Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 486 posts

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#281

Post by learc83 »

Dagwoodie wrote: post #137

I have yet to see a single example of Trump's racism. It's an oft repeated cliche that has yet to be demonstrated by anyone. As much of a "clown" as trump might be, half of his labels are completely pulled out of thin air.

In 1989 he reportedly said "Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day."

He spent 5 years pushing the birther conspiracy even after Obama produced his birth certificate. He also implied that Obama was a Muslim despite his claims to the contrary.

He's implied several times that Obama sides with terrorists because of his upbringing.

He said a judge was unqualified to preside over a Trump University lawsuit because he was Mexican (turns out he was born in the US 60 years ago.) Paul Ryan called it a "textbook definition of racism".

He started his campaign with this quote: "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." Despite the fact that studies show first generation immigrants don't commit more crimes than native born citizens.

He uses language like "My African American", "The Muslims", and "The Hispanics" when talking about minority groups.

He refused to disavow David Duke on air until he "researched him more." He said he didn't know who he was, but it turns out there are numerous example of him mentioning David Duke in the past. He had primaries in southern states coming up, so publicly disavowing David Duke would have likely hurt him. Especially since David Duke has been campaigning for him. He did eventually disavow him after the media made a huge deal about it.

He repeatedly refers to Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahontas".

He said "They don’t look like Indians to me" about a Native American tribe that ran a competing casino.

He said "Maybe [the protester] should have been roughed up,” he mused. “It was absolutely disgusting what he was doing." about a Black Lives matter protester at his rally.

He said "I will say that people who are following me are very passionate,” Trump said. “They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate." when asked about supporters who beat a homeless Latino man because "they all need to be deported."

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#282

Post by throwaway2016b »

zimzam wrote: post #280
throwaway2016b wrote: post #195

Meanwhile there is a picture of Hillary embracing a KKK member that the corrupt media refuses to mention. The kingmakers don't give a good goddamn about racism, except as a convenient narrative for purges. The 21st century equivalent of accusations of communism. https://i.sli.mg/FdqTAx.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd “It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd. He wa…

By the end of his career Robert Byrd was a repentant, former KKK member. Trump is being embraced by current, active KKK members. It is obtuse to pretend there's no difference between the two. From your own Wikipedia link: "In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I t…

>By the end of his career Robert Byrd was a repentant, former KKK member.

So is David Duke, that didn't stop them from trying to get Trump to "denounce" him, and he didn't even know the guy.

>user: zimzam

>created: 4 minutes ago

Thank you for Correcting The Record.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#283

Post by learc83 »

throwaway2016b wrote: post #195

Meanwhile there is a picture of Hillary embracing a KKK member that the corrupt media refuses to mention. The kingmakers don't give a good goddamn about racism, except as a convenient narrative for purges. The 21st century equivalent of accusations of communism. https://i.sli.mg/FdqTAx.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd “It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd. He wa…

You know who else eulogized Robert Byrd? The NAACP.

He was a repentant former racist who spent the later years of his life apologizing for his past.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#284

Post by jotux »

int_19h wrote: post #107
mindcrime wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly can't understand how anybody is considering voting for Clinton or Trump. If this world was anything close to reasonable, Gary Johnson would win in a landslide. shrug

Realistically, given how little exposure third party candidates get, there's no chance of any third party winning this year. Most voters don't even know they're running. Thus, it becomes a choice of 1) making a symbolic vote for a third party to "show them", 2) helping Clinton win, and 3) helping Trump win. Given the potential outcomes of Trump vs Clinton, a lot of people believe (rightly, IMO) that this electoral cy…

>there's no chance of any third party winning this year.

There's really never a chance for third parties to rise in the US because we use a crappy voting system (first past the post). We should change our voting system to Range Voting [1].

[1] http://rangevoting.org/

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#285

Post by Tycho »

kevhito wrote: post #60
CamperBob2 wrote: post #37

Long-shot speculation: I wonder if the Democrats have decided that Hillary is going to lose against Trump. Maybe they, and not the GOP, are throwing her under a very fast bus. Does anyone know what happens in the unlikely event that Clinton is placed under indictment before the election? Does Kaine move up the ticket? Does the DNC pick someone else entirely? What options do the electors have?

