• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

The Official Paracast Political Thread! — Part Three

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it's pretty clear from the way Trump behaved and the way his team rushed to set up transition after the election that they were totally unprepared for what they had to do.

Your comments about the DNC were emotional and without factual support.

As I said, the Super Delegate fear mongering is a non-issue. Clinton won the majority of delegates without the need of Super Delegates. You can argue whether it's anything that should be continued by the DNC, but the party is a private company and they can do what they want. Same for Republicans. That's NOT why Trump went Republican. After spending years with the birther fake news, why would he seek the support of the party whose President he wanted to de-legitimize?
 
Gene Steinberg said:
I think it's pretty clear from the way Trump behaved and the way his team rushed to set up transition after the election that they were totally unprepared for what they had to do.
Click to expand...
Trump has done the best job I've ever seen in a public manner to appoint his key advisors for government positions, especially, considering key leadership in the Republican party did not help or want him to get elected. You make zero sense to me on your points that he didn't think he would/could win. Hillary was a terribly flawed candidate despite all the DNC corruption and Obama et al support she got.

Do you not discuss any politics about Trump with your wife considering she watches Fox news? Gene, you seriously need to read the Wikileaks about the DNC and Hillary and watch more C-Span to educate yourself better about the DNC and Hillary corruption issues.

Seriously, do you think what Wikileaks released is full of BS? You don't believe Assange when he says the Russians had nothing to do with the information they published???
Gene Steinberg said:
Your comments about the DNC were emotional and without factual support.
Click to expand...
I've already made clear this is a Global wave of political change that first appeared with Brexit. I have plenty of factual support from Wikileaks, C-Span, and other excellent direct sources of information. You have to be far more specific about where my facts are wrong and yours are correct, rather than state nothing but your opinions using the broadest non-specific generalizations.
Gene Steinberg said:
As I said, the Super Delegate fear mongering is a non-issue. Clinton won the majority of delegates without the need of Super Delegates. You can argue whether it's anything that should be continued by the DNC, but the party is a private company and they can do what they want. Same for Republicans. That's NOT why Trump went Republican. After spending years with the birther fake news, why would he seek the support of the party whose President he wanted to de-legitimize?
Click to expand...
Trump was considering running as an Independent. It's obvious he would not run as a Democrat, because all the corruption in the DNC along with its membership is incapable of supporting someone like Trump. And, you need to read my previous post more carefully, because I've not focused on just the Super Delegates being the main problem with the DNC. I've posted more than once in this thread plenty of self-destructive corrupt issues the DNC faces, and it will implode by the next election if violence breaks out on the streets with more BLM BS and its corrupt leadership doing what it does now. For example... Why the heck is Donna Brazile still leading the DNC???
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but your statements just don't jibe with the facts. He appointed Monica Crowley, a political commentator, who was quickly discovered to have plagiarized portions of one of her recent books, and her college dissertation. The facts are out there, and that's why she, thus exposed, removed her name. Her publisher withdrew the book from sale.

After attacking Clinton for giving paid speeches before Goldman Sachs, Trump appoints some of their key executives to cabinet-level positions. What do you make of that?

The DNC does face issues, serious issues. But they aren't about Super Delegates and other nonsense. And the Clintons didn't enrich themselves via the Clinton Foundation as you claim.

The rest isn't worth the time. I just don't think you understand the real issues here, and they're not about Wikileaks or the DNC. In fact, most of the Wikileaks stuff about the DNC was in-house chatter and not much else. The alleged smoking guns were not smoking guns, although they were distorted heavily. So a Clinton speech where she talked of a future about sharing power across borders freely is distorted to mean that she wanted open borders to allow people to freely move from one country to another. Pathetic!
 
Tyger said:
Something funny going on: the Russia hacking story is getting more and more layered. Nothing is as it seems. What's the truth? We won't know for years, methinks - and in the meantime.....
Click to expand...
Tyger said:
So it's being intimated that the Russians have a sex tape on Trump. He's being blackmailed. Believe it? Doesn't surprise me given how the Russians work (Putin - old KGB and all). But how weird is that?
Click to expand...
Based on these kinds of posts and your clear dominance of a majority number and lengthy posts to this thread you might be better served to watch the Wikileaks Assange youtube video I posted to this thread.

The following question is indirectly related to what I quoted from you above, but there is a massive amount of MSM hysteria about the boggyman Ruskies doing Trump's dirty work against Hillary/DNC that you're propagating here.

So, I ask, do you believe Assange did not verify where the emails came from and that he is lying when he said the Russians had nothing to do with their information?

Please answer that one question. Thanks.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Actually, the constant releases of mostly normal DNC emails hacked under Russian direction, plus the two letters to Congressional Republicans by FBI Director Comey with bogus Clinton email aspersions were enough to seal her doom.
Click to expand...
I noticed you ignored my previous post that directly asked the question whether you believed Assange's Wikileaks releases about Hillary and the DNC and other related info given to Wikileaks had nothing to do with the Russians directing or even doing this indirectly.

