sebster wrote: 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.
Oh yes, I definitely get it. That article was perfectly crafted to trigger a certain kind of person and as we can see, it worked pretty well.
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.
Don't hold your breath for that one.
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.
I honestly don't care if that's what he's into... different strokes for different folks and all that. What someone does in the privacy of their bedroom (or the Presidential Suite in a Ritz Carlton) is their own business.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Oh yes, I definitely get it. That article was perfectly crafted to trigger a certain kind of person and as we can see, it worked pretty well.
Yeah, it should work as a reminder to all of us that sometimes writing can rather cleverly bypass our critical reasoning, especially if we want it to be true. Recognising that and being honest when we fall for it is the best way to minimise it happening in the future.
I honestly don't care if that's what he's into... different strokes for different folks and all that. What someone does in the privacy of their bedroom (or the Presidential Suite in a Ritz Carlton) is their own business.
Any sex with consenting adults meh. Honestly if the guy just got caught up in a honeypot with some prostitutes over the age of consent, if anything that's more tame than I'd expect of Trump (after bragging about molesting women, that would have been my assumption for any blackmail).
The issue would be that Trump kept this secret, colluding with Russia to do so. But of course there's no substantive evidence that it is true.
To be frank it wouldn't surprise me if the Russians had dirt on Trump, but I doubt we'll never know.
We know that Trump has a lot of dirt in his past, a lot of which has already come out and some that hasn't (the Howard Stern tapes and the income tax filings for instance.)
We know Trump's email servers were ludicrously insecure. We know the Russians pwned the insecure DNC servers and mined the info for political purposes.
We know Trump has become very pally with the Russians. We know that Trump is in denial about the intelligence concerning Russian involvement in hacking the DNC.
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.
The sex acts aren't really relevant. It's fodder for the comedians*, but it doesn't really have anything to do with his qualifications for the job. The issue is the rest of the accusations: Russian blackmail material, excessive ties with Russia, Russia using Trump to influence the US in a pro-Russia direction and working to oppose Clinton, etc. If that's true then it's a giant red flag that Trump is at best putting his own good ahead of the nation, and at worst a puppet of a hostile foreign power. Either way that makes him even more unqualified for the job, and impeachment starts to look like a necessary and inevitable outcome.
*I would say that a kinky Trump sex tape would hurt his standing with the religious right, but they have already demonstrated their willingness to fall in line behind a very un-Christian candidate as long as he supports right-wing politics. At this point I don't think anything is going to get them to stop reflexively pressing the "R" button every election.
Also... 'Golden Shower'???? Really??!?! Cheeto Jesus is a notorious germophone. That should be the biggest red flag.
How many THE GAYS ARE EVIL 111 politicians and/or religious con artists have been caught ..well..... hating the sin but loving the sinner, so to speak .. ?
"JetBlue spokesman Morgan Johnston told CNN, "The decision to remove a customer from a flight is not taken lightly. If a customer is causing a conflict on the aircraft, it is standard procedure to ask the customer to deplane, especially if the crew feels the situation runs a risk of escalation in-flight.""
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.
You might not care, others will. This could be used to hurt Trump giving Trump inclination to ensure it does not get published. This in turn is good source for blackmail.
That's the big deal. It's not that he did or did not do it. It's russians being able to blackmail Trump to further Russian's interests if they really have it.
"JetBlue spokesman Morgan Johnston told CNN, "The decision to remove a customer from a flight is not taken lightly. If a customer is causing a conflict on the aircraft, it is standard procedure to ask the customer to deplane, especially if the crew feels the situation runs a risk of escalation in-flight.""
.... deplane ? That's a thing now then huh ?
Looks like someone forgot the first rule of airplanes: the pilot in command is God. Do not tempt God to smite you.
Trump is very touchy about his image, that's why he reacts so rabidly when criticised, for instance, by slagging off Meryl Streep as a rotten actress blah blah blah.
Perfectly obviously Trump would be horrified to have the Russians release this alleged pervy video of him.
I awoke this morning to a tidal wave of hogwash concerning one Donald Trump and Russian blackmail!
Blackmail? Blackmail? You gotta be kidding me.
What are the Russians going to prove? That Trump is an idiot? Racist? Talked about groping women? Or has a dubious business history?
We know that already
There are those who say that Trump links with Russia and his pro-Russia stance is not in America's best interests?
Really? I love American history and politics, because it's very interesting and as a result, I have many books on the subject from the Revolutionary War to Henry Kissinger, General Grant to Vietnam.
So I look over at my bookcase and what do I see?
There's a book on Jack Kennedy and the links to the corrupt South Vietnamese government. Bit of an albatross around JFK's neck...
There's books on the pro-Israel and pro-Saudi Arabia lobbies in Washington.
With regard to Israel and Saudi Arabia, those two 'tails' have been wagging the American 'dog' for decades, and not to America's best interests, often to its detriment...
and yet, here we are talking about friendlier relations towards Russia from Trump and that is seen as a problem...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I awoke this morning to a tidal wave of hogwash concerning one Donald Trump and Russian blackmail!
Blackmail? Blackmail? You gotta be kidding me.
What are the Russians going to prove? That Trump is an idiot? Racist? Talked about groping women? Or has a dubious business history?
We know that already
Yes we know. But then again as above said Trump is extremely paranoid about his image and doesn't seem to even know how bad it actually is. They don't need to have anything new to prove to make Trump go ballistic.
It's against Him. The Great Messiah Trump as he seems to think himself. Nothing must stand in His Holy Crusade.
Problem is if they have it Russians can use it to make Trump give Russians what they want because Trump cares more about his image than what's good for americans(not that he cares much about that either but either way what russians want isn't best interest of america so blanket giving what they want is not good. And frankly with russia being neighbour I get nervous if they start to get what they want at will)
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I awoke this morning to a tidal wave of hogwash concerning one Donald Trump and Russian blackmail!
Blackmail? Blackmail? You gotta be kidding me.
What are the Russians going to prove? That Trump is an idiot? Racist? Talked about groping women? Or has a dubious business history?
We know that already
Yes we know. But then again as above said Trump is extremely paranoid about his image and doesn't seem to even know how bad it actually is. They don't need to have anything new to prove to make Trump go ballistic.
It's against Him. The Great Messiah Trump as he seems to think himself. Nothing must stand in His Holy Crusade.
