thatsneakyguy

Transcript of Trump Jr.'s Russia meeting emails

This looks like the incriminating part:

 

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone (obscured) wrote:

Good morning

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

Best

Rob Goldstone

<snip>

———

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53, Donald Trump Jr. (obscured) wrote:

Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?

Best,

Don

Sent from my iPhone

———

Ofcourse, how could I forget the killer rabbit from Monty Python's Holy Grail.

What do you think the answers are?

How far have you gotten with these problems?

It would be awesome if Aron Ra was the vice president. It would never happen though.

• I’m 25 and never had a gf, so my dating life is over.
  
• The gym is where you find people to date.
  
• I’m not attractive, so therefore I’m not a normal person.
  
• There are no girls that would date an unattractive person.
  

I like this trick by Dynamo:

In a related note, I've met someone online who think magicians are real.

One of my friends committed suicide last night. He was 25 years old.

Sorry to hear about that man, that's rough.

You have my sympathy.

This thread reminds me of this snl sketch:

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/sexual-harassment/2751966

Sorry if you feel attacked Mitsurugi.
Honestly.
I guess I disagree with some of your reasoning.

You seem to miscontrue my logic and take it as something absolute and out of my context. You failed to notice I said "if" in my extremist statistic.

I don’t think I misconstrued your logic at all. In the first example I simply replace the word Muslims with the word Christians, and replaced the number.

I did notice you said “if”.
You can see that I included “if” also.

This was simply taking your logic and applying it to other groups.

If there where Christian extremists then we would have people who believe in slavery and the stoning of people who commit adultery and heretics. Which in the modern day, have no evidence of which happening unlike with Muslim extremists.

Well, there are Christian extremists, just not as many. Here is one defending slavery. I can’t find it now, but in a later video he said he would have no problem being a slave himself if his Christian slave master followed the commandments set forth in the bible.

If your point is that Muslim extremists outnumber the Christian ones I completely agree. Vastly outnumber.

But using your logic you could say:

Keep in mind that also, there are an estimated 4 billion males in the world as of 2014. If even one percent of them are extremists, that would mean 40 million males are of subjective question.

After all, male extremists outnumber the female ones, right? Just like Muslim extremists outnumber Christian ones?

The point was the logic you were using didn’t make sense to me. If you have no problem with it OK. We agree to disagree, no problem.

I mention bombing because it was the topic being discussed about in the podcast. Bombing people is also the quickest way to kill a large group of people fairly quickly. But I am not confining you into only on the topic of bombing. If you have read the other posts, this is a developing conversation. At the time bombing was the only topic being discussed and I therefore thought it needed to be expanded on and discussed more thoroughly and therefore made this thread.

Sure, bombing can kill a lot of people.
OK, let’s agree there are other ways to kill or stop people besides bombing.

Ethically I see this as a conflict between people who want to be peaceful and people who don’t.
Ultimately either the peaceful people get killed or the peaceful people become violent and kill the non-peaceful people.

It’s a dilemma and an interesting discussion.

I see a trend of you attacking me instead of giving thought to the idea. If offended or confused you before sneaky, I'm sorry.

Sorry, if it feels like an attack. What you wrote didn’t make sense to me. It seemed illogical.

I thought I was giving my thoughts? That is why I mentioned ISIS recruits earlier. I think the environment/culture can be changed, needs to be changed, but it can't be done by bombing.

But you didn’t offend me; no need for apologies.

Honestly, if you feel attacked, sorry for that. I didn’t intend for you to feel bad.
Take Care.

Nice frozen picture . The last part was just to add a fragment to the argument of thinking ISIS is not a threat as we are constantly being told in America. Not trying to go anywhere with it but it is something I think people should be aware of.

 

Sure but using that same logic you could also say:

Keep in mind that also, there are an estimated 2.2 billion Christians in the world as of 2014. If even one percent of them are extremists, that would mean 22 million Christians are of subjective question.

Keep in mind that also, there are an estimated 3.52 billion women in the world as of 2014. If even one percent of them are extremists, that would mean 352 million women are of subjective question.

Keep in mind that also, there are an estimated 1 million people who listen to the Sam Harris podcast in the world as of 2014. If even one percent of them are extremists, that would mean 10,000 people who listen to the Sam Harris podcast are of subjective question.

