Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 09:32:26


Post by: Breotan


Remember back during the Clinton administration when Bill would say something stupid and his press secretary would come out later and say "the President misspoke"? I would hate to have that job during Trump's administration. This is going to be a long four years for the State Department, too.

Oh, apparently there's breaking news on the Russian spy situation...

Spoiler:




US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 09:36:07


Post by: Crazyterran


Does anyone else think a website that's called 'silence is consent' is about as deplorable as it gets?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 09:41:38


Post by: Compel


I'm sure standards can go even lower. - We had some real doozy's from the last thread on the subect matter.

And wasn't there one of the senior / famous people in America that did a long raving rant about how "liberals only care about one little word, consent" or such like?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 10:36:13


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 whembly wrote:
Lessen it? Dude. I want more than the pansy assed slap on the wrist than Obama did.


The rouble's crashed and there's serious economic problems in Russia, and whembly is bashing Obama. No one is surprised.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 12:29:13


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Breotan wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where are examples of the USA and other countries major foreign policies to affect each others' elections?

Seriously? You have quite a filter on your news and information, Kilkrazy.

Israel

http://thehill.com/policy/international/236565-netanyahu-pollster-obama-role-in-election-larger-than-reported
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/state-dept-350k-group-built-campaign-structure-used-against-election-israels

Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks

And these don't even cover the list of governments overthrown supporting the "Arab Spring". Remember the Obama administration's handwork in Libya? How much support has President Obama given rebels in Syria? Remember President Obama threatening to withhold foreign/military aid to Egypt when the military decided to take their nation back from the Muslim Brotherhood? I do. So does the internet. Google it.

But we can't exactly begrudge President Obama for doing this. It is, after all, a long American tradition.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html



Top comment. Have an exalt.

When American presidents arrive in my country, lecture us on the dangers of leaving the EU and say we'll be 'punished' when it comes to trade deals with the USA if we don't stay in the EU, that's not interfering in another nation's elections. No no no...

Like I've said many a time, the double standards on play here make me want to vomit!

The hand of Putin is seen in every event that goes against the West, and we credit and attribute him with more than he really deserves.

Putin didn't:

Call people deplorables.

Take money off Saudis with links to terrorists

Say that they had a private and a public face

Make Clinton use a private email server

Take dodgy donations for her foundation

Take for granted safe democrat states

or any other bullgak about voters being stupid, fake news, fake this, fake that

It has been nothing but excuse after excuse since the voting stopped.

Trump was an awful candidate. Hilary Clinton lost to that. That says more about Clinton than it does about Trump...

All this horsegak about Russian hacking is nothing more than a smokescreen...



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 12:47:44


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Breotan wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where are examples of the USA and other countries major foreign policies to affect each others' elections?

Seriously? You have quite a filter on your news and information, Kilkrazy.

Israel

http://thehill.com/policy/international/236565-netanyahu-pollster-obama-role-in-election-larger-than-reported
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/state-dept-350k-group-built-campaign-structure-used-against-election-israels

Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks

And these don't even cover the list of governments overthrown supporting the "Arab Spring". Remember the Obama administration's handwork in Libya? How much support has President Obama given rebels in Syria? Remember President Obama threatening to withhold foreign/military aid to Egypt when the military decided to take their nation back from the Muslim Brotherhood? I do. So does the internet. Google it.

But we can't exactly begrudge President Obama for doing this. It is, after all, a long American tradition.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html



Top comment. Have an exalt.

When American presidents arrive in my country, lecture us on the dangers of leaving the EU and say we'll be 'punished' when it comes to trade deals with the USA if we don't stay in the EU, that's not interfering in another nation's elections. No no no...

Like I've said many a time, the double standards on play here make me want to vomit!



Did Obama hack internal UKIP mail and use it as a fulcrum?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 13:16:48


Post by: Prestor Jon


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Spoiler:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Breotan wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where are examples of the USA and other countries major foreign policies to affect each others' elections?

Seriously? You have quite a filter on your news and information, Kilkrazy.

Israel

http://thehill.com/policy/international/236565-netanyahu-pollster-obama-role-in-election-larger-than-reported
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/state-dept-350k-group-built-campaign-structure-used-against-election-israels

Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks

And these don't even cover the list of governments overthrown supporting the "Arab Spring". Remember the Obama administration's handwork in Libya? How much support has President Obama given rebels in Syria? Remember President Obama threatening to withhold foreign/military aid to Egypt when the military decided to take their nation back from the Muslim Brotherhood? I do. So does the internet. Google it.

But we can't exactly begrudge President Obama for doing this. It is, after all, a long American tradition.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html



Top comment. Have an exalt.

When American presidents arrive in my country, lecture us on the dangers of leaving the EU and say we'll be 'punished' when it comes to trade deals with the USA if we don't stay in the EU, that's not interfering in another nation's elections. No no no...

Like I've said many a time, the double standards on play here make me want to vomit!



Did Obama hack internal UKIP mail and use it as a fulcrum?


Have any UKIP leaders been dumb enough to get victimized by a phishing scam like Podesta? Does UKIP have cyber security as good as the RNC that was able to thwart hacking attempts?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 13:19:22


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Prestor Jon wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Spoiler:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Breotan wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where are examples of the USA and other countries major foreign policies to affect each others' elections?

Seriously? You have quite a filter on your news and information, Kilkrazy.

Israel

http://thehill.com/policy/international/236565-netanyahu-pollster-obama-role-in-election-larger-than-reported
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/state-dept-350k-group-built-campaign-structure-used-against-election-israels

Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks

And these don't even cover the list of governments overthrown supporting the "Arab Spring". Remember the Obama administration's handwork in Libya? How much support has President Obama given rebels in Syria? Remember President Obama threatening to withhold foreign/military aid to Egypt when the military decided to take their nation back from the Muslim Brotherhood? I do. So does the internet. Google it.

But we can't exactly begrudge President Obama for doing this. It is, after all, a long American tradition.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html



Top comment. Have an exalt.

When American presidents arrive in my country, lecture us on the dangers of leaving the EU and say we'll be 'punished' when it comes to trade deals with the USA if we don't stay in the EU, that's not interfering in another nation's elections. No no no...

Like I've said many a time, the double standards on play here make me want to vomit!



Did Obama hack internal UKIP mail and use it as a fulcrum?


Have any UKIP leaders been dumb enough to get victimized by a phishing scam like Podesta? Does UKIP have cyber security as good as the RNC that was able to thwart hacking attempts?


How do we know they thwarted the attempts?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 13:39:39


Post by: Prestor Jon


 LordofHats wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Ahtman wrote:
Effecting an election doesn't mean being the deciding factor of an election or even radically changing it; all one have to do is slightly move the needle one way or the other.

Even if it has no impact it is still a foreign country trying to influence an outcome in another country's election and that is a serious issue.


One of the primary goals of our foreign policy, of any nation's foreign policy, is to try to influence elections and try to influence who is in charge of other nations in such a way as to benefit our own national interests. The idea that another nation would try to influence our electoral process and do so to try to further their own interests isn't shocking and isn't any more nefarious than our own machinations.


It's completely nefarious.

Just because we're one of the aholes doing it doesn't make it okay. It does make us hypocrites because apparently we only care when the shoe is up the other butt.


I never said it wasn't nefarious. I said it was as nefarious as our own machinations. We've been trying to exert influence over elections and govts to further our interests and oppose Russia since the Cold War kicked off decades ago. I was disputing Ahtman's position that this was a serious transgression because we do it on a pretty regular basis, it's naive to think nobody has ever tried to influence our elections before and it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I don't think we should be happy about Russian involvement but it's not deserving of a level of outrage that questions the legitimacy of the election or demands some kind of severe retaliation from us. It's just international realpolitik, hate the game but don't hate the playa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Spoiler:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Breotan wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where are examples of the USA and other countries major foreign policies to affect each others' elections?

Seriously? You have quite a filter on your news and information, Kilkrazy.

Israel

http://thehill.com/policy/international/236565-netanyahu-pollster-obama-role-in-election-larger-than-reported
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/state-dept-350k-group-built-campaign-structure-used-against-election-israels

Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks

And these don't even cover the list of governments overthrown supporting the "Arab Spring". Remember the Obama administration's handwork in Libya? How much support has President Obama given rebels in Syria? Remember President Obama threatening to withhold foreign/military aid to Egypt when the military decided to take their nation back from the Muslim Brotherhood? I do. So does the internet. Google it.

But we can't exactly begrudge President Obama for doing this. It is, after all, a long American tradition.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html



Top comment. Have an exalt.

When American presidents arrive in my country, lecture us on the dangers of leaving the EU and say we'll be 'punished' when it comes to trade deals with the USA if we don't stay in the EU, that's not interfering in another nation's elections. No no no...

Like I've said many a time, the double standards on play here make me want to vomit!



Did Obama hack internal UKIP mail and use it as a fulcrum?


Have any UKIP leaders been dumb enough to get victimized by a phishing scam like Podesta? Does UKIP have cyber security as good as the RNC that was able to thwart hacking attempts?


How do we know they thwarted the attempts?


Do we have conclusive proof? Not that I can tell but there are reports in numerous media outlets and a denial of it by the RNC that wasn't very convincing.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-national-committee-security-foiled-russian-hackers-1481850043

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us/politics/cia-judgment-intelligence-russia-hacking-evidence.html?_r=0&referer=

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/510689/?client=safari



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 14:52:36


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where are examples of the USA and other countries major foreign policies to affect each others' elections?



Here's a particularly hilarious one:



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 14:58:26


Post by: LordofHats


Rosebuddy wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where are examples of the USA and other countries major foreign policies to affect each others' elections?



Here's a particularly hilarious one:



You can also just look through South and Central America.

People in the US get on a high horse about freedom, think anyone who hates America must hate freedom, and happily ignore that foreign policy wise, the United States has one of the most anti-democracy foreign policies on the planet. There are actually good reasons to not like this country in many parts of the world and ironically one of them is freedom.

It's just international realpolitik, hate the game but don't hate the playa.


Except this is a game where we should hate the players. The US doing this for decades is what allows Russia to not only justify the behavior itself, but to get everyone else to not care about the matter when they do it. It lowers the decency of everyone everywhere because once one player crosses the line everyone else inevitably will. Same reason everyone should be angry at the "games" the Republicans are playing in Congress, but so long as "my team" benefits no one cares but they'll happily complain when it turns against them. The black on the pot begets the black on the kettle ad infinitum.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 15:58:49


Post by: whembly


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Lessen it? Dude. I want more than the pansy assed slap on the wrist than Obama did.


The rouble's crashed and there's serious economic problems in Russia, and whembly is bashing Obama. No one is surprised.

Russian leaders/elites could give a feth, as they keep doing it.

Now what else?

Imma surely going to bash Trump on this because we're all sure Trump don't wanna hurt Putie-poo's fee-fees.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Breotan wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where are examples of the USA and other countries major foreign policies to affect each others' elections?

Seriously? You have quite a filter on your news and information, Kilkrazy.

Israel

http://thehill.com/policy/international/236565-netanyahu-pollster-obama-role-in-election-larger-than-reported
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/state-dept-350k-group-built-campaign-structure-used-against-election-israels

Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks

And these don't even cover the list of governments overthrown supporting the "Arab Spring". Remember the Obama administration's handwork in Libya? How much support has President Obama given rebels in Syria? Remember President Obama threatening to withhold foreign/military aid to Egypt when the military decided to take their nation back from the Muslim Brotherhood? I do. So does the internet. Google it.

But we can't exactly begrudge President Obama for doing this. It is, after all, a long American tradition.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html



Top comment. Have an exalt.

When American presidents arrive in my country, lecture us on the dangers of leaving the EU and say we'll be 'punished' when it comes to trade deals with the USA if we don't stay in the EU, that's not interfering in another nation's elections. No no no...

Like I've said many a time, the double standards on play here make me want to vomit!

The hand of Putin is seen in every event that goes against the West, and we credit and attribute him with more than he really deserves.

Putin didn't:

Call people deplorables.

Take money off Saudis with links to terrorists

Say that they had a private and a public face

Make Clinton use a private email server

Take dodgy donations for her foundation

Take for granted safe democrat states

or any other bullgak about voters being stupid, fake news, fake this, fake that

It has been nothing but excuse after excuse since the voting stopped.

Trump was an awful candidate. Hilary Clinton lost to that. That says more about Clinton than it does about Trump...

All this horsegak about Russian hacking is nothing more than a smokescreen...


I see your exalt and raise it with another EXALT!


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 16:12:30


Post by: r_squared


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
....

When American presidents arrive in my country, lecture us on the dangers of leaving the EU and say we'll be 'punished' when it comes to trade deals with the USA if we don't stay in the EU, that's not interfering in another nation's elections. No no no... ....


So, is Trump putting us at the front of the queue for trade negotiations then? I hadn't heard that bit of news, that's great. B


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 16:14:18


Post by: whembly


 r_squared wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
....

When American presidents arrive in my country, lecture us on the dangers of leaving the EU and say we'll be 'punished' when it comes to trade deals with the USA if we don't stay in the EU, that's not interfering in another nation's elections. No no no... ....


So, is Trump putting us at the front of the queue for trade negotiations then? I hadn't heard that bit of news, that's great. B

Evidently:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37594928

Now, will he do it?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 16:22:46


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 r_squared wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
....

When American presidents arrive in my country, lecture us on the dangers of leaving the EU and say we'll be 'punished' when it comes to trade deals with the USA if we don't stay in the EU, that's not interfering in another nation's elections. No no no... ....


So, is Trump putting us at the front of the queue for trade negotiations then? I hadn't heard that bit of news, that's great. B


There's a big difference between someone giving you a tenner of their own free will compared to threatening to take a tenner off you if you don't do X Y Z




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
 r_squared wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
....

When American presidents arrive in my country, lecture us on the dangers of leaving the EU and say we'll be 'punished' when it comes to trade deals with the USA if we don't stay in the EU, that's not interfering in another nation's elections. No no no... ....


So, is Trump putting us at the front of the queue for trade negotiations then? I hadn't heard that bit of news, that's great. B

Evidently:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37594928

Now, will he do it?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯



Trump changes his policy almost on a daily basis, so I'm not sure about that, but at least he's not threatening us, the irony being that Obama was more liked in the UK than Trump ever was.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 16:54:17


Post by: Compel


I may be wrong, but it looks like the US President Elect is currently in a.... "robust" exchange of views with the (Former?) President of Mexico.


Really world, really? This is what the human race culminates to. 6000 years of civilisation and it comes to this...


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 16:55:05


Post by: whembly


 Compel wrote:
I may be wrong, but it looks like the US President Elect is currently in a.... "robust" exchange of views with the (Former?) President of Mexico.

Former... who's not in office.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 17:07:58


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


 BigWaaagh wrote:
If Russia gets away with just a "Let's move on." after the damning report just issued, as our exaggerator-in-chief wishes, then they'll...or some other emboldened wannabe...will just keep playing at this game. Here again, South America or Europe, you name it.

I'm from Europe and I'd do it without a shadow of bad conscience .
I can't chose a worse candidate than the US people all by itself anyway, so…


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 reds8n wrote:
https://twitter.com/VicenteFoxQue/status/817480450285375488

diplomacy in the Trump era : all international interactions to be carried out on Twitter.

I SOOOOOO want @jack to feth this gak up and edit tweets to send the world into a massive crisis. Would be hilarious.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 17:36:49


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


Well, good to see that my tax money is going to good use.

British intelligence tipped off the USA over Russian hacking:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/07/russia-us-election-hacking-uk-intelligence

I found this quote amusing

“Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.


As a student of American history, I can assure my fellow dakka members that the USA is perfectly capable of undermining faith is its own democratic progress without Russian help and has been doing so since the declaration of independence!

But you probably already knew that




US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 17:37:34


Post by: BigWaaagh


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Breotan wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where are examples of the USA and other countries major foreign policies to affect each others' elections?

Seriously? You have quite a filter on your news and information, Kilkrazy.

Israel

http://thehill.com/policy/international/236565-netanyahu-pollster-obama-role-in-election-larger-than-reported
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/state-dept-350k-group-built-campaign-structure-used-against-election-israels

Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks

And these don't even cover the list of governments overthrown supporting the "Arab Spring". Remember the Obama administration's handwork in Libya? How much support has President Obama given rebels in Syria? Remember President Obama threatening to withhold foreign/military aid to Egypt when the military decided to take their nation back from the Muslim Brotherhood? I do. So does the internet. Google it.

But we can't exactly begrudge President Obama for doing this. It is, after all, a long American tradition.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html



Top comment. Have an exalt.

When American presidents arrive in my country, lecture us on the dangers of leaving the EU and say we'll be 'punished' when it comes to trade deals with the USA if we don't stay in the EU, that's not interfering in another nation's elections. No no no...

Like I've said many a time, the double standards on play here make me want to vomit!

The hand of Putin is seen in every event that goes against the West, and we credit and attribute him with more than he really deserves.

Putin didn't:

Call people deplorables.

Take money off Saudis with links to terrorists

Say that they had a private and a public face

Make Clinton use a private email server

Take dodgy donations for her foundation

Take for granted safe democrat states

or any other bullgak about voters being stupid, fake news, fake this, fake that

It has been nothing but excuse after excuse since the voting stopped.

Trump was an awful candidate. Hilary Clinton lost to that. That says more about Clinton than it does about Trump...

All this horsegak about Russian hacking is nothing more than a smokescreen...



A smokescreen for what exactly?! For getting to the truth of the matter? Yeah, that'd be horrible in an age of ever increasing fake and manipulated news! The truth will out, and hopefully it always will.

Your post is still just another repetition of the actual point being diffused, but thanks for playing. For the umpteenth time, whether it was against the GOP or Dems, they...Russia...covertly fethed with our election and internal affairs. Trying to actually compare that to Obama OPENLY and OVERTLY telling it like it is with regards to Brexit is just a bit of partisan desperation.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 17:51:24


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


they...Russia...covertly fethed with our election and internal affairs.


So Russia gave the USA a taste of their own medicine, did to the USA what the USA have been doing to other countries since 1945.

No offence to you or any American dakka member, but I'm supposed to give a damn?

You'll forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over it.

Again, it's the moral grandstanding, the double standards that are something to behold...


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 17:54:41


Post by: Prestor Jon


 BigWaaagh wrote:
Spoiler:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Breotan wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where are examples of the USA and other countries major foreign policies to affect each others' elections?

Seriously? You have quite a filter on your news and information, Kilkrazy.

Israel

http://thehill.com/policy/international/236565-netanyahu-pollster-obama-role-in-election-larger-than-reported
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/state-dept-350k-group-built-campaign-structure-used-against-election-israels

Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks

And these don't even cover the list of governments overthrown supporting the "Arab Spring". Remember the Obama administration's handwork in Libya? How much support has President Obama given rebels in Syria? Remember President Obama threatening to withhold foreign/military aid to Egypt when the military decided to take their nation back from the Muslim Brotherhood? I do. So does the internet. Google it.

But we can't exactly begrudge President Obama for doing this. It is, after all, a long American tradition.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html



Top comment. Have an exalt.

When American presidents arrive in my country, lecture us on the dangers of leaving the EU and say we'll be 'punished' when it comes to trade deals with the USA if we don't stay in the EU, that's not interfering in another nation's elections. No no no...

Like I've said many a time, the double standards on play here make me want to vomit!

The hand of Putin is seen in every event that goes against the West, and we credit and attribute him with more than he really deserves.

Putin didn't:

Call people deplorables.

Take money off Saudis with links to terrorists

Say that they had a private and a public face

Make Clinton use a private email server

Take dodgy donations for her foundation

Take for granted safe democrat states

or any other bullgak about voters being stupid, fake news, fake this, fake that

It has been nothing but excuse after excuse since the voting stopped.

Trump was an awful candidate. Hilary Clinton lost to that. That says more about Clinton than it does about Trump...

All this horsegak about Russian hacking is nothing more than a smokescreen...



Still just another repetition of the actual point being diffused, but thanks for playing. For the umpteenth time, whether it was against the GOP or Dems, they...Russia...covertly fethed with our election and internal affairs. Trying to compare that to Obama OPENLY and OVERTLY telling it like it is with regards to Brexit is just a bit desperate.


We've been interfering and influencing the political process in Russia and former USSR states and Warsaw Pact members for 70 years. If we didn't want to take that kind of hit ourselves we shouldn't have been dishing it out for decades. We want to play the game we have to deal with all it entails. Whining about being victimized by the same tactics we've been happily using is rather pathetic. When Putin was condemning US influence in Ukraine politics right on Russia's doorstep we told him to feth off but now we're all butt hurt that Putin tried to do the same to Clinton and Obama? This is the way the world works always has always will. Foreign policy exists to further a nation's self interest. We messed around in other elections and nations because we thought it would benefit our country or damage countries with opposing interests. Every other country does the same and that includes messing with our politics to damage us and benefit them. This isn't surprising or shocking or unprecedented it just stings that we came up on the short end for once.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 17:55:35


Post by: BigWaaagh


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
they...Russia...covertly fethed with our election and internal affairs.


So Russia gave the USA a taste of their own medicine, did to the USA what the USA have been doing to other countries since 1945.

No offence to you or any American dakka member, but I'm supposed to give a damn?

You'll forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over it.

Again, it's the moral grandstanding, the double standards that are something to behold...


Whether you give a damn or not, is of no consequence to me and strictly your business. I, however, do give a damn as should every American citizen. EDIT: I take that back, you should give a damn because if you think this is just going to be the US elections targeted, you can forget about it. They've seen that their tactics work and I have absolutely no reason to believe they won't spread this around the West as a whole. Watch the European elections this summer.

And yeah, there are no innocent hands in this game, or realpolitiks for that matter, but it DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACTS OF THIS MATTER FOR ONE SECOND.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 18:00:19


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


I'm not disputing the facts.

I apologize if I came across as being too harsh.

but if you walk around punching people on the nose, you can't complain if somebody punches you back.

That's life.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 18:01:52


Post by: Prestor Jon


 BigWaaagh wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
they...Russia...covertly fethed with our election and internal affairs.


So Russia gave the USA a taste of their own medicine, did to the USA what the USA have been doing to other countries since 1945.

No offence to you or any American dakka member, but I'm supposed to give a damn?

You'll forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over it.

Again, it's the moral grandstanding, the double standards that are something to behold...


Whether you give a damn or not, is of no consequence to me and strictly your business. I, however, do give a damn as should every American citizen.

And yeah, there are no innocent hands in this game, or realpolitiks for that matter, but it DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACTS OF THIS MATTER FOR ONE SECOND.


Nobody is disputing the facts we just don't agree with you compulsion to redline the outrage meter over foreign policy tactics that have been used in the US vs Russia fight for the last 70 years. We chose to sit at the high stakes poker table and we lost a hand, it's not a big deal, the game keeps going, the world keeps spinning. This isn't even a game changer with US/Russia relations.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 18:05:32


Post by: BigWaaagh


On the subject of using/manipulating/manufacturing "news" for political subterfuge, this happened. German elections coming up, let the games begin. This is going to be an issue that has the potential to effect us all and our way of life very adversely.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/%e2%80%98allahu-akbar%e2%80%99-chanting-mob-sets-alight-germany%e2%80%99s-oldest-church-shocking-story-if-it-were-true/ar-BBxYCUq?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 18:39:01


Post by: Kilkrazy


Prestor Jon wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Spoiler:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Breotan wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where are examples of the USA and other countries major foreign policies to affect each others' elections?

Seriously? You have quite a filter on your news and information, Kilkrazy.

Israel

http://thehill.com/policy/international/236565-netanyahu-pollster-obama-role-in-election-larger-than-reported
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/state-dept-350k-group-built-campaign-structure-used-against-election-israels

Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks

And these don't even cover the list of governments overthrown supporting the "Arab Spring". Remember the Obama administration's handwork in Libya? How much support has President Obama given rebels in Syria? Remember President Obama threatening to withhold foreign/military aid to Egypt when the military decided to take their nation back from the Muslim Brotherhood? I do. So does the internet. Google it.

But we can't exactly begrudge President Obama for doing this. It is, after all, a long American tradition.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html



Top comment. Have an exalt.

When American presidents arrive in my country, lecture us on the dangers of leaving the EU and say we'll be 'punished' when it comes to trade deals with the USA if we don't stay in the EU, that's not interfering in another nation's elections. No no no...

Like I've said many a time, the double standards on play here make me want to vomit!



Did Obama hack internal UKIP mail and use it as a fulcrum?


Have any UKIP leaders been dumb enough to get victimized by a phishing scam like Podesta? Does UKIP have cyber security as good as the RNC that was able to thwart hacking attempts?


Podesta wasn't stupid enough to get victimised by a phishing scam. One of his aides recognised the email as a phishing attempt, and mistyped the phrase "obviously illegitimate" as "obviously legitimate" or something. So that is that claim dismissed.

Your second claim that the RNC was able to thwart hacking attempts is completely unstantiated. It's fairly likely the Russians hacked Trump and the RNC too, and have not publicised the dirt they dug up because they are using it for quiet leverage. After all, the Trump servers were running on Windows 2000 or something that was fuller of security holes than Swiss cheese.

Obviously if the two principals in the case both have a strong motive to keep things quiet, we are unlikely ever to hear about it. And it's impossible to disprove a negative.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 19:36:02


Post by: d-usa


http://www.npr.org/2017/01/07/508699137/ethics-office-warns-confirmations-for-trump-nominees-are-moving-too-fast

Concerns about the rush to move some of Trump's nominees through the confirmation process.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 19:43:27


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

“Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.


As a student of American history, I can assure my fellow dakka members that the USA is perfectly capable of undermining faith is its own democratic progress without Russian help and has been doing so since the declaration of independence!

But you probably already knew that

Please don't say stuff like that. We Russians are finally being taken seriously again. This was all Russia's doing. Russia can totally alter the outcome of US elections at will. Russia stronk.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 20:06:36


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 d-usa wrote:
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/07/508699137/ethics-office-warns-confirmations-for-trump-nominees-are-moving-too-fast

Concerns about the rush to move some of Trump's nominees through the confirmation process.

They are doing it on the same day so that any public out-cry is muted by over-saturation. "Drain the Swamp"


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 21:17:41


Post by: Peregrine




But really, Clinton was just as bad! Both sides!


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 21:38:15


Post by: Co'tor Shas


It may be because I play magic, but I laughed way to hard at that.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 21:49:14


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It may be because I play magic, but I laughed way to hard at that.


I've been waiting for that joke to show up.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 23:01:44


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Peregrine wrote:


But really, Clinton was just as bad! Both sides!


Arguably Clinton and Trump aren't really on different sides, they were just rivals.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 23:28:43


Post by: Ahtman


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Please don't say stuff like that. We Russians are finally being taken seriously again. This was all Russia's doing. Russia can totally alter the outcome of US elections at will. Russia stronk.


You're confusing 'altering' and 'influencing'. Russia most likely didn't alter that much but they did try to influence it. Apparently for many on here one group doing wrong makes it okay so I wouldn't worry to much about it. Of course for most it just means both groups are doing something wrong but then this is also the same that think a public statement is the same as an illegal breach and release, so again, I wouldn't worry to much.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/07 23:54:45


Post by: Peregrine


Rosebuddy wrote:
Arguably Clinton and Trump aren't really on different sides, they were just rivals.


There you go, proving my point very nicely.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 00:37:51


Post by: Verviedi


Rosebuddy wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:


But really, Clinton was just as bad! Both sides!


Arguably Clinton and Trump aren't really on different sides, they were just rivals.

Name a single issue that they actually agreed on? They were nothing alike.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 01:27:12


Post by: Ketara


They both wanted the power and prestige being President brings?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 01:40:34


Post by: Compel


Well, there's something good that's come out of all this.

Mark Hamill has some great new material for the Joker.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 02:19:28


Post by: Breotan


Apparently some people are trying to convince Hillary to run for Mayor of New York.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-state-mind-speculation-mounts-164700428.html

My question is, why? Isn't Mayor, even of New York, a big step down from being a former Senator, Secretary of State, and Presidential candidate?



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 02:20:50


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As a student of American history, I can assure my fellow dakka members that the USA is perfectly capable of undermining faith is its own democratic progress without Russian help and has been doing so since the declaration of independence!

But you probably already knew that

In our English history course, we learned about some American history. Including the long US tradition of... electoral mudslinging. Apparently it is a thing, one that has been around from almost the beginning. Believe it or not, when the elections turned into a gakfest around here, the usual complain is that they become "americanized".


[edit]WHY U NO WORK, PROFANITY FILTER? Y U WANT ME BANNED?[/edit]


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 02:22:20


Post by: d-usa


 Breotan wrote:
Apparently some people are trying to convince Hillary to run for Mayor of New York.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-state-mind-speculation-mounts-164700428.html

My question is, why? Isn't Mayor, even of New York, a big step down from being a former Senator, Secretary of State, and Presidential candidate?



Depends on what your motivation is.

If it's to gain more and more power, then yes.

If it's to help people and make a positive difference, then not really.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 02:49:52


Post by: Vaktathi


Well, even if it's about helping people and making a positive difference, there's a bajillion people in NY who would already be trying to move into that job from from below who have been in it from the ground floor that Hillary would basically be ****-blocking in their careers for lack of a better term, plopping into it from above would just be a an excuse to retain some sort power in this case I would think. It's not like NYC is exactly in need of help and making positive differences in the way HRC's campaigns have talked about, at least compared to just about every other municipality in the US. If Hillary is going for that job it's because she wants to be Queen of of the financial capital of the US and Trump's hometown (the mayor is essentially the monarch in terms of power of a small almost autonomous nation within the state of New York)


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 04:15:09


Post by: Ahtman


Maybe I am remembering this wrong but didn't HRC 'move' to NY back in the day just for a Senate opening? I didn't think she was from NY to begin with.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 04:26:15


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
they...Russia...covertly fethed with our election and internal affairs.


So Russia gave the USA a taste of their own medicine, did to the USA what the USA have been doing to other countries since 1945.

No offence to you or any American dakka member, but I'm supposed to give a damn?

You'll forgive me if I don't lose any sleep over it.

Again, it's the moral grandstanding, the double standards that are something to behold...


You probably should give a damn because the repercussions could be worldwide, and last I checked you still lived on the world.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 04:29:01


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


That's why we (i.e. all non-americans) must influence the CIA so it assassinate Trump and instead put up a puppet dictator that they will control and force to pass sensible laws on pollution. Amen.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 05:07:41


Post by: motyak


There are "haha funny" posts, which are barely acceptable as on topic and contributing, and then there are "I want someone to get assassinated" posts. Don't post the latter at all. They add nothing to the discussion and are just pointless. Thanks


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 07:50:46


Post by: LordofHats


I could easily see a number of good arguments that a less adversarial relationship with Russia would be better for everyone (the opposite hasn't exactly been working as desired), but it's pretty stupid to think that can't possibly end up being worse and that anyone who thinks it might must be stupid.

Irony.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 08:37:46


Post by: Ahtman


 LordofHats wrote:
I could easily see a number of good arguments that a less adversarial relationship with Russia would be better for everyone


I don't disagree the problem here is how it has been presented and the nature of those presenting it. When one's alliances are up for question calling those who disagree stupid and foolish isn't going to make things better.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 09:08:50


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Verviedi wrote:

Name a single issue that they actually agreed on? They were nothing alike.


Upholding capitalism and the global supremacy of the United States. They are from the same class, the same social circles, and have the same fundamental economic interests.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 09:12:11


Post by: wuestenfux


Good relationships to Russia aka Putin.
Trump is unpredictable and the worst president America could get.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 10:45:04


Post by: reds8n


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/rupert-murdoch-is-turning-fox-news-into-trump-tv.html



Rupert Murdoch moved swiftly and unexpectedly to fill the void opened up by Megyn Kelly’s departure for NBC. Thursday morning, Fox News announced Tucker Carlson is taking over Kelly’s 9 p.m. slot. Carlson’s ascension to prime time is significant in several ways, the most crucial being this: It’s another sign that Murdoch is pushing Fox News in a more pro-Trump direction.