PLEASE watch the Assange youtube video I posted to this thread. It's my 1st post to this forum.

Now, again I ask, do you believe Assange is lying (or somehow mistaken) about this specific Wikileaks issue?
 
I see no reason to believe anything he says. It appears that the Russians may have sent it to him via intermediaries. I would believe 17 intelligence agencies rather than an online bandit.

We also do not know what parts of the DNC/Clinton material may have been tempered with.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
I see no reason to believe anything he says. It appears that the Russians may have sent it to him via intermediaries. I would believe 17 intelligence agencies rather than an online bandit.

We also do not know what parts of the DNC/Clinton material may have been tempered with.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of technical reasons this is BS, and coming from you a tech guy I'm sorry you think what you wrote above. You're fully discredited in my eyes, as I believe Assange is telling the truth about all of the election info Wikileaks has released, and, especially, that he has verified the individual(s) who gave him that information.

An easy case can be made that 17 intelligence agencies are essentially nothing but pathological liars and propaganda mouth pieces for decades, because the American people are lied to decade after decade by the psyops the MIC perpetrates including War Crimes. Intelligence Agencies are the worst. These are Obama controlled political appointees, surrogates, and/or under his executive control. You sound like a Police State MSM mouth piece unable to fairly see the War Crime abuses both Hillary and Obama have perpetrated.

And, do remember, I have clearly already posted I did not vote for Trump, never voted Republican, and I was for Gore, Kerry, and worked for Obama in 2008. But, I'm an Independent voter, and I really do despise the Clintons (because of sworn Congressional hearings and Wikileaks), and I believe the DNC must reform or it will soon implode even worse than what happened to the RNC w/Trump.
 
Your evidence is limited to calling people with whom you disagree liars. If that's what you believe, fine. But it's not something one can discuss with facts and figures.

As to hating the Clintons, that's your privilege too. But you believe things that just aren't so. I base that on the evidence, not on fake news. Consider that Congress held multiple hearings on Benghazi but failed to find fault in what Clinton did, and they sure tried.
 
We had some talking head from some think tank here on the news recently and she made this point.
Everyone spies on everyone, everyone hacks everyone. This is well known in the intelligence community. And the onus is on Govts to as she put it put the chicken in the fridge, not blame the cat because it was stolen from the kitchen bench where you left it.

The Crime here as she claims, is not the stealing of info. Everyone does it. The Crime was giving that info to Joe public.

In an age where the instructions on how to make a nuclear bomb are public knowledge

The UnMuseum - How to Build an Atomic Bomb

Build an Atomic Bomb!

I'm just not seeing the Baaaaaaaad in this.

The data wasn't sufficiently secured and got stolen. It was then passed to Joe public, some of which might have voted based on what they had learned or not learned. On their perception or misconception of what the data implied.

But imo that's just a facet of the double edged sword that's democracy.

I really don't think it affected the result to such a degree that we can say the result is invalid because of it.
 
The concern about the DNC/Clinton hack is that the Russians purportedly did it to make Trump look better, or maybe do other things, but that hasn't been confirmed. Just gathering intelligence is par for the course, but using that intelligence to influence an election represents an extraordinary move, particularly in the U.S.

I'm also troubled by this apparent bromance between Trump and Putin. In recent statements, you also believe they are finishing each others sentences, in their native languages. That is very troubling. Why is Trump so readily inclined to favor the Russians over career intelligence officers in the U.S.? Remember, the career officers work for years in different administrations regardless of the political winds.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Your evidence is limited to calling people with whom you disagree liars. If that's what you believe, fine. But it's not something one can discuss with facts and figures.
Click to expand...
Seriously Gene, you're doing way too much misdirection with your words and your meaning vs the actual words and meaning that I'm posting. You'll be better off quoting me directly and responding point by point. I've only called Hillary a pathological liar based on the Congressional hearings and Wikileaks and other public statements she has made herself.
Gene Steinberg said:
As to hating the Clintons, that's your privilege too. But you believe things that just aren't so. I base that on the evidence, not on fake news. Consider that Congress held multiple hearings on Benghazi but failed to find fault in what Clinton did, and they sure tried.
Click to expand...
I never used the word hate. You did. I said "despise" as in feel contempt or a deep repugnance for her lying. I never commented on Benghazi, so that's another misdirection you're providing.

I still hope Tyger will go on record here as to whether she believes Assange is telling the truth or not about the Russians and the Wikileaks sources.
 
You're playing games here. You support your statements by claiming other statements are lies, BS, whatever.

When it comes to proven lies, Hillary Clinton was no worse than Sanders in the usual fact checks. That's par for the course among politicians.