Seems kind of like a silly argument to me…

But as another poster previously said, do we bomb the ideas out of people or do we bomb the people in power of these ideas? It does seen pragmatic in terms of defense to bomb these people.

Well you can’t really bomb an idea can you?

You can only bomb the people with ideas. The bombing is to kill or stop them.

Hopefully the bombing is done in defense when reasoning breaks down.

Also I’m not really sure why you keep bringing up bombing when they are many different kinds of warfare.

Hitler wasn’t killed by bombing AFAIK. Neither was OBL.

But in terms of ethics, I think it is sad that there is no other way to solve our indifferences. It is somewhat due to a failure to communicate.

Yes, I agree it is a problem and sad that it comes to it. Very bad and unnecessary.

But ethically at some point you may have to be physically violent to defend yourself.

Unfortunately it does come to that. It’s just that some people use violence to express their will instead of talking/reasoning.

For a pacifist it is a very difficult problem to face.

I was listening to the Sam Harris podcast and he had on Jocko Willink and they brought up a really good point that I believe is understated and unoticed often when talking about the effectiveness of war.

 

Sam brought up the point that we have in the past, bombed out ideas out of people.

Nazisim was an idea and we bombed them until they gave up.

First, very succinct description of WW2.

Like swansont said, were the ideas “bombed” out of them, or were the Nazi Germans defeated in WW2 and taken out of power?

Are there any Nazi Germans around today?

Japan was a unstoppable stubborn force that was not going to be stopped unless we bombed them.

Well not exactly unstoppable, right?

But there are many ways to conduct war besides bombing isn't there?

Would the US have become an independent nation without bombing the British? Oh wait…

Then he made the brief link that radical extremists Muslims are in some sense in the same group of bad ideas. Jacko then said that "How do we stop ISIS without war? Do we invite them to formal debates and rationalize with them?". So in the end, we are left in this grey area between war and peace. So my main question is...How do we deal with these radicals like ISIS in an ethical matter? And do you believe we have to resort to bombing once again?

Unfortunately there are many extremists, terrorists, and criminals who cannot be reasoned with. ISIS seems to be one of these groups.

At that point the only way to defend from such people is to physically stop them, either by killing them or imprisoning them. So that is how you have to deal with them. Ethically, if they are intent on killing others and cannot be reasoned with, then they have to be physically stopped.

It would be better to create an environment where groups like these cannot be sustained; either they cannot get recruits or no government will allow their presence. Currently ISIS can readily get recruits to join with them. That is a bigger problem.

Keep in mind that also, there are an estimated 1.5 billion Muslims in the world as of 2014. If even one percent of them are extremists, that would mean 15 million Muslims are of subjective question.

Not sure what direction you are going with this…

They simply had a "No Swimming" sign.

If you have a designated beach area with nice water most people would think it's OK to walk in that water, at least up to the knees.

The toddler was reportedly in 1-foot deep water.

 

Disney alligator attack: Resort to add warning signs, source says

 

Alligator warning signs will be put up near all the waterways at Walt Disney World resorts following the death of a 2-year-old boy who was dragged into a lagoon two nights ago, a senior source at Disney told CNN on Thursday.

The move will happen as soon as possible, the source said.

Earlier, a spokeswoman for the popular tourist destination in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, said officials were reviewing the placement and wording of warning signs.

"We are conducting a swift and thorough review of all of our processes and protocols," Walt Disney World Resort Vice President Jacquee Wahler said in a statement Thursday. "This includes the number, placement and wording of our signage and warnings."

A dive team found 2-year-old Lane Graves dead on Wednesday. Graves died due to drowning and traumatic injuries, the Orange County Medical Examiner's Office said Thursday.

The Graves family was at a movie night outdoors Tuesday night at the Grand Floridian resort when the boy waded into about a foot of water in Seven Seas Lagoon, authorities have said. Witnesses, including the boy's horrified parents, tried to save him as a gator dragged him underwater, witnesses told authorities.

Search crews combed the water for hours before they found the toddler's body.

There are "No Swimming" signs at the lagoon, but there are no warning signs about alligators.