Problem is if they have it Russians can use it to make Trump give Russians what they want because Trump cares more about his image than what's good for americans(not that he cares much about that either but either way what russians want isn't best interest of america so blanket giving what they want is not good. And frankly with russia being neighbour I get nervous if they start to get what they want at will)
I doubt if it will come to that.
We're too quick to see Russia's hand in everything.
These days, whenever somebody slips on a banana skin, Putin gets the blame.
I think a lot of people just need to take a deep breathe.
sebster wrote: 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.
"Greater unemployment and similar things*" are not trivialities and are not without risks of backfiring. The Russian people is fully capable of understanding that their worsening lives are due to Western sanctions. That would not necessarily produce a new Russian government that caved to everything the US wanted. Have you not considered that your plan would fail? Have you not considered what the Russian government might do to counteract it?
*Additionally, "and similar things" is a hell of a weasel way of mentioning-but-not-really-mentioning reduced availability of food or medicine, increased poverty, decreasing funds for social services and all the other human costs of economic sanctions.
I am not sure there is anything that anyone can use to blackmail Trump, blackmail requires the victim to have some sense of shame. That being said, I am done with this, lets just do it and get Kanye into office, now. Maybe just maybe it is time for Dwayne Elizando Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho to be in office.
We're too quick to see Russia's hand in everything.
These days, whenever somebody slips on a banana skin, Putin gets the blame.
I think a lot of people just need to take a deep breathe.
Well the question is do they have it or not?
If they have it they will use it. And Trump has already shown that he's instantly lashing out if somebody says ANYTHING against it. Therefore no reason to think he would be "okay release it" when given "do this or we'll release it".
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump is very touchy about his image, that's why he reacts so rabidly when criticised, for instance, by slagging off Meryl Streep as a rotten actress blah blah blah.
Perfectly obviously Trump would be horrified to have the Russians release this alleged pervy video of him.
It would be oddly fitting that this bold new era was christened with the release of a sex tape that most people really really wouldn't watch.
I would be interested to see the political fallout among Trump supports if they saw a sex tape of Trump watching and hooting while a gang of Russian prostitutes wees on a hotel bed.
Yes. Because problem isn't what normal people think because of that. Problem is it would be against The Holy Leader. What matters is does HE think it's bad and he thinks any critique is bad for him.
Let's not underestimate how much Clinton is hated by some sections of American society.
Let's say for argument' sake that these allegations are true, and that Trump was involved in some orgy with a group of Russian prostitutes.
We have clearly seen that no matter what, people will still support him over Clinton.
Trump could set fire to the declaration of independence, dig up George Washington, and then crash a Sherman tank into the Lincoln memorial, and Clinton would still be blamed and people would still vote for Trump.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Let's not underestimate how much Clinton is hated by some sections of American society.
Let's say for argument' sake that these allegations are true, and that Trump was involved in some orgy with a group of Russian prostitutes.
We have clearly seen that no matter what, people will still support him over Clinton.
Trump could set fire to the declaration of independence, dig up George Washington, and then crash a Sherman tank into the Lincoln memorial, and Clinton would still be blamed and people would still vote for Trump.
These allegations change nothing IMO.
That is NOT problem. It's irrelevant how public reacts to the video. They could even be MORE pro-Trump and it would STILL be problem.
It would be attack against The Holy Messiah who has zero tolerance for ANY critique against him. He also has very high image of himself and thinks everybody shares it. Therefore anything that makes him feel his _own image of his own image_ is getting threatened is bad. Which is what allows Russians to use it to blackmail.
It's irrelevant if release of video results in every american be pro-Trump if Trump thinks it would be bad for his image or even hint of critique against him. He would be dead set against release of that video. Which means it's good for blackmailing.
The Hitler Diaries Mark II – or I Hope They Changed the Mattress
The mainstream media’s extreme enthusiasm for the Hitler Diaries shows their rush to embrace any forgery if it is big and astonishing enough. For the Guardian to lead with such an obvious forgery as the Trump “commercial intelligence reports” is the final evidence of the demise of that newspaper’s journalistic values.
I suspect that we are supposed to “conclude” falsely that the reports were written by Mark Allen at BP. Here are a short list of six impossible things we are asked to believe before breakfast:
1) Vladimir Putin had a five year (later stated as eight year) plan to run Donald Trump as a “Manchurian candidate” for President and Trump was an active and knowing partner in Putin’s scheme.
2) Hillary Clinton is so stupid and unaware that she held compromising conversations over telephone lines whilst in Russia itself.
3) Trump’s lawyer/adviser Mr Cohen was so stupid he held meetings in Prague with the hacker/groups themselves in person to arrange payment, along with senior officials of the Russian security services. The NSA, CIA and FBI are so incompetent they did not monitor this meeting, and somehow the NSA failed to pick up on the electronic and telephone communications involved in organising it. Therefore Mr Cohen was never questioned over this alleged and improbable serious criminal activity.
4) A private company had minute by minute intelligence on the Manchurian Candidate scheme and all the indictable illegal activity that was going on, which the CIA/NSA/GCHQ/MI6 did not have, despite their specific tasking and enormous technical, staff and financial resources amounting between them to over 150,000 staff and the availability of hundreds of billons of dollars to do nothing but this.
5) A private western company is able to run a state level intelligence operation in Russia for years, continually interviewing senior security sources and people personally close to Putin, without being caught by the Russian security services – despite the fact the latter are brilliant enough to install a Manchurian candidate as President of the USA. This private western company can for example secretly interview staff in top Moscow hotels – which they themselves say are Russian security service controlled – without the staff being too scared to speak to them or ending up dead. They can continually pump Putin’s friends for information and get it.
6) Donald Trump’s real interest is his vast financial commitment in China, and he has little investment in Russia, according to the reports. Yet he spent the entire election campaign advocating closer ties with Russia and demonising and antagonising China.
As forgeries go, this is really not in the least convincing. I might add I do not include the golden showers among the impossible aspects. I have no idea if it is true and neither do I care. Given Trump’s wealth and history, I think we can say with confidence that he has indulged whatever his sexual preferences might be all over the world and not just in Russia. It seems most improbable he would succumb to blackmail over it and not brazen it out. I suppose it could be taken as the sole example of trickledown theory actually working.