Carlson’s promotion stunned many inside Fox, according to sources. In the hours after Kelly announced Tuesday morning that she was leaving for NBC, senior Fox executives were led to believe the network would take time to fill her slot. “There will be a lot of experimenting,” one insider told me yesterday. The leading internal candidates were thought to be women. Since Fox’s launch, in 1996, a female anchor has held a prime-time position.

This morning, Fox co-president Bill Shine called Carlson to give him the news, a source said. Murdoch had personally made the decision to promote Carlson, two senior Fox staffers said. Murdoch is a big Carlson fan, according to sources. This fall, he invited Carlson to lunch at his Madison Square Park penthouse and personally offered him the 7 p.m. show when Greta Van Susteren left the network. Since then, Carlson’s show has been a ratings success, posting double-digit gains (in recent weeks Carlson’s 7 p.m. show beat Megyn Kelly’s at 9). Perhaps as important, Carlson has a good relationship with Trump, and his show has been broadly in line with the Trumpian wing of the GOP. Whereas Kelly was all but blacklisted by Trump, Carlson scored more than a dozen interviews with Trump during the campaign. In recent weeks, his show has been sympathetic to Trump’s skepticism about the intelligence community’s claims that Russia hacked the DNC and intentionally meddled in the election.


Getting 9 p.m. right is crucial for Fox. According to one network insider, Kelly’s show generated more advertising revenue than Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity. (Veteran Fox anchor Martha MacCallum is taking over at 7 p.m.)

Carlson’s promotion is one sign of just how much Murdoch wants to appease Trump, Fox insiders say. Murdoch has been intent on forging a tight relationship with Trump since his victory, sources close to both men tell me. One longtime Murdoch confidante told me the two speak by phone at least three times per week. As I reported Tuesday, at Mar-a-Lago over the holidays Trump criticized Roger Ailes and lavished praise on Murdoch. And Murdoch has told Fox executives that Trump asked him to submit names for FCC commissioner. (A Trump spokesperson denied that.) Murdoch has allowed Sean Hannity to turn his 10 p.m. show into de facto infomercials for Trump.

People close to Murdoch are surprised by how fast Fox has fallen into line with the Trump administration. This morning, Bill Kristol, a longtime Fox contributor, criticized Hannity’s fawning interview with Julian Assange. “I’m old enough to remember when Fox News was pro-American soldier not pro-anti-American leaker,” Kristol tweeted. During the GOP primary, Murdoch veered from neutral to openly hostile to Trump’s candidacy. One Murdoch associate told me that over the years Murdoch spoke of Trump as a buffoon. Murdoch was also turned off by Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric. But in the general election, Murdoch came around to backing Trump (after a détente brokered by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner). Now he seems intent on turning up Fox’s support to a new level.

Murdoch’s reversal, the associate said, can partly be explained by Murdoch’s longtime desire to have a relationship with an American president. Murdoch has met every occupant of the Oval Office since Nixon, but has never had a personal connection with one. The 85-year-old Murdoch may see Trump as his last chance.



One longtime Murdoch confidante told me the two speak by phone at least three times per week




... drain the swamp

... pfffttttt ... he's not even flushing it seems.

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2017/01/05/bombs-dropped-in-2016/





.. ..wow.



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 11:21:50


Post by: Kilkrazy


Modern Russia is an oligarchy with a veneer of semi-democracy pasted on top.

Under Putin, Russia has rolled back human rights, murdered political opponents at home and abroad, bullied and invaded neighbours, interfered in the US election, and is palling up with another new regressive state, Turkey.

I suggest liberal democracy should not welcome Russia with open arms.






US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 12:18:17


Post by: LordofHats


 Ahtman wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:
I could easily see a number of good arguments that a less adversarial relationship with Russia would be better for everyone


I don't disagree the problem here is how it has been presented and the nature of those presenting it. When one's alliances are up for question calling those who disagree stupid and foolish isn't going to make things better.


Agreed.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 13:50:43


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Modern Russia is an oligarchy with a veneer of semi-democracy pasted on top.

Under Putin, Russia has rolled back human rights, murdered political opponents at home and abroad, bullied and invaded neighbours, interfered in the US election, and is palling up with another new regressive state, Turkey.

I suggest liberal democracy should not welcome Russia with open arms.






I do not disagree with any of this. I am under no illusions about the wretched state of the mafia system that rules Russia and how much of a tyrant Putin is.

My problem with the attitudes of our politicians is this:

Russia is constantly portrayed as this bad guy, this awful place, and yet, these same politicians, especially ours in the UK, will roll out the red carpet for the Chairman of the Chinese Communist party, or embrace the rulers of Saudi Arabia like brothers in arms, despite the awful human rights violations that occur in both China and Saudi Arabia on a daily basis.

And yet, we're constantly told that Russia is unique in this regard.

That's always been my problem with this narrative: double standards.

And it's happening in the USA even as we speak. The Democrats whining about foreign interference. You could not make this gak up.

I glance over to my book case and what do I see?

Korean War - Harry Truman

Vietnam - Jack Kennedy

Vietnam - Lyndon Johnson

Iraq - Bill Clinton

Former Yugoslavia - Bill Clinton

Libya - Hilary Clinton/Barack Obama

need I say more?

We could argue about the merits of US involvement in these nations another day, but it's a bit rich for the Democrats to be banging on about foreign involvement in other nations given their long record of doing just that to other people.

I'll say again what I've said to every American member dakka on this subject:

Not for a minute should the USA roll over for anybody, but neither should you go looking for trouble.

With a three pronged attack on US interests coming from Russia, Iran, and China, I would use a dose of Realpolitik.

Fight the fights you have to fight, ignore the rest.







US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 14:34:56


Post by: BigWaaagh


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Modern Russia is an oligarchy with a veneer of semi-democracy pasted on top.

Under Putin, Russia has rolled back human rights, murdered political opponents at home and abroad, bullied and invaded neighbours, interfered in the US election, and is palling up with another new regressive state, Turkey.

I suggest liberal democracy should not welcome Russia with open arms.






I do not disagree with any of this. I am under no illusions about the wretched state of the mafia system that rules Russia and how much of a tyrant Putin is.

My problem with the attitudes of our politicians is this:

Russia is constantly portrayed as this bad guy, this awful place, and yet, these same politicians, especially ours in the UK, will roll out the red carpet for the Chairman of the Chinese Communist party, or embrace the rulers of Saudi Arabia like brothers in arms, despite the awful human rights violations that occur in both China and Saudi Arabia on a daily basis.

And yet, we're constantly told that Russia is unique in this regard.

That's always been my problem with this narrative: double standards.

And it's happening in the USA even as we speak. The Democrats whining about foreign interference. You could not make this gak up.

I glance over to my book case and what do I see?

Korean War - Harry Truman

Vietnam - Jack Kennedy

Vietnam - Lyndon Johnson

Iraq - Bill Clinton

Former Yugoslavia - Bill Clinton

Libya - Hilary Clinton/Barack Obama

need I say more?

We could argue about the merits of US involvement in these nations another day, but it's a bit rich for the Democrats to be banging on about foreign involvement in other nations given their long record of doing just that to other people.

I'll say again what I've said to every American member dakka on this subject:

Not for a minute should the USA roll over for anybody, but neither should you go looking for trouble.

With a three pronged attack on US interests coming from Russia, Iran, and China, I would use a dose of Realpolitik.

Fight the fights you have to fight, ignore the rest.








"The Democrats are whining about foreign interference." Seems there's an awful lot of GOP pols throwing their hands up too, or doesn't that fit your narrative? Also, kind of mirrors the GOP election narrative about foreign influence peddling concerns with the Clinton Foundation, eh? But concern about this incident is a "Democrat" thing. Right...

BTW, where's all the Republican instances of foreign intervention to balance out the selectively triaged Democratic list you've offered? What? Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Sr., and Dubya didn't engage in any of that? Y-e-a-a-h! But it's really not a partisan political issue, is it? See, the issue here isn't whether the US meddled in the past, or still meddles...we have and do...it's whether we just "Let's move on.", as Putin's chosen candidate suggests, or whether we respond to shut this down and send a message to anybody else with like ambitions. If anybody thinks this is a "one and done" instance, you're kidding yourselves.

I've stated clearly in responses to these attempts at diffusive, partisan narratives that this is going to be the beginning of a troublesome trend. How can it not? It's never been easier to globally sow doubt, lies, innuendo, slander, etc. to the masses than right now. If it gets a "meh" from those in office, regardless of party...or nationality...then it will be to the detriment of EVERYONE, regardless of political affiiliation. The US can absorb this and Trump proves to be the unwitting dupe that I believe he is, but what about lesser nations? What about local elections that are of particular interest to a foreign entity or an unsavory organization/party? I just posted an example of a Breitbart article that hyperbolized an incident in Germany the other day and in so doing painted Merkel with the same brush used by the Russians with HRC. German elections are coming up, anything not to be worried about here or, more importantly, anything to be worried about by the fact that Breitbart's boss is now a Trump Senior Advisor?

Try and argue this as a partisan issue, but that just doesn't hold water at all.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 15:29:35


Post by: Relapse


What a laugh Russia was for Obama and his supporters 4 years ago.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 15:32:15


Post by: Compel


It's almost as if, I dunno... stuff happened in those 4 years that made people change their opinions and wotnot.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 15:48:53


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Kilkrazy wrote:
Modern Russia is an oligarchy with a veneer of semi-democracy pasted on top.

Under Putin, Russia has rolled back human rights, murdered political opponents at home and abroad, bullied and invaded neighbours, interfered in the US election, and is palling up with another new regressive state, Turkey.

I suggest liberal democracy should not welcome Russia with open arms.






Perhaps. But we must ask ourselves the question: what is one nuclear power meant to do about another nuclear power? Additionally you aren't accusing Russia of anything the US hasn't already done. Singling Russia out as some eternal enemy seems both hypocritical as well as unwise.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 17:28:36


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Breotan wrote:
Apparently some people are trying to convince Hillary to run for Mayor of New York.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-state-mind-speculation-mounts-164700428.html

My question is, why? Isn't Mayor, even of New York, a big step down from being a former Senator, Secretary of State, and Presidential candidate?


Keep in mind, Trump lives in NYC. Nothing will piss him off more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ahtman wrote:
Maybe I am remembering this wrong but didn't HRC 'move' to NY back in the day just for a Senate opening? I didn't think she was from NY to begin with.

She is actually incredibly popular in NYC (and NY in general). I don't think she will, but if she did, I think she's be a shoe-in.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 17:32:53


Post by: wuestenfux


People in politics are often too old.
Holds for Trump and HC.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 18:17:24


Post by: whembly


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 Breotan wrote:
Apparently some people are trying to convince Hillary to run for Mayor of New York.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-state-mind-speculation-mounts-164700428.html

My question is, why? Isn't Mayor, even of New York, a big step down from being a former Senator, Secretary of State, and Presidential candidate?


Keep in mind, Trump lives in NYC. Nothing will piss him off more.


That would be AWESOME!


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 18:58:29


Post by: Ahtman


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 Ahtman wrote:
Maybe I am remembering this wrong but didn't HRC 'move' to NY back in the day just for a Senate opening? I didn't think she was from NY to begin with.

She is actually incredibly popular in NYC (and NY in general). I don't think she will, but if she did, I think she's be a shoe-in.


It is nice that she is popular there but it doesn't really answer the question of whether she originally was from there or moved there because there was going to be a senate seat opening up.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 19:00:35


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Ahtman wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 Ahtman wrote:
Maybe I am remembering this wrong but didn't HRC 'move' to NY back in the day just for a Senate opening? I didn't think she was from NY to begin with.

She is actually incredibly popular in NYC (and NY in general). I don't think she will, but if she did, I think she's be a shoe-in.


It is nice that she is popular there but it doesn't really answer the question of whether she originally was from there or moved there because there was going to be a senate seat opening up.


Is that something unusual in American politics? Here in the UK it's pretty common for the political parties to parachute in their candidates into constituencies, especially if they're grooming them for for the front-bench and a safe seat is available.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 19:04:27


Post by: whembly


 Ahtman wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 Ahtman wrote:
Maybe I am remembering this wrong but didn't HRC 'move' to NY back in the day just for a Senate opening? I didn't think she was from NY to begin with.

She is actually incredibly popular in NYC (and NY in general). I don't think she will, but if she did, I think she's be a shoe-in.


It is nice that she is popular there but it doesn't really answer the question of whether she originally was from there or moved there because there was going to be a senate seat opening up.

She was raised in Chicago and of course, lived in Arkansas.

She moved to NY after Bill's presidency to establish residency.

It's called carpetbagging... it happens.



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 19:07:26


Post by: Kilkrazy


Trump's name is dirt in NYC, of course, despite his having lived there all his life. Or maybe it's because he's lived there all his life.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 19:08:59


Post by: Ahtman


I think it is generally frowned upon a bit to move/live somewhere solely for the purpose of getting a political position in that area but it isn't everything, and this isn't the first or only time it has happened.

It isn't a question of whether the person is good or bad, or even popular, but if that is what happened.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 19:12:59


Post by: d-usa


The only positive is that she stayed there even after no longer being a Senator. She lived in Arkansas when married to Bill for his "job", then moved to DC for 8 years for his "job". Aside from her "job" being politics, there really isn't anything unusual about moving somewhere for a new job. As far as marriage goes, she followed him for his work, then it was her turn to move for work.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 19:16:02


Post by: Ahtman


I feel like people are reading things into the question.

Instead of "yes she moved there for a job" I get "there is nothing wrong with moving somewhere for a job" when it wasn't ever questioned whether it was ok to move for a job or not. It has gone from a simple question to a bizarre tangent.

Obliviously this is Frazzled's fault.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 19:17:04


Post by: Kilkrazy


If Clinton stands for mayor and the people don't want her, they might vote against her??


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 19:17:35


Post by: whembly


 Ahtman wrote:
I think it is generally frowned upon a bit to move/live somewhere solely for the purpose of getting a political position in that area but it isn't everything, and this isn't the first or only time it has happened.

It isn't a question of whether the person is good or bad, or even popular, but if that is what happened.

Generally... yes...

But, as popular HRC is in NY AND she certainly qualified:
1) 30 years old;
2) a U.S. citizen for nine years; and
3) "an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." The Supreme Court has ruled that the states must accept as an "inhabitant" anyone who has lived in the state for 30 days before the election.

She really didn't have any issues "moving" there to run for a Senate seat.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 19:24:18


Post by: Ahtman


 Kilkrazy wrote:
If Clinton stands for mayor and the people don't want her, they might vote against her??


Or maybe they won't vote at all thereby allowing a fool to get the position. That would never happen though.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 19:36:27


Post by: d-usa


Maybe Trump would resign to run against her again?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 20:40:03


Post by: plastictrees


There's really no reason why the President of the United States couldn't also be the Mayor of New York at the same time. Think of the savings on administrative staff alone!


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 20:55:43


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That




In response to an earlier reply of yours, let me say I'm neutral on this.

I'm no GOP supporter. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the GOP is not worth a bucket of horsegak!

I'm well aware of the damage Richard Nixon did to Cambodia, which ushered in the Khmer Rouge

and the mess GW Bush and Tony Blair made in Iraq

From where I'm standing, yes, the GOP are moaning about Russian hacking, but to me, the Democrats are moaning louder, trying to convince us that Russian hacking was the sole reason for Clinton's defeat when IMO it was not...




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 plastictrees wrote:
There's really no reason why the President of the United States couldn't also be the Mayor of New York at the same time. Think of the savings on administrative staff alone!


I'm probably wrong, but I'm sure there's something in the constitution that stops any President from being a judge, or mayor, or whatever, whilst holding the office of President.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 21:00:01


Post by: Spinner


On a lighter note -

If we have to pay attention to his tweets, they might as well be read in the appropriate voices.

Which voice actor is next?!


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/08 22:03:01


Post by: Co'tor Shas


Interesting story on the whole "BLM is evil" push by the right.
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/05/508018599/push-to-transfer-federal-lands-to-states-has-sportsmen-on-edge


I think what a lot of people don't understand that this land isn't going to be sold to people like Bundy to trash, these cash-strapped state govenrments are going to sell them to oil, gas, lumber, and mining companies to the highest bidder. And they'll just trash the land, and leave it ruined when they are done.

Ironically it might be none other than the Trumps who save it from the republican party (according the article).


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 02:49:01


Post by: sebster


 Cothonian wrote:
Could we stop with the insults?


Nope, you don't get to pretend to be insulted and thereby end a line of conversation. Trump's debate performances were incredibly terrible, his knowledge and insight in to US politics was below most 2am drunken bar conversations. That such a woeful showing didn't seem to matter to the American public is something that needs to be discussed.

If you are offended that some people are talking about why Americans voted for the obviously incompetent idiot, then the problem might be with who you supported in the election, not with people talking about it.

In regards to the ethics committee. I always thought that it was weird that our government could have an office that could decide, on its own without oversight, what is and is not "ethical."


Good thing that isn't slightly true. Guidelines are expressly stated, and the operatives in the agency are overseen by an independent board of governance.

Thus, that is why I am fine with calls for the ethics committee to be disbanded. I'd rather leave investigations to the many law enforcement agencies currently available. Law enforcement at least operates based on set guidelines, and everything they do is consistently under strict scrutiny. Some lawmaker does something bad, let the FBI take them down. That's what they're there for.


There are many breaches of ethics that aren't criminal. A major part of non-criminal investigations like this is you set a standard of behaviour that stops things sprialing in to criminal behaviour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote:
The issue with a lack of modern hospitals located in sparsely populated rural areas is more about basic economics that's the same in every country than all of the inherent flaws in the healthcare system. People in rural counties in VA and any other state are underserved because nobody is going to build a hospital or dentists office or other healthcare provider in a sparsely populated rural area where most people have a low income, usually in the form of a fixed income from the govt.


Sort of. Having disbursed populations in rural areas certainly makes it harder to provide people with healthcare, and it makes what healthcare you do provide much more expensive. But it is far from an insurmountable problem, especially not for the provision of the most basic care.

Here in Australia for instance, we have a much smaller population spread across a similarly large geographic area. For people in rural areas there is a reduction in specialists available, but basic stuff and many specialist services are covered. And on top of the facilities there we also bring in additional services, such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service, to overcome what tyranny of distance must remain.

However, there are also a lot of people in Australia who are badly underserved by our health system. For instance many aboriginal communities have health problems that look more like South Sudan than a first world nation. These communities are certainly isolated, but no more isolated that many cattle ranches and mining camps. But they sit uncomfortably within the rest of Australian society, and this conflicts continue to make healthcare fail despite efforts from both sides.

So it should be clear that the primary problem is not so much with distance but with how with the system itself works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Just Tony wrote:
No, my issue is people not being motivated to better themselves.


You're looking at just one side of the coin. The other side of motivation is opportunity. One big advantage to a healthy safety net is that it gives people better opportunities to advance themselves. When a person has to work 60 odd hours to support themselves, they are unlikely to study and improve their skill set. When a person thinking of starting a business faces actual starvation if their business fails, they are more likely to stay working in a deadend job.

In contrast, I know of more than a few people in my area right now (Lafayette, IN) that will NOT look for work as they are getting a better deal sponging off the system.


Social welfare is set to pay pretty close to the bare minimum for a very basic standard of living. When that amount of pay is better than working, it seems to me the solution shouldn't come from making welfare payments worse, but from making jobs pay better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ustrello wrote:
Only a fool would think that the leaking of everything didn't change votes


Trump mentioned the wikileaks in just about every every campaign speech after the leaks. Now after the campaign he tries to claim the leaks didn't matter. For an issue Trump thinks didn't matter, he sure did spend a lot of precious campaign time talking about it over and over again.

Trump, of course, is lying. Of course the hack mattered, probably not as much as the FBI bungling the email scandal, but it still certainly mattered, and in a close election it might have been enough to tip the balance to Trump.

To be honest I actually think Trump is right to insist it didn't impact the result. What else is he supposed to do? Admit that his election was made possible by plotting from foreign powers? Nah, the president must maintain the legitimacy of his own election because the alternative is chaos. For once Trump is lying in the right way.

But of course that doesn't mean anyone here has to believe that, and it's kind of embarrassing that anyone does.



The second part of this, and the more important part, is what the US commits to doing to punish Russia. And in that regard Trump's correct path is pretty simple. It would be quite easy for Trump to say that while Russia's attempt to influence the election played no part in his win, the mere attempt by Russia is a direct attack on US democracy, and requires a massive increase in sanctions against Russia. Played well most of Europe will go along, most of them are happier with a weaker Putin. And hell, it could even build a new standard for how far hacking is allowed to go, and where the line is. Trump won't do that, though, because as people might have already noticed he is the worst possible president you can imagine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 d-usa wrote:
But if it did I would still lay the blame fully on Clinton for running a campaign that left the election so close that these things were able to swing it. If you leave the outcome in the hands of outsiders, then you can't bitch if it bites you in the ass.


On the one hand, I agree that Putin's interference shouldn't let Clinton or anyone else in the Democrats off from losing to Trump. Nor should it let off any of the 60m who voted for Trump. They all need to be held accountable for their screw ups.

But the issue of Putin's interference is what it is. It would be unacceptable if Trump lost in a landslide. The idea that a foreign power could look to interfere in US elections, get caught, and then we'd see people in the US debate whether anything should be done is staggering to me. If you want a democracy you do what it takes to stop other people screwing with it - that just seems obvious to me. As such, the only sensible course of action for this must result in people a couple of years from now looking at an economic wasteland in Russia and saying 'holy crap you do not screw with US democracy'.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 04:29:17


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 sebster wrote:
In contrast, I know of more than a few people in my area right now (Lafayette, IN) that will NOT look for work as they are getting a better deal sponging off the system.


Social welfare is set to pay pretty close to the bare minimum for a very basic standard of living. When that amount of pay is better than working, it seems to me the solution shouldn't come from making welfare payments worse, but from making jobs pay better.
And that's the root of the problem right there. A minimum wage does nothing to change the underlying mentality of most companies; that they should work their employees as hard as they can for the least amount of pay they can, for as long as they can. And when the employees get fed up with it and call a strike the American public naturally sides with the poor victimized corporation, how DARE those selfish employees demand a fair share of the profits!


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 04:35:34


Post by: sebster


 whembly wrote:
Eh... I think that's a cop-out... he won because of geographically wide and uniform movement of a voting group. That's particularly evidenced by the obliteration ol'Blue Wall.


You should read 538's anaylsis. They put the election result down to the failure of registered Democrats to turn out for Clinton. It isn't hard to see how Clinton having Russian hacks on top of the FBI cock up worked to discourage those voters. It doesn't even need to be a direct effect, it could just be that forcing Clinton and her team to endlessly defend those issues stopped them from talking about Trump's countless screw ups, or talking about policy.

Keep in mind that he was filling stadiums to capacity long before wikileak got in the swing of things...


Man we've been over this so many times. Having 15k people turn out in a stadium means nothing when on election day you need 60m at a minimum. And it isn't even a case of getting 15k in every city, as Howard Dean said after his own great rallies turned out to mean nothing in the polls - you start seeing the same faces at every rally.

EDIT: I would say Comey's letter had more impact than anything Russia did.


This is true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
There was a sizable shift that translated into Trump winning... and the states where Congress was on ballot, the GOP kicked ass'ed too.


The GOP lost seats in the House and Senate. They kicked ass all the way to less house and less senate seats.

You might want to argue that for the GOP merely limiting the Democratic gains against the 2010 senate/2014 house results was a win, and that'd be an okayish argument. Except it ignores that most people now vote single party right down the ballot. As such anyone who was discouraged from voting for Clinton didn't show, and so didn't vote DNC down the ballot.

As such, GOP performance down the ballot would be a symptom of a Democratic base discouraged by hacks, FBI feth ups etc, not a counter argument that such things had no effect.

We won't really know for sure, but there are indicators that highlights that the GOP came out to vote.


Sure, because the GOP will turn out to vote like loyal footsoldiers, even when their candidate is the worst candidate in living memory. Whereas the Democratic base, though larger, is much more fickle. The point being, of course, that the Russian leaks and the FBI screw up are some of the reasons that the Democratic base failed to turn out (alongside Clinton having the stage charisma of foot fungus, and the 8 year switcheroo).


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Can you fix your quotes. Your post makes it looks like I said the stuff JustTony said, and I really don't want anyone to think that.

Cool post by the way. Lots of great links and information.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote:
One of the primary goals of our foreign policy, of any nation's foreign policy, is to try to influence elections and try to influence who is in charge of other nations in such a way as to benefit our own national interests. The idea that another nation would try to influence our electoral process and do so to try to further their own interests isn't shocking and isn't any more nefarious than our own machinations.


The US has of course dicked around in other countries elections. Hell, when dicking around hasn't been enough you've organised coups to overthrow democratically elected, popular leaders who wanted to do stuff the US didn't like. I don't think anyone is pretending this kind of thing has never happened before. But it's been big countries dicking with little countries. When big countries have undertaken operations against each other, they've acted with a reserved hand. China hacked the campaigns of both sides in iirc 2004, but didn't release any of the information.

But people should be taking a look at how far this kind of thing could go. There needs to an accepted limit to behaviour before this gets out of control. Consider for instance the Cold War. The US and USSR would arm proxies to fight each other. Sometimes US troops would engage, and the USSR would arm proxies to fight them. When Soviet troops fought, the US armed proxies to fight them. But both sides knew they didn't use their own troops to directly fight the other side, because they knew where that could lead.

Similarly with this, there needs to be an understanding of what kind of hacks we can accept, and what must be considered out of bounds. If it becomes okay to not just spy on other countries but to directly feth with their elections, where does the line on that nonsense get drawn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Breotan wrote:
Actually, it just means we need to expect this in the future and work on stopping it. It's called counter-espionage and it's been around since WWII. I'm more concerned hearing that the Russians got into polling precincts and State agencies than I am about Democrat emails. Emails are a personal security issue and anyone who doesn't understand that deserves to have their dirty laundry aired for everyone to see.


This argument fething sucks because Russia successfully hacked both the DNC and RNC, but only released the DNC emails because they were working against Clinton. There will always be security breaches. You can minimise them, but you can't remove them entirely. If you then let foreign powers make their hacks and choose which leaks to make public, then you will bias your elections to whichever party best toes the policy line favoured by Russia/China/whoever.

EDIT: Oh, it isn't just the Russians doing it. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Chinese, Arabs, and non-government groups like Anonymous are also doing it. Hell, even our friends like England, Germany, and Korea are probably doing it. We need to be more pro-active with our computer security.


China made successful hacks on both parties back in iirc 2004. They didn't release anything because they thought the US was made up of sensible people who'd be angry about having their democracy screwed with, no matter which party it favoured in the short term. Silly Chinese.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Where are examples of the USA and other countries major foreign policies to affect each others' elections?


There's been a few.

Mohammed Mosaddegh was democratically elected in Iran, but he wanted to nationalise oil. So the US (with the UK) organised a coup.

Jacobo Arbez was democratically to lead in Guatamala, but he wanted minimum wages and universal suffrage, so the US backed rebels in exile to overthrow him.

In Chile Salvador Allende was democratically elected, but he was a socialist so the US backed a military coup (anyone noticing a theme here?).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When American presidents arrive in my country, lecture us on the dangers of leaving the EU and say we'll be 'punished' when it comes to trade deals with the USA if we don't stay in the EU, that's not interfering in another nation's elections. No no no...


There's a very fething obvious difference between a president publicly answering a question on policy, and one using their state intel services to covertly hack and release private party emails.

All this horsegak about Russian hacking is nothing more than a smokescreen...


bs. Clinton could have won this election by 20 million votes and what Putin did would still be unacceptalbe. Or should be unacceptable.

It looks as though 2017 will continue 2016's theme of me constantly thinking 'holy gak this is a thing people actually need to debate'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote:
I never said it wasn't nefarious. I said it was as nefarious as our own machinations. We've been trying to exert influence over elections and govts to further our interests and oppose Russia since the Cold War kicked off decades ago. I was disputing Ahtman's position that this was a serious transgression because we do it on a pretty regular basis, it's naive to think nobody has ever tried to influence our elections before and it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.


Of course there's been interference before. The difference is that in the past it's been big kids kicking the little kids. Things are very different when a big kid takes a swing at another big kid. The chance for escalation is much greater, and so the whole thing needs to be taken much more seriously. If it turns out the US is a big kid who happens to be going through a short phase of insanity (a rare medical condition known as Trumpian Incompetencia) and doesn't retaliate, that will actually make the situation worse. Because it means Russia and most everyone else, China, Germany, UK, France, will see no reason not to dick around in other country's elections. And you better believe some of them will retaliate, and retaliate hard.

I don't think we should be happy about Russian involvement but it's not deserving of a level of outrage that questions the legitimacy of the election or demands some kind of severe retaliation from us. It's just international realpolitik, hate the game but don't hate the playa.


Staggering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote:
Perhaps. But we must ask ourselves the question: what is one nuclear power meant to do about another nuclear power?


Continue and expand the economic sanctions already in place, which have already crashed the Russian economy. Holy fething gak how is that even a question.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 06:45:23


Post by: Rosebuddy


And Russia would of course not feel forced to do anything about that.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 06:54:17


Post by: sebster


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
And that's the root of the problem right there. A minimum wage does nothing to change the underlying mentality of most companies; that they should work their employees as hard as they can for the least amount of pay they can, for as long as they can. And when the employees get fed up with it and call a strike the American public naturally sides with the poor victimized corporation, how DARE those selfish employees demand a fair share of the profits!


The problem is the mentality you describe is just how business works, and has always worked. If you think there was a golden age where this wasn't true, you should go and read the turn of the century debate about the danger of the new child labour laws.

Minimum wage is a very imperfect solution, of course, but it is a lot more practical than having companies start to pay more than the market requires, or begin company wide profit sharing schemes. There are ways we can push in that direction (Walmart changed their business model a few years ago when they realised paying as little as possible hurt productivity and staff turnover, and moved to a staff retention model), but by and large they will be small potatoes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote:
And Russia would of course not feel forced to do anything about that.


What? Putin and his oligarch mates just wouldn't be bothered at all when their investments drop to a tenth of their value? Being hit hard in the hip pocket is what led Russia to undertake the action it has.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 07:16:21


Post by: Rosebuddy


That was my point. Trying to tear a country apart is going to have consequences and I'd like it if people thought about that before suggesting it be done to Russia.

Tho I suppose that anyone who won't learn or change after Iraq, Libya or Syria is a lost cause.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 07:19:24


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 sebster wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
And that's the root of the problem right there. A minimum wage does nothing to change the underlying mentality of most companies; that they should work their employees as hard as they can for the least amount of pay they can, for as long as they can. And when the employees get fed up with it and call a strike the American public naturally sides with the poor victimized corporation, how DARE those selfish employees demand a fair share of the profits!


The problem is the mentality you describe is just how business works, and has always worked. If you think there was a golden age where this wasn't true, you should go and read the turn of the century debate about the danger of the new child labour laws.

Minimum wage is a very imperfect solution, of course, but it is a lot more practical than having companies start to pay more than the market requires, or begin company wide profit sharing schemes. There are ways we can push in that direction (Walmart changed their business model a few years ago when they realised paying as little as possible hurt productivity and staff turnover, and moved to a staff retention model), but by and large they will be small potatoes.
I did not mean to say it was a new problem (quite the opposite, as you said), only that our solutions do very little to solve it. Plus a lightly humored comment on how the pro-business culture of the US is particularly prone to blaming lower-level employees of a company for being dissatisfied rather than the people who create those conditions.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 08:00:11


Post by: sebster


Rosebuddy wrote:
That was my point. Trying to tear a country apart is going to have consequences and I'd like it if people thought about that before suggesting it be done to Russia.


