Live data from Hacker News

Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

google.com

161–167 of 167 posts

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#161
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The plagiarized paragraph shows that the Trump campaign isn't very well organized. I think most knew that." Compared to who? Hillary's #stealthebern campaign or the 2007/8 plagiarism scandals with Obama? Joe Biden has some serious scandals as well. If the media weren't pushing a certain angle, all these scandals would have been kept in context. Instead one line from a politician's wife's speechwriter now means he's…

The line from the speech was just an example that underlined how little staffing Trump has. I think it is pretty widely recognized that his staff isn't experienced, and there are very few of them compared to a usual campaign. If you don't agree, I understand that we are talking partisan politics, so I'm unlikely to convince you. Perhaps consider listening to some political wonk podcasts and you hear how amazed they a…

Vox/Salon are not a credible sources on anything Republican. That's like using Fox News as a reliable news source for Democrats.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#162
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It requires explanation that a multinational company would support a trade deal?

Good question. Do they support every single trade deal? Do they lobby equitably between them? If not, then why this one?

Since you're the one making the insinuations/argument, you should be answering those questions for us.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#163
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question. Do they support every single trade deal? Do they lobby equitably between them? If not, then why this one?

Since you're the one making the insinuations/argument, you should be answering those questions for us.

No problem! 1) No. 2) No. 3) Because they like what they think it will do.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#167
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The plagiarized paragraph shows that the Trump campaign isn't very well organized. I think most knew that." Compared to who? Hillary's #stealthebern campaign or the 2007/8 plagiarism scandals with Obama? Joe Biden has some serious scandals as well. If the media weren't pushing a certain angle, all these scandals would have been kept in context. Instead one line from a politician's wife's speechwriter now means he's…

The line from the speech was just an example that underlined how little staffing Trump has. I think it is pretty widely recognized that his staff isn't experienced, and there are very few of them compared to a usual campaign. If you don't agree, I understand that we are talking partisan politics, so I'm unlikely to convince you. Perhaps consider listening to some political wonk podcasts and you hear how amazed they a…

And yet, Trump is basically tied with Hillary in the polls. Even when she is vastly outspending Trump, and overly out-staffing Trump, Hillary still can't beat Trump in the polls. In fact, in some polls, Trump is well ahead of her.

What does this really says about Trump's efficiency compare to Hillary?

Post reply on HN