Kilkrazy wrote: I would be interested to see the political fallout among Trump supports if they saw a sex tape of Trump watching and hooting while a gang of Russian prostitutes wees on a hotel bed.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Let's not underestimate how much Clinton is hated by some sections of American society.
Let's say for argument' sake that these allegations are true, and that Trump was involved in some orgy with a group of Russian prostitutes.
We have clearly seen that no matter what, people will still support him over Clinton.
Trump could set fire to the declaration of independence, dig up George Washington, and then crash a Sherman tank into the Lincoln memorial, and Clinton would still be blamed and people would still vote for Trump.
These allegations change nothing IMO.
That is NOT problem. It's irrelevant how public reacts to the video. They could even be MORE pro-Trump and it would STILL be problem.
It would be attack against The Holy Messiah who has zero tolerance for ANY critique against him. He also has very high image of himself and thinks everybody shares it. Therefore anything that makes him feel his _own image of his own image_ is getting threatened is bad. Which is what allows Russians to use it to blackmail.
It's irrelevant if release of video results in every american be pro-Trump if Trump thinks it would be bad for his image or even hint of critique against him. He would be dead set against release of that video. Which means it's good for blackmailing.
If a man is an idiot, and the whole world knows it, then how can you threaten him by threatening to release information that proves he's an idiot?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I would be interested to see the political fallout among Trump supports if they saw a sex tape of Trump watching and hooting while a gang of Russian prostitutes wees on a hotel bed.
Kilkrazy wrote: I would be interested to see the political fallout among Trump supports if they saw a sex tape of Trump watching and hooting while a gang of Russian prostitutes wees on a hotel bed.
The thread wherein the "4chan did it" is supposed to have originated occurred in November, with the original claim by the MI6 person being dated back to some time around July I believe. It appears to be a combination of /pol/ attempting to deflect criticism away from daddy trump whilst also thinking that it's way more important than it actually is.
President-elect Donald Trump's top aide Kellyanne Conway on Tuesday said that Trump was not briefed on a summary of an unsubstantiated but explosive dossier that claims Russia collected compromising info on him.
CNN on Tuesday reported that the Intelligence Community briefed the president-elect and President Obama last week about the allegations by appending a two-page synopsis, based on memos written by a former British MI6 operative, to its larger report about Russian meddling in the election.
The dossier has reportedly been circulating through the intelligence community. The synopsis was reportedly included in part to show that Russia was partial to Trump over Hillary Clinton, choosing not releasing damaging information about him.
Conway said late Tuesday that Trump was "not aware" of the two-page synopsis that was presented as an appendix to the main intelligence report.
"He has said that he is not aware of that," Conway said in an appearance on "Late Night with Seth Meyers."
Conway also criticized the reports by questioning the reliability of the sources.
"Well guess what has't happened ... nobody has sourced it. They are all unnamed, unspoken sources in the story and it says it was based on a Russian investigator to begin with," she said.
According to CNN, the memos of the former British operative originated as opposition research and were commissioned by anti-Trump Republicans and later by Democrats supporting Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
CNN also noted that while the former MI6 operative now works for a private intelligence gathering firm, his previous work was considered reliable by the U.S. intelligence community and he has deep ties to Russian sources.
"It also says that Hillary Clinton and groups that wanted Hillary Clinton to win may have been behind the investigations themselves, and most importantly, it says that the FBI is trying to confirm it. So nothing has been confirmed," Conway continued.
"And I actually have to say as an American citizen, regardless of your party ... we should be concerned that intelligence officials leaked to the press and won't go and tell the president-elect or the president of the United States," she added.
... Best bit is her complaining that they won't tell Trump anything right after admitting he doesn't read the info he is given.
Kilkrazy wrote: I would be interested to see the political fallout among Trump supports if they saw a sex tape of Trump watching and hooting while a gang of Russian prostitutes wees on a hotel bed.
The thread wherein the "4chan did it" is supposed to have originated occurred in November, with the original claim by the MI6 person being dated back to some time around July I believe. It appears to be a combination of /pol/ attempting to deflect criticism away from daddy trump whilst also thinking that it's way more important than it actually is.
the MJ article note phrasing -- "
But a senior US government official not involved in this case but familiar with the former spy tells Mother Jones that he has been a credible source with a proven record of providing reliable, sensitive, and important information to the US government."
Kilkrazy wrote: I would be interested to see the political fallout among Trump supports if they saw a sex tape of Trump watching and hooting while a gang of Russian prostitutes wees on a hotel bed.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If a man is an idiot, and the whole world knows it, then how can you threaten him by threatening to release information that proves he's an idiot?
Because he doesn't think he's idiot, he doesn't think people think him as idiot, he thinks it will damage his image which he thinks is good and therefore rather than allow leak will do what blackmailers ask.
Problem isn't it being released and it leading to his downfall(hey that would be GOOD). Problem is he would think it could damage his reputation which HE thinks is great and therefore he won't allow that.
It's 100% irrelevant what OTHERS think of it. What matters is what TRUMP thinks and so far he has slashed out anything even remotely critical against His Holy Person.
Kilkrazy wrote: I would be interested to see the political fallout among Trump supports if they saw a sex tape of Trump watching and hooting while a gang of Russian prostitutes wees on a hotel bed.
I think if I was going to present evidence in order to prove or disprove "fake" news, I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't cite zerohedge as my source. Kind of like using the World Weekly News, or whatever, to cite that the government is covering up aliens amongst us.
Sorry, Frazz, that site is best used to print off a few pages for use to clean up after your badger hounds.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I awoke this morning to a tidal wave of hogwash concerning one Donald Trump and Russian blackmail!
Blackmail? Blackmail? You gotta be kidding me.
What are the Russians going to prove? That Trump is an idiot? Racist? Talked about groping women? Or has a dubious business history?
We know that already
There are those who say that Trump links with Russia and his pro-Russia stance is not in America's best interests?
They could very well have video of him with children. He's already on tape saying a man who hosted underage girl parties is a good friend of his. So a child porn tape could be the line that the GOP won't cross. It's easy to say 'who cares' when it's consenting adults, but as it's russia and trump already admits to be attracted to children the tapes could me much worse than imagined. And that is something that trump can be blackmailed for.
