MX Simulator

Right m8, like Australia can stand on it's own militarily while you watch the world burn. You'll need a hand...hmmmm who do you turn to? Again, not too explosive of a leak there. Maybe a little megalomaniacal with "American Sea". We already have Russia ringed with missile defense and China is creating their own islands in neutral waters. That is nearly an act of war. Missile defense is needed, especially in that region. How can you say that we're gonna start WW3 when at least 4 other countries are grabbing land that's not theirs or shooting at our vessels etc ? We are the main force for peacekeeping. Remember? World Police....fuck yeah!

TeamHavocRacing wrote:Right m8, like Australia can stand on it's own militarily while you watch the world burn. You'll need a hand...hmmmm who do you turn to? Again, not too explosive of a leak there. Maybe a little megalomaniacal with "American Sea". We already have Russia ringed with missile defense and China is creating their own islands in neutral waters. That is nearly an act of war. Missile defense is needed, especially in that region. How can you say that we're gonna start WW3 when at least 4 other countries are grabbing land that's not theirs or shooting at our vessels etc ? We are the main force for peacekeeping. Remember? World Police....fuck yeah!

I was more pointing at the fact she said 'We discovered Japan" but you know.

TeamHavocRacing wrote:Missile defense. We are the main force for peacekeeping.

I'm unsure what Americans mean when they say these words now.

Wallace might not have been perfect, but the other three "moderators" should be taking notes. That was pretty fair.

I do find it interesting the lack of an American Flag pin on Hillary, or the lack of our nations color for that matter. Not that it means anything or is required, you just think if you are running for the president of the United States you would show a little patriotism.

Flag waving has been completely hijacked by the right. Kinda like how conservationism has been completely hijacked by the left. How many Subaru's do you see with two American or Confederate flags waving out the back? How many Dodge Rams do you see with a coexist or peace sticker on the back? I love America too but I don't need a giant eagle on my t-shirt in order to prove it.

I get that, but its just something that's kinda tradition. One could say that so is releasing your tax returns though so im not gonna be hypocritical about it. (Although I believe there is reasoning behind the tax returns but what do I know according to the media im an ignorant racist redneck)

m121c wrote:I get that, but its just something that's kinda tradition. One could say that so is releasing your tax returns.

If he were to go with tradition then he wouldn't be an outsider, but doesn't that make you a politician if you're president? So, fuck traditional things like accepting the results of the election if it's within acceptable margins, showing tax returns or shaking hands with opponents at debates, even if it's a nasty woman.

TeamHavocRacing wrote:

m121c wrote:I get that, but its just something that's kinda tradition. One could say that so is releasing your tax returns.

If he were to go with tradition then he wouldn't be an outsider, but doesn't that make you a politician if you're president? So, fuck traditional things like accepting the results of the election if it's within acceptable margins, showing tax returns or shaking hands with opponents at debates, even if it's a nasty woman.

I think you're taking it a little more hostile than I meant it to be, I just thought it was interesting not a huge deal. I don't find any of those traditions to be that big a deal honestly. It's all drama to me that has no real effect to jack. Exactly why I said I'm not going to blow it up and pretend like Trump follows the traditions.

1. The question was not worded "accepting the results of the election if it's within acceptable margins" it was just will you accept it? Now, given the things that have come to light as recently as the last week about the democratic party, it's not unreasonable to think in the event of a loss with large margins should not be questioned. Why would any candidate, on either side, give up the right to challenge a questionable result? It's about as logical as the U.S. Attorney General saying she will agree with whatever the FBI concludes BEFORE the actual result is released.

2. Showing tax returns. WE GET IT. It's been said over and over and fucking over again. Financial lawyers, far and wide, young and old, would advise it is poor business practice to release tax returns publicly while under audit. Legally their is nothing preventing you yes, but Trump has a private company for his income. If it's bad for business, that hurts him. Not everyone can get Saudi and Qatar millions "donated" to them.

3. Shaking Hands. Poor sportsmanship with out a doubt. It's a two way street though, can't just blame Trump. This has been a pretty personal and cheap shot run campaign, both of them, I don't really blame either. Plus, even if they can stack shit as high as Hillary I ain't touching it, it's still shit.

Like I said it's just drama BS. I don't care, I'll be voting based on which candidates issues and policy align with my views, not because one says he is might not accept the outcome of an election depending on circumstances and the other not wearing an American Flag pin.

Man it's annoying on campus this week. Early voting started today and the democrats are going nuts trying to swindle people to vote for Hillary. HRC tents, chalk signs every 10 ft, free pizza, puppies (I'm serious), and people yelling into megaphones central campus. Didn't know voting needed a side show.

It's always been a circus. I included "acceptable margins" since there definitely should be a recount if it's questionably close. I think traditions should be followed, but that's just old fogey sentiment. You young whippersnappers like to upset the apple cart.

TeamHavocRacing wrote:It's always been a circus. I included "acceptable margins" since there definitely should be a recount if it's questionably close. I think traditions should be followed, but that's just old fogey sentiment. You young whippersnappers like to upset the apple cart.