Hitting a country with sanctions doesn't tear it apart. With sanctions that are long enough and hard enough you can grind it, ie Iraq over the 90s. And even that's optional, as the right sanctions can even control who gets impacted - for instance hitting Russia with oil and NG sanctions can hurt the oligarchs, while causing little harm to the poor who are very far removed from the flow of petrodollars.

Tho I suppose that anyone who won't learn or change after Iraq, Libya or Syria is a lost cause.


No-one is talking about invading. And of the three you listed Iraq was the only country destabilised by invasion, the other two broke out in to civil war in which other countries then decided to intervene.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I did not mean to say it was a new problem (quite the opposite, as you said), only that our solutions do very little to solve it. Plus a lightly humored comment on how the pro-business culture of the US is particularly prone to blaming lower-level employees of a company for being dissatisfied rather than the people who create those conditions.


Ah fair enough. And I agree. Truth be told, to this day we still don't know exactly why all of a sudden out of nowhere a middle class was created. And now it seems whatever drove the creation of that middle class is fading away.

And all the offsetting answers we've got, minimum wages, progressive taxes etc, well those are much better than nothing but they also do little to solve the problem. They're treating the symptoms, not the cause.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 08:43:26


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


@Sebster

Of course the USA is well within its rights to retaliate against Russian hacking. I've consistently supported that position from Day 1.

The problem I have with the Democrats and other pro-Clinton voices is this view that Clinton only lost because of Russian hacking, which in my book, is concentrated hog wash!


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 09:36:17


Post by: Rosebuddy


I brought up the ME not because I think the US will invade Russia but as an example of the US acting without concern for the consequences and events therefore spiralling out of control and causing terrible misery. The sanctions against Iraq were awful and I very much doubt that they can be wielded with pin-point accuracy so that a collapsing economy has no real effect upon the Russian people.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 10:53:17


Post by: Magister


Rosebuddy wrote:
I The sanctions against Iraq were awful and I very much doubt that they can be wielded with pin-point accuracy so that a collapsing economy has no real effect upon the Russian people.


People are the economy though - they pay for services, get paid for service and ultimately get taxed on what they earn. Collapsing an economy can do nothing but affect the normal person surely?

It would be an effective way of changing public opinion about a government, but only if you could convince people it was instigated by their government, not a foreign government.

I'll try and find the original article


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 12:33:00


Post by: Rosebuddy


That's why I doubt that sanctions could somehow not affect the people more than their rulers and that they wouldn't cause massive ill will against the enforcers.

That is to say that I expect them to bite the US in the ass somehow.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 12:33:24


Post by: Frazzled


 Ahtman wrote:
Maybe I am remembering this wrong but didn't HRC 'move' to NY back in the day just for a Senate opening? I didn't think she was from NY to begin with.


She's a carpetbagger from Illinois who first hooked up0 with some bubba from Arkansas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ahtman wrote:
I feel like people are reading things into the question.

Instead of "yes she moved there for a job" I get "there is nothing wrong with moving somewhere for a job" when it wasn't ever questioned whether it was ok to move for a job or not. It has gone from a simple question to a bizarre tangent.

Obliviously this is Frazzled's fault.


Its all part of my nefarious wiener dog plan. First, the wife makes me take jitterbug dance lessons. Then, my expert wiener dog hackers hack Alfred E. Newman's emails.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 13:17:12


Post by: Vash108


Great...

Author of anti-net neutrality “Internet Freedom Act” gains leadership position

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/enemy-of-net-neutrality-and-muni-broadband-will-chair-house-telecom-panel/


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 13:51:51


Post by: lonestarr777


Welp, was nice while it lasted. Brace yourself for all the 'freedom' the republicans are gonna shove up there, and bite the pillow cause I doubt we're getting spit.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 14:16:08


Post by: Gordon Shumway


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@Sebster

Of course the USA is well within its rights to retaliate against Russian hacking. I've consistently supported that position from Day 1.

The problem I have with the Democrats and other pro-Clinton voices is this view that Clinton only lost because of Russian hacking, which in my book, is concentrated hog wash!


I have honestly never seen a person claim Clinton only lost because of the hacking, and definitely not here. Your straw man is undermining your point if that is the case.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 14:21:17


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@Sebster

Of course the USA is well within its rights to retaliate against Russian hacking. I've consistently supported that position from Day 1.

The problem I have with the Democrats and other pro-Clinton voices is this view that Clinton only lost because of Russian hacking, which in my book, is concentrated hog wash!


I have honestly never seen a person claim Clinton only lost because of the hacking, and definitely not here. Your straw man is undermining your point if that is the case.


My opinion on this issue is drawn from a wide range of newspaper articles, periodicals, magazines, interviews etc

At any rate, it doesn't really matter what anybody thinks - Trump won as per the rules outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America.

My advice to Democrat supporters would be peaceful, lawful resistance to the Trump administration, and a preparation of the groundwork for 2020.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 14:33:59


Post by: Gordon Shumway


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@Sebster

Of course the USA is well within its rights to retaliate against Russian hacking. I've consistently supported that position from Day 1.

The problem I have with the Democrats and other pro-Clinton voices is this view that Clinton only lost because of Russian hacking, which in my book, is concentrated hog wash!


I have honestly never seen a person claim Clinton only lost because of the hacking, and definitely not here. Your straw man is undermining your point if that is the case.


My opinion on this issue is drawn from a wide range of newspaper articles, periodicals, magazines, interviews etc

At any rate, it doesn't really matter what anybody thinks - Trump won as per the rules outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America.

My advice to Democrat supporters would be peaceful, lawful resistance to the Trump administration, and a preparation of the groundwork for 2020.


Care to cite any of them that claim Clinton only lost because of the hacking?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 14:54:17


Post by: wuestenfux


Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 15:00:06


Post by: Frazzled


Whats the problem? Idiocracy forecast this years ago.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 15:03:26


Post by: Easy E


Rosebuddy wrote:

Perhaps. But we must ask ourselves the question: what is one nuclear power meant to do about another nuclear power? Additionally you aren't accusing Russia of anything the US hasn't already done. Singling Russia out as some eternal enemy seems both hypocritical as well as unwise.


Well, this a little policy that served us pretty well for a long time called.... Containment? We could go back to that?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 15:34:29


Post by: Frazzled


 Easy E wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:

Perhaps. But we must ask ourselves the question: what is one nuclear power meant to do about another nuclear power? Additionally you aren't accusing Russia of anything the US hasn't already done. Singling Russia out as some eternal enemy seems both hypocritical as well as unwise.


Well, this a little policy that served us pretty well for a long time called.... Containment? We could go back to that?


Containment always had the nice risk of escalation and nuclear war and cost tens of thousands of American dead.

Yea...no. Russia is not the USSR.

I have a better idea. Trade with people we can trade beneficially with, don't with the ones we can't, and be a good civic partner with the other nations of the world via the UN.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 15:47:22


Post by: Ustrello


 Vash108 wrote:
Great...

Author of anti-net neutrality “Internet Freedom Act” gains leadership position

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/enemy-of-net-neutrality-and-muni-broadband-will-chair-house-telecom-panel/


Republicans the party of small government, unless is directly effects their corporate sponsors


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 15:47:42


Post by: whembly


 wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 15:50:58


Post by: Frazzled


 Ustrello wrote:
 Vash108 wrote:
Great...

Author of anti-net neutrality “Internet Freedom Act” gains leadership position

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/enemy-of-net-neutrality-and-muni-broadband-will-chair-house-telecom-panel/


Republicans the party of small government, unless is directly effects their corporate sponsors


NO.

They elected Trump. Republicans are now the party of big government intervention.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 16:12:55


Post by: whembly


 Frazzled wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
 Vash108 wrote:
Great...

Author of anti-net neutrality “Internet Freedom Act” gains leadership position

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/enemy-of-net-neutrality-and-muni-broadband-will-chair-house-telecom-panel/


Republicans the party of small government, unless is directly effects their corporate sponsors


NO.

They elected Trump. Republicans are now the party of big government intervention.

The whole 'small government' is worthless now...

Calvinball this fether ya'll. You'll feel better.

Besides, the term 'net neutrality' is not what you think it is, or will do... when you know how the backend infrastructure works. If you want any inkling of net neutrality codify into law, then you best advocate for government takeover (ala, nationalization) and make 'em public utilities.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 16:24:06


Post by: Co'tor Shas


I mean, I do advocate for that (or more accurately that they get treated like phone companies are, it's the same concept), but that would never get past congress, so I'll settle for net neutrality rules. Hopefully we can kick up enough of a fuss so they back off (think SOPA/PIPA). And it is important. I've looked into this quite extensively, and know how it works and why it's important.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 16:28:20


Post by: whembly


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I mean, I do advocate for that (or more accurately that they get treated like phone companies are, it's the same concept), but that would never get past congress, so I'll settle for net neutrality rules. Hopefully we can kick up enough of a fuss so they back off (think SOPA/PIPA). And it is important. I've looked into this quite extensively, and know how it works and why it's important.

Quiz: How does Netflix works?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 16:28:45


Post by: WrentheFaceless


Well at least one thing is true, having the most thin-skinned president in history is somewhat entertaining every time he has a tantrum when someone makes fun of him


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 16:41:07


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 whembly wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I mean, I do advocate for that (or more accurately that they get treated like phone companies are, it's the same concept), but that would never get past congress, so I'll settle for net neutrality rules. Hopefully we can kick up enough of a fuss so they back off (think SOPA/PIPA). And it is important. I've looked into this quite extensively, and know how it works and why it's important.

Quiz: How does Netflix works?

...

The company Netflix pays movie or TV companies for the rights to use their movies/TV shoes, and charge customers to use Netflix to view them (either with an application or web page). They also do mailed physical discs (they still do that right?).




Or is this another of those BS "Netflix uses lots of data so you should pay extra!" arguments?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 16:51:37


Post by: lonestarr777


Whembly can you not go one day without making people cringe?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 16:58:27


Post by: Spinner


 whembly wrote:
 wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).



...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:06:29


Post by: Co'tor Shas


The "this is why Trump won" meme is really ridiculous. "You dared to call out racism/sexism/homophobia/general assholerey, this is why Trump won!" No it isn't, it's because people ignored his faults and voted for him anyway. Stop trying to deflect blame off of the Republican party, the people who made him their candidate in the first place. Trump won because of two decades of anti-Hillary propaganda. Trump won because Democrats won't vote for their own fething candidate if they are less that perfect. He didn't win because people called out bigotry. He won because people ignored it.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:06:38


Post by: Frazzled


Because most of the time, Hollywood actors lecturing others from on high is as insulting as it is humorous. Mmmm whats her expertise in again?



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:08:36


Post by: Co'tor Shas


I mean she's lecturing Donald Trump, it's not like he has a leg to stand on either.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:12:18


Post by: Spinner


 Frazzled wrote:
Because most of the time, Hollywood actors lecturing others from on high is as insulting as it is humorous. Mmmm whats her expertise in again?



'Hasn't mimicked a disabled man on the national stage' is a pretty good qualification, honestly. Just because you're an actor doesn't mean you lose your Gakhead Radar.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:14:15


Post by: whembly


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I mean, I do advocate for that (or more accurately that they get treated like phone companies are, it's the same concept), but that would never get past congress, so I'll settle for net neutrality rules. Hopefully we can kick up enough of a fuss so they back off (think SOPA/PIPA). And it is important. I've looked into this quite extensively, and know how it works and why it's important.

Quiz: How does Netflix works?

...

The company Netflix pays movie or TV companies for the rights to use their movies/TV shoes, and charge customers to use Netflix to view them (either with an application or web page). They also do mailed physical discs (they still do that right?).

They're a content provider company. (and yes, they still mail physical discs).

My question was how does Netflix get those contents delivered to their consumers, beyond physical discs (I realized that I should've been more specific)?

The key for Netflix's operations are Content Delivery Networks (CDN)... and there's a butt feth of them out there (as of 2014), that traverses the Netflix streamings.

Generally there's 'peer-to-peer' agreements between CDNs that as long as the in/out data streams between the CDNs are balanced, there's no associated costs.

Since most of Neflix's operations is content delivery, (not taking in data to facilitate data xfer across other CDNs), they incur a costs.

CDNs are a big fething deal with online media... here's a simple pic:


Therefore, Netflix has to purchase 'real estate' at MANY strategically located CDNs to ensure high availability to their customers.

In addition, some of the CDNs are also cable, wireless and telco companies, which CAN provide their own content.

Obviously, Netflix is trying to get into the CDNs business as well, in order to leverage of the cost efficiencies of being in a 'peer-to-peer' arraignment. Meaning, they're ramping up investments to build several datacenter/server farms to host their contents across the globe. That'll take several years, if not decades... but, it's a good strategic goal for the company.

The big KICKER that gets blindly lost in the whole net neutrality debate, is how incestuous the relationship between content providers and cable/wireless/telco companies. First, and foremost, attention need to be addressed here...


Or is this another of those BS "Netflix uses lots of data so you should pay extra!" arguments?

For someone who said "I've looked into this quite extensively, and know how it works..." ought to know there's a wide disparities between a Content distributors, CDN vendors and of course, the cable/telco companies.

Look... not having a go with you... just that, this subject matter in this industry is much more difficult than people think (it works SO well, that it has to be simple!!!... right?!?! RIGHT?!?!?).

But, hey if you want them to be treated as utilities, that's a whole lotta industry to nationalize.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:18:00


Post by: Frazzled


Meanwhile real politics is occurring:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-defense-idUSKBN14T1AX


U.S. says Navy ship fired warning shots at Iranian vessels

By Idrees Ali | WASHINGTON

A U.S. Navy destroyer fired three warning shots at four Iranian fast-attack vessels after they closed in at a high rate of speed near the Strait of Hormuz, two U.S. defense officials told Reuters on Monday.

The incident, which occurred Sunday and was first reported by Reuters, comes as U.S. President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office on Jan. 20. In September, Trump vowed that any Iranian vessels that harass the U.S. Navy in the Gulf would be "shot out of the water."

The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the USS Mahan established radio communication with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps boats but they did not respond to requests to slow down and continued asking the Mahan questions.

The Navy destroyer fired warning flares and a U.S. Navy helicopter also dropped a smoke float before the warning shots were fired.

The Iranian vessels came within 900 yards (800 meters) of the Mahan, which was escorting two other U.S. military ships, they said.

The IRGC and Trump transition team were not immediately available for comment.

Years of mutual animosity eased when Washington lifted sanctions on Tehran last year after a deal to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. But serious differences still remain over Iran's ballistic missile program as well as conflicts in Syria and Iraq.

One official said similar incidents occur occasionally.

Most recently in August, another U.S. Navy ship fired warning shots towards an Iranian fast-attack craft that approached two U.S. ships.
Also In World News

Chinese state tabloid warns Trump, end one China policy and China will take revenge
Syria truce under strain; Assad ready to discuss 'everything' at talks

In January 2016, Iran freed 10 U.S. sailors after briefly detaining them in the Gulf.

The official added that the warning shots fired on Sunday were just one of seven interactions the Mahan had with Iranian vessels over the weekend, but the others were judged to be safe.

(Reporting by Idrees Ali; Editing by Mohammad Zargham, Chizu Nomiyama and Paul Simao)


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:19:08


Post by: BigWaaagh


 Frazzled wrote:
Because most of the time, Hollywood actors lecturing others from on high is as insulting as it is humorous. Mmmm whats her expertise in again?




American citizen with the right to freedom of speech?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:20:00


Post by: Frazzled


 Spinner wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Because most of the time, Hollywood actors lecturing others from on high is as insulting as it is humorous. Mmmm whats her expertise in again?



'Hasn't mimicked a disabled man on the national stage' is a pretty good qualification, honestly. Just because you're an actor doesn't mean you lose your Gakhead Radar.


How many servants of dubious legal immigration status does she employ?
Another good qualification is not calling half the US voting electorate deplorable.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BigWaaagh wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Because most of the time, Hollywood actors lecturing others from on high is as insulting as it is humorous. Mmmm whats her expertise in again?




American citizen with the right to freedom of speech?


And he has the same right to call respond in kind, which he did.

Pro-tip when you have ME defending Trump, you've gone over the edge.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:22:24


Post by: Ahtman


 BigWaaagh wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Because most of the time, Hollywood actors lecturing others from on high is as insulting as it is humorous. Mmmm whats her expertise in again?




American citizen with the right to freedom of speech?


Don't they give that up when they become well known to make non-well known people feel better about themselves by comparison?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:23:47


Post by: whembly


 Spinner wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).



...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?


Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:26:51


Post by: Ustrello


 whembly wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).



...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?


Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.



Yeah those people should just shut up and not talk or if they do talk, talk about things that make the side I hate look bad.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:27:40


Post by: BigWaaagh


 Frazzled wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Because most of the time, Hollywood actors lecturing others from on high is as insulting as it is humorous. Mmmm whats her expertise in again?



'Hasn't mimicked a disabled man on the national stage' is a pretty good qualification, honestly. Just because you're an actor doesn't mean you lose your Gakhead Radar.


How many servants of dubious legal immigration status does she employ?
Another good qualification is not calling half the US voting electorate deplorable.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BigWaaagh wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Because most of the time, Hollywood actors lecturing others from on high is as insulting as it is humorous. Mmmm whats her expertise in again?




American citizen with the right to freedom of speech?


And he has the same right to call respond in kind, which he did.

Pro-tip when you have ME defending Trump, you've gone over the edge.



To your Spinner response, she didn't call half the population deplorable. Please google the speech if you've had a senior moment and forgotten the text of the comment.

To your response to my comment, he can and obviously does respond, good for him. It's his thin-skinned nature. But my comment was to your derision that a celebrity, because of an apparent "on high" position in society, needs what, some sort of expertise to call out unacceptably crude behavior from our POTUS-elect, or anyone else. Poppycock!


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:31:03


Post by: whembly


 Ustrello wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).



...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?


Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.



Yeah those people should just shut up and not talk or if they do talk, talk about things that make the side I hate look bad.

Football and MMA are bad?

m'kay.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:31:23


Post by: Spinner


 Frazzled wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Because most of the time, Hollywood actors lecturing others from on high is as insulting as it is humorous. Mmmm whats her expertise in again?



'Hasn't mimicked a disabled man on the national stage' is a pretty good qualification, honestly. Just because you're an actor doesn't mean you lose your Gakhead Radar.


How many servants of dubious legal immigration status does she employ?
Another good qualification is not calling half the US voting electorate deplorable.



I don't remember Meryl Streep doing either of those things.


 whembly wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).



...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?


Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.



What he says doesn't matter? Whembly, what the hell? What he says matters for the next four years now!

And I don't think anyone on here can argue that she wasn't discussing a 'performance' of sorts. She mentioned that herself. She was more on-topic than half the threads in this board. :p


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:35:09


Post by: Ustrello


 whembly wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).



...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?


Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.



Yeah those people should just shut up and not talk or if they do talk, talk about things that make the side I hate look bad.

Football and MMA are bad?

m'kay.


No you were bitching that she didn't talk about what happened in chicago which while bad, is it as bad as a man who is going to be our president who has multiple sexual assault lawsuits, possibly raped a child, mocked the disabled, spews anti semetic rhetoric, and is all around racist towards mexicans?

Or are you just going to stick your head in the sand per usual because it harms team R


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:42:41


Post by: Frazzled


 Ustrello wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).



...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?


Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.



Yeah those people should just shut up and not talk or if they do talk, talk about things that make the side I hate look bad.


Mayhaps they should talk about the actual award and her career in the film industry. She has the right to say what she wants. We have the right to never watch anything she is on and lampoon her hypocritical lifestyle and those of the Hollywood culture.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:45:06


Post by: whembly


 Spinner wrote:

What he says doesn't matter? Whembly, what the hell? What he says matters for the next four years now!

And I don't think anyone on here can argue that she wasn't discussing a 'performance' of sorts. She mentioned that herself.

Yeah, well... when the media/entertainment business adored Drumpf for decades... now, he's on the wrong team, he's literally hitler.

Sorry... the boy cried wolf too much.

Drumpf is a boorish insulter... it isn't a new phenonmenon... and calls for Drumpf to change is behaviors is going to have a looooooooooong 4 years.
She was more on-topic than half the threads in this board. :p

feth that... it was condenscendingly, leftoid, smuggish nagging.

Don't be a nag.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:45:29


Post by: Ustrello


 Frazzled wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).



...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?


Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.



Yeah those people should just shut up and not talk or if they do talk, talk about things that make the side I hate look bad.


Mayhaps they should talk about the actual award and her career in the film industry. She has the right to say what she wants. We have the right to never watch anything she is on and lampoon her hypocritical lifestyle and those of the Hollywood culture.


Fine then everyone is forever banned from using their pulpit to talk about issues that matter to them. Good it means I won't have to listen to the idiot Koch brothers or Paul Rand again


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:45:49


Post by: whembly


 Ustrello wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).



...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?


Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.



Yeah those people should just shut up and not talk or if they do talk, talk about things that make the side I hate look bad.

Football and MMA are bad?

m'kay.


No you were bitching that she didn't talk about what happened in chicago which while bad, is it as bad as a man who is going to be our president who has multiple sexual assault lawsuits, possibly raped a child, mocked the disabled, spews anti semetic rhetoric, and is all around racist towards mexicans?

Or are you just going to stick your head in the sand per usual because it harms team R

I guess you didn't read what I wrote... why do I bother?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:47:05


Post by: Ustrello


 whembly wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).



...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?


Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.



Yeah those people should just shut up and not talk or if they do talk, talk about things that make the side I hate look bad.

Football and MMA are bad?

m'kay.


No you were bitching that she didn't talk about what happened in chicago which while bad, is it as bad as a man who is going to be our president who has multiple sexual assault lawsuits, possibly raped a child, mocked the disabled, spews anti semetic rhetoric, and is all around racist towards mexicans?

Or are you just going to stick your head in the sand per usual because it harms team R

I guess you didn't read what I wrote... why do I bother?


Which is ironic coming from you


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:51:47


Post by: whembly


 Ustrello wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).



...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?


Eh... it's the idea she's using this to make a political point. It's tiring. People don't listen anymore... THAT'S IN PART WHY DRUMPF WON!

Doesn't matter what he says anymore.

She should've talked about her career... yaknow, the reason why there's a Globe in the first place?

If anything, if she was going to speak out for anything, she should've mention the beating of that Chicago disabled person.



Yeah those people should just shut up and not talk or if they do talk, talk about things that make the side I hate look bad.

Football and MMA are bad?

m'kay.


No you were bitching that she didn't talk about what happened in chicago which while bad, is it as bad as a man who is going to be our president who has multiple sexual assault lawsuits, possibly raped a child, mocked the disabled, spews anti semetic rhetoric, and is all around racist towards mexicans?

Or are you just going to stick your head in the sand per usual because it harms team R

I guess you didn't read what I wrote... why do I bother?


Which is ironic coming from you

Keep it going... it's attutides like this that's the downfall of your team D.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:54:27


Post by: Spinner


 whembly wrote:
 Spinner wrote:

What he says doesn't matter? Whembly, what the hell? What he says matters for the next four years now!

And I don't think anyone on here can argue that she wasn't discussing a 'performance' of sorts. She mentioned that herself.

Yeah, well... when the media/entertainment business adored Drumpf for decades... now, he's on the wrong team, he's literally hitler.

Sorry... the boy cried wolf too much.

Drumpf is a boorish insulter... it isn't a new phenonmenon... and calls for Drumpf to change is behaviors is going to have a looooooooooong 4 years.
She was more on-topic than half the threads in this board. :p

feth that... it was condenscendingly, leftoid, smuggish nagging.

Don't be a nag.


When he was holding down three jobs (actor, businessman, and professional a-hole), he didn't dictate national policy. He didn't insinuate Gold Star families were sympathetic to terrorists, or mock the disabled, or many of the other horrible things he's done in full view of the world. And you know what? He wasn't necessarily super-popular with everyone before the election. The man's always been several dozen greedy alien farts crammed into an approximation of a racist human skin-suit. Plenty of people saw it before.

And now it's nagging to talk about the power of a performance and its effects on real life. Cool.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:56:20


Post by: Frazzled




Fine then everyone is forever banned from using their pulpit to talk about issues that matter to them. Good it means I won't have to listen to the idiot Koch brothers or Paul Rand again


That...sounds like a great idea actually.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:57:37


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 whembly wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I mean, I do advocate for that (or more accurately that they get treated like phone companies are, it's the same concept), but that would never get past congress, so I'll settle for net neutrality rules. Hopefully we can kick up enough of a fuss so they back off (think SOPA/PIPA). And it is important. I've looked into this quite extensively, and know how it works and why it's important.

Quiz: How does Netflix works?

...

The company Netflix pays movie or TV companies for the rights to use their movies/TV shoes, and charge customers to use Netflix to view them (either with an application or web page). They also do mailed physical discs (they still do that right?).

They're a content provider company. (and yes, they still mail physical discs).

My question was how does Netflix get those contents delivered to their consumers, beyond physical discs (I realized that I should've been more specific)?

The key for Netflix's operations are Content Delivery Networks (CDN)... and there's a butt feth of them out there (as of 2014), that traverses the Netflix streamings.

Generally there's 'peer-to-peer' agreements between CDNs that as long as the in/out data streams between the CDNs are balanced, there's no associated costs.

Since most of Neflix's operations is content delivery, (not taking in data to facilitate data xfer across other CDNs), they incur a costs.

CDNs are a big fething deal with online media... here's a simple pic:


Therefore, Netflix has to purchase 'real estate' at MANY strategically located CDNs to ensure high availability to their customers.

In addition, some of the CDNs are also cable, wireless and telco companies, which CAN provide their own content.

Obviously, Netflix is trying to get into the CDNs business as well, in order to leverage of the cost efficiencies of being in a 'peer-to-peer' arraignment. Meaning, they're ramping up investments to build several datacenter/server farms to host their contents across the globe. That'll take several years, if not decades... but, it's a good strategic goal for the company.

The big KICKER that gets blindly lost in the whole net neutrality debate, is how incestuous the relationship between content providers and cable/wireless/telco companies. First, and foremost, attention need to be addressed here...


Or is this another of those BS "Netflix uses lots of data so you should pay extra!" arguments?

For someone who said "I've looked into this quite extensively, and know how it works..." ought to know there's a wide disparities between a Content distributors, CDN vendors and of course, the cable/telco companies.

Look... not having a go with you... just that, this subject matter in this industry is much more difficult than people think (it works SO well, that it has to be simple!!!... right?!?! RIGHT?!?!?).

But, hey if you want them to be treated as utilities, that's a whole lotta industry to nationalize.

Perhaps you should be less specific and more general( ), because that's less "how does Netflix work" and more "how does the internet work" which is a different question.

In this case, I'm mostly focusing on ISPs, because they are the "big players" as it were (and more importantly the one's directly involved with customers, which is where I'm coming from, customers first, businesses second), also because they are donkey-caves. One step at a time. (And it should be noted that "looked at it quire extensively" applies to net neutrility, which is what I was talking about. My knowledge on the internet's functions is less so (although still probably better than the proverbial man on the street through osmosis if nothing else), mostly because I haven't really had the inclination to learn more. Which is why I never claimed to be a MASTER OF THE INTERNET ). I'm not trying to out-knowledge you here or something (I mean, don't you do this stuff for a living, I'm just going into software development ).

I do know (a bit) about CDNs. Really only in passing though, because they aren't the ones trying to feth with customers (right now) which is what I care about. More importantly, ISPs ability to feth with both the availability and speed of certain content if net neutrality laws are removed (pseudo-censorship by companies is not something I want to be able to happen).

And I'm not sure what any of it really has to do with net neutrality rules. My end goal isn't even something that I think can really be achieved (because government=bad!), and it would probably be some sort of comprise with all of the companies heavily regulated but with tax-payer support. The plan would also include heavy investment in fiber and cable (as both an equalizer and a general upgrade) which is why I'm only pushing net neutrility now.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 17:59:31


Post by: Vaktathi


The "downfall" of "team D" is something that should be understood in its proper context. From any sort of popular vote perspective, the D's won *hard*. What they didn't win was the highly gerrymandered congress and the highly inconsistently handled electoral vote process that can allow a president to be elected with potentially only a quarter of the vote and that varies from state to state as to how such are allocated.

Now, the Democrats have a penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and absolutely made some errors in their game. But lets be real about the Republicans wins. They did not emerge from the "popular will", they came about from gaming the system better and the D's staying home in critical places and some favorable last minute events, and that success can only last for so long, particularly in the face of shifting demographics that are almost universally moving in a direction that does not favor the GOP over time.



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 18:01:40


Post by: whembly


 Spinner wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Spinner wrote:

What he says doesn't matter? Whembly, what the hell? What he says matters for the next four years now!

And I don't think anyone on here can argue that she wasn't discussing a 'performance' of sorts. She mentioned that herself.

Yeah, well... when the media/entertainment business adored Drumpf for decades... now, he's on the wrong team, he's literally hitler.

Sorry... the boy cried wolf too much.

Drumpf is a boorish insulter... it isn't a new phenonmenon... and calls for Drumpf to change is behaviors is going to have a looooooooooong 4 years.
She was more on-topic than half the threads in this board. :p

feth that... it was condenscendingly, leftoid, smuggish nagging.

Don't be a nag.


When he was holding down three jobs (actor, businessman, and professional a-hole), he didn't dictate national policy. He didn't insinuate Gold Star families were sympathetic to terrorists, or mock the disabled, or many of the other horrible things he's done in full view of the world. And you know what? He wasn't necessarily super-popular with everyone before the election. The man's always been several dozen greedy alien farts crammed into an approximation of a racist human skin-suit. Plenty of people saw it before.

So... Drumpf's is a big bag of dick? Cool... we agree on that.

And now it's nagging to talk about the power of a performance and its effects on real life. Cool.

Yup.

Don't be a nag.

Anyhoo... I guess all this uproar is this:
Politics is downstream to culture/media/entertainment.

Streep has every right to do this... just as we have every right to call her out for being a neggy, nattering-a-boob.

Just like you and I have the right to call out Drumpf's.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 18:01:45


Post by: Frazzled




When he was holding down three jobs (actor, businessman, and professional a-hole), he didn't dictate national policy. He didn't insinuate Gold Star families were sympathetic to terrorists, or mock the disabled, or many of the other horrible things he's done in full view of the world. And you know what? He wasn't necessarily super-popular with everyone before the election. The man's always been several dozen greedy alien farts crammed into an approximation of a racist human skin-suit. Plenty of people saw it before.

.


And he STILL beat the Democratic candidate. Man they really picked a loser. The Obama administration must be collectively face palming.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 18:04:17


Post by: Vaktathi


 Frazzled wrote:


When he was holding down three jobs (actor, businessman, and professional a-hole), he didn't dictate national policy. He didn't insinuate Gold Star families were sympathetic to terrorists, or mock the disabled, or many of the other horrible things he's done in full view of the world. And you know what? He wasn't necessarily super-popular with everyone before the election. The man's always been several dozen greedy alien farts crammed into an approximation of a racist human skin-suit. Plenty of people saw it before.

.


And he STILL beat the Democratic candidate. Man they really picked a loser. The Obama administration must be collectively face palming.
They probably are, but Obama also didn't nominate pick Clinton, it's not like he anointed her his chosen heir. He had to fight Clinton in the first place to get the job and beat her.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 18:07:52


Post by: Rosebuddy


 sebster wrote:
Truth be told, to this day we still don't know exactly why all of a sudden out of nowhere a middle class was created. And now it seems whatever drove the creation of that middle class is fading away.


I think it might be in part due to the massive post-WW2 economic boom. *shrug*

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The "this is why Trump won" meme is really ridiculous. "You dared to call out racism/sexism/homophobia/general assholerey, this is why Trump won!" No it isn't, it's because people ignored his faults and voted for him anyway. Stop trying to deflect blame off of the Republican party, the people who made him their candidate in the first place. Trump won because of two decades of anti-Hillary propaganda. Trump won because Democrats won't vote for their own fething candidate if they are less that perfect. He didn't win because people called out bigotry. He won because people ignored it.


