Trump's national security failures

[Mountain Man]

And that has what to do with Trumps allegation accusing Obama of having had his communications bugged?

Wrong thread, Jimmy.

[Roy]

Wrong thread, Jimmy.

Matt 7:5

[Bill the Cat]

Matt 7:5

Psa 38:7

[Mountain Man]

Matt 7:5

Hey, man, I owned up to my mistake in the other thread when you pointed it out, so why don't you take the plank out of my eye and stick it up your...

[The Thinker]

Considering the servers and devices were wiped and the system logs with them, and the routers in her comm rack were configured not to keep any logs, what evidence do you think would exist? Most intrusions are detected through system and router/firewall logs.

Someone leaking her emails that they hacked into would be really good evidence.

[The Thinker]

It's easier to believe that the moon landings were a hoax than it is to believe that Hillary's unsecured server wasn't compromised by foreign governments.

This is the epitome of the idiotic Brietbart slave. Comparing something for which we have proof (the moon landing) to something for which there is only speculation (Hillary's email being hacked) and thinking the latter is more believable and true than the former. This is the mind of the Brietbart cheerleader. The less evidence there is for something the more they assert it's true.

[Mountain Man]

This is the epitome of the idiotic Brietbart slave.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/u...perts-say.html

And you call yourself "The Thinker".

[Roy]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/u...perts-say.html

And you used this "probably hacked" cite to claim that it was the email server being hacked was more believable than the Apollo moon landings.

Thinker is fully justified in his criticism, and you attempted to evade it by discarding the meat and focussing only on side issues and you didn't even get that right, since there is nothing incongruent about a Breitbart cheerleader quoting the NYT.

There is direct evidence for the moon landings, but you think they are less likely than something for which there is no direct evidence but which fits your theories. You are a conspiracy kook.

[Bill the Cat]

Someone leaking her emails that they hacked into would be really good evidence.

That's a rather large assumption that they were leak-worthy, that leaking them wouldn't damage potential leverage or intelligence-gathering against the US, that they cracked in and actually copied data, and a host of other things. Her IT team was thoroughly incompetent, and kept no logs, so there just is no way to prove it one way or another. We can only infer from how the cyber world works, and that says that there is a very strong likelihood that her system was compromised in some way.

[Mountain Man]

And you used this "probably hacked" cite to claim that it was the email server being hacked was more believable than the Apollo moon landings.

Thinker is fully justified in his criticism, and you attempted to evade it by discarding the meat and focussing only on side issues and you didn't even get that right, since there is nothing incongruent about a Breitbart cheerleader quoting the NYT.

There is direct evidence for the moon landings, but you think they are less likely than something for which there is no direct evidence but which fits your theories. You are a conspiracy kook.

So hyperbole and a sense of humor are foreign concepts to you, huh?

[Roy]

So hyperbole and a sense of humor are foreign concepts to you, huh?

No, I'm fine with humour. Many of your posts are hilarious.

[Mountain Man]

No, I'm fine with humour. Many of your posts are hilarious.

Truth and humor often go hand in hand.

[The Thinker]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/u...perts-say.html

And you call yourself "The Thinker".

You still trust idiotic Brietbart propaganda and speculation over actual demonstrable facts. So my point still stands.

[The Thinker]

That's a rather large assumption that they were leak-worthy, that leaking them wouldn't damage potential leverage or intelligence-gathering against the US, that they cracked in and actually copied data, and a host of other things. Her IT team was thoroughly incompetent, and kept no logs, so there just is no way to prove it one way or another. We can only infer from how the cyber world works, and that says that there is a very strong likelihood that her system was compromised in some way.

Do you know how many people want to make Hillary look bad? I'm pretty sure you could collect millions just to hack her email and leak some emails just to prove how unsecured it was. If it hasn't leaked by now, it's likely it wasn't hacked. If and when a leak emerges, then I will update my views.

[Sparko]

You still trust idiotic Brietbart propaganda and speculation over actual demonstrable facts. So my point still stands.

Genetic Fallacy. You point fails.