Still doesn't prove, or disprove any of this. At this point it's...this latest peccadillo...all unsubstantiated, so I take it for what it's worth. Whether it get's proven or disproven tomorrow, uncategorically, either way wouldn't surprise me one bit. I do, however, shake my head at Trump's response to these allegations and the Russian election hacking findings when he cites Julian Assange and Russia itself as counterpoints to the intel briefing. It really doesn't help the poor fool.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I awoke this morning to a tidal wave of hogwash concerning one Donald Trump and Russian blackmail!
Blackmail? Blackmail? You gotta be kidding me.
What are the Russians going to prove? That Trump is an idiot? Racist? Talked about groping women? Or has a dubious business history?
We know that already
There are those who say that Trump links with Russia and his pro-Russia stance is not in America's best interests?
They could very well have video of him with children. He's already on tape saying a man who hosted underage girl parties is a good friend of his. So a child porn tape could be the line that the GOP won't cross. It's easy to say 'who cares' when it's consenting adults, but as it's russia and trump already admits to be attracted to children the tapes could me much worse than imagined. And that is something that trump can be blackmailed for.
Indeed. And if the Russians were setting him up with a honeypot scam then making sure that one of the prostitutes was underage would be a smart move. Politician caught in sex scandal with underage prostitute carries a lot more weight than just another politician kinky sex scandal.
“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity...
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.
BuzzFeed throwing away journalistic integrity is more than an "article having issues" and has gone beyond the point of BuzzFeed simply being biased. BuzzFeed has show themselves to be little better than Gawker or Alec Jones.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: 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.
Bias =/= lack of ethics. Mother Jones is biased. Huffington Post is biased. Rush Limbaugh is biased. Regardless of any perceived biased, the story I linked to is accurate and properly sourced. Whining about Laura Ingram isn't much of a counterpoint to the fact that BuzzFeed has no journalistic ethics.
Kilkrazy wrote: BuzzFeed's lack of journalistic ethics are not the story.
I posted an article showing that BuzzFeed has demonstrated a lack of journalistic ethics that even other left wing publications won't defend but you do. You then try to make it all about Laura Ingram for some reason. It's a pattern with how you post.
"Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
In response to the replies sirlynchmob and A Town called Malus.
I'll refer both of you to my earlier post about Craig Murray's blogpost on this issue, and this quote in particular from Murray:
UPDATE Michael Cohen has now stated he has never been to Prague in his life. If that is true the extremely weak credibility of the entire forgery collapses in total. What is more, contrary to the claims of the Guardian and Washington Post that the material is “unverifiable”, the veracity of it could be tested extremely easily by the most basic journalism, ie asking Mr Cohen who has produced his passport. The editors of the Washington Post and the Guardian are guilty of pushing as blazing front page news the most blatant forgery to serve their own political ends, without carrying out the absolutely basic journalistic checks which would easily prove the forgery. Those editors must resign.
Would I be surprised if Trump had hit Moscow town back in the day with a crate of Red Army surplus Vodka and 50 prostitutes? Hell no.
but children involved? I'm not buying it, and I'll be the first to put up my hand and admit I was wrong if the facts change.
But as we are seeing, this story is unravelling at a rate of knots. We're in danger of entering the realms of fantasy here.
Wasn't "fake news" one of the big media topics just recently? There's a lot of silliness with Trump but you'd think that people would at least try and vet some of these stories before running with them.
I know a lot of people would like to see Trump hoisted on his own petard but continually posting gossip as news just makes him immune to criticism. Remember Bill Clinton's impeachment? The Republicans tried to burn him on a minor process crime without securing the needed votes in the Senate. President Clinton came out looking vindicated and the Republicans looked like idiots. This is much the same here. We have people yelling wolf, posting untruths as fact, and generally making damning claims they can't back up. If or when Trump actually does something bad, it will be much harder to deal with it because of all this previous BS people have been slinging.
Breotan wrote: This is much the same here. We have people yelling wolf, posting untruths as fact, and generally making damning claims they can't back up.
Breotan wrote: Wasn't "fake news" one of the big media topics just recently? There's a lot of silliness with Trump but you'd think that people would at least try and vet some of these stories before running with them.
I know a lot of people would like to see Trump hoisted on his own petard but continually posting gossip as news just makes him immune to criticism. Remember Bill Clinton's impeachment? The Republicans tried to burn him on a minor process crime without securing the needed votes in the Senate. President Clinton came out looking vindicated and the Republicans looked like idiots. This is much the same here. We have people yelling wolf, posting untruths as fact, and generally making damning claims they can't back up. If or when Trump actually does something bad, it will be much harder to deal with it because of all this previous BS people have been slinging.
It's worse than that. The media is basically saying that yeah, we know this story is concentrated bullgak from start to finish, but we'll publish it anyway
What the hell happened to journalism? Ethics? Standards?
The Washington Post, that done so much to help America with the Pentagon Papers and bringing down Nixon...reduced to this...
God knows I don't give two hoots for Donald Trump, but this shoddy, gak poor journalism is a disgrace.
Breotan wrote: This is much the same here. We have people yelling wolf, posting untruths as fact, and generally making damning claims they can't back up.
Who has done that exactly?
News media, pundits and commentators, "talking head" shows, YouTube commentators, etc. The problem is that they're all starting to look like Fox News and everything is becoming noise. I'm concerned that should something "real" happen it will become lost because of all this.
Breotan wrote: This is much the same here. We have people yelling wolf, posting untruths as fact, and generally making damning claims they can't back up.
Who has done that exactly?
News media, pundits and commentators, "talking head" shows, YouTube commentators, etc. The problem is that they're all starting to look like Fox News and everything is becoming noise. I'm concerned that should something "real" happen it will become lost because of all this.
No, give me an actual example of where someone has taken a claim that Trump has done something wrong and passed it off as absolute truth rather than just a claim or accusation.
So, apparently it was Senator McCain who got ahold of this and gave it to the FBI. I knew politics was blood sport but sheesh. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. If anything is substantiated Trump will definitely be hurt and may possibly have to resign should the worst prove true. If investigations into these allegations prove them false, McCain might as well retire.
I want to know more about this MI6 guy who compiled this stuff. Is this the work of honest investigation or did he just make this stuff up to scam the people who hired him?