Trump won because Clinton drove away millions of voters.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 18:09:28


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Spinner wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Spinner wrote:

What he says doesn't matter? Whembly, what the hell? What he says matters for the next four years now!

And I don't think anyone on here can argue that she wasn't discussing a 'performance' of sorts. She mentioned that herself.

Yeah, well... when the media/entertainment business adored Drumpf for decades... now, he's on the wrong team, he's literally hitler.

Sorry... the boy cried wolf too much.

Drumpf is a boorish insulter... it isn't a new phenonmenon... and calls for Drumpf to change is behaviors is going to have a looooooooooong 4 years.
She was more on-topic than half the threads in this board. :p

feth that... it was condenscendingly, leftoid, smuggish nagging.

Don't be a nag.


When he was holding down three jobs (actor, businessman, and professional a-hole), he didn't dictate national policy. He didn't insinuate Gold Star families were sympathetic to terrorists, or mock the disabled, or many of the other horrible things he's done in full view of the world. And you know what? He wasn't necessarily super-popular with everyone before the election. The man's always been several dozen greedy alien farts crammed into an approximation of a racist human skin-suit. Plenty of people saw it before.

And now it's nagging to talk about the power of a performance and its effects on real life. Cool.


Yeah, he was no Bill Gates or something. The man has always been a smug donkey-cave, it's just he was a powerless smug donkey-cave who was fun to laugh at (and some people just like smug donkey-caves, I mean that's 90% of reality TV). And the entertainment media only gives a gak about one thing, money (so like all other buisnesses ever). So conflating actors with the businesses they work for is a tad reductive (bringing out my big-boy words today). More than anything, people are just realizing how much of an donkey-cave he is (not because he's doing anything worse than he usually does*, more that he has cameras glued to him 24/7), and that this thin-skinned donkey-cave with a penchant for vengeance for tiny slights is now our president.

*see the Central Park Five case, or his habit of suing everything in sight and defrauding people.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 18:09:42


Post by: whembly


 Vaktathi wrote:
The "downfall" of "team D" is something that should be understood in its proper context. From any sort of popular vote perspective, the D's won *hard*.

Which is a meaningless figure.

What they didn't win was the highly gerrymandered congress and the highly inconsistently handled electoral vote process that can allow a president to be elected with potentially only a quarter of the vote and that varies from state to state as to how such are allocated.

That's federalism bucko.

Now, the Democrats have a penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and absolutely made some errors in their game. But lets be real about the Republicans wins. They did not emerge from the "popular will", they came about from gaming the system better and the D's staying home in critical places and some favorable last minute events, and that success can only last for so long, particularly in the face of shifting demographics that are almost universally moving in a direction that does not favor the GOP over time.

True... I can see Democrats get energize and take back some local elections, and make some dents in Congress. Really, it's the same thing for both parties.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 18:11:17


Post by: Spinner


 whembly wrote:


Anyhoo... I guess all this uproar is this:
Politics is downstream to culture/media/entertainment.

Streep has every right to do this... just as we have every right to call her out for being a neggy, nattering-a-boob.

Just like you and I have the right to call out Drumpf's.


Well, then I guess the crucial difference is that I don't think she was nagging.

Also, I'm disappointed that the next president can either A) be sent into a multi-tweet frenzy by someone saying something critical about him at an award or B) will take advantage of all the reporting his thin-skinned reaction to someone saying something critical about him at an award generates to go bathe in the swamp some more.

Can you imagine if Obama stopped everything he was doing to tweet angrily every time someone said something about him? He had Luther for that. I'm really going to miss him.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 18:14:25


Post by: Co'tor Shas


God, if Obama did half the things Trump has done or promised without even having any power yet, the republicans would be calling him a dictator and unfit for office (I mean more than they already do).


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 18:15:21


Post by: kronk


 Frazzled wrote:


Fine then everyone is forever banned from using their pulpit to talk about issues that matter to them. Good it means I won't have to listen to the idiot Koch brothers or Paul Rand again


That...sounds like a great idea actually.


I'd rather not listen to any celebrity's BS political thoughts, concerns, or verbal diarrhea. I would rather not listen to Eastwood talk to an empty chair, or Clooney's smug self-righteousness, or Kanye's....anything. Same goes for sports personalities like "bloody sock" Schilling. Talk about your sport, your craft, your whatever, but spare me the eye-rolling political discourse from some out-of-touch celeb whose surrounded himself/herself with echo-chamber yes men and sycophants.

What to make a political statement? Run for office, donate to your party, hold some fund raisers, but keep that gak off my TV, thanks. If I watch an awards ceremony, it's to see some 22 year old squeeze her size 36DD's into a 34C dress with a fething deep V-cut. Basically, give me Mariah Carey 24/7 (I don't give a gak about the lip syncing. I would have had her on mute, anyway...

Spoiler:


Or Robin William's openinf number for the academy awards. Damn that was funny.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 18:17:16


Post by: Frazzled


 Vaktathi wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:


When he was holding down three jobs (actor, businessman, and professional a-hole), he didn't dictate national policy. He didn't insinuate Gold Star families were sympathetic to terrorists, or mock the disabled, or many of the other horrible things he's done in full view of the world. And you know what? He wasn't necessarily super-popular with everyone before the election. The man's always been several dozen greedy alien farts crammed into an approximation of a racist human skin-suit. Plenty of people saw it before.

.


And he STILL beat the Democratic candidate. Man they really picked a loser. The Obama administration must be collectively face palming.
They probably are, but Obama also didn't nominate pick Clinton, it's not like he anointed her his chosen heir. He had to fight Clinton in the first place to get the job and beat her.


Exactly. They are face palming because the DRC picked her.

Incumbent party always is at a disadvantage, but to pick the candidate who had the worst negatives from the start (Trump only caught up and surpassed hers later), who had minimal charisma...wow.

How would she have done against someone who didn't have high negatives? It would have been a blowout.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 18:18:54


Post by: whembly


 kronk wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:


Fine then everyone is forever banned from using their pulpit to talk about issues that matter to them. Good it means I won't have to listen to the idiot Koch brothers or Paul Rand again


That...sounds like a great idea actually.


I'd rather not listen to any celebrity's BS political thoughts, concerns, or verbal diarrhea. I would rather not listen to Eastwood talk to an empty chair, or Clooney's smug self-righteousness, or Kanye's....anything. Same goes for sports personalities like "bloody sock" Schilling. Talk about your sport, your craft, your whatever, but spare me the eye-rolling political discourse from some out-of-touch celeb whose surrounded himself/herself with echo-chamber yes men and sycophants.

What to make a political statement? Run for office, donate to your party, hold some fund raisers, but keep that gak off my TV, thanks. If I watch an awards ceremony, it's to see some 22 year old squeeze her size 36DD's into a 34C dress with a fething deep V-cut.

Or Robin William's openinf number for the academy awards. Damn that was funny.


But Kronk...

You.Will.Be.MADE.To.Care!

Don't you recognize your betters? Pick up that can citizen!

edit: the dames were eye-catching!


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 18:19:51


Post by: Frazzled


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
God, if Obama did half the things Trump has done or promised without even having any power yet, the republicans would be calling him a dictator and unfit for office (I mean more than they already do).


Unlike Obama, Trump never actually ordered American citizens killed without rights under the Constitution of course...


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 18:20:41


Post by: Spinner


I dunno, everyone else gets to air their crazy political opinions to the world. Don't see the problem with letting celebrities do it too.

Thanks, Internet!


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 18:21:28


Post by: Frazzled


Spoiler:
 kronk wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:


Fine then everyone is forever banned from using their pulpit to talk about issues that matter to them. Good it means I won't have to listen to the idiot Koch brothers or Paul Rand again


That...sounds like a great idea actually.


I'd rather not listen to any celebrity's BS political thoughts, concerns, or verbal diarrhea. I would rather not listen to Eastwood talk to an empty chair, or Clooney's smug self-righteousness, or Kanye's....anything. Same goes for sports personalities like "bloody sock" Schilling. Talk about your sport, your craft, your whatever, but spare me the eye-rolling political discourse from some out-of-touch celeb whose surrounded himself/herself with echo-chamber yes men and sycophants.

What to make a political statement? Run for office, donate to your party, hold some fund raisers, but keep that gak off my TV, thanks. If I watch an awards ceremony, it's to see some 22 year old squeeze her size 36DD's into a 34C dress with a fething deep V-cut. Basically, give me Mariah Carey 24/7 (I don't give a gak about the lip syncing. I would have had her on mute, anyway...

[spoiler]


Or Robin William's openinf number for the academy awards. Damn that was funny.
[/spoiler]
Kronk has reminded us of the true reason to watch these things...


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 18:26:01


Post by: Vaktathi


 whembly wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
The "downfall" of "team D" is something that should be understood in its proper context. From any sort of popular vote perspective, the D's won *hard*.

Which is a meaningless figure.
Only in regards to the mechanics of a specific election, which can subject to political gerrymandering. That has a very real meaning to many with respect to the fundamentals of democracy and how future elections will turn out.



What they didn't win was the highly gerrymandered congress and the highly inconsistently handled electoral vote process that can allow a president to be elected with potentially only a quarter of the vote and that varies from state to state as to how such are allocated.

That's federalism bucko.
Yes, but that doesn't mean its reflective of the will of the people nor a permanent thing. Districts change, allocations are shifted, policies are adjusted, etc. The point was that the R's won on the artificialities of the game, not on actually turning out voters and enacting popular policies. They won because they were best able to take advantage of a jilted system.

It's like winning a 40k KP game where your opponent still has the bulk of their army left and in full control of the field and you've got 2 guys hiding in a corner but because your army had 7 KP's to your opponents 20. Yeah, you technically won, but nobody would really call that a meaningful victory by any other measure, victory only results under that single narrowly constrained set of conditions. If the game shifted to more accurately reflect the damage on each force and control of the field, like 4E VP's or something, then the result would be markedly different.



True... I can see Democrats get energize and take back some local elections, and make some dents in Congress. Really, it's the same thing for both parties.
Sure, but the big time bomb is on the side of the Democrats in that regard.

EDIT: none of this was meant to say that the Democrats don't also engage in these sorts of activities or win by these means sometimes, only to point out that the Republican victory in 2016 was built on them rather than any popular GOP surge or change in voter preferences.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:


When he was holding down three jobs (actor, businessman, and professional a-hole), he didn't dictate national policy. He didn't insinuate Gold Star families were sympathetic to terrorists, or mock the disabled, or many of the other horrible things he's done in full view of the world. And you know what? He wasn't necessarily super-popular with everyone before the election. The man's always been several dozen greedy alien farts crammed into an approximation of a racist human skin-suit. Plenty of people saw it before.

.


And he STILL beat the Democratic candidate. Man they really picked a loser. The Obama administration must be collectively face palming.
They probably are, but Obama also didn't nominate pick Clinton, it's not like he anointed her his chosen heir. He had to fight Clinton in the first place to get the job and beat her.


Exactly. They are face palming because the DRC picked her.

Incumbent party always is at a disadvantage, but to pick the candidate who had the worst negatives from the start (Trump only caught up and surpassed hers later), who had minimal charisma...wow.

How would she have done against someone who didn't have high negatives? It would have been a blowout.
Ah, yeah, I'm sure had the Republicans run someone like Romney it would have been, Clinton's big hope was that Trump was even worse and that was really it. I have a suspicion that if there had been a Romney or similar candidate they may have won the popular vote as well.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 18:43:59


Post by: whembly


 Vaktathi wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
The "downfall" of "team D" is something that should be understood in its proper context. From any sort of popular vote perspective, the D's won *hard*.

Which is a meaningless figure.
Only in regards to the mechanics of a specific election, which can subject to political gerrymandering. That has a very real meaning to many with respect to the fundamentals of democracy and how future elections will turn out.


What they didn't win was the highly gerrymandered congress and the highly inconsistently handled electoral vote process that can allow a president to be elected with potentially only a quarter of the vote and that varies from state to state as to how such are allocated.

That's federalism bucko.
Yes, but that doesn't mean its reflective of the will of the people nor a permanent thing. Districts change, allocations are shifted, policies are adjusted, etc. The point was that the R's won on the artificialities of the game, not on actually turning out voters and enacting popular policies. They won because they were best able to take advantage of a jilted system.


Gerrymandering is this convenient scapegoat and the truth is more complicated than that. The biggest issue that i think everyone can agree on are redistricting activities that helps the current incumbent.... which is not solely a Republican thing. In three years, if the 'D team' doesn't start winning back some local elections, then they'll be in a world of hurt. This is a call to moderate and get their gak together.

Furthermore, we've had 51 "popular vote" across the country. These are the rules for which the President is elected. These are the same rules that got Obama elected... Bill Clinton elected. These sames rules for which Clinton LOST.

So, blaming her lost because the game is rigged or that 'gerrymanding' somehow is a major factor is ignoring the reasons why she lost.

Blaming 'gerrymandering' because the GOP won less Congressional seats this year is ignoring why the Democratic Party is having such a hard time.



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 18:59:46


Post by: Mozzyfuzzy


Because they should stop telling people to be nice to each other and not be racist ignorant gakkers?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 18:59:58


Post by: Vaktathi


 whembly wrote:

Gerrymandering is this convenient scapegoat and the truth is more complicated than that.
In some ways sure, however, in others, not so much. Again, when you can potentially win an office with three quarters of the voters opposing you, and in this case lose the popular vote by what is now approaching 6x the vote gap of the next largest popular vote gap that resulted in a president winning the election without the popular vote, that suggests there is an issue with the system. Both sides take advantage of that at times, but one party has been the beneficiary of that far more than the other at the expense of the will of the majority of the voters.

The biggest issue that i think everyone can agree on are redistricting activities that helps the current incumbent.... which is not solely a Republican thing.
Sure, not saying any of this applies exclusively to one party or the other, only how they take advantage of it and what the future prospects likely are at this current time.

In three years, if the 'D team' doesn't start winning back some local elections, then they'll be in a world of hurt. This is a call to moderate and get their gak together.
Hrm, I think it's a call to not push candidates that people just don't like on the whole. Hillary Clinton's "likability" was always very low, even with many democrats she didn't inspire anything near the excitement or "get out the vote" feel as with say, Obama or her husband in the 90's and it's what lost her the 2008 nomination as well. She was popular primarily only with the parts of the base and with her establishment, neither candidate was particularly attractive to the electorate as a whole and both had record low approvals from the public as a whole. In terms of "moderating" anything, I have a feeling that's going to be more on the Republican side of things as unpopular policies and crazy statements have come much more from their side of things of late. Hillary's policies were, by and large, considered much less "radical" than say, Sanders', and it's looking a lot more like Sanders would have pulled through over Hillary in a general as things emerge. What we got was an anti-establishment vote, and that showed. The establishment candidate lost.

Furthermore, we've had 51 "popular vote" across the country. These are the rules for which the President is elected.
Sure, but it doesn't the electoral college system is a particularly great system that works terribly well or even functions in anything resembling the way it was originally intended


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 19:04:25


Post by: Co'tor Shas


If the Electoral college worked the way it was orginialy intended Donald Trump would not be president, it would be someone like Paul Ryan.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 19:06:56


Post by: Vaktathi


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
If the Electoral college worked the way it was orginialy intended Donald Trump would not be president, it would be someone like Paul Ryan.
That's a distinct possibility.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 19:12:03


Post by: kronk


 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Because they should stop telling people to be nice to each other and not be racist ignorant gakkers?


Taking a political stance is anyone's right, but you should be careful on how it affects your fans, your box office returns, etc.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly AND The Unforgiven were my all time favorite westerns. If they were on TV, I'd watch them no matter how far along the movie was. I liked Clint Eastwood right up until the "Obama's Empty Chair" crazy talk where he went full-on Old Man Crazy. Never go full-on Old Man Crazy. If I catch either on TV now? No thanks. I'll see what the ComCast Adult Alternative music channel is playing.

Same for Green Day, the Dixie Chicks, Clooney (I liked him on ER, hated him as Batman), Tom Cruze, and any other celebrity on a holier-than-thou kick, regardless of them being Lefty, Righty, or Pants-on-Heady (Cruze).

I haven't seen Mrs. Streep's speech. I can't comment on it. Perhaps it was nothing, perhaps it was subtle, perhaps it was "feth Trump with a two-sided, Concrete BLANK". Or something in between. Perhaps I'll avoid it altogether as I rather like her acting and would hate to have another artist I need to avoid watching.

Just my opinion. You can support whomever you want.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 19:20:37


Post by: Spinner


I tend to separate celebrities'/artists' work and their political views; Mr. Eastwood did go Old-Man Crazy, but I still love The Man With No Name. Jayne Cobb is great, even if Adam Baldwin's old Twitter account said some fairly unpleasant things about him (I think he deleted it?). Orson Scott Card is...ergh, but Ender's Game is still fun. And so on and so forth.

Of course, that's just my view!


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 19:46:16


Post by: Ahtman


 kronk wrote:
 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Because they should stop telling people to be nice to each other and not be racist ignorant gakkers?


Taking a political stance is anyone's right


Going by how people react and what is being said it sure doesn't seem that way.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 19:50:37


Post by: whembly


 Vaktathi wrote:
 whembly wrote:

Gerrymandering is this convenient scapegoat and the truth is more complicated than that.
In some ways sure, however, in others, not so much. Again, when you can potentially win an office with three quarters of the voters opposing you, and in this case lose the popular vote by what is now approaching 6x the vote gap of the next largest popular vote gap that resulted in a president winning the election without the popular vote, that suggests there is an issue with the system. Both sides take advantage of that at times, but one party has been the beneficiary of that far more than the other at the expense of the will of the majority of the voters.

Again... this sounds a bit like sour grapes. The system today isn't designed to maximize national popular vote, so whatever that tally ends up is literally meaningless.

I'd argue that it doesn't suggest that there's a problem. It's working as intended.

it's the system that our previous modern president were elected.

The biggest issue that i think everyone can agree on are redistricting activities that helps the current incumbent.... which is not solely a Republican thing.
Sure, not saying any of this applies exclusively to one party or the other, only how they take advantage of it and what the future prospects likely are at this current time.

In three years, if the 'D team' doesn't start winning back some local elections, then they'll be in a world of hurt. This is a call to moderate and get their gak together.
Hrm, I think it's a call to not push candidates that people just don't like on the whole. Hillary Clinton's "likability" was always very low, even with many democrats she didn't inspire anything near the excitement or "get out the vote" feel as with say, Obama or her husband in the 90's and it's what lost her the 2008 nomination as well. She was popular primarily only with the parts of the base and with her establishment, neither candidate was particularly attractive to the electorate as a whole and both had record low approvals from the public as a whole. In terms of "moderating" anything, I have a feeling that's going to be more on the Republican side of things as unpopular policies and crazy statements have come much more from their side of things of late. Hillary's policies were, by and large, considered much less "radical" than say, Sanders', and it's looking a lot more like Sanders would have pulled through over Hillary in a general as things emerge. What we got was an anti-establishment vote, and that showed. The establishment candidate lost.

In national politics... yes, true... lawd knows we're going to get the same early Bush years where the GOP congress is going to spend like drunk'n sailors at a night out in Bankok, Thailand.

But, in local/state elections... 'team D' is in a world of hurt.

Furthermore, we've had 51 "popular vote" across the country. These are the rules for which the President is elected.
Sure, but it doesn't the electoral college system is a particularly great system that works terribly well or even functions in anything resembling the way it was originally intended

So, what is this "thing" that's changed in this election than the previous?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 19:55:03


Post by: Gordon Shumway


Eastwood is a strange one. If you look at his art, he seems to promote a pretty progressive viewpoint (rigid masculinity is a fascade that can't work in a functional society, violence to others is destructive to self, multiethnic/cultural acceptance and embracement are good for society, assisted suicide is sometimes the best negative solution, jazz piano isn't horrible) but his political beliefs seem discordant with that. He is a good reminder of why we always should try to separate the artist from the art when viewing the art. Leni Reifenstal and Earnest Hemingway are other good examples.

Whembly said: "In national politics... yes, true... lawd knows we're going to get the same early Bush years where the GOP congress is going to spend like drunk'n sailors at a night out in Bankok, Thailand." Why pick on the sailors? It's the chess players you should be wary of. I get my kicks above the waistline, sunshine.




US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 20:00:56


Post by: feeder


 whembly wrote:

So, what is this "thing" that's changed in this election than the previous?


People think that the EC was supposed to prevent national hysteria from electing an unsuitable demagogue, yet we are days away from Pres Drumpf.

That's probably why people are saying the College is not working as intended.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 20:03:55


Post by: whembly


 feeder wrote:
 whembly wrote:

So, what is this "thing" that's changed in this election than the previous?


People think that the EC was supposed to prevent national hysteria from electing an unsuitable demagogue, yet we are days away from Pres Drumpf.

That's probably why people are saying the College is not working as intended.

So... therein lies the fault.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 20:07:14


Post by: Frazzled


Wait didn't Reifenstal do Triumph of the Will and was, you know a Nazi sympathizer?

"With indescribable joy, deeply moved and filled with burning gratitude, we share with you, my Führer, your and Germany's greatest victory, the entry of German troops into Paris. You exceed anything human imagination has the power to conceive, achieving deeds without parallel in the history of mankind. How can we ever thank you?
...yea that Leni Reifenstal.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 20:08:42


Post by: Vaktathi


 whembly wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
 whembly wrote:

Gerrymandering is this convenient scapegoat and the truth is more complicated than that.
In some ways sure, however, in others, not so much. Again, when you can potentially win an office with three quarters of the voters opposing you, and in this case lose the popular vote by what is now approaching 6x the vote gap of the next largest popular vote gap that resulted in a president winning the election without the popular vote, that suggests there is an issue with the system. Both sides take advantage of that at times, but one party has been the beneficiary of that far more than the other at the expense of the will of the majority of the voters.

Again... this sounds a bit like sour grapes.
Hrm, I wouldn't call it that, I'm not unhappy Hillary lost, though one could say I'm unhappy that Trump won. I'd have preferred neither won really

The system today isn't designed to maximize national popular vote, so whatever that tally ends up is literally meaningless.

I'd argue that it doesn't suggest that there's a problem. It's working as intended.
Fair enough, though I'd say if the system is devised in such a manner that it can be won with a quarter of the actual vote (and thus, represent only a minority of the will of the people, undermining the whole concept of democratic elections) and that it no longer adheres to the purpose it was originally intended for (that is, educated and wise electors kicking out unsuitable populist candidates) that it's a bad system.


In national politics... yes, true... lawd knows we're going to get the same early Bush years where the GOP congress is going to spend like drunk'n sailors at a night out in Bankok, Thailand.
Almost certainly


But, in local/state elections... 'team D' is in a world of hurt.
I'm not as familiar with the various idiosyncracies of all the states, though I will say there appears to be an increasingly high level of polarization amongst them that swings towards the crazy ends of both wings rather than the middle.



So, what is this "thing" that's changed in this election than the previous?
The flaws presented themselves in this election and the way in which electors are chosen is done in such a way that fulfilling their original role of preventing unsuitable populist candidates from assuming office is never going to happen. A broken system can still work some or even most of the time. If your car works 4 days out of 5, it's working most of the time, but that's broken enough that it's going to cause you severe problems.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 20:12:01


Post by: Gordon Shumway


 Frazzled wrote:
Wait didn't Reifenstal do Triumph of the Will and was, you know a Nazi sympathizer?

"With indescribable joy, deeply moved and filled with burning gratitude, we share with you, my Führer, your and Germany's greatest victory, the entry of German troops into Paris. You exceed anything human imagination has the power to conceive, achieving deeds without parallel in the history of mankind. How can we ever thank you?
...yea that Leni Reifenstal.


Yeah, that is sort of the point I was making. It is deplorable. It is amazing art. Separate the two. As always, the late Roger Ebert explains everything better then me. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-triumph-of-the-will-1935


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 20:12:21


Post by: kronk


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
He is a good reminder of why we always should try to separate the artist from the art when viewing the art. Leni Reifenstal and Earnest Hemingway are other good examples.



Trying and doing are 2 different things. While I am as awesome as I am humble, it's hard for me to separate the artist from the art. Watching aliens attack Earth and then suddenly seeing that looney that believes [INSERT South Park's What Scientologists Actually Believe Clip HERE], it takes me out of the movie a bit.


+3 cool points for Murray Head, by the way.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 20:16:08


Post by: Frazzled


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Wait didn't Reifenstal do Triumph of the Will and was, you know a Nazi sympathizer?

"With indescribable joy, deeply moved and filled with burning gratitude, we share with you, my Führer, your and Germany's greatest victory, the entry of German troops into Paris. You exceed anything human imagination has the power to conceive, achieving deeds without parallel in the history of mankind. How can we ever thank you?
...yea that Leni Reifenstal.


Yeah, that is sort of the point I was making. It is deplorable. It is amazing art. Separate the two. As always, the late Roger Ebert explains everything better then me. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-triumph-of-the-will-1935


Um...Its not amazing art. Its amazing propaganda. Having watched it, there's nothing about it thats not just propaganda.

I'm fortunate in that - with many of these artists - its not a hard thing for me to avoid their stuff.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 20:18:18


Post by: Gordon Shumway


 kronk wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
He is a good reminder of why we always should try to separate the artist from the art when viewing the art. Leni Reifenstal and Earnest Hemingway are other good examples.



Trying and doing are 2 different things. While I am as awesome as I am humble, it's hard for me to separate the artist from the art. Watching aliens attack Earth and then suddenly seeing that looney that believes [INSERT South Park's What Scientologists Actually Believe Clip HERE], it takes me out of the movie a bit.


+3 cool points for Murray Head, by the way.


Oh, I agree it is difficult. It's the reason I have a hard time watching a Tom Cruze character and not seeing Tom Cruz playing a character. Maybe that explains the turn to heavy prosthetics and CGI characters. Ever see Vanilla Sky? He was amazing in it.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 20:22:54


Post by: whembly


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
 kronk wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
He is a good reminder of why we always should try to separate the artist from the art when viewing the art. Leni Reifenstal and Earnest Hemingway are other good examples.



Trying and doing are 2 different things. While I am as awesome as I am humble, it's hard for me to separate the artist from the art. Watching aliens attack Earth and then suddenly seeing that looney that believes [INSERT South Park's What Scientologists Actually Believe Clip HERE], it takes me out of the movie a bit.


+3 cool points for Murray Head, by the way.


Oh, I agree it is difficult. It's the reason I have a hard time watching a Tom Cruze character and not seeing Tom Cruz playing a character. Maybe that explains the turn to heavy prosthetics and CGI characters. Ever see Vanilla Sky? He was amazing in it.

His Less Grossman will forever earn a 'let's give it a shot' card from me....


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 20:27:43


Post by: Gordon Shumway


 Frazzled wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Wait didn't Reifenstal do Triumph of the Will and was, you know a Nazi sympathizer?

"With indescribable joy, deeply moved and filled with burning gratitude, we share with you, my Führer, your and Germany's greatest victory, the entry of German troops into Paris. You exceed anything human imagination has the power to conceive, achieving deeds without parallel in the history of mankind. How can we ever thank you?
...yea that Leni Reifenstal.


Yeah, that is sort of the point I was making. It is deplorable. It is amazing art. Separate the two. As always, the late Roger Ebert explains everything better then me. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-triumph-of-the-will-1935


Um...Its not amazing art. Its amazing propaganda. Having watched it, there's nothing about it thats not just propaganda.


Propaganda is not an art form? It gets viewers to feel what the creator wants them to feel. There is a reason Lucas and The Lion King directors copied her. It is powerful-and they were making a point about its power. All art is "propaganda" as the point of art is persuasion (some people call this enlightenment, but it's only enlightenment to the artist's pov). Reread your Cicero. The duty, however, also falls upon the viewer/reader to understand how they are being manipulated (camera angles, music, lighting, costume design, language, etc.) in order to truly understand the art, not just the message. Also, if you understand how you are being manipulated, you will be less likely to be so.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 20:31:42


Post by: Frazzled




Propaganda is not an art form? It gets viewers to feel what the creator wants them to feel. There is a reason Lucas and The Lion King directors copied her. It is powerful-and they were making a point about its power. All art is "propaganda" as the point of art is persuasion (some people call this enlightenment, but it's only enlightenment to the artist's pov). Reread your Cicero. The duty, however, also falls upon the viewer/reader to understand how they are being manipulated (camera angles, music, lighting, costume design, language, etc.) in order to truly understand the art, not just the message. Also, if you understand how you are being manipulated, you will be less likely to be so.


We're going to have to agree to disagree on that.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 20:48:29


Post by: Gordon Shumway


 Frazzled wrote:


Propaganda is not an art form? It gets viewers to feel what the creator wants them to feel. There is a reason Lucas and The Lion King directors copied her. It is powerful-and they were making a point about its power. All art is "propaganda" as the point of art is persuasion (some people call this enlightenment, but it's only enlightenment to the artist's pov). Reread your Cicero. The duty, however, also falls upon the viewer/reader to understand how they are being manipulated (camera angles, music, lighting, costume design, language, etc.) in order to truly understand the art, not just the message. Also, if you understand how you are being manipulated, you will be less likely to be so.


We're going to have to agree to disagree on that.


On what exactly? That Riefenstahl wasn't a master of powerful filmmaking? Rewatch any of the Star Wars movies. That propaganda isn't an art? Again, I would point you to any textbook on rhetoric. On whether or not it was "good"? Ethically, it was not. Of course not. In the same vein Birth of a Nation was not "good". It was masterful at manipulation. Which is what all good art tries to achieve. It is deplorable. In the same way that Trump's ability to move the masses is deplorable. Yes, deplorable (go ahead and say it, Whembly). He uses his medium (be it mass rallys, Twitter, or just insight on how to get headlines) in order to move opinion. It's easy to see if you take a step back. Four years ago, Russia was the #1 threat according to the GOP nominee. Now, he is the leader that our actor wants to emulate. And people are persuaded. Just look at the last few pages begging for hospitality with Putin.

And you have the temerity to sit there and judge another artist (like tv show Mr. Trump) who is attempting to persuade people to appeal to her views. Again, I say, look at the actual art. What was Streep saying that was not to your liking? What was Trump's? Which one would be a better representative for "American values"? Seems pretty simple.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 20:54:02


Post by: Frazzled


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:


Propaganda is not an art form? It gets viewers to feel what the creator wants them to feel. There is a reason Lucas and The Lion King directors copied her. It is powerful-and they were making a point about its power. All art is "propaganda" as the point of art is persuasion (some people call this enlightenment, but it's only enlightenment to the artist's pov). Reread your Cicero. The duty, however, also falls upon the viewer/reader to understand how they are being manipulated (camera angles, music, lighting, costume design, language, etc.) in order to truly understand the art, not just the message. Also, if you understand how you are being manipulated, you will be less likely to be so.


We're going to have to agree to disagree on that.


On what exactly? That Riefenstahl wasn't a master of powerful filmmaking? Rewatch any of the Star Wars movies. That propaganda isn't an art? Again, I would point you to any textbook on rhetoric. On whether or not it was "good"? Ethically, it was not. Of course not. In the same vein Birth of a Nation was not "good". It was masterful at manipulation. Which is what all good art tries to achieve. It is deplorable. In the same way that Trump's ability to move the masses is deplorable. Yes, deplorable (go ahead and say it, Whembly). He uses his medium (be it mass rallys, Twitter, or just insight on how to get headlines) in order to move opinion. It's easy to see if you take a step back. Four years ago, Russia was the #1 threat according to the GOP nominee. Now, he is the leader that our actor wants to emulate. And people are persuaded. Just look at the last few pages begging for hospitality with Putin.