All the beaches at the resorts at Walt Disney World remain closed.

My emphasis

Source

 

I guess that's why they call you thatsneakyguy

 

While we're in a sarcastic mood, perhaps the nightclub could issue everyone a AR-15 and a couple HC mags when they enter.

 

No way the gunman would have had a chance. He'd shoot up the school down the road instead, because kids finger painting with AR-15s are not as skilled in marksmanship, situational awareness and incident command as drunken clubbers.

 

*sarcasm off*

Yeah, handing out guns to the people entering the club is a great idea. Don’t worry about mixing young people, guns, and alcohol. You can’t deny that the odds would be in favor of more “good” guys having guns than “bad” guys with guns.

After all, the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, so arm the most people possible.

Like if the nightclub gunman had been the only person killed after a 5-10 minute exchange of gunfire it still would have been a pretty fun night at that club. Just go ahead and have the short gun battle, then back to dancing.

And that’s the kind of society I think we all want to live in: one where we live our everyday lives, travel, meet our friends, dance, and the occasional gun battle breaks out from time to time.

#shootback

Yes, I knew that.

Sorry, meant to add to my post.

The shoreline is called a "beach" but there are no swimming signs. The word "beach" is an invitation for people from Nebraska to go for a hike in one foot deep water at night. It should not be like a beach and it should have beware of alligator signs.

Agree. Should have been "No Wading" signs, or "Alligators frequently sighted in water", or even some sort of fence.

Yes, if only there was armed security at that club who could have shot that gunman.

ETA

The reason I got upset was because I asked a question about how to keep food from getting soggy in a container and many of the responses were things like " Grill cheese and chicken nugget are not healthy " It pisses me off because this went on for many comments and none of the comments pertained tot he original question. I did invite everybody here but to answer a question, and instead I was getting advice which was not asked for. I suggested using Molecular Sieve to absorb the moisture or maybe pump out the air but nobody address that.

 

 

Actually you said (emphasis mine):

 

My son is an awful eater. I need to get him to eat something somewhat healthy for school lunch. I want to pack him a grilled cheese sandwich or chicken nuggets in a container without them getting all moist and gross. I was thinking maybe a container that will let me pump the air out of it once it's sealed could work or I was thinking at wrapping some Molecular Sieve to the lid on the inside of the container to absorb the moisture. Do es anybody think this will work and if not does anybody have an idea?

 

That is why the comments about "healthy" started; YOUR words.

If you are going to say "I need to get him to eat something somewhat healthy", and then follow that with food that people consider unhealthy..., well ..... people will probably comment on that.

 

zapatos you need to think before you type. You wrote " If you don't like the advice, better to just say 'thanks anyway' and move on. No need to be rude to those who cannot give you the exact advice you want on the first try " I am not looking for advice. I am looking for an answer to a question so if you don't have the answer that is fine but don't post advice on how to get my kid to eat better when you have no idea what I am dealing with and have never walked in my shoes. Then you wrote " I find it unacceptable to ask a stranger for advice, then criticize them because they do not have the background to give advice that is useful to you. " again I am not asking for advice.

 

(emphasis mine)

Umm I think you are asking for advice. Maybe not advice on "healthy food".

BUT you did use the words "healthy food".

Thank you for everybody that has some empathy.

 

I think most people here have empathy. Whether or not you can detect it is another story.

 

Look I just had a simple question and was looking for an answer, the question was not address and that is all I was looking for, and not for nothing but I am a dude, but makes no difference

 

Actually several people offered advice, like putting a napkin in with the sandwich or toasting the bread slightly.

this still relates to why I want a surgery, self insecurity developed from mens rejections. I do go to the library once in a while not many people there my age, if any. but that is a good idea, I don't go to bars anyway. its hard to meet people in museums I cant keep a conversation going, so far the best places i got to meet men is on public transportation and at our local pool. thank you for the advice. thoes are the places with grate men maybe I need different tactics.

I can't put myself in your shoes, but for myself - as a guy who is attracted to women - breast size isn't a deal breaker. Actually it's hard for me to imagine myself rejecting someone for that.

As far as meeting people, online dating is one way to go.

I have tried it myself and found several women which would have made excellent girlfriends.