PolitiFact | Fact-checking the 2016 Democratic presidential candidates

As you see, they are fairly close.

On the other hand, with Clinton versus Trump, there was no contest:

PolitiFact | Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter

I'll take facts against your unsupported belief that Hillary is a "pathological liar." That is not demonstrated in the sources you mention.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
I'll take facts against your unsupported belief that Hillary is a "pathological liar." That is not demonstrated in the sources you mention.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify I've said concisely: I've only called Hillary a pathological liar based on the Congressional hearings and Wikileaks and other public statements she has made herself.

True enough, being very new to the forum I have not posted any specifics here, but I've certainly done my homework to backup my belief about Hillary's lying about her email servers and National Security violations, etc.

Unfortunately, I left that Facebook page inactive that covered many links to the Congressional hearings and elsewhere to prove what I'm suggesting about her lying. Just now I've learned Facebook erased all my posts and pics on its unique subject page dedicated to the evidence I found. I'm very unhappy I've just learned all the info is lost and gone, as I thought parking it there online would be safe. Jerks!

Ok, I need to find an online site that won't do that kind of inactivity erasing that amounted to maybe 60 days of not checking or updating the Facebook info.

As I have time, I might redo some of this work if I'm motivated. Right now, I have no interest in trying to convince you Gene of anything, because you don't believe Assange and I think you've already misdirected the meaning of much of what I've posted here anyway.
 
There's nothing in the Congressional hearings she participated in that demonstrated that Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar. Wikileaks and her public statements do not demonstrate that either. She didn't lie about her email server. The FBI said she didn't lie to them. There were no proven national security violations, and passing messages that later are listed as classified is not a violation. The entire argument was reduced to three messages improperly marked as confidential; she didn't see them as confidential.

You can argue about a few gray areas that may be interpreted as misleading. Her responses on the email issue were poorly crafted, in large part because she probably didn't consider email a big issue, and isn't a technically savvy person. If her campaign properly managed this at the beginning, it would not have gone where it did. With all the Trump scandals, the media tried to be equal and compare dozens on one end that you could hardly keep up with to email and the Clinton Foundation.

That you want to believe things that aren't so is your problem.
 
mike said:
Yes but is it really a new thing ?

The Long Tradition of the Smear Campaign | The Saturday Evening Post

I think if we are realistic this is what the democratic process now looks like in the information age.
Click to expand...
Political smears are one thing; that's how it goes. When one country is involved in helping the case in another country, that's another matter. The issue is the Russians arranging to hack the DNC and other facilities and feeding stuff to Wikipedia to discredit Clinton. They could have done the same thing to the Republicans, but they chose not to. I have no doubt both sides could have been hacked despite the spin from the Republicans that it didn't happen. That's just part of an agenda.

What would people have said if it was Trump who was hacked and had his private stuff on Wikipedia? Well, he doesn't do email, so it may not have been easy, but there are plenty of other things to focus on. He has a history.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
There's nothing in the Congressional hearings she participated in that demonstrated that Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar. Wikileaks and her public statements do not demonstrate that either. She didn't lie about her email server. The FBI said she didn't lie to them. There were no proven national security violations, and passing messages that later are listed as classified is not a violation. The entire argument was reduced to three messages improperly marked as confidential; she didn't see them as confidential.
Click to expand...
I believe you are definitely misinformed or you will no doubt misread the facts that can be proven otherwise, so I will take some time to post-up some info about this for other readers here to consider.
Gene Steinberg said:
You can argue about a few gray areas that may be interpreted as misleading. Her responses on the email issue were poorly crafted, in large part because she probably didn't consider email a big issue, and isn't a technically savvy person. If her campaign properly managed this at the beginning, it would not have gone where it did. With all the Trump scandals, the media tried to be equal and compare dozens on one end that you could hardly keep up with to email and the Clinton Foundation.
Click to expand...
Bitch all you want about Trump vs Hillary, but the MSM hates Trump and is out to destroy him, period. With all the hatred being directed at Trump (and his supporters) I expect major riots and violence to continue that is organized by extremist criminal behavior grown from DNC related groups like BLM that the MSM will provide excuses and cover for. The Deep State is out to get Trump too.

I have no doubt his life is in extreme danger by the evil criminals pumped-up and propagated from the fringe left designed to escalate violence on our streets. If possible, they will take aim directly at Trump's life too. And, everybody was so worried someone would do that to Obama, but, seriously, there is undeniably far more hatred directed at Trump than Obama ever was under threat for. It's insane, the hatred and public threats directed at Trump.
 
Last edited:
So again, you have nothing to offer to disprove what I've said. You offer no facts. Reminds me of a few others here.

Do me a favor and drop this unless or until you're able to provide real facts rather than empty claims. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top