We're going to agree to disagree as discussing whether propaganda is art (and if this is groundbreaking art in that context) is probably a better discussion item on another thread.
(also while watching it, my thoughts were, if the Russians were watching this they should have massed up the tanks and immediately invaded with everything they had but thats a side point)


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 21:03:05


Post by: Gordon Shumway


 Frazzled wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:


Propaganda is not an art form? It gets viewers to feel what the creator wants them to feel. There is a reason Lucas and The Lion King directors copied her. It is powerful-and they were making a point about its power. All art is "propaganda" as the point of art is persuasion (some people call this enlightenment, but it's only enlightenment to the artist's pov). Reread your Cicero. The duty, however, also falls upon the viewer/reader to understand how they are being manipulated (camera angles, music, lighting, costume design, language, etc.) in order to truly understand the art, not just the message. Also, if you understand how you are being manipulated, you will be less likely to be so.


We're going to have to agree to disagree on that.


On what exactly? That Riefenstahl wasn't a master of powerful filmmaking? Rewatch any of the Star Wars movies. That propaganda isn't an art? Again, I would point you to any textbook on rhetoric. On whether or not it was "good"? Ethically, it was not. Of course not. In the same vein Birth of a Nation was not "good". It was masterful at manipulation. Which is what all good art tries to achieve. It is deplorable. In the same way that Trump's ability to move the masses is deplorable. Yes, deplorable (go ahead and say it, Whembly). He uses his medium (be it mass rallys, Twitter, or just insight on how to get headlines) in order to move opinion. It's easy to see if you take a step back. Four years ago, Russia was the #1 threat according to the GOP nominee. Now, he is the leader that our actor wants to emulate. And people are persuaded. Just look at the last few pages begging for hospitality with Putin.


We're going to agree to disagree as discussing whether propaganda is art (and if this is groundbreaking art in that context) is probably a better discussion item on another thread.
(also while watching it, my thoughts were, if the Russians were watching this they should have massed up the tanks and immediately invaded with everything they had but thats a side point)


Whether or not propaganda is art is absolutely not a separate topic. It is the definition of modern politics. Especially in America where our leader is a media figure. Don't put your head in the sand just because the nation farted. It might be modern art-poop on the sidewalk and call it art-but it is art because of its ability to persuade.

The Russians didn't because they had a side agreement with Hitler, which he proceeded to break. Huh, breaking treaties doesn't sound like a talking point, now, does it?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 21:09:59


Post by: whembly


I giggled waaaaaay too much at your "... just because the nation farted."

Can this nickname have staying power please?

Mr. President Flatulence.



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 21:10:37


Post by: Frazzled


Whether or not propaganda is art is absolutely not a separate topic. It is the definition of modern politics. Especially in America where our leader is a media figure. Don't put your head in the sand just because the nation farted. It might be modern art-poop on the sidewalk and call it art-but it is art because of its ability to persuade.


1. Er...what?
2. Now we disagree on two things: that its art and also that its appropriate for the thread.
3. This does beg the question-if the entire nation ate redbeans and rice, would the resulting mass green house emission knock the planet off its orbit of the sun?

EDIT: Drudge is reporting that Kirchner will be an advisor to the President. When the Democrats retake power, that will be #1 on the articles of impeachment-violating nepotism laws and standards of practice.

Pro-tip Republicans: its not swearing in time yet and your guy just outdid his opponent in the potential bribery charge thing.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 21:21:38


Post by: whembly


 Frazzled wrote:

EDIT: Drudge is reporting that Kirchner will be an advisor to the President. When the Democrats retake power, that will be #1 on the articles of impeachment-violating nepotism laws and standards of practice.

Pro-tip Republicans: its not swearing in time yet and your guy just outdid his opponent in the potential bribery charge thing.

What Cabinet position is he getting? VA?

What are you yammering about bribery? The AG in Florida?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 21:29:04


Post by: Frazzled


 whembly wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

EDIT: Drudge is reporting that Kirchner will be an advisor to the President. When the Democrats retake power, that will be #1 on the articles of impeachment-violating nepotism laws and standards of practice.

Pro-tip Republicans: its not swearing in time yet and your guy just outdid his opponent in the potential bribery charge thing.

What Cabinet position is he getting? VA?

What are you yammering about bribery? The AG in Florida?


You're right-I assumed he would hand off the operation of his companies. If he doesn't then they don't need Kirchner to pay him off.

Having an advisor who has a direct management interest in his companies at the same time he 1) sets policies including major contracts; 2) has inside information on government policies and negotiations with other countries and major companies would be a screaming conflict of interest anywhere else.

I see on other boards the Trumptskiites are already lapping it up. Dog this is disappointing to see the American people do this (or they're paid Russian posters of course-no not joking).


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 21:29:06


Post by: Gordon Shumway


 Frazzled wrote:
Whether or not propaganda is art is absolutely not a separate topic. It is the definition of modern politics. Especially in America where our leader is a media figure. Don't put your head in the sand just because the nation farted. It might be modern art-poop on the sidewalk and call it art-but it is art because of its ability to persuade.


1. Er...what?
2. Now we disagree on two things: that its art and also that its appropriate for the thread.
3. This does beg the question-if the entire nation ate redbeans and rice, would the resulting mass green house emission knock the planet off its orbit of the sun?

EDIT: Drudge is reporting that Kirchner will be an advisor to the President. When the Democrats retake power, that will be #1 on the articles of impeachment-violating nepotism laws and standards of practice.


We might be talking past one another but, I'll try:

Rhetoric is an art form. Rhetoric is the art of manipulating people based on argumentation (through words, but we will extend it because of modern media). It doesn't matter if your argument is based on lies or heresay, or falsehoods or truth, if you make it effectively, you are conducting your art form well. There are ethical rules and stipulations an honest rhetorical artist uses. No rhetorical artist that is effective constrains themselves to those rules. Sorry if this is reading like a Vonnegut book. So be it.

Earlier in this thread we had a person, let's call him "likes nothing", make a strenuous case that people were getting all worked up about the Russian hacking stuff over nothing because the us did it too. Fair enough. Then his argument went into how he only cared because people were saying Clinton won only because of the hacking. When asked who these "people" were, he went silent. That is a rhetorical fallacy (technique of art-albeit an unethical one) called a straw man. It is art because it involves an artistic medium to convey a point. It was illogical and unethical, but it was persuasive. It was art. It was politics. It was modern society in a nutshell.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 21:32:59


Post by: whembly


 Frazzled wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

EDIT: Drudge is reporting that Kirchner will be an advisor to the President. When the Democrats retake power, that will be #1 on the articles of impeachment-violating nepotism laws and standards of practice.

Pro-tip Republicans: its not swearing in time yet and your guy just outdid his opponent in the potential bribery charge thing.

What Cabinet position is he getting? VA?

What are you yammering about bribery? The AG in Florida?


You're right-I assumed he would hand off the operation of his companies. If he doesn't then they don't need Kirchner to pay him off.

Having an advisor who has a direct management interest in his companies at the same time he 1) sets policies including major contracts; 2) has inside information on government policies and negotiations with other countries and major companies would be a screaming conflict of interest anywhere else.

I see on other boards the Trumptskiites are already lapping it up. Dog this is disappointing to see the American people do this (or they're paid Russian posters of course-no not joking).

Yeah, if Kirchner doesn't put his gak in a blind trust, or simply quit his current job, the amount of professional "insider information" is ridiculous.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 21:34:34


Post by: Frazzled




***Rhetoric is an art form.
Propaganda is not rhetoric. Propaganda is just a bad nonsubtle form of marketing.

****There are ethical rules and stipulations an honest rhetorical artist uses.
Literally none of that applies to propaganda (or marketing for that matter).

****Earlier in this thread we had a person, let's call him "likes nothing",
This person sounds familiar. Does he have an unnatural fascination with guns and wiener dogs?

****make a strenuous case that people were getting all worked up about the Russian hacking stuff over nothing because the us did it too.
I'm more that I'm not in the mood to go to war over something the DNC did.

*** Fair enough. Then his argument went into how he only cared because people were saying Clinton won only because of the hacking. When asked who these "people" were, he went silent. That is a rhetorical fallacy (technique of art-albeit an unethical one) called a straw man. It is art because it involves an artistic medium to convey a point. It was illogical and unethical, but it was persuasive. It was art. It was politics. It was modern society in a nutshell.
None of this relates to Leni "Hitler's Dreamy" R or the the Meryl Streep statement (didn't see it because I am a guy and would rather claw my own eyes out).

EDIT: If you want to debate among art historicans and art ethicists (is that a thing?) whether Propaganda is art, then I'd submit this is the wrong forum entirely as most of us here are discussing only our gut opinions on the matter.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yeah, if Kirchner doesn't put his gak in a blind trust, or simply quit his current job, the amount of professional "insider information" is ridiculous.

Now we're on the same page. Same goes for all of his family, but this one is official so its bad, real bad.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 21:40:33


Post by: feeder


 whembly wrote:
 feeder wrote:
 whembly wrote:

So, what is this "thing" that's changed in this election than the previous?


People think that the EC was supposed to prevent national hysteria from electing an unsuitable demagogue, yet we are days away from Pres Drumpf.

That's probably why people are saying the College is not working as intended.

So... therein lies the fault.


That's not what the EC was intended to do?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 21:44:22


Post by: Gordon Shumway


 Frazzled wrote:


***Rhetoric is an art form.
Propaganda is not rhetoric. Propaganda is just a bad nonsubtle form of marketing.

****There are ethical rules and stipulations an honest rhetorical artist uses.
Literally none of that applies to propaganda (or marketing for that matter).

****Earlier in this thread we had a person, let's call him "likes nothing",
This person sounds familiar. Does he have an unnatural fascination with guns and wiener dogs?

****make a strenuous case that people were getting all worked up about the Russian hacking stuff over nothing because the us did it too.
I'm more that I'm not in the mood to go to war over something the DNC did.

*** Fair enough. Then his argument went into how he only cared because people were saying Clinton won only because of the hacking. When asked who these "people" were, he went silent. That is a rhetorical fallacy (technique of art-albeit an unethical one) called a straw man. It is art because it involves an artistic medium to convey a point. It was illogical and unethical, but it was persuasive. It was art. It was politics. It was modern society in a nutshell.
None of this relates to Leni "Hitler's Dreamy" R or the the Meryl Streep statement (didn't see it because I am a guy and would rather claw my own eyes.


It was actually not in reference to any argument you put forward at all.-no weiner dogs or guns, differerent poster who always makes it clear he reads a lot of US history. As to non subtle, go read your Goering: "the best way to persuade people is to persuade them without them realizing they are being persuaded" Bad propaganda is unsubtle. The point I was inartfulluly trying to make is that all rhetoric is essentially propaganda. You just agree with it or not, and history will judge you accordingly. Of course, the ideal rhetoric has facts and data to back it up, which should make it more persuasive, but isn't nessicary if one has good camera angles and a catchy theme. Or memes that deplorables glom on to. We don't even need subtlety any more. It is passé.

Tell me this is not out of the Reifenstahl playbook



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 21:45:05


Post by: Frazzled


No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.

Remember, the concept was that THE STATES chose the President, and the lesiglature. THE STATES were effectively small countries (but bigger than those wussy European countries-come on is Belgium even real? ) with a very limited central government designed to protect us from redcoats, keep thieves away with uniform weights and measures, and keep the states from going to war with each other. I guess two out of three aint bad.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 21:54:43


Post by: ScootyPuffJunior


 Spinner wrote:
I tend to separate celebrities'/artists' work and their political views; Mr. Eastwood did go Old-Man Crazy, but I still love The Man With No Name. Jayne Cobb is great, even if Adam Baldwin's old Twitter account said some fairly unpleasant things about him (I think he deleted it?). Orson Scott Card is...ergh, but Ender's Game is still fun. And so on and so forth.

Of course, that's just my view!
Yep, I couldn't give a rat's ass about what opinion an actor/musician/artist/etc. has. I don't need to insulate myself from opinions that differ from my own because I'm a grown up that doesn't need a safe space to protect me from scary ideas. As long as I enjoy the art of the person in question, I'll happily go a long with it.

My circle of friends is no different.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 21:55:14


Post by: Ahtman


So should we go back to thirteen states as well? Maybe fifty is to many.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 21:56:30


Post by: Gordon Shumway


 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
I tend to separate celebrities'/artists' work and their political views; Mr. Eastwood did go Old-Man Crazy, but I still love The Man With No Name. Jayne Cobb is great, even if Adam Baldwin's old Twitter account said some fairly unpleasant things about him (I think he deleted it?). Orson Scott Card is...ergh, but Ender's Game is still fun. And so on and so forth.

Of course, that's just my view!
Yep, I couldn't give a rat's ass about what opinion an actor/musician/artist/etc. has. I don't need to insulate myself from opinions that differ from my own because I'm a grown up that doesn't need a safe space to protect me from scary ideas. As long as I enjoy the art of the person in question, I'll happily go a long with it.

My circle of friends is no different.


That circle of friends point at the end there is insightful to you and your qualities. It is what we need more of, not insularity.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 21:57:23


Post by: whembly


 Ahtman wrote:
So should we go back to thirteen states as well? Maybe fifty is to many.

nah... more than merrier!

Puerto Rico
Cuba
Scotland
Belgium (think chocolate Frazz!!)


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 21:58:13


Post by: Peregrine


 Frazzled wrote:
No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.


If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:03:46


Post by: feeder


 Peregrine wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.


If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.


But here wa are, Pres Drumpf looming


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:05:13


Post by: Peregrine


 feeder wrote:
But here wa are, Pres Drumpf looming


Exactly. The system is a failure, and has been altered far beyond the original intent. Get rid of it, elect the president by direct popular vote.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:05:24


Post by: Frazzled


 Peregrine wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.


If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.


Which your statement does the opposite of, but thats ok I guess.

My suggestion to the Democrats is the same statement my Wife makes: Put on your big girl underpants and get to work.
While your tears are sweet the pity party is getting to be just a bit much. You don't see us NeverTrumpers throwing temper tantrums. We are too busy plotting...revenge!

"the best vengeance is...vengeance."
-Genghis Connie.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:06:09


Post by: whembly


 Peregrine wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.


If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.

The unfortunate part here is the subjective nature of 'unqualified'.

Evidently, 62 million voters didn't see it that way...


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:07:09


Post by: Frazzled


 Peregrine wrote:
 feeder wrote:
But here wa are, Pres Drumpf looming


Exactly. The system is a failure, and has been altered far beyond the original intent. Get rid of it, elect the president by direct popular vote.


Its not been altered. You guys just suck. Quit sucking. You have one year to remember how to not suck before local elections start.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:09:38


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 whembly wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.


If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.

The unfortunate part here is the subjective nature of 'unqualified'.

Evidently, 62 million voters didn't see it that way...

So are you for popular support or not?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:11:12


Post by: whembly


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.


If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.

The unfortunate part here is the subjective nature of 'unqualified'.

Evidently, 62 million voters didn't see it that way...

So are you for popular support or not?

I'm for 51 popular votes by states... and the state figures out how to apportion the electors.

If California what's to apportion it by the national popular vote, there's nothing stopping them from doing so.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:14:47


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Frazzled wrote:

***Rhetoric is an art form.
Propaganda is not rhetoric. Propaganda is just a bad nonsubtle form of marketing.


Propaganda can be very subtle. Look at Hollywood.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:16:06


Post by: Frazzled


Rosebuddy wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

***Rhetoric is an art form.
Propaganda is not rhetoric. Propaganda is just a bad nonsubtle form of marketing.


Propaganda can be very subtle. Look at Hollywood.


Touche.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:16:20


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 whembly wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.


If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.

The unfortunate part here is the subjective nature of 'unqualified'.

Evidently, 62 million voters didn't see it that way...

So are you for popular support or not?

I'm for 51 popular votes by states... and the state figures out how to apportion the electors.

If California what's to apportion it by the national popular vote, there's nothing stopping them from doing so.

That was more to the point where you were against popular vote and then using an appeal to popularity (poking fun mostly).


On the whole thing, why? It's been shown time and time again that the electoral college doesn't give the voiceless a voice and what it mostly does is silence others. Why keep it? What is so great about the electoral college versus a popular vote? Why are states more important than people. You've said stuff like "we are a country of states" or "United States of America", but those are half-assed cop-outs. Explain why the electoral college is a good system that is best to represent the American people at the federal level.


Also California is only going more blue. just CA alone will never change anything.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:21:38


Post by: Vaktathi


Aye, the EC isn't even functioning balancing out small vs big states, it's giving a handful of swing states, some big and some small, a totally outsized voice and essentially writing off all the others as irrelevant because they're so far to one side or the other that they're easily predetermined and their EC votes allocated by default. Ohio and Florida matter more than Texas or New York or California, while small states like Hawaii or Wyoming are as irrelevant under the EC than under a straight popular vote (possibly even moreso as their opposition voters get less than 0 attention whereas under a popular vote they'd have value).



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:26:04


Post by: Gordon Shumway


 Frazzled wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

***Rhetoric is an art form.
Propaganda is not rhetoric. Propaganda is just a bad nonsubtle form of marketing.


Propaganda can be very subtle. Look at Hollywood.


Touche.


My same point in a twitter nutshell. Does everything have to be in gif format to be understandable now? I thought old people like long boring stories? Or is it just Twitter nutshells you agree with in a passing gut reaction online basis?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:37:06


Post by: Frazzled


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

***Rhetoric is an art form.
Propaganda is not rhetoric. Propaganda is just a bad nonsubtle form of marketing.


Propaganda can be very subtle. Look at Hollywood.


Touche.


My same point in a twitter nutshell. Does everything have to be in gif format to be understandable now? I thought old people like long boring stories? Or is it just Twitter nutshells you agree with in a passing gut reaction online basis?


No, you were arguing propaganda is art (somehow related to the Merle Streep speech). I was stating that it aint, and would be better discussed in another thread. You youngins just won't listen.

"In Frazzled's house even the budgie is an insane killer who will peck your eyes out,"
-short writings from the Legend of Frazzled or How I stopped Worrying and Learned To Love the Asylum


For the record I don't even know how to use Twitter. That sounds too much like a bird and urge to load birdshot...rising! BLAM!


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:37:35


Post by: whembly


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.


If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.

The unfortunate part here is the subjective nature of 'unqualified'.

Evidently, 62 million voters didn't see it that way...

So are you for popular support or not?

I'm for 51 popular votes by states... and the state figures out how to apportion the electors.

If California what's to apportion it by the national popular vote, there's nothing stopping them from doing so.

That was more to the point where you were against popular vote and then using an appeal to popularity (poking fun mostly).


On the whole thing, why? It's been shown time and time again that the electoral college doesn't give the voiceless a voice and what it mostly does is silence others. Why keep it? What is so great about the electoral college versus a popular vote? Why are states more important than people. You've said stuff like "we are a country of states" or "United States of America", but those are half-assed cop-outs. Explain why the electoral college is a good system that is best to represent the American people at the federal level.


Also California is only going more blue. just CA alone will never change anything.

Because it's a balance. At it's basic function, the EC's job is really simple... to restrict the power of the majority populated state. If you're a 'states representation' honk, you'll like the EC... if, 'states don't matter' crowd... you'll always hate the EC.

Moreover, the EC system is done so that every part of the United States of America some kind of say over the next executive.

It obviously forces prospective candidates and their political parties to consider all Americans in their rhetoric and action. True, most candidates focuses on swings states... but, swing states changes over time. As close as PA, WI and MI was, hopefully that's a clarion call for both parties to hit the 'get out to vote' strategy as those 3 ends up being the new FL/OH swing states.

Furthermore... there is no basis for saying that HRC was ultimately the more popular candidate because more people voted for her. That's not how the "game is played"... because the EC means non-swing states are taken for granted, their constituents are more likely to take the outcome for granted, and not bother to vote.

'Tis why I keep banging on that 'National vote is meaningless' drum... we don't know what the outcome would be.

It's not, by any means, a perfect system... there's a lot to be said for dumping the EC in favor for national vote.

But, there's a lot to be said for the current EC system too.

As for CA... they can certainly lead the way for the rest of the states to apportion by popular vote. Nothing is stopping them from leading the charge.







US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:40:05


Post by: Peregrine


 Frazzled wrote:
Its not been altered. You guys just suck. Quit sucking. You have one year to remember how to not suck before local elections start.


Of course it has been altered. Perhaps you should read up on US history and the changes that have been made to presidential elections since the ink was dry on the constitution?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:41:46


Post by: Frazzled


 Peregrine wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its not been altered. You guys just suck. Quit sucking. You have one year to remember how to not suck before local elections start.


Of course it has been altered. Perhaps you should read up on US history and the changes that have been made to presidential elections since the ink was dry on the constitution?


Its like you can't make a post without insulting another poster. Whatevs.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:43:01


Post by: Peregrine


 whembly wrote:
The unfortunate part here is the subjective nature of 'unqualified'.

Evidently, 62 million voters didn't see it that way...


This was the point of the electoral college: so that even when 62 million people believe that an unqualified charismatic idiot like Trump should be president the elites of society can say "nope, not going to happen" and choose someone who can do a better job. Arguing "BUT LOTS OF PEOPEL VOTED FOR TRUMP" is missing the point entirely.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:47:51


Post by: AngryElfIgnoresLOS


 Peregrine wrote:
 whembly wrote:
The unfortunate part here is the subjective nature of 'unqualified'.

Evidently, 62 million voters didn't see it that way...


This was the point of the electoral college: so that even when 62 million people believe that an unqualified charismatic idiot like Trump should be president the elites of society can say "nope, not going to happen" and choose someone who can do a better job. Arguing "BUT LOTS OF PEOPEL VOTED FOR TRUMP" is missing the point entirely.


Honestly though the elites should not be able to choose. The electoral college shouldn't exist, it is fundamentally against the process of democracy. We should work on making the voting populous more educated.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:50:35


Post by: Peregrine


 whembly wrote:
At it's basic function, the EC's job is really simple... to restrict the power of the majority populated state.


A task it fails miserably at. Most small states have very little power under the electoral college system because they have few electoral votes and one-sided party loyalty. Wyoming, for example, has zero power under the current system. Its few electoral votes are guaranteed to go to the republican candidate, whoever they happen to be, so nobody has any incentive to campaign there or make any promises to Wyoming's citizens. Same thing with Hawaii, but for the democrats. If you want small states to have a meaningful say in presidential elections then you want a direct national popular vote.

It obviously forces prospective candidates and their political parties to consider all Americans in their rhetoric and action.


No it doesn't. It forces prospective candidates and their political parties to consider the issues that matter to a handful of voters in key states, while ignoring the rest. If I'm a candidate why should I consider what people in Wyoming or Hawaii care about? One is guaranteed to give its electoral votes to me no matter what I do, while the other is guaranteed to give its electoral votes to my opponent no matter what I do.

Furthermore... there is no basis for saying that HRC was ultimately the more popular candidate because more people voted for her. That's not how the "game is played"... because the EC means non-swing states are taken for granted, their constituents are more likely to take the outcome for granted, and not bother to vote.


This doesn't really help your case. A higher turnout in California means even more of a majority for Clinton. The "secure" states for Clinton were the big states, while most of Trump's "secure" states were much smaller.

But, there's a lot to be said for the current EC system too.


Only if you continue to ignore the reasons why all of the arguments in favor of it don't actually work.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:51:05


Post by: Ustrello


 whembly wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.


If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.

The unfortunate part here is the subjective nature of 'unqualified'.

Evidently, 62 million voters didn't see it that way...


And a recent poll showed that 54 percent of americans believe that the government is hiding the truth about 9/11. Just because they voted doesn't mean they are intelligent in anyway


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:54:13


Post by: ScootyPuffJunior


 Frazzled wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Its not been altered. You guys just suck. Quit sucking. You have one year to remember how to not suck before local elections start.


Of course it has been altered. Perhaps you should read up on US history and the changes that have been made to presidential elections since the ink was dry on the constitution?


Its like you can't make a post without insulting another poster. Whatevs.

How was that more insulting than your post telling him that "you guys suck?" And drop the feigned outrage act, you've worn it a bit thin.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 22:54:44


Post by: Frazzled


The Truth shall be reviled! All your secrets are belong to us!


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 23:06:50


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 whembly wrote:
Because it's a balance. At it's basic function, the EC's job is really simple... to restrict the power of the majority populated state.

And it doesn't, we've been over this. What it does is give all the power to a number of "swing" states.

If you're a 'states representation' honk, you'll like the EC... if, 'states don't matter' crowd... you'll always hate the EC.

If you are a "states representation honk" than you would want the EC as it originally was, not the bastardized one now. So which is it?

Moreover, the EC system is done so that every part of the United States of America some kind of say over the next executive.
Which they have in whatever system we choose. And I did the math a while back (and have posted mutliple times) that popular vote does not allow large states to overpower big states. On the contraty, it gives candidates a reason to campaign in those small states that are ignored through most of the presidential race

It obviously forces prospective candidates and their political parties to consider all Americans in their rhetoric and action. True, most candidates focuses on swings states... but, swing states changes over time. As close as PA, WI and MI was, hopefully that's a clarion call for both parties to hit the 'get out to vote' strategy as those 3 ends up being the new FL/OH swing states.
I think we've seen, especially with the Trump campaign, but also with the Obama and Bush campaigns that it is not that way at all.

Furthermore... there is no basis for saying that HRC was ultimately the more popular candidate because more people voted for her. That's not how the "game is played"... because the EC means non-swing states are taken for granted, their constituents are more likely to take the outcome for granted, and not bother to vote.

And you have proved my point exactly. If this provides all states a voice, than why are they ignored. Simple answer, it doesn't


'Tis why I keep banging on that 'National vote is meaningless' drum... we don't know what the outcome would be.
Powerless, yes, meaningless, no. When it is as close as Bush V Gore (which was like 100k difference or something, basically non-existent) it's not a good indicator of anything other than a divide. When it is as large as Clinton's (to the point of being larger than some winner's margins), it does indicate that Trump does not have popular support. This doesn't mean he wouldn't have won in a popular vote (although if FPTP was abolished, something we can all agree is kind of gak, as well, he wouldn't have had a chance). I can say with some confidance that the majority of Americans don't want Trump to be president. It's just that many also didn't want Clinton, and a lot of Clinton voters were only brought out through

It's not, by any means, a perfect system... there's a lot to be said for dumping the EC in favor for national vote.

But, there's a lot to be said for the current EC system too.

Certainly it has some good ideas behind it. I don't deny that, merely disagree with it's implementation. And like any system it's flaws appear in time. There is a reason why the founders put in ways to change and improve it, believing (perhaps foolishly) that the people of America would work together for the common good rather than treating it like a holy object. It is currently broken. I, for one, am more in favor of abolishing it. However fixing it is still an option (just not one that anybody seems to have a good solution to).

As for CA... they can certainly lead the way for the rest of the states to apportion by popular vote. Nothing is stopping them from leading the charge.
The charge is already there. And CA is already part of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

But until they get near 358, it's has no real power. That's the point CA can't do gak until it get's the other states on board. And what with Republicans repeatedly benefiting from it (although I'm not sure if you can call electing Trump a "benefit") and controlling most state houses, I don't see this happening any time soon. Although you never know, there may be a massive democratic push spurred on my Trump's idiocy . Would be nice to complain about a different party ruining American for one at the very least.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 23:51:56


Post by: Dreadwinter


 d-usa wrote:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/9/14217638/obama-trump-senate-letter-ethics



Yeah, seems pretty legit to me. I mean, why should they be expected to follow the same rules they ask of others? They are ruli..... majority party. They do what they want!


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/09 23:54:37


Post by: whembly


 Peregrine wrote:
 whembly wrote:
At it's basic function, the EC's job is really simple... to restrict the power of the majority populated state.


A task it fails miserably at. Most small states have very little power under the electoral college system because they have few electoral votes and one-sided party loyalty. Wyoming, for example, has zero power under the current system. Its few electoral votes are guaranteed to go to the republican candidate, whoever they happen to be, so nobody has any incentive to campaign there or make any promises to Wyoming's citizens. Same thing with Hawaii, but for the democrats. If you want small states to have a meaningful say in presidential elections then you want a direct national popular vote.

No... my belief that the direct national vote would silence the smaller states even more
.

It obviously forces prospective candidates and their political parties to consider all Americans in their rhetoric and action.


No it doesn't. It forces prospective candidates and their political parties to consider the issues that matter to a handful of voters in key states, while ignoring the rest. If I'm a candidate why should I consider what people in Wyoming or Hawaii care about? One is guaranteed to give its electoral votes to me no matter what I do, while the other is guaranteed to give its electoral votes to my opponent no matter what I do.

And a direct national vote will change that?

I think not...

Furthermore... there is no basis for saying that HRC was ultimately the more popular candidate because more people voted for her. That's not how the "game is played"... because the EC means non-swing states are taken for granted, their constituents are more likely to take the outcome for granted, and not bother to vote.


This doesn't really help your case. A higher turnout in California means even more of a majority for Clinton. The "secure" states for Clinton were the big states, while most of Trump's "secure" states were much smaller.

And? You're not really making counter-argument.

But, there's a lot to be said for the current EC system too.


Only if you continue to ignore the reasons why all of the arguments in favor of it don't actually work.

:sigh:

Just as you ignore the reasons why it works.

But, hey... make it your mission to change it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ustrello wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
No it was protecting against concentrations of power in the large states, by insuring the smaller states had at least some representation.


If that was all it was then there would be no need for an electoral college, the popular vote in each state could automatically decide how many electoral votes go to each candidate. The explicitly stated and very obvious purpose of having human electors meet and make a choice was to give the elites the power to overrule the wishes of the majority and prevent the election of someone popular but unqualified.

The unfortunate part here is the subjective nature of 'unqualified'.

Evidently, 62 million voters didn't see it that way...


And a recent poll showed that 54 percent of americans believe that the government is hiding the truth about 9/11. Just because they voted doesn't mean they are intelligent in anyway

AH... so we should listen to our Elites argument then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Spoiler:
 whembly wrote:
Because it's a balance. At it's basic function, the EC's job is really simple... to restrict the power of the majority populated state.

And it doesn't, we've been over this. What it does is give all the power to a number of "swing" states.

If you're a 'states representation' honk, you'll like the EC... if, 'states don't matter' crowd... you'll always hate the EC.

If you are a "states representation honk" than you would want the EC as it originally was, not the bastardized one now. So which is it?

Moreover, the EC system is done so that every part of the United States of America some kind of say over the next executive.
Which they have in whatever system we choose. And I did the math a while back (and have posted mutliple times) that popular vote does not allow large states to overpower big states. On the contraty, it gives candidates a reason to campaign in those small states that are ignored through most of the presidential race

It obviously forces prospective candidates and their political parties to consider all Americans in their rhetoric and action. True, most candidates focuses on swings states... but, swing states changes over time. As close as PA, WI and MI was, hopefully that's a clarion call for both parties to hit the 'get out to vote' strategy as those 3 ends up being the new FL/OH swing states.
I think we've seen, especially with the Trump campaign, but also with the Obama and Bush campaigns that it is not that way at all.

Furthermore... there is no basis for saying that HRC was ultimately the more popular candidate because more people voted for her. That's not how the "game is played"... because the EC means non-swing states are taken for granted, their constituents are more likely to take the outcome for granted, and not bother to vote.

And you have proved my point exactly. If this provides all states a voice, than why are they ignored. Simple answer, it doesn't


'Tis why I keep banging on that 'National vote is meaningless' drum... we don't know what the outcome would be.
Powerless, yes, meaningless, no. When it is as close as Bush V Gore (which was like 100k difference or something, basically non-existent) it's not a good indicator of anything other than a divide. When it is as large as Clinton's (to the point of being larger than some winner's margins), it does indicate that Trump does not have popular support. This doesn't mean he wouldn't have won in a popular vote (although if FPTP was abolished, something we can all agree is kind of gak, as well, he wouldn't have had a chance). I can say with some confidance that the majority of Americans don't want Trump to be president. It's just that many also didn't want Clinton, and a lot of Clinton voters were only brought out through

It's not, by any means, a perfect system... there's a lot to be said for dumping the EC in favor for national vote.

