O-Trap;1807421 wrote:Well, technically, there are things he could use to make it more difficult for them to use the Internet, but he's dumb if he thinks that would stop any of the radicals in the country, who are likely already familiar with more covert uses of the web.

But I actually think that would be fairly effective, because I suspect most "recruits" either don't know how to get onto the darkweb or too lazy to make the effort. I don't picture most seeking out other ways to find the info if they can't just google it.

Nevertheless, it's probably an effective campaign point because MOST people are going to assume the govt CAN do that.

Worth noting I heard a blurb a few months ago that the US has actually been pretty effective on social media countering and undermining the radical theology. That's probably the best course of action.

I feel like if you are joining a terrorist group as a sleeper "agent" getting onto the darkweb isn't a stretch.

gut;1807428 wrote:But I actually think that would be fairly effective, because I suspect most "recruits" either don't know how to get onto the darkweb or too lazy to make the effort. I don't picture most seeking out other ways to find the info if they can't just google it.

Nevertheless, it's probably an effective campaign point because MOST people are going to assume the govt CAN do that.

Worth noting I heard a blurb a few months ago that the US has actually been pretty effective on social media countering and undermining the radical theology. That's probably the best course of action.

Social media, sure. The major social media organizations are here in the US and would likely be compliant in helping with that sort of thing.

However, as it its effectiveness, I doubt it would be effective at all, and for two reasons.

First, ISIS isn't just a country, so you can't attempt this geographically, and even if you tried to throttle or prohibit FROM certain regions, there are far too many high-anonymity web proxies within friendly countries that could be found with a simple Google search and maybe 30-45 minutes (assuming the US plugs the obvious ones, which is unlikely for an extended period of time ... it would be like playing Whack-A-Mole).

Second, and I'd say this is even more of a reason, I'm willing to bet that while ISIS would take virtually anyone, they're likely targeting people who already have an axe to grind, and I'm willing to bet that such low-hanging fruit is beyond the majority population who will merely give up if they can't search it using a surface web search engine like Google.

Has Giuliani lost his fucking mind? Dementia?

bases_loaded;1807433 wrote:I feel like if you are joining a terrorist group as a sleeper "agent" getting onto the darkweb isn't a stretch.

Who knows. I'm saying people don't start out that committed but instead are led down a progressively darker path. And that lead starts out with Google and popular social media.

Now maybe the nature of such likely converts has them already on the dark web. I don't know. Guess it depends on whether ISIS uses popular social media strictly as propaganda or if it's a key recruiting tool for them.

bases_loaded;1807433 wrote:I feel like if you are joining a terrorist group as a sleeper "agent" getting onto the darkweb isn't a stretch.

Side note: Pretty sure you just got added to a watch list for mentioning "terrorist," "sleeper agent," and "darkweb" in the same sentence.

O-Trap;1807443 wrote:Side note: Pretty sure you just got added to a watch list for mentioning "terrorist," "sleeper agent," and "darkweb" in the same sentence.

Sorry to drag you into that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bases_loaded;1807451 wrote:Sorry to drag you into that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No worries. What's one more, right?

I was in attendance at the speech; it was excellent, and I would encourage all to watch it in its entirety.

QuakerOats;1807523 wrote:I was in attendance at the speech; it was excellent, and I would encourage all to watch it in its entirety.

I am less than surprised at this entire sentence.

This is hardly surprising when you consider which voter base seems to champion the desire for a "strong leader" more.
(Excuse the clickbait-sounding title)

The One Weird Trait that Predicts Whether You're a Trump Supporter

Most voters merely want some common sense in their president.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/16/trump-says-clinton-democrats-have-failed-and-betrayed-african-americans-after-milwaukee-riots.html


More excellent points made by Trump === only a real outsider is willing to go right at this issue.

ptown_trojans_1;1807246 wrote:Big picture, Trump's strategy of trying to grab Penn, Ohio, FL, and the rust belt is failing, and failing badly.
Nearly every poll has him down in those swing states, and some double digits.
538 has Clinton's chance of winning up to 77.6% and has her sweeping all of the swing states.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#plus

Trump has a lot of work to do and has to pivot. He has to control his mouth as that is what is killing him with voters.

She is already at 270 with VA long out of toss-up territory.

Automatik;1807436 wrote:Has Giuliani lost his fucking mind? Dementia?

Obama Derangement Syndrome.

QuakerOats;1807666 wrote:Most voters merely want some common sense in their president.

If that were the case, we wouldn't have two megalomaniacs as the current frontrunners.

Most voters merely do whatever the mob is already doing.