I was getting ready to point out that Hillary really has a large lead, even if the day-to-day talking heads insist on making this and every race/issue seem as if it is 50/50 split. Then I checked 538.com [1]: they have her at 60% chance of winning -- pretty strong lead and hardly a normal time to throw someone under the bus -- but those graphs should be terrifying team Hillary. [1] http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com…

60% chance is not really much different from a coin flip. Plus they might have some inside info that the public hasn't had a chance to react to yet.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#286

Post by saboot »

throwaway2016b wrote: post #195

Meanwhile there is a picture of Hillary embracing a KKK member that the corrupt media refuses to mention. The kingmakers don't give a good goddamn about racism, except as a convenient narrative for purges. The 21st century equivalent of accusations of communism. https://i.sli.mg/FdqTAx.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd “It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd. He wa…

Way to give the half 'truth' there, it's a supreme irony that DT supporters are ready to call anyone a shill but are just fine parading lies because they feel repeating it often enough makes it true.

> Meanwhile there is a picture of Hillary embracing a KKK member

actually

> Meanwhile there is a picture of Hillary embracing a FORMER KKK member who said that joining the KKK was "the greatest mistake I ever made."

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#287

Post by danso »

mozumder wrote: post #263
stale2002 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a criminal investigation, and a freedom of information request. So yes, according to the courts, they WERE able to forcibly make her turn over the emails.

Later on, but not at the point here. He could delete all her private emails here if he wished.

So what is the point? A discussion about what could be possible? He could dress up as Osama bin Laden and crash his car through the White House gate but that doesn't mean that it's something that Secretary Clinton believes is necessary for her campaign.

Similarly, yes, he could delete the emails after being told they were part of an investigation, but that would lead to unwanted consequences. Could he have deleted them before any investigation started? Sure, then it would just be a cloud of suspicion, but no legal ramifications.

My original point was that as soon as Clinton agreed to turn over the emails, it was in the State Department's ballpark to determine which were eligible for disclosure, as the emails were written during her time at State and ostensibly dealt with State business. Not sure why you felt you had to argue that she had the capability of just destroying her servers. If she had done that, we wouldn't be having this discussion because she likely wouldn't be in the race.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#288

Post by jpfed »

mindcrime wrote: post #269
jpfed wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy- Duverger's Law. One of Clinton or Trump will be president. If you vote for one of those two people, you get to influence that outcome. I view voting as a strategic act, not a moral stand.

Easy- Duverger's Law. Keep in mind, "Duverger's Law" isn't a law in the same sense that gravity is. That is, it's more of an observation of how things usually are... it's not an inviolable fundamental principle of the universe. If you vote for one of those two people, you get to influence that outcome. You're not influencing the outcome when the outcome is the same in both cases.

Obviously the outcome won't literally be exactly the same. Whether we consider them to be "the same" in a practical sense depends on what we care about. Different people care about different things, so different people will disagree about how different the candidates are.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#289

Post by jpfed »

mi100hael wrote: post #227
monochromatic wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I usually do like the Libertarian candidate better than the other options... but not this year.

What's not to like about "What's Aleppo?" Gary and his RINO running mate?

While he should have known, I actually think that asking that question was more admirable than attempting to BS his way through something he didn't know about.

Re: House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

#290

Post by adamrezich »

saboot wrote: post #271
imron wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> huh? It's horrifying https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-fr... Edit: In response to your edit, she's attacking a cartoon frog . In seriousness. Not only that, but she's trying to attribute characteristics to that frog that simply aren't any core part of why people post Pepe memes. All of that questions the sensibilities of her campaign. Basically her campaign is going all out trying to paint T…

You haven't been paying attention. Yes, pepe was fine, and yes many people who post it do so with no ill intent. But you are ignoring that people who are proudly racist are openly admitting to using pepe specifically to broaden and popularize explicitly racist ideas. That deserves to have light shown on it.

Does it? What does it prove? Why does shining the spotlight on self-proclaimed Internet racists actually accomplish? Especially seeing as how much of the racism seems to mostly be in service of attention-seeking?

What do you get out of proving that self-proclaimed racists [do x], as a small subset of people who [do x]?

Post reply on HN