But, there's a lot to be said for the current EC system too.

Certainly it has some good ideas behind it. I don't deny that, merely disagree with it's implementation. And like any system it's flaws appear in time. There is a reason why the founders put in ways to change and improve it, believing (perhaps foolishly) that the people of America would work together for the common good rather than treating it like a holy object. It is currently broken. I, for one, am more in favor of abolishing it. However fixing it is still an option (just not one that anybody seems to have a good solution to).

As for CA... they can certainly lead the way for the rest of the states to apportion by popular vote. Nothing is stopping them from leading the charge.
The charge is already there. And CA is already part of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

But until they get near 358, it's has no real power. That's the point CA can't do gak until it get's the other states on board. And what with Republicans repeatedly benefiting from it (although I'm not sure if you can call electing Trump a "benefit") and controlling most state houses, I don't see this happening any time soon. Although you never know, there may be a massive democratic push spurred on my Trump's idiocy . Would be nice to complain about a different party ruining American for one at the very least.

:sigh: Can we stop doing this dance?

You don't like the EV... I get it.

It doesn't bother me one whit. So, there's that.

You're more than welcome to engage the political process to affect some change.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 00:02:05


Post by: Peregrine


 whembly wrote:
No... my belief that the direct national vote would silence the smaller states even more


That would be very difficult given the fact that they have zero power under the current system. How do you silence smaller states even more by allowing their voters to have a small, but non-zero effect on the outcome of the election?

And a direct national vote will change that?

I think not...


Of course it will change that! Currently a voter in Wyoming has zero power. There is no point in spending even the slightest bit of effort appealing to them because their state's electoral votes will go to whoever the republican candidate is. Under a national popular vote Wyoming still suffers from low population density and a higher cost to reach the same number of voters, but those voters are now in play for both sides. If I'm a democrat and I've already campaigned California to death and reached the point of diminishing returns it's now worth it to spend some effort on Wyoming, because even if I only get 15% of the state's votes that's still more votes added to my total. And it's still more than the 0% return I would get under the current system.

And? You're not really making counter-argument.


No, you're just not understanding it. The counter-argument is that the most likely difference between the current system and a hypothetical direct popular vote is that Clinton wins by a larger margin. So saying "the popular vote in 2016 doesn't count, it would have been different if the rules changed" is not a compelling response to the fact that more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.

Just as you ignore the reasons why it works.


I haven't ignored anything. In fact, I've just explained why the "reasons why it works" are incorrect. You, on the other hand, keep ignoring all the explanations of why the electoral college doesn't help small states and why a direct popular vote would give small states more power in favor of repeating "BUT SMALL STATES" over and over again.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 00:04:34


Post by: whembly


 Peregrine wrote:
Spoiler:
 whembly wrote:
No... my belief that the direct national vote would silence the smaller states even more


That would be very difficult given the fact that they have zero power under the current system. How do you silence smaller states even more by allowing their voters to have a small, but non-zero effect on the outcome of the election?

And a direct national vote will change that?

I think not...


Of course it will change that! Currently a voter in Wyoming has zero power. There is no point in spending even the slightest bit of effort appealing to them because their state's electoral votes will go to whoever the republican candidate is. Under a national popular vote Wyoming still suffers from low population density and a higher cost to reach the same number of voters, but those voters are now in play for both sides. If I'm a democrat and I've already campaigned California to death and reached the point of diminishing returns it's now worth it to spend some effort on Wyoming, because even if I only get 15% of the state's votes that's still more votes added to my total. And it's still more than the 0% return I would get under the current system.

And? You're not really making counter-argument.


No, you're just not understanding it. The counter-argument is that the most likely difference between the current system and a hypothetical direct popular vote is that Clinton wins by a larger margin. So saying "the popular vote in 2016 doesn't count, it would have been different if the rules changed" is not a compelling response to the fact that more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.

Just as you ignore the reasons why it works.


I haven't ignored anything. In fact, I've just explained why the "reasons why it works" are incorrect. You, on the other hand, keep ignoring all the explanations of why the electoral college doesn't help small states and why a direct popular vote would give small states more power in favor of repeating "BUT SMALL STATES" over and over again.

Since we're going 'round here, I'll repeat myself:

You don't like the EV... I get it.

It doesn't bother me one whit. So, there's that.

You're more than welcome to engage the political process to affect some change.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 00:05:58


Post by: Co'tor Shas


Read what I wrote Whem'.

I am not opposed to something similar to the EC (would rather popular, but I'll take what I can get). But the EC as it is now is broken. It doesn't make small states matter more, and I can get out the math again (that I have posted for you about five times now) showing that, because of how big states are politically, they don't overpower the smaller ones, and you still need them to win. Plus, you admitted yourself that the small states only have a voice if they are a swing state. It does not do the single good thing that you hold it up for. So why do you keep defending it? Push for it to be fixed, sure, but stop pretending like it isn't broken.

And engaging with the political process is exactly what I'm doing. I'm convincing people and trying to get people on my side.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 00:10:19


Post by: Peregrine


 whembly wrote:
Since we're going 'round here, I'll repeat myself:

You don't like the EV... I get it.

It doesn't bother me one whit. So, there's that.

You're more than welcome to engage the political process to affect some change.


IOW: "I have no response to the points you've made, but instead of conceding defeat on the issue I'm going to hide behind 'let's agree to disagree' until the next time this comes up." This is exactly why people get frustrated with you and your blatant "My Team is always right!" partisanship.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 00:14:46


Post by: whembly


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Read what I wrote Whem'.

I am not opposed to something similar to the EC (would rather popular, but I'll take what I can get). But the EC as it is now is broken. It doesn't make small states matter more, and I can get out the math again (that I have posted for you about five times now) showing that, because of how big states are politically, they don't overpower the smaller ones, and you still need them to win. Plus, you admitted yourself that the small states only have a voice if they are a swing state. It does not do the single good thing that you hold it up for. So why do you keep defending it? Push for it to be fixed, sure, but stop pretending like it isn't broken.

And engaging with the political process is exactly what I'm doing. I'm convincing people and trying to get people on my side.

It's not 'broken' in the sense that nothing's changed in prior Presidential elections.

Keep in mind that this was a perfect storm. If there were a 'not-Clinton' on the Democrat side, then that person would've likely prevailed over Trump.

If there were a a 'not-Trump' on the Republican side, then that person would've likely prevailed over Clinton (well... maybe not Carson ).

Yet, under these same rules, Trump won over Clinton, and "now" it's broken?

You "math" is still based on conjecture because you do NOT know how voters would behave under a direct national vote. Don't you see that?

Trump is a scumbag and a boorish blowhard. We'll survive Trump just like we did in past Presidencies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Since we're going 'round here, I'll repeat myself:

You don't like the EV... I get it.

It doesn't bother me one whit. So, there's that.

You're more than welcome to engage the political process to affect some change.


IOW: "I have no response to the points you've made, but instead of conceding defeat on the issue I'm going to hide behind 'let's agree to disagree' until the next time this comes up." This is exactly why people get frustrated with you and your blatant "My Team is always right!" partisanship.

We've had this argument... do you want me to go back to our posts and copy/paste it?

My frustration with you is in part that Democrats (and in particular Obama) can do no wrong and Republicans are literally Hitler.



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 00:28:54


Post by: motyak


Whembly, stop copy pasting responses that aren't relevant to the discussion you are having with a user. If you're going to ignore what users post and respond like you are, then just have a break. What you are doing at the moment is barely on topic it's so far removed from what they're saying.

That goes for everyone, make sure you are actually responding to the users you are talking to. To not do so is a) adding nothing to this (trainwreck of a) thread and b) is rude.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 00:29:51


Post by: Peregrine


 whembly wrote:
Keep in mind that this was a perfect storm.


No, it really isn't a perfect storm. Remember, Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 but won the electoral vote. That's twice in the past 20 years that the president got fewer votes than their opponent, so the idea that this is a "perfect storm" that we don't have to worry about in the future simply does not match reality.

You "math" is still based on conjecture because you do NOT know how voters would behaving under a direct national vote. Don't you see that?


We also aren't completely ignorant of how people will vote. We can make reasonable predictions about how they will vote, and talk about the most likely outcomes. The fact that we can't know these things with absolute 100% certainty doesn't mean that we should give up and assume that the outcome is completely random and unpredictable (or, in your case, whatever makes Your Team right).

Trump is a scumbag and a boorish blowhard. We'll survive Trump just like we did in past Presidencies.


That isn't the point. Even if we survive Trump (for definitions of "we" that emphasize being white, straight, male, and wealthy) the electoral college is still a broken system. Trump just demonstrates that the system isn't even pretending to acknowledge the original intent of stopping a popular and charismatic but obviously unqualified candidate from becoming president. If the electoral college isn't going to overrule the voters and reject Trump then it is never going to overrule the voters and it is a redundant relic of a very different era.

My frustration with you is in part that Democrats (and in particular Obama) can do no wrong and Republicans are literally Hitler.


Ah, so now we've reached the "blatant lying" part of the conversation. I have criticized Obama and the democrats, so please stop making stuff up.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 00:30:42


Post by: Frazzled


 motyak wrote:
Whembly, stop copy pasting responses that aren't relevant to the discussion you are having with a user. If you're going to ignore what users post and respond like you are, then just have a break. What you are doing at the moment is barely on topic it's so far removed from what they're saying.

That goes for everyone, make sure you are actually responding to the users you are talking to. To not do so is a) adding nothing to this (trainwreck of a) thread and b) is rude.
Will do..


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 01:12:46


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 whembly wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Read what I wrote Whem'.

I am not opposed to something similar to the EC (would rather popular, but I'll take what I can get). But the EC as it is now is broken. It doesn't make small states matter more, and I can get out the math again (that I have posted for you about five times now) showing that, because of how big states are politically, they don't overpower the smaller ones, and you still need them to win. Plus, you admitted yourself that the small states only have a voice if they are a swing state. It does not do the single good thing that you hold it up for. So why do you keep defending it? Push for it to be fixed, sure, but stop pretending like it isn't broken.

And engaging with the political process is exactly what I'm doing. I'm convincing people and trying to get people on my side.

It's not 'broken' in the sense that nothing's changed in prior Presidential elections.

Keep in mind that this was a perfect storm. If there were a 'not-Clinton' on the Democrat side, then that person would've likely prevailed over Trump.

If there were a a 'not-Trump' on the Republican side, then that person would've likely prevailed over Clinton (well... maybe not Carson ).

Yet, under these same rules, Trump won over Clinton, and "now" it's broken?

You "math" is still based on conjecture because you do NOT know how voters would behave under a direct national vote. Don't you see that?

Trump is a scumbag and a boorish blowhard. We'll survive Trump just like we did in past Presidencies.

It's always been broken, just not completely. I've said it repeatedly, no matter who wins, no matter who gets an advantage it's broken and I will fight against it. If it was that case that no Democrat would ever be elected again if we went to the popular vote, I'd still push for it. You know why? Because it's not "my side" winning that matters. I don't even have a side. It's representation that matters.

And my math does matter, because it still works when you look at non-national elections or simple partisan split. The difference in party enrollment in solid blue NY is 25 points. And NY is only really "blue" in national elections, our senate has been republican controlled for years, and there are a lot of republican up-state (who largely don't vote because it's pointless). And there is also that point, which you have yet to address, that the EC does not, in fact, give small states more voice, but only swing states. It doesn't take power away from the big states and give it to the small states, it takes power away from everybody and gives it to swing states. And it disenfranchises all those who don't live in states (such as the DoC, Peurto Rico, ect). If you want to prioritize states over people, sure but the EC doesn't even do that.

And I'm not so worried about Trump, he is constrained by our system and his own incompetence (although I sure as hell will be pushing my representatives to quell his BS). I'll be pushing this every year, and every time it gets brought up, no matter who wins. This year has just exacerbated it because of how extreme an example it is.




Also:

My frustration with you is in part that Democrats (and in particular Obama) can do no wrong and Republicans are literally Hitler.


Although this is not directed at me, I have a point to make. In some ways the Republican party is "literally Hitler" (although not literally Hitler). Can you not see the things they have done and have stood for that make people blanch at supporting them. The endless stream of profits over people economics, the pushing of religion into private life, the extremist and dog-whistle politics. The choosing of fething Donald Trump as their candidate. The opposing of civil rights, such as those for the LGBTQ+ community. The pushes against science and the environment. The prioritization of tax cuts for the wealthiest among, who have no need for them, while slashing safety net programs that help those left behind in our society, and at the same time proclaiming to be the party of morals.

This is not to say they do not have some good things, promotion of free enterprise, fiscal conservatism (and I mean actual fiscal conservatism, not "double the military budget and buy tanks they neither want not need, but slash everything else"), and promotion of freedom from government interference in your person lives. Unfortunately, these things can barley be seen at all in the modern Republican party. I support the Democratic party, not because I agree with them or think the are perfect, but because I have nowhere else to go. The Republican party is a shadow of what it could be, and appears to be directly against the ideals I hold dear, equality for all, taking care of those without the ability to do so, and leaving the country better for all people, not just ourselves.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 01:32:01


Post by: sebster


Rosebuddy wrote:
I brought up the ME not because I think the US will invade Russia but as an example of the US acting without concern for the consequences and events therefore spiralling out of control and causing terrible misery. The sanctions against Iraq were awful and I very much doubt that they can be wielded with pin-point accuracy so that a collapsing economy has no real effect upon the Russian people.


The sanction regime against Iraq was extreme and onerous, but also nothing at all like the sanction regime in place against Russia. Arguing that one sanction regime was harsh therefore all sanctions regimes are harsh is nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Magister wrote:
People are the economy though - they pay for services, get paid for service and ultimately get taxed on what they earn. Collapsing an economy can do nothing but affect the normal person surely?


The point is that the only person talking about collapsing the economy. That's just something Rosebud has made up, because his imagination is impressive but his reading comprehension lets him down quite a lot.

The sanctions in place in Russia aren't collapsing their economy. Russia isn't going to fall over tomorrow. The sanctions are targeted at the oligarchs and their companies, through the simple measure of actually saying 'this person and this company can't move money around here, or sell products here, nor will we sell capital equipment to them'. When Rosneft can't access its offshore holding then Rosneft feels the pinch, the granny in her Moscow flat isn't affected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Frazzled wrote:
I have a better idea. Trade with people we can trade beneficially with, don't with the ones we can't, and be a good civic partner with the other nations of the world via the UN.


So when Russia invades Crimea, sends troops in to the Ukraine, and bombs civilians in Syria... your answer is to keep on trading with them? fething wow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
Keep it going... it's attutides like this that's the downfall of your team D.


You keep talking about downfall and I keep explaining to you the cyclical nature of US politics. Remember the 'downfall' of Republican politics in 2008?

Instead, once we recognise that on the whole each party gets a turn with the presidency every 8 years, lets talk about how that's worked for the Demcocrats and Republicans. Democrats have used their last two turns to elect Bill Clinon and Barack Obama. Republicans have used their last two turns to elect GW Bush and now Donald Trump.

Perhaps you and your Republican party should spend less time worrying about winning, and more time making sure you that when you do win you elect a president who isn't a buffoon?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote:
I think it might be in part due to the massive post-WW2 economic boom. *shrug*


That is likely a cause of the particularly high living standards that allowed working class people in the US to have middle class lives, but it is not an explanation for the rise of the middle class at large, a process that began before WWI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
Gerrymandering is this convenient scapegoat and the truth is more complicated than that. The biggest issue that i think everyone can agree on are redistricting activities that helps the current incumbent.... which is not solely a Republican thing.


Both sides gerrymander, but it takes an act of wilful delusion to pretend that gerrymandering isn't favouring the Republican party much more than Democrats.

In three years, if the 'D team' doesn't start winning back some local elections, then they'll be in a world of hurt. This is a call to moderate and get their gak together.


Giggle.

Furthermore, we've had 51 "popular vote" across the country. These are the rules for which the President is elected. These are the same rules that got Obama elected... Bill Clinton elected. These sames rules for which Clinton LOST.

So, blaming her lost because the game is rigged or that 'gerrymanding' somehow is a major factor is ignoring the reasons why she lost.


It isn't about 'blaming' anything, but properly assessing the state of play.

The Republican party has a lot of power right now, but it isn't build on dominant electoral performances. This isn't 1984 Reagan we're talking about here, this is a party with at best half of the vote, who managed to squeak ahead in just enough elections.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
But, there's a lot to be said for the current EC system too.


There's a lot to be said for a federalist system that gives additional weighting to smaller states to ensure they have a say in the presidency.

The reality is that you don't have that system. You have a system that tried to do that, and failed. It failed because in allowing states to decide the allocation of EC votes themselves, they each move to winner takes all, which means any state that can't swing in a close election becomes irrelevant to the presidential process.

There are fixes that can be done. They are simple in concept, but difficult in practice, mostly because too many people fail to understand the EC, or put their head in the sand because they don't understand the difference between cheering for a team and talking about the rules.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 05:21:33


Post by: Co'tor Shas


Refocusing for a second I saw an analysis on the reddit political discussion page (no, I don't do anything else with my life ) of gubernatorial races coming up in the next four years, and would love to hear your guy's takes on the states you are in.
CrabAche • 1d
OK! Here's a personal ranking from most likely to be Democrat to a Republican:

DC - lol

Hawaii - yeah, Ige is popular (despite not doing anything) and the Hawaii GOP have flat out collapsed.

Oregon - Brown seems to have settled herself in, despite her ... Unorthodox mode of entry. Oregon GOP completely fluffed the last few years.

California - OK this may drop if something really bizarre goes on the weirdo primary they have, in which case Falconer may take it. Otherwise... Prably that slimey weirdo Newsom will win, although maybe Chiang will make the run-off.

Edit: New York: forgot about this. Cuomo set to run again, and seems to be protecting himsrlg from a primary challenge by AG Scheiderman given his underwhelming performance in 2014. Watch out for Preet Bharara who wants to add Cuomo to his trophy collection.

New Jersey - if the Dems don't take this back, they should honestly disband. It is funny how the frontrunner is literally a Goldman Sachs guy. Can you say Corzine 2.0?

Maine - probably due to swing back to Dems by now, unless Collins for some reason enters. This is a weird state, and I don't know who wants to deal with LePage's detritus.

Virginia - both Dem candidates are easily favoured in the environment, although I don't know which is best suited for Virginia nowadays. I prefer Tom.

Nevada - Harry reid's machine wants this seat back, and now that Heller has cold feet; I'm pretty sure this will be a pick-up.

New Mexico - popular Albuquerque Mayor Berry would be a good recruit for Republicans, but partisan gravity keeps this strongly Dem leaning after Martinez bows out.

Colorado - hickenlooper's term is up. Colorado has really drastically changed in the past few years - notably even Mark Udall doing a disastrously inept senate race against GOP superstar Gardner in 2014 (!) was only narrowly defeated. And Salazar is a very good probable candidate, although there may be more progressive battles (mainly around fracking).

Minnesota - swung pretty bad this year, but Dayton is popular and the MN GOP infamously incompetent. DFL needs to recruit in rural areas though - they had a right scare in the HoR, and really need to get back the legislature.

Rhode Island - Raimondo is not well liked and could face a challenge from her left by Pell (son of the guy who made Pell Grants) or from the right. Potential sleeper pick-up for GOP.

Alaska - cryptoDem Walker is reasonably popular because he is against the Alaska establishment (this state has notoriously bizarre politics). Could be ousted due to oil price hijinks though.

New Hampshire - Sununu is rather untested, so this could go all sorts of ways; but New Hampshire often makes very dramatic swings against incumbent governments.

Pennsylvania - wolf has mediocre approval races, but isn't doomed or anything. Pennsylvania likes incumbents, until they ditched Corbett in 2014.

Michigan - a keep pick-up for Dems. I genuinely have no idea who will run for either party, but I expect in a true neutral year this would be a very close toss-up. If it starts to veer towards the Dems in 2018, they could be in for a good night.

Florida - the Florida Democratic Party is the worst swing state party in the country. No sugar coating it - it's up there with the Colorado GOP. I assume Graham will be the candidate, and she did win a tricky House race in 2014 - but so did Murphy lol. If Paul Ryan feths with SS and Medicare too much, this is where we'll know.

Illinois - some people seem to think Rauner is doomed. I'm sceptical, as the Democrats (I.e. Mike Madigan) don't have a great rep, but he is definitely an underdog. Kelly would be a recruit for Dems.

Connecticut - by far the GOPs best pick up chance. I assume Malloy will retire, and there will be a great pile-up. In a true neutral year, I think the GOP will narrowly take this away, although they came short in the great year for the GOP that was 2014, so whatever.

Iowa - will Bransted retire? I think so, and his Lt Gov who is very keen will probably run. She'd be a slight favourite - the democratic bench was, err, eviscerated by Bruce Braley and Hillary.

Wisconsin - this should be higher on this list. In a rational world, Scott Walker - very unpopular, incredibly inept and embarrassing on a national scale and saddled with lousy economic metrics - should lose. However he is favoured, because Wisconsin Dems are really spiralling out of control. Maybe if Tammy Baldwin makes a really good pitch of reelection, the Dem will be dragged along with her.

Kansas - brownback was a huge mistake, who was only dragged past the finishing line in 2014 because of the cash influx from the surprise competition of the Orman-Roberts race. If Dems make a decent case, this would be a good GOP area to penetrate

Ohio - if a kasichite wins the primary, this will be even better for the GOP. This state is harder and harder for Dems to crack, so this would be a good test to the extent that the rot has set in. This will be flush with cash from the Sherrod Brown race, and may take on an outsize role in the media analysis.

Arizona - Ducey is ... Not popular, but the winning coalition for Dems in this state is very hard to assemble, especially in midterms.

Georgia - eh, should be easier without the run-off.

Mass, Vermont, Maryland - lazily joining all these states together to say their GOP candidates are very much favoured, and it's quite likely the Dems will barely even try to put up a top challenger. If there are competitive races here, the two years from now must have gone very rough for the GOP.

Nebraska - supposedly Ricketts isn't too popular, but whatever. It's Nebraska.

South Dakota, Oklahoma, idaho, Wyoming - any of these states could be the "Maryland 2014" of 2018 I.e. Am open race nobody cared about until it was randomly won by somebody nobody had ever heard of. These are all commodity states, so may be dependent on that odd quirk of world markets.

South Carolina - Haley is now part of the trump cabinet, in a role she is in no way qualified for. I would put this higher, but it will have an "incumbent" (and a very Trumpian one at that). Shaheen kept this close in 2010, but SC is very much fools gold unless trump has really pissed off educated whites or vets.

Tennessee - the TN GOP is very moderate, the TN Dems nonexistent.

Alabama - open seat, scandal plagued GOP - but still, it's Alabama.

Arkansas - well liked incumbent, non-existent opposition

Texas - same with the last, except in a more expensive and impenetrable media market that doesn't take kindly to scrappy underdog campaigns.

In other words, in a great year (2006 wave) I'd expect them to pick up Maine, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico and Florida easily and then go on to take some of Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, Arizona, Kansas, Georgia and whatever wild cards exist out west.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 05:35:16


Post by: Ustrello


Speaking from an illinois standpoint, Rauner has abysmal standings and even the tribune does not paint him in a good light (at best neutral). I do not see him winning a re election as he shot himself in the foot when going hard against madigan and the establishment


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 10:16:56


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


I doubt if it's any comfort to you guys, but I'll highlight the fact that our voting system is almost as bad as yours.

At the last election, the SNP (my party) got 1 million votes and 56 seats in Parliament

UKIP got 4 million votes and only 1 Parliament seat

UKIP is a party I despise, but I'm a democrat at the end of the day, and this was a very raw deal for them, but because of our FPTP system, it's all legal.

So yeah, gakky political systems are not unique to the USA.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 11:36:39


Post by: reds8n


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/donald-trump-murdoch-ailes-nbc-816131?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

2015 interview




Hacking is a big problem. The Sony hack is the least of it. How about 30 million people are being hacked, everybody in government is being hacked, and we're worried about the St. Louis Cardinals hacking the Houston team? In the meantime, China and/or Russia or both and probably other countries are hacking 30 million people



Any actress you love?

Julia Roberts is terrific, and many others. Meryl Streep is excellent; she's a fine person, too. The problem is I'll name three or four or five and then the hundred that I know will be insulted, and I don't mean to insult them.




..how times change eh ?

next thing you know cabinet level appointments will be simply waved through, no "worries" if any of them were..say.. paid by NK

or doing business with Iran whilst the country was under US sanctions.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 12:56:30


Post by: kronk


 Ustrello wrote:
Speaking from an illinois standpoint, Rauner has abysmal standings and even the tribune does not paint him in a good light (at best neutral). I do not see him winning a re election as he shot himself in the foot when going hard against madigan and the establishment


The rolling non-budget is just wracking up debt that will never fething get paid.

My wife and I are considering a move 10 miles North to Wisconsin. I hate this broke ass state.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 13:21:59


Post by: Vash108


 kronk wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
Speaking from an illinois standpoint, Rauner has abysmal standings and even the tribune does not paint him in a good light (at best neutral). I do not see him winning a re election as he shot himself in the foot when going hard against madigan and the establishment


The rolling non-budget is just wracking up debt that will never fething get paid.

My wife and I are considering a move 10 miles North to Wisconsin. I hate this broke ass state.


Not the first person I have heard that from. We have had several people and their families locate down here to Atlanta from Chicago within the last few months.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 13:58:00


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 kronk wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
Speaking from an illinois standpoint, Rauner has abysmal standings and even the tribune does not paint him in a good light (at best neutral). I do not see him winning a re election as he shot himself in the foot when going hard against madigan and the establishment


The rolling non-budget is just wracking up debt that will never fething get paid.

My wife and I are considering a move 10 miles North to Wisconsin. I hate this broke ass state.


Keep driving north - a new country awaits, and the joy of having Queen Elizabeth as your head of state could be yours.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 14:21:59


Post by: lonestarr777


Ohio is a weird place. Kasich seems at times to try and play the moderate, vetoing the six week abortion ban, but he sometimes goes off into lalaland, championing charter schools which if I recall correctly are being investigated for corruption.

His run for the president was a little sad, it was like watching an adult sit at the kiddie table and try to have a reasonable conversation.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 14:39:49


Post by: BigWaaagh


lonestarr777 wrote:
Ohio is a weird place. Kasich seems at times to try and play the moderate, vetoing the six week abortion ban, but he sometimes goes off into lalaland, championing charter schools which if I recall correctly are being investigated for corruption.

His run for the president was a little sad, it was like watching an adult sit at the kiddie table and try to have a reasonable conversation.


Kasich was my boy! I voted for him in the primary and he would have had my POTUS vote if he could have gotten his message out through all the Trump-eting...having a GOP base that seems more easily distracted by shiny things than a Chihuahua didn't help either. He was the only candidate with the gravitas and experience to be POTUS in that motley group of fools, IMHO. Now, just feth!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 kronk wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
Speaking from an illinois standpoint, Rauner has abysmal standings and even the tribune does not paint him in a good light (at best neutral). I do not see him winning a re election as he shot himself in the foot when going hard against madigan and the establishment


The rolling non-budget is just wracking up debt that will never fething get paid.

My wife and I are considering a move 10 miles North to Wisconsin. I hate this broke ass state.


Keep driving north - a new country awaits, and the joy of having Queen Elizabeth as your head of state could be yours.



Lived there, done that! Loved it! Hated the taxes!



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 15:07:44


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 Co'tor Shas wrote:


This is not to say they do not have some good things, promotion of free enterprise, fiscal conservatism (and I mean actual fiscal conservatism, not "double the military budget and buy tanks they neither want not need, but slash everything else"), and promotion of freedom from government interference in your person lives. Unfortunately, these things can barley be seen at all in the modern Republican party. I support the Democratic party, not because I agree with them or think the are perfect, but because I have nowhere else to go. The Republican party is a shadow of what it could be, and appears to be directly against the ideals I hold dear, equality for all, taking care of those without the ability to do so, and leaving the country better for all people, not just ourselves.


I honestly do not think that the Republican Party itself is actually the fiscal conservative party. As you point out, they have had a tendency, both in recent modern times, and further back in their history as well, been the party of over-spending, slashing good programs for idiotic reasons, and blaming the "other" for the problems created by the cuts.


But then again, we're talking about a party that loves to send troops off to "war," but balks at the price tags we come back with.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 15:39:20


Post by: Tannhauser42


Looks like Cory Booker has his eyes on 2020, trying to make his name known now (testifying against Sessions).

Years of constant attention whoring worked for Ted Cruz, we'll see if works for Booker.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 15:58:32


Post by: Rosebuddy


 sebster wrote:

The sanction regime against Iraq was extreme and onerous, but also nothing at all like the sanction regime in place against Russia. Arguing that one sanction regime was harsh therefore all sanctions regimes are harsh is nonsense.


You brought the sanctions against Iraq up as an example of sanctions being able to "grind" a country:

 sebster wrote:

Hitting a country with sanctions doesn't tear it apart. With sanctions that are long enough and hard enough you can grind it, ie Iraq over the 90s. And even that's optional, as the right sanctions can even control who gets impacted - for instance hitting Russia with oil and NG sanctions can hurt the oligarchs, while causing little harm to the poor who are very far removed from the flow of petrodollars.


and I point out that they had a terrible impact on the Iraqi people, using these sanctions as a general example of what can happen when you try to shut down a country's economy and block imports of goods and medicine.

 sebster wrote:
The point is that the only person talking about collapsing the economy. That's just something Rosebud has made up, because his imagination is impressive but his reading comprehension lets him down quite a lot.


You were the first person to say that the sanctions have crashed the economy.


 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote:
Perhaps. But we must ask ourselves the question: what is one nuclear power meant to do about another nuclear power?


Continue and expand the economic sanctions already in place, which have already crashed the Russian economy. Holy fething gak how is that even a question.



Continuing and expanding sanctions that you say have "already crashed" the economy would reasonably be expected to collapse it.



A country's economy being brought not just to crash but past the point of crashing would, again reasonably, be expected to have mainly an impact on the general population. The powerful can much more easily insulate themselves.


That you don't care to extrapolate the courses of action you suggest and consider what consequences they may have is on you and does not mean that I am a feeble-minded dolt with a feverish imagination.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 19:22:38


Post by: Breotan


So, Sen Session is going through his confirmation hearing today. As usual MTV staff, being part of the popular culture, are keeping it classy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/10/ira-madison-iii-mtv-writer-deletes-racially-charge/

“Sessions, sir, kindly return this Asian baby to the Toys 'R' Us you stole her from,” Mr. Madison quipped. “Why is she a prop? Sessions argued for policy that in the 1880s was used to discriminate against Asian Americans,” he wrote in a followup tweet.

As Business Insider reported Tuesday, “The child is Sessions’ biological granddaughter. His family had accompanied him to his confirmation hearing.”

After deleting his tweet, Mr. Madison defended himself by tweeting, “I often tell jokes, but seeing as bringing up Sessions’ history of racial hatred of Asians is seen as an attack on his grandchild, I deleted[.]”


And liberals honestly cannot understand why Trump was elected.



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 19:32:52


Post by: Spinner


 Breotan wrote:
So, Sen Session is going through his confirmation hearing today. As usual MTV staff, being part of the popular culture, are keeping it classy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/10/ira-madison-iii-mtv-writer-deletes-racially-charge/

“Sessions, sir, kindly return this Asian baby to the Toys 'R' Us you stole her from,” Mr. Madison quipped. “Why is she a prop? Sessions argued for policy that in the 1880s was used to discriminate against Asian Americans,” he wrote in a followup tweet.

As Business Insider reported Tuesday, “The child is Sessions’ biological granddaughter. His family had accompanied him to his confirmation hearing.”

After deleting his tweet, Mr. Madison defended himself by tweeting, “I often tell jokes, but seeing as bringing up Sessions’ history of racial hatred of Asians is seen as an attack on his grandchild, I deleted[.]”


And liberals honestly cannot understand why Trump was elected.