So, apparently it was Senator McCain who got ahold of this and gave it to the FBI. I knew politics was blood sport but sheesh. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. If anything is substantiated Trump will definitely be hurt and may possibly have to resign should the worst prove true. If investigations into these allegations prove them false, McCain might as well retire.
I want to know more about this MI6 guy who compiled this stuff. Is this the work of honest investigation or did he just make this stuff up to scam the people who hired him?
I don't know how much you know about the British secret service, but take it from this Brit, we've had more than our fair share of dodgy agents over the years, so please bear that in mind when dealing with these kind of allegations.
Honestly, I sadly know this won't turn into anything solid. Cause thats too convienent to be rid of this gak stain of a human being so easilly. There is no such thing as karma nor justice, no amount of wishing will make this bag of sentient dicks catch fire.
I mean fingers crossed I'm wrong and we just have to deal with Pence the rubberstamp for every gak show idea congress shoves infront of him but yeah, we're just not that lucky.
So, apparently it was Senator McCain who got ahold of this and gave it to the FBI. I knew politics was blood sport but sheesh. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. If anything is substantiated Trump will definitely be hurt and may possibly have to resign should the worst prove true. If investigations into these allegations prove them false, McCain might as well retire.
I want to know more about this MI6 guy who compiled this stuff. Is this the work of honest investigation or did he just make this stuff up to scam the people who hired him?
I don't know how much you know about the British secret service, but take it from this Brit, we've had more than our fair share of dodgy agents over the years, so please bear that in mind when dealing with these kind of allegations.
Rereading what I wrote it does sound like an allegation however that was not my intent. I wanted to phrase it as a hypothetical but I guess I botched that. Sorry.
It highlights the self-awareness failure on part of the author.
You're right. The guy should be wearing a pilot's uniform, but his cap's upside down and all the buttons are done wrong and when you look closer, it's not actually a pilot's uniform, it's, like, a stripper's pilot's uniform. Or something.
lonestarr777 wrote: Honestly, I sadly know this won't turn into anything solid. Cause thats too convienent to be rid of this gak stain of a human being so easilly. There is no such thing as karma nor justice, no amount of wishing will make this bag of sentient dicks catch fire.
I mean fingers crossed I'm wrong and we just have to deal with Pence the rubberstamp for every gak show idea congress shoves infront of him but yeah, we're just not that lucky.
If it were up to me, I'd have Trump run out of America and exiled to Skegness for evermore, Skegness being a notoriously bad British holiday resort.
On the other hand, even Trump deserves better than this horsegak level of journalism that is on display here. This story has more holes in it than a machine gunned Swiss Cheese!
A certain Arizona Senator should be seriously considering his position if he had any sense of honour.
Looking at the bigger picture, we as citizens of Western democracies deserve far better than the journalism we are getting, and ultimately, we all lose, if the level and quality is so bad, which it is.
An enlightened citizenry is democracy's best defence against tyranny and abuse by our leaders. Our newspapers have let us down badly...
That's what angers me the most.
Anyway, I'll be back tomorrow. In the mean time, I'd urge my fellow dakka members to treat this story with the contempt it deserves. Look beyond your opinion of Trump and see the bigger picture going on here.
So, apparently it was Senator McCain who got ahold of this and gave it to the FBI. I knew politics was blood sport but sheesh. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. If anything is substantiated Trump will definitely be hurt and may possibly have to resign should the worst prove true. If investigations into these allegations prove them false, McCain might as well retire.
I want to know more about this MI6 guy who compiled this stuff. Is this the work of honest investigation or did he just make this stuff up to scam the people who hired him?
I don't know how much you know about the British secret service, but take it from this Brit, we've had more than our fair share of dodgy agents over the years, so please bear that in mind when dealing with these kind of allegations.
Rereading what I wrote it does sound like an allegation however that was not my intent. I wanted to phrase it as a hypothetical but I guess I botched that. Sorry.
No need to apologise. I'm just saying that just because a man or woman is an MI5 or MI6 agent, doesn't mean they can be trusted.
It highlights the self-awareness failure on part of the author.
You're right. The guy should be wearing a pilot's uniform, but his cap's upside down and all the buttons are done wrong and when you look closer, it's not actually a pilot's uniform, it's, like, a stripper's pilot's uniform. Or something.
Nah... this is coming from the New Yorker magazine... where the author thinks they're the expert(the pilot) and how dare the plebes (passengers) challenge them.
As if their self-appointed expertise in on the same level as a fething airline pilot.
This cartoon was published/doing the rounds last week or so
Spoiler:
I love this picture...
It highlights the self-awareness failure on part of the author.
Care to explain how the cartoon shows a smug lack of self-awareness?
I mean, it's a bad analogy if you only look at it as a critique of Trump, but if you take it as a reductio ad absudum of the current "experts=bad" hysteria that is going around, it's not bad.
So, apparently it was Senator McCain who got ahold of this and gave it to the FBI. I knew politics was blood sport but sheesh. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. If anything is substantiated Trump will definitely be hurt and may possibly have to resign should the worst prove true. If investigations into these allegations prove them false, McCain might as well retire.
I want to know more about this MI6 guy who compiled this stuff. Is this the work of honest investigation or did he just make this stuff up to scam the people who hired him?
That is a literal "It was me Dio!" moment right there
lonestarr777 wrote: Honestly, I sadly know this won't turn into anything solid. Cause thats too convienent to be rid of this gak stain of a human being so easilly. There is no such thing as karma nor justice, no amount of wishing will make this bag of sentient dicks catch fire.
I mean fingers crossed I'm wrong and we just have to deal with Pence the rubberstamp for every gak show idea congress shoves infront of him but yeah, we're just not that lucky.
If it were up to me, I'd have Trump run out of America and exiled to Skegness for evermore, Skegness being a notoriously bad British holiday resort.
On the other hand, even Trump deserves better than this horsegak level of journalism that is on display here. This story has more holes in it than a machine gunned Swiss Cheese!
A certain Arizona Senator should be seriously considering his position if he had any sense of honour.
Looking at the bigger picture, we as citizens of Western democracies deserve far better than the journalism we are getting, and ultimately, we all lose, if the level and quality is so bad, which it is.
An enlightened citizenry is democracy's best defence against tyranny and abuse by our leaders. Our newspapers have let us down badly...
That's what angers me the most.
