a political purpose

.
Edited by wojt - 9/27/16 at 10:44am
post #161 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

ok, fine i did not understand your point that way since I did not interpret it as a defense of Russia

Did you actually watch the debate, or are you just watching/reading clips?


Clinton has a whole prepared remark on cybersecurity, that features a comment about state actors. The example is Russia hacking the DNC. That's the line Trump chose to pull out to address in his response. Not anything about policy, but "Russia didn't do the hack." How is that anything but defending Russia?

Quote:
In fact if this shitty ass moderator did his job with Hillary as well as he did with Trump he would ask about the contents of the emails because that's what really mattered there
You mean letting Trump interrupt Hillary 25 times in the first 24 minutes?

Hillary's not a moron, so all you'd get about the emails is some canned answer. She's not going to self-incriminate or give the full text of thirty thousand emails. It's a useless question unless you're one of the people who just want to see Clinton bashed for it. Nobody is going to learn anything there.

edit: and Matt Lauer spent like 45 minutes on that question a week ago. Let's do it again! Wee!


With the cybersecurity question, we learned that Trump didn't prepare and has no fucking clue how to extemporize on a serious issue. Hillary's answer at least made sense.
post #162 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

it was released via wiki leaks too and i remember them saying there's no proof it's a state sponsored russian hacker, not saying it can't be, be there's no clue so far to his identity or to his affiliation, so conviently framing him as a russian spy serves a political purpose

So if wiki leaks has no proof, no one else does either?
post #163 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

So if wiki leaks has no proof, no one else does either?

Assange openly loathes the Clintons and Wikileaks in general has a pretty strong incentive to keep these hacks going. Why would you trust them for the source of the hacks?
post #164 of 724
You guys can ask Harvey for a second opinion if you want, but I can assure you that saying "some other guy might have done it" is, indeed, method of defending someone from an accusation of wrongdoing.
post #165 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

So if wiki leaks has no proof, no one else does either?
Of course, has Assange made clear his interest is in obtaining and releasing information that favors one side. In other words, Wikileaks' spin has a political purpose.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › OFFICIAL Trump v. Clinton Debate Thread