No, I think we understand just fine, and it wasn't because someone made a really stupid joke and then deleted it when he realized just how stupid it was.

Is this going to be the new 'thanks, Obama!'? Can we skip right to the part where we use it sarcastically? I'll start!

I can't believe liberals can't understand this is how Trump got elected.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 19:34:18


Post by: feeder


 Breotan wrote:


And liberals honestly cannot understand why Trump was elected.



Z-list hacks making bad jokes about racism excuses 60+million americans for voting for a hopelessly unqualified, pathological liar who throws public temper tantrums near daily?

If Trump was truly elected on the back of butthurt repubs lashing out against the Hollywood elite, then y'all are fethed and may as well develop SkyNet to take over toot sweet.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 19:44:53


Post by: Breotan


 Spinner wrote:
 Breotan wrote:
And liberals honestly cannot understand why Trump was elected.

No, I think we understand just fine...

Okay. Let's put that to the test.

 Spinner wrote:
Is this going to be the new 'thanks, Obama!'? Can we skip right to the part where we use it sarcastically? I'll start!

I can't believe liberals can't understand this is how Trump got elected.
 feeder wrote:
Z-list hacks making bad jokes about racism excuses 60+million americans for voting for a hopelessly unqualified, pathological liar who throws public temper tantrums near daily?

If Trump was truly elected on the back of butthurt repubs lashing out against the Hollywood elite, then y'all are fethed and may as well develop SkyNet to take over toot sweet.

You two really can't see how you're making my point, can you?



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 19:46:07


Post by: Vaktathi


Again, it should be pointed out, Trump didnt win the general election because of some rising up of pissed off "we've had it" republicans, Hillary lost because the group that normally votes D stayed home while the R's showed up in similar numbers to past elections. It was Hillary Clinton's loss, not Trump's victory.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 19:57:37


Post by: CptJake


 Vaktathi wrote:
Again, it should be pointed out, Trump didnt win the general election because of some rising up of pissed off "we've had it" republicans, Hillary lost because the group that normally votes D stayed home while the R's showed up in similar numbers to past elections. It was Hillary Clinton's loss, not Trump's victory.




I don't know, Clinton did not lose too many compared to Obama...
And Trump did quite a bit better than Romney.

Unless you think the 71k Clinton votes less than Obama 'trumps' the 2 million more Trump got in importance....

Clearly, Trump did better in the states where it counted...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/12/29/2016-vs-2012-how-trumps-win-and-clintons-votes-stack-up-to-obama-and-romney/#3b62a7ae7033

http://www.politico.com/blogs/twelve-thirty-seven/2016/04/donald-trump-popular-vote-record-222510


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 20:12:47


Post by: Co'tor Shas


Only looking at 2012 isn't really a great example. I mean, Obama did 69.5 in 2008, Bush in 2004 did 62, . And that's not actually looking at voter participation (which 2016 was lower than 2008 and 2004, but higher than 2012). These were not exactly untapped voters or anything new. The thing is our voter pool and voter participation have been on a continuous upward trend since 1980 or something. The idea of a new wave of people fed up with people being called racist is not a veiw that looks at the whole picture (plus, the idea of people who aren't racist going "I'm tired of being called racist, let's go vote for a genuine racist!" is a little silly). Trump did bring voters to the republican party (as well as drive some away), but that was because of his grandiose economic theoretic, not anything to do with "liberals calling people racists".


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 20:12:51


Post by: Tannhauser42


 Breotan wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
 Breotan wrote:
And liberals honestly cannot understand why Trump was elected.

No, I think we understand just fine...

Okay. Let's put that to the test.

 Spinner wrote:
Is this going to be the new 'thanks, Obama!'? Can we skip right to the part where we use it sarcastically? I'll start!

I can't believe liberals can't understand this is how Trump got elected.
 feeder wrote:
Z-list hacks making bad jokes about racism excuses 60+million americans for voting for a hopelessly unqualified, pathological liar who throws public temper tantrums near daily?

If Trump was truly elected on the back of butthurt repubs lashing out against the Hollywood elite, then y'all are fethed and may as well develop SkyNet to take over toot sweet.

You two really can't see how you're making my point, can you?



As I keep pointing out, and everybody keeps willfully ignoring, liberals/democrats/Clinton are not the ones responsible for the Republican party nominating Trump in the first place. Stop passing the blame.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 20:13:06


Post by: Ustrello


Its amazing what 20 years of anti hillary propaganda will do


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 20:25:56


Post by: Spinner


 Breotan wrote:
 Spinner wrote:
 Breotan wrote:
And liberals honestly cannot understand why Trump was elected.

No, I think we understand just fine...

Okay. Let's put that to the test.

 Spinner wrote:
Is this going to be the new 'thanks, Obama!'? Can we skip right to the part where we use it sarcastically? I'll start!

I can't believe liberals can't understand this is how Trump got elected.
 feeder wrote:
Z-list hacks making bad jokes about racism excuses 60+million americans for voting for a hopelessly unqualified, pathological liar who throws public temper tantrums near daily?

If Trump was truly elected on the back of butthurt repubs lashing out against the Hollywood elite, then y'all are fethed and may as well develop SkyNet to take over toot sweet.

You two really can't see how you're making my point, can you?



Absolutely not!

You really can't see how the GOP fostered the destructive attitudes and practices that culminated (please, PLEASE let it be culminated) in Trump, can you?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 20:29:17


Post by: Kilkrazy


60 million people elected Trump to stop liberals from making comments like those.

Useless. Already failed. Very sad.

There are bigger issues facing America.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 20:29:40


Post by: LordofHats


I believe the word would be "beget."

Culminated implies a certain sort of "conclusion" to something, and I don't think Trump is done yet


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 20:33:38


Post by: CptJake


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Only looking at 2012 isn't really a great example. I mean, Obama did 69.5 in 2008, Bush in 2004 did 62, . And that's not actually looking at voter participation (which 2016 was lower than 2008 and 2004, but higher than 2012). These were not exactly untapped voters or anything new. The thing is our voter pool and voter participation have been on a continuous upward trend since 1980 or something. The idea of a new wave of people fed up with people being called racist is not a veiw that looks at the whole picture (plus, the idea of people who aren't racist going "I'm tired of being called racist, let's go vote for a genuine racist!" is a little silly). Trump did bring voters to the republican party (as well as drive some away), but that was because of his grandiose economic theoretic, not anything to do with "liberals calling people racists".


And yet making the claim Clinton did not pull in the voters' is demonstrably false when compared to the last election. Just because YOU don't like 2012 does not make it a bad comparison. Clinton got damned near the same number Obama did, that is fact. Trump out-performed Obama's opponent. Again, fact. Trump turned 'blue states' that had not voted red since Reagan. Fact.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
60 million people elected Trump to stop liberals from making comments like those.

Useless. Already failed. Very sad.

There are bigger issues facing America.


Said more accurately 60+ million people voted for Trump, many in 'blue states' turned red, in part because Obama and Clinton consider them 'bitter clingers' and 'deplorable' and their lives did not get demonstrably better under 8 years of D rule.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 20:49:09


Post by: LordofHats


 CptJake wrote:


And yet making the claim Clinton did not pull in the voters' is demonstrably false when compared to the last election. Just because YOU don't like 2012 does not make it a bad comparison. Clinton got damned near the same number Obama did, that is fact. Trump out-performed Obama's opponent. Again, fact. Trump turned 'blue states' that had not voted red since Reagan. Fact.


These things are true and fair. At the end of the game Clinton only really managed to gain ground in one demographic, and she lost or simply held ground in the others. That however doesn't really change that the point he was making was about long term election results, in which Trump was still an under performer (Clinton was as well, but gaining ground on Romney is good for the immediate future of the Republicans but not necessarily inspiring given the final result).

Said more accurately 60+ million people voted for Trump, many in 'blue states' turned red, in part because Obama and Clinton consider them 'bitter clingers' and 'deplorable' and their lives did not get demonstrably better under 8 years of D rule.


Not verifiably true but something many on the right simply keeps insisting is.

Trump turned the states, but suggesting people in blue states turned red is not supported by current data. Obama is walking out of office with a 53% approval rating (higher than Bush Jr. lower than Bill Clinton). I don't think there's any evidence that people turned away from the Democratic party because 8 years of their "rule"* went badly. And seriously. Calling 8 years of near constant Republican obstruction and outright refusal to do anything but oppose unless they got everything they wanted rubber stamped "d rule" is hilarious.

Personally though my favorite part of all of this is the continued insistence that "people are tired of being called racists/clingers/deplorables" so they voted for Trump. That the irony of this is completely lost on the people who insist it never gets old.



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 20:57:46


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 CptJake wrote:

And yet making the claim Clinton did not pull in the voters' is demonstrably false when compared to the last election. Just because YOU don't like 2012 does not make it a bad comparison.


Well, it does, as we are dealing with a much different year politically in 2012, and, as I pointed out, voter turnout was far lower all round. For reference, Trump got 46% of the vote, whereas Romney got 47.2%. Not only that, I didnt ay it can't be an example, I said using just 2012 was not representative, and showed why by showing the preceding times.



Clinton got damned near the same number Obama did, that is fact. Trump out-performed Obama's opponent. Again, fact. Trump turned 'blue states' that had not voted red since Reagan. Fact.


Actually, no it isn't. Because of several things

A. She had turn out but not for her, but anti-Trump. If she was actually a good candidate/campaigner (such as Obama) that plus the anti-Trump push would have allowed her to win easily.

B. She got 48%, whereas Obama got 51.1 in 2012, and 52.9 in 2008

C. The places where she actually got mass turnout (NY, CA, ect) were effectively useless (as they were going to her anyway.




And even if what you push is true, it still doesn't show some sort of "liberals caused this with racism accusals" thing. The top issue for American voters was the economy, not some sort of precived slight again conservatives. The number two was terrorism, and the number three was foreign policy.

So, no, the "that's why Trump won" meme is BS and will always be BS. It's just trying to blame Trump on "liberals".


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 21:02:24


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


I got so sick of those fogies calling me a pyromaniac that I burnt down the old folks' home. And now the police are throwing around fancy insults like "arsonist"? They just don't learn, do they...


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 21:08:10


Post by: Prestor Jon


 Ustrello wrote:
Its amazing what 20 years of anti hillary propaganda will do


Republican propaganda convinced Obama voters and Democrats in "blue" states, people who should have been Hillary's ardent supporters, to stay home? I doubt that. Republican propaganda probably got more Republicans to turn out and overlook Trump's flaws. If democrats are paying attention to Republican narratives and being swayed by them then the DNC and the party are running a real pathetic operation. On Election Day when it counted Hillary wasn't a candidate that could motivate Democrats to turn out and that's entirely a Hillary Clinton problem.

The Republican propaganda machine that couldn't make any inroads against Obama in 2012 didn't have the juice to take out Hillary Clinton. The Sanders campaign did more to make Hillary look bad, old, tired, out of touch and corrupt just by existing as an ongoing contrast than anything the Republicans did. People protest voting Sanders into primary victories even though Hillary's nomination was inevitable killed momentum for Hillary and put her campaign on the defensive to the point that they essentially hid Hilllary from the public down the stretch while Trump was whopping up crowds on a stadium tour while crushing Republican opposition.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 21:09:31


Post by: Compel


I'm thinking of any voters that probably voted for the first time, because they liked Trump on The Apprentice. I imagine that's a higher amount that people give credit for.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 21:17:54


Post by: LordofHats


Prestor Jon wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
Its amazing what 20 years of anti hillary propaganda will do


Republican propaganda convinced Obama voters and Democrats in "blue" states, people who should have been Hillary's ardent supporters, to stay home? I doubt that. Republican propaganda probably got more Republicans to turn out and overlook Trump's flaws. If democrats are paying attention to Republican narratives and being swayed by them then the DNC and the party are running a real pathetic operation. On Election Day when it counted Hillary wasn't a candidate that could motivate Democrats to turn out and that's entirely a Hillary Clinton problem.

The Republican propaganda machine that couldn't make any inroads against Obama in 2012 didn't have the juice to take out Hillary Clinton. The Sanders campaign did more to make Hillary look bad, old, tired, out of touch and corrupt just by existing as an ongoing contrast than anything the Republicans did. People protest voting Sanders into primary victories even though Hillary's nomination was inevitable killed momentum for Hillary and put her campaign on the defensive to the point that they essentially hid Hilllary from the public down the stretch while Trump was whopping up crowds on a stadium tour while crushing Republican opposition.


One of the things making me most disappointed about the 2016 race is how it showed everyone in their worst light. On the one hand I have Trump, easily the worst possible contender for president to run in decades crushing people I don't particularly like but at least don't shove foot into mouth near daily. If I'm going to have a candidate with no grasp on reality, I'd have rather had Rubio. At least he's a decent guy all around from what I hear. On the other hand I have a political party that somehow blames itself for Republican obstruction, would rather have "Blue Trump" as a candidate than anyone else, and was so cynical with itself that it produced pathetic turn out numbers.

And to add icing to the gak cake, I now get to be bombarded with conservatives indulging a misbegotten victory lap, liberals acting like stereotyped loons, and a mountain of assorted nonsense about how who "won" when all around all I see is everyone losing and being too self righteous or too dense to notice.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 21:19:31


Post by: Co'tor Shas


Prestor Jon wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
Its amazing what 20 years of anti hillary propaganda will do


Republican propaganda convinced Obama voters and Democrats in "blue" states, people who should have been Hillary's ardent supporters, to stay home? I doubt that. Republican propaganda probably got more Republicans to turn out and overlook Trump's flaws. If democrats are paying attention to Republican narratives and being swayed by them then the DNC and the party are running a real pathetic operation. On Election Day when it counted Hillary wasn't a candidate that could motivate Democrats to turn out and that's entirely a Hillary Clinton problem.

The Republican propaganda machine that couldn't make any inroads against Obama in 2012 didn't have the juice to take out Hillary Clinton. The Sanders campaign did more to make Hillary look bad, old, tired, out of touch and corrupt just by existing as an ongoing contrast than anything the Republicans did. People protest voting Sanders into primary victories even though Hillary's nomination was inevitable killed momentum for Hillary and put her campaign on the defensive to the point that they essentially hid Hilllary from the public down the stretch while Trump was whopping up crowds on a stadium tour while crushing Republican opposition.

Well...
A. HRC is unlikable, where Obama is likable and charismatic

B. HRC has been a public figure for years, where as Obama was a relative newcomer.

C. They have been working on her since President Clinton was elected.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 21:36:45


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
As I keep pointing out, and everybody keeps willfully ignoring, liberals/democrats/Clinton are not the ones responsible for the Republican party nominating Trump in the first place. Stop passing the blame.


They are to blame for picking a candidate that lost to him, though, particularly since they were so happy he got nominated.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/10 21:42:51


Post by: Co'tor Shas


I don't thin anyone was actually happy for him to be nominated (I mean, besides Trump supporters). I was rooting for Kasich, and before that Pataki, myself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In other news, Trump has put an anti-vaxxer at the head of his vaccine panel. "They're both equally bad."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-transition.html

Anti-vaxxer to head Trump vaccine panel?

Mr. Trump on Tuesday asked a prominent anti-vaccine crusader to lead a new government commission on vaccine safety and scientific integrity, ushering debunked conspiracy theories about the dangers of immunization into the White House.

Mr. Trump, who has embraced discredited links between vaccines and autism, has asked Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a nephew of President John F. Kennedy, to be chairman of the commission, Mr. Kennedy said after meeting with the president-elect at Trump Tower.

Mr. Kennedy’s appointment spread alarm through the medical community, which for years has rejected claims that childhood vaccines are linked to conditions like autism. Medical experts warned Tuesday that Mr. Trump’s actions would endanger children by confusing parents about the need to have them vaccinated.

“It gives it a quasi-legitimacy that I frankly find frightening,” said William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University. He said Mr. Trump and Mr. Kennedy were being fooled by “long-discredited” theories about vaccines.

“This is going to be a sad struggle as we try to protect as many children as possible,” Mr. Schaffner said.

Among his many political pursuits, Mr. Trump picked up the anti-vaccine cause a few years back. In 2012, he tweeted:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/214733405894606850?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

And:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/185734595864563712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw


These views, to say the least, are not the scientific consensus, any more than scientists believe that climate change is a Chinese plot — another theory once espoused by the president-elect.

https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/818900058443829249?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 01:41:03


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


Since Trump is soon to be elected, I want to remind my fellow Dakka that happens to be US residents of something:
The U.S. has had a long policy of what was called the “Brain Drain”, where they got the educated people from other parts of the world to go work in the US. Also, as member of Dakka, I am certain that you are brains. If not in the sense of having higher education, at least in the sense of being positive creative forces, right? Therefore, if you were to, say, left the US for Europe, it wouldn't be fleeing as much as it would be paying back the rest of the world. Think about it this way!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
These views, to say the least, are not the scientific consensus, any more than scientists believe that climate change is a Chinese plot — another theory once espoused by the president-elect.

Such understatement! Truly nytimes.com must be great masters of euphemism!

Follow moderator instructions in your posting, thanks


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 02:31:39


Post by: ZergSmasher


 Compel wrote:
I'm thinking of any voters that probably voted for the first time, because they liked Trump on The Apprentice. I imagine that's a higher amount that people give credit for.

Probably not as many people who turned out for Obama in 2008 and voted for him just because of the color of his skin.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 03:22:19


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 ZergSmasher wrote:
 Compel wrote:
I'm thinking of any voters that probably voted for the first time, because they liked Trump on The Apprentice. I imagine that's a higher amount that people give credit for.

Probably not as many people who turned out for Obama in 2008 and voted for him just because of the color of his skin.
Which was counterbalanced by the people who voted against him for the same reason.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 03:26:27


Post by: sirlynchmob


So apparently Trump has a sex tape that the Russians hold to ensure his good behavior towards them. Apparently trump likes the golden showers. So if Clinton is impeached because of his infidelity, than surely it should be the easiest thing ever to impeach trump and throw him out once the tape comes out right? my guess is we'll see the GOP accept, normalize and praise trump and sell out their own morals and convictions and pretend the tape doesn't exist even after everyone's seen it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html

Spoiler:
WASHINGTON — The chiefs of America’s intelligence agencies last week presented President Obama and President-elect Donald J. Trump with a summary of unsubstantiated reports that Russia had collected compromising and salacious personal information about Mr. Trump, two officials with knowledge of the briefing said.

The summary is based on memos generated by political operatives seeking to derail Mr. Trump’s candidacy. Details of the reports began circulating in the fall and were widely known among journalists and politicians in Washington.

The two-page summary, first reported by CNN, was presented as an appendix to the intelligence agencies’ report on Russian hacking efforts during the election, the officials said. The material was not corroborated, and The New York Times has not been able to confirm the claims. But intelligence agencies considered it so potentially explosive that they decided Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and congressional leaders needed to be told about it and informed that the agencies were actively investigating it.

Intelligence officials were concerned that the information would leak before they informed Mr. Trump of its existence, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the summary is classified and talking about it would be a felony.

On Tuesday night, Mr. Trump responded on Twitter: “FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!”

In an appearance recorded for NBC’s “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, Kellyanne Conway, said of the claims in the opposition research memos, “He has said he is not aware of that.”

Since the intelligence agencies’ report on Friday that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had ordered the hacking and leaks of Democratic emails in order to hurt Mrs. Clinton and help Mr. Trump, the president-elect and his aides have said that Democrats are trying to mar his election victory.

The decision of top intelligence officials to give the president, the president-elect and the so-called Gang of Eight — Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress and the intelligence committees — what they know to be unverified, defamatory material was extremely unusual.

The appendix summarized opposition research memos prepared mainly by a retired British intelligence operative for a Washington political and corporate research firm. The firm was paid for its work first by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals and later by supporters of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. The Times has checked on a number of the details included in the memos but has been unable to substantiate them.

The memos suggest that for many years, the Russian government of Mr. Putin has looked for ways to influence Mr. Trump, who has traveled repeatedly to Moscow to investigate real estate deals or to oversee the Miss Universe competition, which he owned for several years. Mr. Trump never completed any major deals in Russia, though he discussed them for years.

The former British intelligence officer who gathered the material about Mr. Trump is considered a competent and reliable operative with extensive experience in Russia, American officials said. But he passed on what he heard from Russian informants and others, and what they told him has not yet been vetted by American intelligence.

The memos describe sex videos involving prostitutes with Mr. Trump in a 2013 visit to a Moscow hotel. The videos were supposedly prepared as “kompromat,” or compromising material, with the possible goal of blackmailing Mr. Trump in the future.

The memos also suggest that Russian officials proposed various lucrative deals, essentially as disguised bribes in order to win influence over Mr. Trump.

The memos describe several purported meetings during the 2016 presidential campaign between Trump representatives and Russian officials to discuss matters of mutual interest, including the Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta.

The first hint of the F.B.I. investigation came in a Senate hearing on Tuesday in a series of questions from Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, to the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.

Mr. Wyden, trying to draw Mr. Comey out on information he may have heard during a classified briefing, asked whether the F.B.I. had investigated the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia. Mr. Comey demurred, saying he could not discuss any investigations that might or might not be underway. Mr. Wyden kept pressing, asking Mr. Comey to provide a written answer to the question before Mr. Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, because he feared there would be no declassification of the information once Mr. Trump took office.

After the hearing, Mr. Wyden posted on Twitter: “Director Comey refused to answer my question about whether the FBI has investigated Trump campaign contacts with Russia.”

The F.B.I. obtained the material long before the election, and some of the memos in the opposition research dossier are dated as early as June. But agents have struggled to confirm it, according to federal officials familiar with the investigation.

Allies of Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader from Nevada who retired at the end of the year, said the disclosures validated his call last summer for an investigation by the F.B.I. into Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia.

“The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,” Mr. Reid wrote in a letter to Mr. Comey on Aug. 27.

Democrats on Tuesday night pressed for a thorough investigation of the claims in the memos. Representative Eric Swalwell of California, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, called for law enforcement to find out whether the Russian government had had any contact with Mr. Trump or his campaign.

“The president-elect has spoken a number of times, including after being presented with this evidence, in flattering ways about Russia and its dictator,” Mr. Swalwell said. “Considering the evidence of Russia hacking our democracy to his benefit, the president-elect would do a service to his presidency and our country by releasing his personal and business income taxes, as well as information on any global financial holdings.”




US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 03:32:09


Post by: Ustrello


sirlynchmob wrote:
So apparently Trump has a sex tape that the Russians hold to ensure his good behavior towards them. Apparently trump likes the golden showers. So if Clinton is impeached because of his infidelity, than surely it should be the easiest thing ever to impeach trump and throw him out once the tape comes out right? my guess is we'll see the GOP accept, normalize and praise trump and sell out their own morals and convictions and pretend the tape doesn't exist even after everyone's seen it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html

Spoiler:
WASHINGTON — The chiefs of America’s intelligence agencies last week presented President Obama and President-elect Donald J. Trump with a summary of unsubstantiated reports that Russia had collected compromising and salacious personal information about Mr. Trump, two officials with knowledge of the briefing said.

The summary is based on memos generated by political operatives seeking to derail Mr. Trump’s candidacy. Details of the reports began circulating in the fall and were widely known among journalists and politicians in Washington.

The two-page summary, first reported by CNN, was presented as an appendix to the intelligence agencies’ report on Russian hacking efforts during the election, the officials said. The material was not corroborated, and The New York Times has not been able to confirm the claims. But intelligence agencies considered it so potentially explosive that they decided Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and congressional leaders needed to be told about it and informed that the agencies were actively investigating it.

Intelligence officials were concerned that the information would leak before they informed Mr. Trump of its existence, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the summary is classified and talking about it would be a felony.

On Tuesday night, Mr. Trump responded on Twitter: “FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!”

In an appearance recorded for NBC’s “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, Kellyanne Conway, said of the claims in the opposition research memos, “He has said he is not aware of that.”

Since the intelligence agencies’ report on Friday that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had ordered the hacking and leaks of Democratic emails in order to hurt Mrs. Clinton and help Mr. Trump, the president-elect and his aides have said that Democrats are trying to mar his election victory.

The decision of top intelligence officials to give the president, the president-elect and the so-called Gang of Eight — Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress and the intelligence committees — what they know to be unverified, defamatory material was extremely unusual.

The appendix summarized opposition research memos prepared mainly by a retired British intelligence operative for a Washington political and corporate research firm. The firm was paid for its work first by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals and later by supporters of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. The Times has checked on a number of the details included in the memos but has been unable to substantiate them.

The memos suggest that for many years, the Russian government of Mr. Putin has looked for ways to influence Mr. Trump, who has traveled repeatedly to Moscow to investigate real estate deals or to oversee the Miss Universe competition, which he owned for several years. Mr. Trump never completed any major deals in Russia, though he discussed them for years.

The former British intelligence officer who gathered the material about Mr. Trump is considered a competent and reliable operative with extensive experience in Russia, American officials said. But he passed on what he heard from Russian informants and others, and what they told him has not yet been vetted by American intelligence.

The memos describe sex videos involving prostitutes with Mr. Trump in a 2013 visit to a Moscow hotel. The videos were supposedly prepared as “kompromat,” or compromising material, with the possible goal of blackmailing Mr. Trump in the future.

The memos also suggest that Russian officials proposed various lucrative deals, essentially as disguised bribes in order to win influence over Mr. Trump.

The memos describe several purported meetings during the 2016 presidential campaign between Trump representatives and Russian officials to discuss matters of mutual interest, including the Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta.

The first hint of the F.B.I. investigation came in a Senate hearing on Tuesday in a series of questions from Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, to the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.

Mr. Wyden, trying to draw Mr. Comey out on information he may have heard during a classified briefing, asked whether the F.B.I. had investigated the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia. Mr. Comey demurred, saying he could not discuss any investigations that might or might not be underway. Mr. Wyden kept pressing, asking Mr. Comey to provide a written answer to the question before Mr. Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, because he feared there would be no declassification of the information once Mr. Trump took office.

After the hearing, Mr. Wyden posted on Twitter: “Director Comey refused to answer my question about whether the FBI has investigated Trump campaign contacts with Russia.”

The F.B.I. obtained the material long before the election, and some of the memos in the opposition research dossier are dated as early as June. But agents have struggled to confirm it, according to federal officials familiar with the investigation.

Allies of Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader from Nevada who retired at the end of the year, said the disclosures validated his call last summer for an investigation by the F.B.I. into Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia.

“The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,” Mr. Reid wrote in a letter to Mr. Comey on Aug. 27.

Democrats on Tuesday night pressed for a thorough investigation of the claims in the memos. Representative Eric Swalwell of California, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, called for law enforcement to find out whether the Russian government had had any contact with Mr. Trump or his campaign.

“The president-elect has spoken a number of times, including after being presented with this evidence, in flattering ways about Russia and its dictator,” Mr. Swalwell said. “Considering the evidence of Russia hacking our democracy to his benefit, the president-elect would do a service to his presidency and our country by releasing his personal and business income taxes, as well as information on any global financial holdings.”




Implying the GOP hadn't sold out their own morals years ago


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 03:45:15


Post by: Peregrine


sirlynchmob wrote:
my guess is we'll see the GOP accept, normalize and praise trump and sell out their own morals and convictions and pretend the tape doesn't exist even after everyone's seen it.


To be fair, wouldn't you want to immediately forget that you saw a sex tape of Trump?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 03:51:43


Post by: sirlynchmob


 Peregrine wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
my guess is we'll see the GOP accept, normalize and praise trump and sell out their own morals and convictions and pretend the tape doesn't exist even after everyone's seen it.


To be fair, wouldn't you want to immediately forget that you saw a sex tape of Trump?


I'd imagine a lot of people wanting to see it for the same reason people look for bodies as they drive by accidents. Then the sale of eye patches should jump incredibly as people gouge their eyes out.

I did miss a joke for the post though.

Well I guess this explains why his hair is orange


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 04:04:55


Post by: sebster


Rosebuddy wrote:
You brought the sanctions against Iraq up as an example of sanctions being able to "grind" a country:


Yes, and in mentioning it I immediately noted how the sanctions against Iraq were very different to those against Russia. You ignored that.

You were the first person to say that the sanctions have crashed the economy.


Yes, crashed the ruble and cost oil producers and other oligarch operated companies a fortune. You started talking about collapsing an economy and other nonsense.


That you don't care to extrapolate the courses of action you suggest and consider what consequences they may have is on you and does not mean that I am a feeble-minded dolt with a feverish imagination.


No, but what you do constantly is ignore parts of posts that don't suit your pre-determined conclusions, or if a post is in any way unclear you assume the worst possible light without asking for clarity. This makes arguing with you an exercise in constantly having to explain away the fictional version of myself you have created.

It's a tedious exercise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Breotan wrote:
And liberals honestly cannot understand why Trump was elected.


I understand fairly well why Trump was elected, and I can tell you it has very little to do with some guy from MTV making a fairly weak racial allegation against Jeff Sessions. I mean hell, people have been calling Jeff Sessions racist since the 1980s, this is nothing new. The idea that it would suddenly produce some kind of groundswell that was strong enough to put Trump in to office is absurd.

In case you're wondering, Trump won because 62m Republicans voted for Trump. They did this because after spending a couple of decades diminishing the role and importance of government, as a whole they lost track of why it might be a problem to elect an idiot who doesn't understand the basics of US politics in to the presidency. Add to that a couple of decades of attacks on Clinton, a weird situation where her minor scandals were treated with far more seriousness than Trump's countless major scandals, and an amazingly gakky campaign where personal attacks and made up nonsense dominated coverage over actual policy, and that's how you get Trump. No surprise really, when one political party goes bad and democratic processes decline, it becomes possible for terrible candidate to win.

About the biggest surprise I've had lately is how quickly Republicans have worked to deny responsibility for electing their own candidate. It's almost as if they know they picked a lemon and are now trying to make it anyone's fault but their own, even before his term has started.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ZergSmasher wrote:
Probably not as many people who turned out for Obama in 2008 and voted for him just because of the color of his skin.


And because they were supporting their secret muslim master. I mean, as long as we're just going to make up stupid, unfounded bs...


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 04:45:15


Post by: Just Tony


sirlynchmob wrote:
So apparently Trump has a sex tape that the Russians hold to ensure his good behavior towards them. Apparently trump likes the golden showers. So if Clinton is impeached because of his infidelity, than surely it should be the easiest thing ever to impeach trump and throw him out once the tape comes out right? my guess is we'll see the GOP accept, normalize and praise trump and sell out their own morals and convictions and pretend the tape doesn't exist even after everyone's seen it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html

Spoiler:
WASHINGTON — The chiefs of America’s intelligence agencies last week presented President Obama and President-elect Donald J. Trump with a summary of unsubstantiated reports that Russia had collected compromising and salacious personal information about Mr. Trump, two officials with knowledge of the briefing said.

The summary is based on memos generated by political operatives seeking to derail Mr. Trump’s candidacy. Details of the reports began circulating in the fall and were widely known among journalists and politicians in Washington.

The two-page summary, first reported by CNN, was presented as an appendix to the intelligence agencies’ report on Russian hacking efforts during the election, the officials said. The material was not corroborated, and The New York Times has not been able to confirm the claims. But intelligence agencies considered it so potentially explosive that they decided Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and congressional leaders needed to be told about it and informed that the agencies were actively investigating it.

Intelligence officials were concerned that the information would leak before they informed Mr. Trump of its existence, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the summary is classified and talking about it would be a felony.

On Tuesday night, Mr. Trump responded on Twitter: “FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!”

In an appearance recorded for NBC’s “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, Kellyanne Conway, said of the claims in the opposition research memos, “He has said he is not aware of that.”

Since the intelligence agencies’ report on Friday that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had ordered the hacking and leaks of Democratic emails in order to hurt Mrs. Clinton and help Mr. Trump, the president-elect and his aides have said that Democrats are trying to mar his election victory.

The decision of top intelligence officials to give the president, the president-elect and the so-called Gang of Eight — Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress and the intelligence committees — what they know to be unverified, defamatory material was extremely unusual.