Anyway, I'll be back tomorrow. In the mean time, I'd urge my fellow dakka members to treat this story with the contempt it deserves. Look beyond your opinion of Trump and see the bigger picture going on here.
It's the definition of McCarthyism... I mean that literally.
This isn't a lefty/liberal issues... I'm also seeing this from other righties as well. (I guess they're #NeverTrumpers still )
While I think all of this Buzzfeed stuff is utterly and complete trash... one can still legitimately express concerns over Trump humping Putin's leg. That is deeplyconcerning.
It highlights the self-awareness failure on part of the author.
You're right. The guy should be wearing a pilot's uniform, but his cap's upside down and all the buttons are done wrong and when you look closer, it's not actually a pilot's uniform, it's, like, a stripper's pilot's uniform. Or something.
Nah... this is coming from the New Yorker magazine... where the author thinks they're the expert(the pilot) and how dare the plebes (passengers) challenge them.
As if their self-appointed expertise in on the same level as a fething airline pilot.
Why would you assume the 'pilot' in question is the New Yorker author and not a stand-in for experienced politicians? I mean, it seems pretty clear to me. Trump's campaign was full of all that 'you can't trust any politician, throw 'em out' and 'he's not a politician, he's a businessman' garbage, especially during the primary.
So, apparently it was Senator McCain who got ahold of this and gave it to the FBI. I knew politics was blood sport but sheesh. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. If anything is substantiated Trump will definitely be hurt and may possibly have to resign should the worst prove true. If investigations into these allegations prove them false, McCain might as well retire.
I want to know more about this MI6 guy who compiled this stuff. Is this the work of honest investigation or did he just make this stuff up to scam the people who hired him?
Why would he resign? Thisis not a disagreement-I literally haven't been keeping up.
I am cherry-picking out some of the big highlights to me. read it for yourself and make your own decisions.
U.S. employers have added more than 11 million jobs since Obama took office (and more than 15 million since the job market bottomed out in early 2010). After nearly a decade of stagnant wages, median household income jumped sharply in 2015. And last year's wage growth was the strongest of the recovery.
The president's signature health care law has expanded insurance coverage and broadened protections for those who were already insured. It has also encouraged changes in the way medical payments are made — to reward quality rather than quantity of care. And it has coincided with slower growth in insurance premiums for the majority of Americans who get their insurance through an employer.
But the law — which passed with no Republican support seven years ago — remains deeply controversial. People buying insurance on the government-run exchanges saw premium increases averaging 25 percent this year. And Republicans have vowed to make repeal of Obamacare their first order of business as soon as they control both Congress and the White House, which they will now.
Obama first ran for the White House determined to end the war in Iraq while refocusing attention on Afghanistan. He ordered the successful special operations raid that killed Osama bin Laden. But an early troop surge in Afghanistan had only limited success in taming the Taliban. While the number of American troops in harm's way has since been greatly reduced, Obama had to backtrack on plans to withdraw from Afghanistan altogether. And critics say the precipitous American troop withdrawal from Iraq left a vacuum there which gave way to the rise of the Islamic State. In 2014, Obama was forced to send some troops back to Iraq to address the threat from ISIS.
"The high school graduation rate is now 83 percent — the highest on record — and we've helped more young people graduate from college than ever before."- Obama
I know when I was done, I was left wondering why Americans didn't want more of the success we had been having? Sure, everything wasn't perfect, but if you asked "Are we better off than we were 8 years ago, the answer was a resounding YES! Even White Working Class people were better off, the data proves it. Yet, what the hell did we as Americans do?
I think we just get too caught up into a myopic view and could no longer see the forest as Americans collectively stared into the bark of one pet issue tree after another.
I honestly do not understand my fellow Americans anymore.
Why would he resign? Thisis not a disagreement-I literally haven't been keeping up.
Apparently politicians shouldn't hand over potentially damaging information to law enforcement agencies. It is the FBI's job to assess and verify the information, not Senator McCain's. McCain did nothing wrong by handing this over to the FBI to investigate.
So, apparently it was Senator McCain who got ahold of this and gave it to the FBI. I knew politics was blood sport but sheesh. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. If anything is substantiated Trump will definitely be hurt and may possibly have to resign should the worst prove true. If investigations into these allegations prove them false, McCain might as well retire.
I want to know more about this MI6 guy who compiled this stuff. Is this the work of honest investigation or did he just make this stuff up to scam the people who hired him?
Why would he resign? Thisis not a disagreement-I literally haven't been keeping up.
If true, these allegations would damage Trump to the point where he couldn't govern effectively and might possibly face impeachment. If false, every bit of McCain's political capital would be lost on a misguided attempt to smear Trump and McCain would be marginalized in Congress to the point he might as well not even show up anymore.
If true, these allegations would damage Trump to the point where he couldn't govern effectively and might possibly face impeachment. If false, every bit of McCain's political capital would be lost on a misguided attempt to smear Trump and McCain would be marginalized in Congress to the point he might as well not even show up anymore.
So you think that when McCain was handed a dossier which claimed to have evidence of Trump being compromised by Russia he should have done what with it, exactly?
It highlights the self-awareness failure on part of the author.
You're right. The guy should be wearing a pilot's uniform, but his cap's upside down and all the buttons are done wrong and when you look closer, it's not actually a pilot's uniform, it's, like, a stripper's pilot's uniform. Or something.
Nah... this is coming from the New Yorker magazine... where the author thinks they're the expert(the pilot) and how dare the plebes (passengers) challenge them.
As if their self-appointed expertise in on the same level as a fething airline pilot.
Why would you assume the 'pilot' in question is the New Yorker author and not a stand-in for experienced politicians? I mean, it seems pretty clear to me. Trump's campaign was full of all that 'you can't trust any politician, throw 'em out' and 'he's not a politician, he's a businessman' garbage, especially during the primary.
If anything, I read that the pilot are stand-in for experts with vast experience and credentials. Much of the political class and punditry see themselves as these 'experts'. Hence why they're so smug about their viewpoints and declare heresies for those who hold opposing viewpoints.
The passengers (ordinary people) are just carried along for the ride, while the country is run by experts (the pilots).
The subliminal context here is that letting ordinary people (the passengers) take charge would result in a disastrous crash.