I agree, I think it's in good spirit to follow them but it's not disqualifying or above policy in my opinion if they aren't followed. Wouldn't argue you with you us youngins upsetting the apple cart, I think that's just part of being young to a certain extent

I guess the whole not accepting the outcome media explosion... It's frustrating to see the media focus on such a little and meaningless phrase and call it "a danger to our democracy" when this very week alone we have seen a few videos of Hillary campaigners throwing out Republican voter registrations, talks of voter fraud, and leaked emails form the inner workings of the DNC campaign that is a actually disgrace and danger to our democracy. All they have to say? "FREAKING RUSSIA!".

I'm not saying that the republican party is anymore better here, but hey I don't have their emails I can't say that they are just as guilty. I find it troubling that we don't actually know for sure who is doing the hacking but we are so quick to call out a major global super power and blame them for it. Questioning it is one thing, but looking into the camera on a worldwide debate and calling out Putin and Russia for attacks that we are not for sure even came from them, that's bad judgment.

I find it really disturbing the way the media has played this election.

m121c wrote:I find it troubling that we don't actually know for sure who is doing the hacking

PolitiFact: "We don’t know how many separate investigations into the attacks they were. But the Director of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country’s 17 federal intelligence agencies, released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia is behind recent hacks into political organizations’ emails. The statement sourced the attacks to the highest levels of the Russian government and said they are designed to interfere with the current election. We rate Clinton’s statement True."

In my view, I find it somewhere on the scale of rationalization to be both completely skeptical and unconvinced about some things, and entirely certain on other things widely deemed skeptical by others, because at that point really looks like you're (not you Mason, just the greater sense of "you") nitpicking and choosing facts to fit a chosen narrative. For example: it doesn't make sense to me how someone can fervently believe in wide scale voter fraud as a major issue, believe the whole system is rigged against them, while at the same time play coy and say "we don't know who hacked the emails". At least one of those issues has some causal evidence disseminating from the trained professionals we entrust with overseeing a large part of our national security, which to me is a pretty damn good credential to have on the CV, and is a source of information I choose to trust. If people want to take the stance that it's all because of the corrupt system then such is their right, but to say that is essentially to say that you won't believe the government on any issue unless it fits within your standards of acceptability.

It's been a while since any of us have felt like DC was working for us - or at all, for that matter - and I completely get that and agree, just worried by the duplicity of rationale being used by those avid fans (on both sides) during this election cycle.

Big Smooth one3 wrote: PolitiFact: "We don’t know how many separate investigations into the attacks they were. But the Director of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country’s 17 federal intelligence agencies, released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia is behind recent hacks into political organizations’ emails. The statement sourced the attacks to the highest levels of the Russian government and said they are designed to interfere with the current election. We rate Clinton’s statement True."

Confident and knowing are different words.I can be confident in many things, it does not mean I am right or certain, nor does it mean it's reality. Let's nit pick exactly what she said, and I will fact check it with your politifact fact check, assuming they are accurate. Now I'm going to nit pick this quote hard, not in attempt to be "right", but in attempt to be fair between Trump fact checks and Hillary fact checks. I've read a lot of those politifacts... some are questionable to say the least.

Hillary said:

HRC in 3rd Debate wrote:This has come from the highest levels of the Russian government, clearly, from Putin himself, in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election.

dhs.gov wrote: Release Date: October 7, 2016

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

Some important things to take out of it:
1. It was confirmed? No the word's "confirmed" are no where mentioned in the statement and no evidence was stated to believe so. It's a hunch, a hypothesis, not a informational observation and conclusion. Her statement is false there.
2. Does that DHS mention it was directly from Putin himself? Of course not... False. They claim "Russia's senior-most officials", but no mention of Putin. She is clearly making this personal with Putin.
3. Did the 17 agencies confirm it? No, again false. It was the head Director of National Intelligence speaking at large. The same Director that has been accused or perjury in front of Congress. How can you be credible when 26 U.S. senators do not think you are?

It's also speculated within the intelligence community that some of the emails could have actually come from us, leaked right out of the NSA. We want to pin it on Russia though, specifically Putin. Now Putin isn't no angel and it honestly wouldn't be surprising, but I find it dangerous to be pointing fingers when we use words like "confident" and "believe". It just makes us look amateur and provoking.Now if they came out with a statement they have traces of Russian bread crumbs (internet footprint), that is hard evidence. That can be proved, it can be documented, and it can't be disputed. At that point we point fingers.

I want to make clear I am not saying Russia didn't do it, and I'm not saying they did. I'm merely criticizing her claim and trying to explain why I believe we don't actually know.

We all need to gather a round of applause for the hard working individuals of the F.B.I. for working so hard, honest, and with the up-most integrity. 650,000 emails in the matter of a week and a half vs over a year long investigation of 33,000+ emails is just an outstanding increase in numbers. Proving once again that governments are truly efficient working machines.

You still onto that bro? Go to sleep and vote for the worst alternative to the status quo. Good luck 'Murica!