Thanks to "thatsneakyguy" who posted above the illustration of the exhibit barrier cross section.

Cool, your welcome!

It shows a fence 3' high but you cannot tell how easy it would be to pass under the bar. Anyone know what kind of fence it is? Did the child climb over or slip through the fence? It is set back from the 15' drop by ONLY 4'. I propose they might consider a set-back more than only 4', more like 8'. I saw video of bushes the child penetrated between the fence and the pit. Those are easy to penetrate!!!! Zoo management, get a brain in your head and replace those bushes with some that are just as lush and green, but thick with thorns. There are many varieties of draught-resistant thorn bushes. With some thorn bushes you don't even notice the thorns until you get close enough to see them. Rose bushes?

 

A recent news story shows the zoo put up another 4' wooden fence in front of the 3' fence with vertical posts close enough together to prevent a kid from slipping through and jagged top to make it difficult to climb over. Good work zoo, maybe you don't need bushes with thorns.

I think thick thorny bushes are a good idea. The kid probably would have yelled or cried as soon as he got over the fence. But the more I think about it, it seems to me that the kid kind of seem determined to cross the barrier.

Considering how rare accidents happen at this particular enclosure I have to conclude the zoo has taken adequate steps to ensure safety.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/29/us/cincinnati-zoo-gorilla-shot/

The zoo defended its safety barriers, saying this is the first time Gorilla World has experienced a breach since the exhibit opened in 1978. The exhibit is inspected regularly by the Association of Zoos & Aquariums and the United States Department of Agriculture, and adheres to safety guidelines, according to the zoo.

 

"The safety of our visitors and our animals is our No. 1 priority," Maynard said. "The barrier that we have in place has been effective for 38 years. Nevertheless, we will study this incident as we work toward continuous improvement for the safety of our visitors and animals."

Any individual, determined enough, could breach the security features. But if this is indeed the first accident I think the safety measures are adequate.

As I said before the zoo has to determine how close visitors can get to the animals while still being safe.

Nye and Dawkins don't have to do with science?

Plenty of science has been done before those two arrived on the scene and plenty will be done after they are gone.

Do you seriously think science is in any way dependent or reliant or in need of those two?

Why ask such a question?

Also, you don't appear to read and comprehend what others post here.

This is a good one for you to pay attention to:

You seem to be mixing up how science is done with what the public think of it (or are told about it). These are not the same thing.

 

The majority view in science may be what gets communicated to the public (although minority, fringe and more speculative ideas are probably more popular).

 

But science is not driven by or controlled by a majority view. It wouldn't have made the progress it has, if that were the case.

There is already a thread on this:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95447-zoo-tragedy/

Anyway, this seems to be an accurate description:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/05/30/usda-review-gorillas-death-zoo-look-safety-exhibits/85165924/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

ETA: Ninja'd by Phi for All

Zoos are designed so visitors can get as close as possible to the animals while still being safe.

In this instance there was a deep moat between the visitors and the gorillas. The railing was so people would not fall in the moat.

The gorilla jumped into the moat after the boy fell in.



http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/05/30/usda-review-gorillas-death-zoo-look-safety-exhibits/85165924/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

In this situation any adult certainly could get into that moat if they really tried.

The more I hear about this gorilla getting shot and killed because a 3-year-old was able to climb into the enclosure, the more absurd it seems that it would even be possible for an infant to get in. If an INFANT could get in, then a crazy but agile adult person would have an EASY time getting in there to cause trouble. The zoo seems terribly guilty to not make such a dangerous place less easy to access for anyone. What do you think?

I think it's a tragic situation because the Gorilla did nothing wrong: it was in its habitat and investigated the boy falling in because they are curious animals. It did drag the boy around, but that's how they carry most things. The gorilla was not attacking the boy, it seemed curious about the boy IMO.

ETA: I also think the zoo made the correct decision. It's unfortunate though.

Look at the Mars rover.

What is it doing on Mars?

What information is it gathering?

Guys I hope you don't think it was me claiming an IQ of 140 it was the person who wrote the article OK!

 

As for my IQ it is 55?

 

Alan

I thought figuring out where the quote started was part of the IQ test.