If true, these allegations would damage Trump to the point where he couldn't govern effectively and might possibly face impeachment. If false, every bit of McCain's political capital would be lost on a misguided attempt to smear Trump and McCain would be marginalized in Congress to the point he might as well not even show up anymore.
To be fair, this may be a little payback by the Maverick for Trump's denigration over McCain's POW ordeal.
It highlights the self-awareness failure on part of the author.
You're right. The guy should be wearing a pilot's uniform, but his cap's upside down and all the buttons are done wrong and when you look closer, it's not actually a pilot's uniform, it's, like, a stripper's pilot's uniform. Or something.
Nah... this is coming from the New Yorker magazine... where the author thinks they're the expert(the pilot) and how dare the plebes (passengers) challenge them.
As if their self-appointed expertise in on the same level as a fething airline pilot.
Why would you assume the 'pilot' in question is the New Yorker author and not a stand-in for experienced politicians? I mean, it seems pretty clear to me. Trump's campaign was full of all that 'you can't trust any politician, throw 'em out' and 'he's not a politician, he's a businessman' garbage, especially during the primary.
If anything, I read that the pilot are stand-in for experts with vast experience and credentials. Much of the political class and punditry see themselves as these 'experts'. Hence why they're so smug about their viewpoints and declare heresies for those who hold opposing viewpoints.
The passengers (ordinary people) are just carried along for the ride, while the country is run by experts (the pilots).
The subliminal context here is that letting ordinary people (the passengers) take charge would result in a disastrous crash.
I guess that's one way to read it, if you ignore the obvious reference to Trump's campaign specifically. I mean, I think political cartoonists are smug by definition, but I also think your interpretation needs a healthy dose of Occam's Razor.
And, come to think of it, isn't throwing someone with absolutely no political experience beyond angry shouting into the highest office in our nation likely to cause problems?
If anything, I read that the pilot are stand-in for experts with vast experience and credentials. Much of the political class and punditry see themselves as these 'experts'. Hence why they're so smug about their viewpoints and declare heresies for those who hold opposing viewpoints.
The passengers (ordinary people) are just carried along for the ride, while the country is run by experts (the pilots).
The subliminal context here is that letting ordinary people (the passengers) take charge would result in a disastrous crash.
Do you think politics is different from any other profession? Do you think any old Joe can wake up in the morning and suddenly run the country?
To be fair, this may be a little payback by the Maverick for Trump's denigration over McCain's POW ordeal.
I don't know McCain that well. Is he the type to potentially throw away his career over some clown's insults?
Perhaps McCain is closer to the situation and knows more than you and I, and is doing his job. Protecting American interests.
President Obama has put Chelsea Manning, the former Army intelligence analyst serving a 35-year sentence for leaking classified material, on his short list for a possible commutation, a Justice Department source told NBC News.
This Buzzfeed stuff is just a bunch of gak. It has way too much noise to signal ratio.
I agree that our Media and Yellow Journalism is failing us miserably. No one trusts any of it and now there is no "Source of Truth" as all media squabble for views.
Why would he resign? Thisis not a disagreement-I literally haven't been keeping up.
Apparently politicians shouldn't hand over potentially damaging information to law enforcement agencies. It is the FBI's job to assess and verify the information, not Senator McCain's. McCain did nothing wrong by handing this over to the FBI to investigate.
More I lost the thread-whats going on as of today?
That right there shows everyone exactly how little you know about ethics in journalism. Objectivity most definitely falls under the umbrella of ethical journalism.
Mother Jones is biased. Huffington Post is biased. Rush Limbaugh is biased. Regardless of any perceived biased, the story I linked to is accurate and properly sourced.
So was the BuzzFeed article that triggered you.
Whining about Laura Ingram isn't much of a counterpoint to the fact that BuzzFeed has no journalistic ethics.
It wasn't supposed to be a counterpoint, but I'm sure you know that but it's easier to make gakky strawman arguments instead.
I posted an article showing that BuzzFeed has demonstrated a lack of journalistic ethics that even other left wing publications won't defend but you do. You then try to make it all about Laura Ingram for some reason. It's a pattern with how you post.
My only pattern is calling out the dumb gak you like to flood these threads with. Again, the original issue I had (besides your ridiculous outrage) was that while you were complaining about a clickbait websites supposed lack of "ethics," you link a gak site that crafted a perfectly dumb story to meant to trigger people like you into frothing anger while ignore how silly the actual article was and how the source (a Donald Trump shill) has compromised ethics as well.
lonestarr777 wrote: Honestly, I sadly know this won't turn into anything solid. Cause thats too convienent to be rid of this gak stain of a human being so easilly. There is no such thing as karma nor justice, no amount of wishing will make this bag of sentient dicks catch fire.
I mean fingers crossed I'm wrong and we just have to deal with Pence the rubberstamp for every gak show idea congress shoves infront of him but yeah, we're just not that lucky.
Problem with this being is that if russians do have that video odds are it's never SEEN in public.
Russia doesn't want Trump out of office or damage him.
Now making him give Russia what they want...Now THAT is another thing.
And in other news Trump again brought up the mexico wall. People here still claiming that was just campaign talk and he has no intention of trying it? If he was planning to have it never materialize one would assume he would try to keep "hush hush" rather than keep drumming about it and have his staff start looking at it already.
So, I caught the end of that speech. What has the BBC of all places, generally seen as one of the tiny handful of news organisations in the world to be overall apolitical, done so badly to earn the ire of the President Elect of the United States of America?
That right there shows everyone exactly how little you know about ethics in journalism. Objectivity most definitely falls under the umbrella of ethical journalism.
So you're saying that Mother Jones, The Huffington Post, and others like that are unethical?
Whining about Laura Ingram isn't much of a counterpoint to the fact that BuzzFeed has no journalistic ethics.
It wasn't supposed to be a counterpoint, but I'm sure you know that but it's easier to make gakky strawman arguments instead.
You're the one who brought up Laure Ingram and her biases in a post about BuzzFeed's ethics. You call my arguments strawmen but you're the one who's shoveling from the haystack.
I posted an article showing that BuzzFeed has demonstrated a lack of journalistic ethics that even other left wing publications won't defend but you do. You then try to make it all about Laura Ingram for some reason. It's a pattern with how you post.