QuakerOats;1807668 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/16/trump-says-clinton-democrats-have-failed-and-betrayed-african-americans-after-milwaukee-riots.html


More excellent points made by Trump === only a real outsider is willing to go right at this issue.

You don't think every other potential Republican nominee would have done the same? You serious, Clark?

CenterBHSFan;1807248 wrote:To be fair, he is being outspent on ads almost 10 to 1 in those swing states.

In regards to his mouth killing him, I wholeheartedly agree with most of that thought. Although there are some things he says outright that I agree with there are more things that he spews out that I don't agree with. So the balance is not tipped in his favor as far as I'm concerned.

And whose fault is,it,that he is being so dramatically outspent? It is his own.

QuakerOats;1807666 wrote:Most voters merely want some common sense in their president.

Polls are showing right now they think that is Clinton.....
So, yeah, your boy is crashing and burning.

BoatShoes;1807672 wrote:She is already at 270 with VA long out of toss-up territory.

Trump's move today of reshuffling the staff is an interesting one. It pretty much kills his pivot and guarantees his mouth will keep running.
If we reach the middle of Sept and the polls still look like they do now, this is over.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/13/hillarys-career-rose-law-firm-bellwether-modern-day-document-destruction/

published over a year ago - a good summary and historical perspective on Clinton's lifelong pattern of document destruction, obfuscation, and obstruction of justice. Some of the youngsters here may need the refresher. Odd how many others associated with her records often ended up in jail, or worse (and still do). As Larry Nichols always said about the Clintons: they are a like a tornado that moves through your lives; they move on and all you are left with is death and destruction.

ptown_trojans_1;1807677 wrote:Polls are showing right now they think that is Clinton.....
So, yeah, your boy is crashing and burning.



Trump's move today of reshuffling the staff is an interesting one. It pretty much kills his pivot and guarantees his mouth will keep running.
If we reach the middle of Sept and the polls still look like they do now, this is over.

Yeah; its over.

QuakerOats;1807679 wrote:Yeah; its over.

*It's

By the way, Trump's speech last night was also spot on excellent.

BoatShoes;1807676 wrote:And whose fault is,it,that he is being so dramatically outspent? It is his own.

Just saw earlier today that it's actually nobody's fault. He's gotten billions of dollars of free airtime from every media source (collectively)

Now, not sure if that is pure "luck" or if it was his goal. That's something to think about.

ptown_trojans_1;1807043 wrote: Sure we can criticize that. But, at least we know what they gave.

"at least we know what they gave" ......... are you serious? The story itself is sickening. But how about the personal enrichment to the tunes of tens of millions for pay-to-play with the state department. The linking of the mega-millions in speech income to her tenure at State is no coincidence. Rudy is right ---- bring on the RICO case.

__________________

Isn’t that special, they gave $1,042,000 to charity ----- except that $1,00,000 of it went to the Clinton Family Foundation, an entity they control, and the other $42k went to a charity that in turn contributed $700,000 to the other Clinton Foundation. Literally un-fucking believable. Of course, you won’t see that plastered all over the newspapers.


96 percent of the roughly one million dollars given to charity by Bill and Hillary Clinton in 2015 was given to the Clinton Family Foundation, a tax-exempt charity controlled by the Clintons.
According to the tax return released by the Clinton campaign Friday, Desert Classic Charities received $42,000 from the Clintons while the Clinton Family Foundation received a cool million. But as the Daily Caller points out, The Desert Classic Charities in turn contributed $700,000 to the second Clinton charity, the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
The Clintons’ charitable work has been the source of controversy ever since the publication of the 2015 book Clinton Cash, which alleged that many of the other Clinton Foundation’s big donations from foreign and domestic actors coincided with beneficial decisions by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The Clinton campaign has hotly denied those allegations as pure speculation without any evidence.
Meanwhile, The Daily Caller reports Friday that FBI has started multiple probes into the second Clinton Foundation with the help of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York. That report comes after CNN reported Wednesday that the Justice Department had turned down the FBI’s request to open a probe into the potential conflict of interest.

http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/96-of-the-clintons-2015-charitable-donations-were-to-the-clinton-foundation/

You can copy and paste all the stores you want about her taxes, but at the very least, we know what they are.
We have no clue about Trump's charitable givings, his tax rate, his business ventures, etc.
Who knows, maybe Trump's tax returns will be worse? We don't know and that is the problem.
You cannot rake Clinton over the coals about her tax returns and be mum about the fact that Trump has not released his taxes.


I'll also say all your copy and pasting from right wing sites and conspiracy theories has not made any difference. Clinton is killing Trump in all the states Trump has to win.
Trump is on pace to get destroyed.
There is no plausible way for him to win continuing the same shit has has done.