The appendix summarized opposition research memos prepared mainly by a retired British intelligence operative for a Washington political and corporate research firm. The firm was paid for its work first by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals and later by supporters of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. The Times has checked on a number of the details included in the memos but has been unable to substantiate them.

The memos suggest that for many years, the Russian government of Mr. Putin has looked for ways to influence Mr. Trump, who has traveled repeatedly to Moscow to investigate real estate deals or to oversee the Miss Universe competition, which he owned for several years. Mr. Trump never completed any major deals in Russia, though he discussed them for years.

The former British intelligence officer who gathered the material about Mr. Trump is considered a competent and reliable operative with extensive experience in Russia, American officials said. But he passed on what he heard from Russian informants and others, and what they told him has not yet been vetted by American intelligence.

The memos describe sex videos involving prostitutes with Mr. Trump in a 2013 visit to a Moscow hotel. The videos were supposedly prepared as “kompromat,” or compromising material, with the possible goal of blackmailing Mr. Trump in the future.

The memos also suggest that Russian officials proposed various lucrative deals, essentially as disguised bribes in order to win influence over Mr. Trump.

The memos describe several purported meetings during the 2016 presidential campaign between Trump representatives and Russian officials to discuss matters of mutual interest, including the Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta.

The first hint of the F.B.I. investigation came in a Senate hearing on Tuesday in a series of questions from Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, to the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.

Mr. Wyden, trying to draw Mr. Comey out on information he may have heard during a classified briefing, asked whether the F.B.I. had investigated the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia. Mr. Comey demurred, saying he could not discuss any investigations that might or might not be underway. Mr. Wyden kept pressing, asking Mr. Comey to provide a written answer to the question before Mr. Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, because he feared there would be no declassification of the information once Mr. Trump took office.

After the hearing, Mr. Wyden posted on Twitter: “Director Comey refused to answer my question about whether the FBI has investigated Trump campaign contacts with Russia.”

The F.B.I. obtained the material long before the election, and some of the memos in the opposition research dossier are dated as early as June. But agents have struggled to confirm it, according to federal officials familiar with the investigation.

Allies of Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader from Nevada who retired at the end of the year, said the disclosures validated his call last summer for an investigation by the F.B.I. into Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia.

“The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,” Mr. Reid wrote in a letter to Mr. Comey on Aug. 27.

Democrats on Tuesday night pressed for a thorough investigation of the claims in the memos. Representative Eric Swalwell of California, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, called for law enforcement to find out whether the Russian government had had any contact with Mr. Trump or his campaign.

“The president-elect has spoken a number of times, including after being presented with this evidence, in flattering ways about Russia and its dictator,” Mr. Swalwell said. “Considering the evidence of Russia hacking our democracy to his benefit, the president-elect would do a service to his presidency and our country by releasing his personal and business income taxes, as well as information on any global financial holdings.”




Was Trump's video filmed while he was in office? Like, LITERALLY in the oval office? THAT is why Clinton got pegged, not for every other incident before his career. While I will never sing Trump's accolades, I will point this little goal post moving out pretty quick. And I thought the main crux of the Clinton case was perjury, but I guess it would all depend on what your definition of the word "is" is...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and at least the "impeach Trump" movement is still alive...


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 04:55:38


Post by: Co'tor Shas


I'm doubtful (they do have "unconfirmed" and "alleged" as every other word), but it's Trump, so I would honestly not be surprised if it is true.

And, all things considered, if it is true, Trump should just reveal it right now, as a show of respect for the American people, and to get rid of any sort of power Russia has. I'd rather our president be a laughing stock than controlled my Russia.

But, as I said, we have no actual evidence presented yet, so....


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 05:04:10


Post by: Peregrine


 Just Tony wrote:
Was Trump's video filmed while he was in office? Like, LITERALLY in the oval office? THAT is why Clinton got pegged, not for every other incident before his career. While I will never sing Trump's accolades, I will point this little goal post moving out pretty quick. And I thought the main crux of the Clinton case was perjury, but I guess it would all depend on what your definition of the word "is" is...


Let's be honest here, Clinton was impeached for being a democrat at a time when the republican party wanted a media stunt to get attention. There's a reason the impeachment process was straight party-line votes where everyone knew the outcome from the beginning.

As for Trump, the same could happen to him. Having kinky sex isn't a crime, but if there's enough support for "get rid of Trump", whether as a media stunt or as a serious impeachment attempt, they'll figure out some crime that he's technically accused of. But the real reason, which everyone involved will understand, is that he committed the crime of being Trump and people don't want him to be president anymore. The problem with this, as satisfying as it would be to get rid of him, is that impeaching Trump just replaces him with Pence. Do we really want to trade an incompetent clown for someone who is competently horrible? IMO it would be much better to keep Trump in office but obstruct all the horrible things he attempts to do, and then vote him out in 2020.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 06:18:25


Post by: Breotan


So, it seems that there's a bit of a kerfuffle about this whole Trump/Russia thing. True? False? One thing is sure, BuzzFeed has thrown away any remaining shred of legitimacy they might have had left after the election. Let the internet throw BuzzFeed in the same dark hole that Alec Jones lives in.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/buzzfeed-runs-error-laden-unverifiable-trump-russia-claim/

Fake News: BuzzFeed Runs ‘Unverifiable’ Trump-Russia Claims

Left-leaning news outlet abandons all journalistic ethics in publishing explosive dossier

The online news site BuzzFeed on Tuesday published a letter containing salacious allegations — which even the left-leaning outlet acknowledged are unverified — against President-Elect Donald Trump.

The letter, purporting to come from a retired British intelligence agent, details Trump’s alleged relationship with Russia and contends that the Kremlin has been “cultivating, supporting and assisting” Trump for at least five years.

It alleges that Russians have been feeding Trump intelligence on his opponents, including Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, for years. It also details Trump’s alleged “personal obsessions and sexual perversion.”

BuzzFeed acknowledges that it has not verified the accusations and even notes that the document contains a number of basic factual errors. Yet it published the full document.

“Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government,” BuzzFeed wrote.

It is a shocking breakdown of journalistic ethics.

Even Mother Jones declined to publish the full details and dossier.

"Even Donald Trump deserves journalistic fairness," tweeted David Corn, Mother Jones' Washington Bureau chief.

David Corn wrote:3. I accurately characterized the memos-this is important stuff-but didn't publish details. Even Donald Trump deserves journalistic fairness

Ben Smith, BuzzFeed's editor-in-chief, defended the decision in a memo to staff.

"Our presumption is to be transparent in our journalism and to share what we have with our readers," he wrote in the email he subsequently shared on Twitter. "We have always erred on the side of publishing. In this case, the document was in wide circulation in the highest levels of American government and media."



Astonishingly, though, Smith cast doubt on whether the story his site published was true.

"As we noted in our story, there is a serious reason to doubt the allegations," he wrote. "We have been chasing specific claims in this document for weeks, and will continue to."

Smith drew sharp rebukes from other reporters.

"Not how journalism works: Here's a thing that might or might not be true, without supporting evidence; decide for yourself if it's legit," tweeted Brad Heath, an investigative reporter for USA Today.

Julia Ioffe, a journalist who left Politico after suggesting in a tweet that Trump might be having sex with his own daughter, tweeted Tuesday that she had been approached with the story that BuzzFeed ran with but declined to publish. "Because it was impossible to verify. (I tried.)"

Julia Ioffe wrote:Okay, fellow journalists, raise your hand if you too were approached with this story. (I was.)

New York Times reporter Adam Goldman heaped criticism on both BuzzFeed and CNN, which aired a version of the story Tuesday but did not publish all of the unverified details.

"Sequence of events: @CNN finds way to talk about report and @buzzfeed uses that as reason to publish. Media critics are gonna be busy," he tweeted.



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 06:25:35


Post by: whembly


-- jumping in to say this:

Dammit... I was already preparing myself Pence to take the office...

Also... 'Golden Shower'???? Really??!?! Cheeto Jesus is a notorious germophone. That should be the biggest red flag.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 06:27:54


Post by: sebster


 Just Tony wrote:
Was Trump's video filmed while he was in office? Like, LITERALLY in the oval office? THAT is why Clinton got pegged, not for every other incident before his career. While I will never sing Trump's accolades, I will point this little goal post moving out pretty quick. And I thought the main crux of the Clinton case was perjury, but I guess it would all depend on what your definition of the word "is" is...


Actually it started with a witchhunt over Whitewater, that turned up nothing and started to come under pressure to find something, anything, just to justify the political capital and millions of dollars sunk in to the thing. This is not all that different from the Benghazi nonsense eventually finding Clinton's emails as something to pretend was important. For a Democrat version the Valerie Plame affair eventually went after Scooter Libby's meaningless perjury, just to claim they achieved something.


As for this thing about Trump being blackmailed by Russia... well 2016 should have taught all of us that things that sound crazy might actually be true, but it also should have taught us that there's plenty of people out there happy to make up fake news for clicks. I'm adopting a wait and see stance.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 06:32:27


Post by: Co'tor Shas


I mean, it's buzzfeed. They are literally a click-bait site. I should point out that printing unverified stuff but saying it's unverified isn't a bad thing, as long as it is not displayed like the truth. No idea about this one though, as I haven't looked at buzzfeed's soght because feth buzzfeed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:


Also... 'Golden Shower'???? Really??!?! Cheeto Jesus is a notorious germophone. That should be the biggest red flag.

Wouldn't be the first time he's flip flopped on something.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 06:39:54


Post by: ScootyPuffJunior


 Breotan wrote:
So, it seems that there's a bit of a kerfuffle about this whole Trump/Russia thing. True? False? One thing is sure, BuzzFeed has thrown away any remaining shred of legitimacy they might have had left after the election. Let the internet throw BuzzFeed in the same dark hole that Alec Jones lives in.
Except unlike Alex Jones and his ilk, BuzzFeed News plainly states that what they have is unverified and full of errors. A no point did they ever present this as the truth, which even your linked article admits, but somehow that doesn't stop the outrage that a fething clickbait site would dare publish something potentially damning about Glorious Leader.

Also, the Editor-in-Chief of the website you linked is Laura Ingram, a Trump lackey that has had no problem using her position to fawn over Trump; I mean she's straight up said that she wants a part in his administration. So if you're going to bitch and complain about the "legitimacy" of a clickbait website, you should start by examining the journalistic integrity of your sources.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 06:46:00


Post by: sirlynchmob


 Just Tony wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
So apparently Trump has a sex tape that the Russians hold to ensure his good behavior towards them. Apparently trump likes the golden showers. So if Clinton is impeached because of his infidelity, than surely it should be the easiest thing ever to impeach trump and throw him out once the tape comes out right? my guess is we'll see the GOP accept, normalize and praise trump and sell out their own morals and convictions and pretend the tape doesn't exist even after everyone's seen it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html

Spoiler:
WASHINGTON — The chiefs of America’s intelligence agencies last week presented President Obama and President-elect Donald J. Trump with a summary of unsubstantiated reports that Russia had collected compromising and salacious personal information about Mr. Trump, two officials with knowledge of the briefing said.

The summary is based on memos generated by political operatives seeking to derail Mr. Trump’s candidacy. Details of the reports began circulating in the fall and were widely known among journalists and politicians in Washington.

The two-page summary, first reported by CNN, was presented as an appendix to the intelligence agencies’ report on Russian hacking efforts during the election, the officials said. The material was not corroborated, and The New York Times has not been able to confirm the claims. But intelligence agencies considered it so potentially explosive that they decided Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and congressional leaders needed to be told about it and informed that the agencies were actively investigating it.

Intelligence officials were concerned that the information would leak before they informed Mr. Trump of its existence, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the summary is classified and talking about it would be a felony.

On Tuesday night, Mr. Trump responded on Twitter: “FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!”

In an appearance recorded for NBC’s “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, Kellyanne Conway, said of the claims in the opposition research memos, “He has said he is not aware of that.”

Since the intelligence agencies’ report on Friday that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had ordered the hacking and leaks of Democratic emails in order to hurt Mrs. Clinton and help Mr. Trump, the president-elect and his aides have said that Democrats are trying to mar his election victory.

The decision of top intelligence officials to give the president, the president-elect and the so-called Gang of Eight — Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress and the intelligence committees — what they know to be unverified, defamatory material was extremely unusual.

The appendix summarized opposition research memos prepared mainly by a retired British intelligence operative for a Washington political and corporate research firm. The firm was paid for its work first by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals and later by supporters of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. The Times has checked on a number of the details included in the memos but has been unable to substantiate them.

The memos suggest that for many years, the Russian government of Mr. Putin has looked for ways to influence Mr. Trump, who has traveled repeatedly to Moscow to investigate real estate deals or to oversee the Miss Universe competition, which he owned for several years. Mr. Trump never completed any major deals in Russia, though he discussed them for years.

The former British intelligence officer who gathered the material about Mr. Trump is considered a competent and reliable operative with extensive experience in Russia, American officials said. But he passed on what he heard from Russian informants and others, and what they told him has not yet been vetted by American intelligence.

The memos describe sex videos involving prostitutes with Mr. Trump in a 2013 visit to a Moscow hotel. The videos were supposedly prepared as “kompromat,” or compromising material, with the possible goal of blackmailing Mr. Trump in the future.

The memos also suggest that Russian officials proposed various lucrative deals, essentially as disguised bribes in order to win influence over Mr. Trump.

The memos describe several purported meetings during the 2016 presidential campaign between Trump representatives and Russian officials to discuss matters of mutual interest, including the Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta.

The first hint of the F.B.I. investigation came in a Senate hearing on Tuesday in a series of questions from Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, to the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.

Mr. Wyden, trying to draw Mr. Comey out on information he may have heard during a classified briefing, asked whether the F.B.I. had investigated the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia. Mr. Comey demurred, saying he could not discuss any investigations that might or might not be underway. Mr. Wyden kept pressing, asking Mr. Comey to provide a written answer to the question before Mr. Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, because he feared there would be no declassification of the information once Mr. Trump took office.

After the hearing, Mr. Wyden posted on Twitter: “Director Comey refused to answer my question about whether the FBI has investigated Trump campaign contacts with Russia.”

The F.B.I. obtained the material long before the election, and some of the memos in the opposition research dossier are dated as early as June. But agents have struggled to confirm it, according to federal officials familiar with the investigation.

Allies of Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader from Nevada who retired at the end of the year, said the disclosures validated his call last summer for an investigation by the F.B.I. into Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia.

“The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,” Mr. Reid wrote in a letter to Mr. Comey on Aug. 27.

Democrats on Tuesday night pressed for a thorough investigation of the claims in the memos. Representative Eric Swalwell of California, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, called for law enforcement to find out whether the Russian government had had any contact with Mr. Trump or his campaign.

“The president-elect has spoken a number of times, including after being presented with this evidence, in flattering ways about Russia and its dictator,” Mr. Swalwell said. “Considering the evidence of Russia hacking our democracy to his benefit, the president-elect would do a service to his presidency and our country by releasing his personal and business income taxes, as well as information on any global financial holdings.”




Was Trump's video filmed while he was in office? Like, LITERALLY in the oval office? THAT is why Clinton got pegged, not for every other incident before his career. While I will never sing Trump's accolades, I will point this little goal post moving out pretty quick. And I thought the main crux of the Clinton case was perjury, but I guess it would all depend on what your definition of the word "is" is...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and at least the "impeach Trump" movement is still alive...


Well to be fair the "impeach Obama" movement went on for all 8 years of his presidency, and now continues with undue everything he's done. so with all of Trumps shadiness I'm sure he'll give us plenty of legitimate reasons to impeach him. It's not so much the video, it's his ever increasing ties to russia that are being uncovered. So many ties that it will always call to question on who trump works for, Putin or Americans?

the mocking him for porn videos and golden showers is just an added bonus. For the first time in history we have the first family of porn. He has his video, She has a nice playboy layout which is probably going up quickly in value.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 06:52:42


Post by: Maddermax


 whembly wrote:
-- jumping in to say this:

Dammit... I was already preparing myself Pence to take the office...

Also... 'Golden Shower'???? Really??!?! Cheeto Jesus is a notorious germophone. That should be the biggest red flag.


It didn't say he had a golden shower, it said they pissed on the bed where Obama had stayed. Trump may be a germaphobe (or not), but he's an extremely petty bastard, so I wouldn't put it passed him.

Still unconfirmed reports, of course, but anything that could bring him low and stop him from screwing over the rest of the world would have me dancing in the streets. Pence may be as bad or worse for American domestic policy, but damn, you can't save everybody, sorry guys...


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 07:11:48


Post by: Agiel


A while back I pitched a line to a friend that tried to explain Trump's inexplicable absolution of Putin in the murder of 298 people on MH-17 that went something to the effect of the FSB probably having compromising footage of Trump in a coke party with the Bolshoi ballerina troupe. Of course the smoking gun (if there indeed is one) could be a bit more mundane (but not necessarily much more appealing) such as the fact that due to Trump's well-publicised bankruptcies Russian banks are one of the few places he can get financing for his projects, I never really put much more thought into that throwaway remark until now.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 07:17:42


Post by: Breotan


 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Also, the Editor-in-Chief of the website you linked is Laura Ingram, a Trump lackey that has had no problem using her position to fawn over Trump; I mean she's straight up said that she wants a part in his administration. So if you're going to bitch and complain about the "legitimacy" of a clickbait website, you should start by examining the journalistic integrity of your sources.

So instead of talking about BuzzFeed's lack of journalistic ethics, which other left wing outlets have noted, you'd rather deflect and attack the messenger. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 07:19:34


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Breotan wrote:
 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Also, the Editor-in-Chief of the website you linked is Laura Ingram, a Trump lackey that has had no problem using her position to fawn over Trump; I mean she's straight up said that she wants a part in his administration. So if you're going to bitch and complain about the "legitimacy" of a clickbait website, you should start by examining the journalistic integrity of your sources.

So instead of talking about BuzzFeed's lack of journalistic ethics, which other left wing outlets have noted, you'd rather deflect and attack the messenger. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.


You know Breotan, he did have a section right above the you deleted that sort of addresses that.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 07:31:52


Post by: sebster


 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Except unlike Alex Jones and his ilk, BuzzFeed News plainly states that what they have is unverified and full of errors. A no point did they ever present this as the truth, which even your linked article admits, but somehow that doesn't stop the outrage that a fething clickbait site would dare publish something potentially damning about Glorious Leader.


Yeah, that particular attack in the article Breotan linked to was the point where political hackery reached an almost zen level.

I mean, I don't want to sound like I think the buzzfeed piece is worthy, or that it needed to be published. Just as the endless rumour monger gak about Clinton and her emails/foundation were unacceptable, I don't think the answer is found in applying the same to Trump scandals. There should be some standard applied before publication. But the buzzfeed piece was honest in saying the memo is real, but the allegations in the memo are unverified... which Breotan's link then complained about. That's just bizarre. "Ha ha! You stated in a plain and transparent way that the allegations in the memo are unverified! Gotcha!"


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 07:36:03


Post by: Breotan


 Co'tor Shas wrote:
You know Breotan, he did have a section right above the you deleted that sort of addresses that.

You mean the bit where he gave them a pass because they said the story was likely bogus? Even Mother Jones didn't give them a pass. Mother Fricking Jones.



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 07:37:56


Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl


sirlynchmob wrote:
So apparently Trump has a sex tape that the Russians hold to ensure his good behavior towards them. Apparently trump likes the golden showers. So if Clinton is impeached because of his infidelity, than surely it should be the easiest thing ever to impeach trump and throw him out once the tape comes out right? my guess is we'll see the GOP accept, normalize and praise trump and sell out their own morals and convictions and pretend the tape doesn't exist even after everyone's seen it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html

Spoiler:
WASHINGTON — The chiefs of America’s intelligence agencies last week presented President Obama and President-elect Donald J. Trump with a summary of unsubstantiated reports that Russia had collected compromising and salacious personal information about Mr. Trump, two officials with knowledge of the briefing said.

The summary is based on memos generated by political operatives seeking to derail Mr. Trump’s candidacy. Details of the reports began circulating in the fall and were widely known among journalists and politicians in Washington.

The two-page summary, first reported by CNN, was presented as an appendix to the intelligence agencies’ report on Russian hacking efforts during the election, the officials said. The material was not corroborated, and The New York Times has not been able to confirm the claims. But intelligence agencies considered it so potentially explosive that they decided Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and congressional leaders needed to be told about it and informed that the agencies were actively investigating it.

Intelligence officials were concerned that the information would leak before they informed Mr. Trump of its existence, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the summary is classified and talking about it would be a felony.

On Tuesday night, Mr. Trump responded on Twitter: “FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!”

In an appearance recorded for NBC’s “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, Kellyanne Conway, said of the claims in the opposition research memos, “He has said he is not aware of that.”

Since the intelligence agencies’ report on Friday that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had ordered the hacking and leaks of Democratic emails in order to hurt Mrs. Clinton and help Mr. Trump, the president-elect and his aides have said that Democrats are trying to mar his election victory.

The decision of top intelligence officials to give the president, the president-elect and the so-called Gang of Eight — Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress and the intelligence committees — what they know to be unverified, defamatory material was extremely unusual.

The appendix summarized opposition research memos prepared mainly by a retired British intelligence operative for a Washington political and corporate research firm. The firm was paid for its work first by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals and later by supporters of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. The Times has checked on a number of the details included in the memos but has been unable to substantiate them.

The memos suggest that for many years, the Russian government of Mr. Putin has looked for ways to influence Mr. Trump, who has traveled repeatedly to Moscow to investigate real estate deals or to oversee the Miss Universe competition, which he owned for several years. Mr. Trump never completed any major deals in Russia, though he discussed them for years.

The former British intelligence officer who gathered the material about Mr. Trump is considered a competent and reliable operative with extensive experience in Russia, American officials said. But he passed on what he heard from Russian informants and others, and what they told him has not yet been vetted by American intelligence.

The memos describe sex videos involving prostitutes with Mr. Trump in a 2013 visit to a Moscow hotel. The videos were supposedly prepared as “kompromat,” or compromising material, with the possible goal of blackmailing Mr. Trump in the future.

The memos also suggest that Russian officials proposed various lucrative deals, essentially as disguised bribes in order to win influence over Mr. Trump.

The memos describe several purported meetings during the 2016 presidential campaign between Trump representatives and Russian officials to discuss matters of mutual interest, including the Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta.

The first hint of the F.B.I. investigation came in a Senate hearing on Tuesday in a series of questions from Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, to the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.

Mr. Wyden, trying to draw Mr. Comey out on information he may have heard during a classified briefing, asked whether the F.B.I. had investigated the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia. Mr. Comey demurred, saying he could not discuss any investigations that might or might not be underway. Mr. Wyden kept pressing, asking Mr. Comey to provide a written answer to the question before Mr. Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, because he feared there would be no declassification of the information once Mr. Trump took office.

After the hearing, Mr. Wyden posted on Twitter: “Director Comey refused to answer my question about whether the FBI has investigated Trump campaign contacts with Russia.”

The F.B.I. obtained the material long before the election, and some of the memos in the opposition research dossier are dated as early as June. But agents have struggled to confirm it, according to federal officials familiar with the investigation.

Allies of Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader from Nevada who retired at the end of the year, said the disclosures validated his call last summer for an investigation by the F.B.I. into Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia.

“The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,” Mr. Reid wrote in a letter to Mr. Comey on Aug. 27.

Democrats on Tuesday night pressed for a thorough investigation of the claims in the memos. Representative Eric Swalwell of California, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, called for law enforcement to find out whether the Russian government had had any contact with Mr. Trump or his campaign.

“The president-elect has spoken a number of times, including after being presented with this evidence, in flattering ways about Russia and its dictator,” Mr. Swalwell said. “Considering the evidence of Russia hacking our democracy to his benefit, the president-elect would do a service to his presidency and our country by releasing his personal and business income taxes, as well as information on any global financial holdings.”



Woah woah woah, I am amazed that the CIA seems to have found out a much more entertaining but possibly almost as efficient way as the [REDACTED - TOP SECRET] solution.
And yeah, being blackmailed by a foreign power seems like a pretty big deal to me. Not sure if it works for impeachment because I don't know enough about the US system.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 07:39:15


Post by: sebster


 Breotan wrote:
So instead of talking about BuzzFeed's lack of journalistic ethics, which other left wing outlets have noted, you'd rather deflect and attack the messenger. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.


If you don't want discussion of attack pieces like the one you linked to distracting from discussion of the failings of the buzzfeed article, then maybe don't post mediocre attack pieces?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 07:40:41


Post by: NinthMusketeer


sirlynchmob wrote:
So many ties that it will always call to question on who trump works for, Putin or Americans?
Let's just be clear here: whoever Trump works for it is NOT Americans. At best he works for himself. More likely he works for the wealthy (that is a third GOP's platform as I recall, next to a third 'oppose democrats' and a third 'random gak with a few tidbits of relevancy thrown in') and/or just doesn't even know why he's doing it. Maybe he works for Russia. But at no point should anyone delude themselves that Trump works for the American people.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 07:42:24


Post by: Co'tor Shas


 Breotan wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
You know Breotan, he did have a section right above the you deleted that sort of addresses that.

You mean the bit where he gave them a pass because they said the story was likely bogus? Even Mother Jones didn't give them a pass. Mother Fricking Jones.


I mean the part where he points out that they presented this as an unconfirmed account. The part where literally everybody keeps saying "unconfirmed" or "alleged". The part where they didn't say "this is definitely true". I mean buzzfeed is still gak, but try and be accurate with what part you criticize.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 07:44:53


Post by: ScootyPuffJunior


 Breotan wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
You know Breotan, he did have a section right above the you deleted that sort of addresses that.

You mean the bit where he gave them a pass because they said the story was likely bogus? Even Mother Jones didn't give them a pass. Mother Fricking Jones.
I didn't give them a pass, I just pointed out the facts that you ignored so you could be outraged.

Like usual.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 07:45:36


Post by: sebster


 Breotan wrote:
You mean the bit where he gave them a pass because they said the story was likely bogus? Even Mother Jones didn't give them a pass. Mother Fricking Jones.


Your argument seems to boil down to saying that because the buzzfeed article has issues, then all complaints about the buzzfeed article are valid. That's obviously nonsense.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 07:47:25


Post by: ScootyPuffJunior


 sebster wrote:
That's obviously nonsense.
It's also nothing new.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 07:55:06


Post by: Rosebuddy


 sebster wrote:

Yes, and in mentioning it I immediately noted how the sanctions against Iraq were very different to those against Russia. You ignored that.


I contest the suggestion that there can be major sanctions that don't harm the people more than their rulers because the powerful can more easily shield themselves and because you keep saying stuff like:

 sebster wrote:

Yes, crashed the ruble and cost oil producers and other oligarch operated companies a fortune. You started talking about collapsing an economy and other nonsense.


The currency crashing would logically affect everyone who uses it, all imports/exports and everyone who somehow relies on that flow of goods and currency. Continuing and expanding sanctions that you claim have already crashed the economy would logically collapse it which would in turn most harm the people who work day to day. These are reasonable conclusions to draw from the scenario you paint.


 sebster wrote:

No, but what you do constantly is ignore parts of posts that don't suit your pre-determined conclusions, or if a post is in any way unclear you assume the worst possible light without asking for clarity. This makes arguing with you an exercise in constantly having to explain away the fictional version of myself you have created.


What precisely is unclear about

 sebster wrote:

Continue and expand the economic sanctions already in place, which have already crashed the Russian economy.


?

How would the economy crashing not affect the people? How would going beyond the point of simply crashing it not affect the people? Your insistence that talk of collapsing the economy is nonsense because you merely want to crash it and then crash it again doesn't check out. You claim that sanctions against Russia only target its ruling class while cheerfully going on about how the currency is crashing and should be brought down further. How is that not contradictory? Do only the rich Russians use money?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 07:55:26


Post by: Kilkrazy


Prestor Jon wrote:
 Ustrello wrote:
Its amazing what 20 years of anti hillary propaganda will do


Republican propaganda convinced Obama voters and Democrats in "blue" states, people who should have been Hillary's ardent supporters, to stay home? I doubt that. Republican propaganda probably got more Republicans to turn out and overlook Trump's flaws. ... ... .


There was plenty of propaganda. Obviously it isn't possible to prove causation, but, the voting figures show lower turnout by registered Democrats, largely among the young Bernie supporters, and the Republican vote did not increase. Clinton's loss was due to lower Democrat turnout.



US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 07:58:19


Post by: Gordon Shumway


Regardless of Buzzfeed posting the memos, evidently, the CIA and FBI is worried enough about them to have included a summary of them in the report they presented to Obama, Trump and the "gang of eight" largely based on the past of the former MI6 agent who originally wrote them as part of opposition research paid for by Trump's primary opponents. So there's that, I guess.

Buzzfeed was just scooped by CNN so they decided to go one further and actually post the full memos for clickbait.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 08:02:57


Post by: Kilkrazy


 Breotan wrote:
 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Also, the Editor-in-Chief of the website you linked is Laura Ingram, a Trump lackey that has had no problem using her position to fawn over Trump; I mean she's straight up said that she wants a part in his administration. So if you're going to bitch and complain about the "legitimacy" of a clickbait website, you should start by examining the journalistic integrity of your sources.

So instead of talking about BuzzFeed's lack of journalistic ethics, which other left wing outlets have noted, you'd rather deflect and attack the messenger. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.



BuzzFeed's lack of journalistic ethics are not the story.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 08:04:29


Post by: sebster


 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
It's also nothing new.


He read a well written piece attacking the buzzfeed story, and it fired him up enough that he posted it here while still riding a wave of crusading fury against the darn lefties. Of course, that crusading fury stopped him from noticing that the clever writing was really just working to conceal the dodgy non-logic in the article's attack.

On one level it's no big deal. Stuff like this happens to everyone from time to time. The problem is that when you do make such a mistake, you should just put your hand up, then everyone can move on. Not get pissy with the person who pointed out the problem in your article.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 08:09:26


Post by: Gordon Shumway


What's the big deal anyway if true? It's not like indulging in a pee party with Russian prostitutes is as bad as shooting somebody on the street in NYC. He's got nothing to worry about.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 08:09:34


Post by: sebster


Rosebuddy wrote:
The currency crashing would logically affect everyone who uses it, all imports/exports and everyone who somehow relies on that flow of goods and currency. Continuing and expanding sanctions that you claim have already crashed the economy would logically collapse it which would in turn most harm the people who work day to day. These are reasonable conclusions to draw from the scenario you paint.


There's an obvious issue of extent here. In Iraq essential medicines were banned. In Russia the ruble got weaker, meaning people would have to pay more for television sets. Of course there will also be greater unemployment and similar things, but trying to frame the latter as inflicting suffering on a people, when the government of those people annexed the Crimea, sent troops in to the Ukraine, and continue to commit atrocities in Syria is fething laughable.


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 08:10:28


Post by: ScootyPuffJunior


 Breotan wrote:
So instead of talking about BuzzFeed's lack of journalistic ethics, which other left wing outlets have noted, you'd rather deflect and attack the messenger.
I don't care about BuzzFeed's journalistic ethics and I seriously doubt you do either. It's just rich that you post a piece complaining about a clickbait site's lack of ethics from another site run by a Donald Trump surrogate that is itching to worm her way into his administration. That site is so clearly biased and it's funny that you probably failed to realize the irony in this whole thing.

However, BuzzFeed's ethics (or lack thereof) aren't the story here.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Care to explain that one a little more in depth?


US Politics: 2017 Edition @ 2017/01/11 08:11:19


Post by: sebster


 Gordon Shumway wrote:
What's the big deal anyway if true? It's not like indulging in a pee party with Russian prostitutes is as bad as shooting somebody on the street in NYC. He's got nothing to worry about.


On twitter Matthew Yglesias offered up this gem;
"Maybe Putin is blackmailing Trump with a tape where he mocks POWs and the disabled while confessing to routine sexual assault."