My only pattern is calling out the dumb gak you like to flood these threads with. Again, the original issue I had (besides your ridiculous outrage) was that while you were complaining about a clickbait websites supposed lack of "ethics," you link a gak site that crafted a perfectly dumb story to meant to trigger people like you into frothing anger while ignore how silly the actual article was and how the source (a Donald Trump shill) has compromised ethics as well.
That is a pattern of how you post.
You can't argue or defend what BuzzFeed did so you attack the messenger (Ingram) instead and now you're trying to make this about me. Your arguments are vapid.
Compel wrote: So, I caught the end of that speech. What has the BBC of all places, generally seen as one of the tiny handful of news organisations in the world to be overall apolitical, done so badly to earn the ire of the President Elect of the United States of America?
Compel wrote: So, I caught the end of that speech. What has the BBC of all places, generally seen as one of the tiny handful of news organisations in the world to be overall apolitical, done so badly to earn the ire of the President Elect of the United States of America?
Compel wrote: So, I caught the end of that speech. What has the BBC of all places, generally seen as one of the tiny handful of news organisations in the world to be overall apolitical, done so badly to earn the ire of the President Elect of the United States of America?
Said even one word against The Chosen?
"President-elect Trump might have made a mistake"
That would be enough to incur wrath of The Chosen One.
President Obama has put Chelsea Manning, the former Army intelligence analyst serving a 35-year sentence for leaking classified material, on his short list for a possible commutation, a Justice Department source told NBC News.
If true, pardoning or commuting Manning’s sentence would be end up rehabbing the actions of Wikileaks and undermine the arguments about it's impact to America...
I certainly hope Obama asks for Clinton and Podesta's input...
Well it was definitely an interesting press conference. Perhaps one of the least professional ones I've seen by a head of state for a while (and definitely from a US precedent...).
Although the golden shower thing is icky. I'd be more concerned about comments like pg 8 item5 where it states that
Commenting on the negative media publicity surrounding alleged Russian interference in the US election campaign in support of TRUMP, Source E said he understood that the Republican candidate and his team were relatively relaxed about this because it deflected media and the Democrats attention away from TRUMP's business dealings in China and other emerging markets. Unlike in Russia, these were substantial involved the payment of large bribes and kickbacks which, were they to become public, would be potentially very damaging to their campaign
I think these are the areas that the press should be investigating more thoroughly to see if they are true! We might just be seeing the same thing again whilst 'houses are cleaned'?
As to McCain's role and motive for handing over the documents to the FBI, it is my understanding that he tried to but was told, thanks but we already have them. It is a document that has been circulating for quite some time in media circles and when the "bus/grabbing" video was released, lots of pundits were saying that it was small beans compared to what was coming (this one). It is what Reed was referring to when he asked Comey to conduct a review of Trump's connections to Russia.
My concern is less to do with the sexual acts themselves (couldn't care less) and more to do with possible blackmail fodder.
President Obama has put Chelsea Manning, the former Army intelligence analyst serving a 35-year sentence for leaking classified material, on his short list for a possible commutation, a Justice Department source told NBC News.
Chelsea Manning is a hero and I hope that Obama pardons her.
President Obama has put Chelsea Manning, the former Army intelligence analyst serving a 35-year sentence for leaking classified material, on his short list for a possible commutation, a Justice Department source told NBC News.
Chelsea Manning is a hero and I hope that Obama pardons her.
Hell no.
A) laws were broken.
B) had his day in court
C) whistle blower laws does exist and for some reason, chose not to use it.
President Obama has put Chelsea Manning, the former Army intelligence analyst serving a 35-year sentence for leaking classified material, on his short list for a possible commutation, a Justice Department source told NBC News.
Chelsea Manning is a hero and I hope that Obama pardons her.
Hell no.
A) laws were broken.
B) had his day in court
C) whistle blower laws does exist and for some reason, chose not to use it.
He isn't a whistleblower. You might be able to argue that for Snowden but not Manning.
I do wish they'd give him his sex change operation. I think becoming a eunuch (what an odd looking word) is a fine penalty for treason.
I do wish they'd give him his sex change operation. I think becoming a eunuch (what an odd looking word) is a fine penalty for treason.
Are these two sentences next to each other supposed to be related? I hope not. because it would say all kinds of unflattering things about you if these were connected.
I do wish they'd give him his sex change operation. I think becoming a eunuch (what an odd looking word) is a fine penalty for treason.
Are these two sentences next to each other supposed to be related? I hope not. because it would say all kinds of unflattering things about you if these were connected.
Yeah, that right there is pretty much all you need to know about that poster...he let his own identity slip.
I do wish they'd give him his sex change operation. I think becoming a eunuch (what an odd looking word) is a fine penalty for treason.
Are these two sentences next to each other supposed to be related? I hope not. because it would say all kinds of unflattering things about you if these were connected.
I'll be honest. My attitude toward Manning is unflattering. We can't castrate people for crimes in this country but if the guy is adamant about volunteering, I say go for it. The whole sex change thing basically makes it's a civil right instead of punishment so I don't see a downside here.
I do wish they'd give him his sex change operation. I think becoming a eunuch (what an odd looking word) is a fine penalty for treason.
Are these two sentences next to each other supposed to be related? I hope not. because it would say all kinds of unflattering things about you if these were connected.
I'll be honest. My attitude toward Manning is unflattering. We can't castrate people for crimes in this country but if the guy is adamant about volunteering, I say go for it. The whole sex change thing basically makes it's a civil right or something instead of punishment so I don't see a downside here.
1. Complain about "liberals" calling people bigots
I do wish they'd give him his sex change operation. I think becoming a eunuch (what an odd looking word) is a fine penalty for treason.
Are these two sentences next to each other supposed to be related? I hope not. because it would say all kinds of unflattering things about you if these were connected.
I'll be honest. My attitude toward Manning is unflattering. We can't castrate people for crimes in this country but if the guy is adamant about volunteering, I say go for it. The whole sex change thing basically makes it's a civil right or something instead of punishment so I don't see a downside here.
1. Complain about "liberals" calling people bigots
2. Be transphobic
3. ???
4. profit
Not sure advocating someone who wants a sex change operation, while thinking it's a justified punishment for their crime meets the transphobic definition(let's be honest, it obviously doesn't fit the crime for unwilling participant) .
It's hyperbolic & crass... yes... but as a civil right while in prison? Dunno about that...
I do wish they'd give him his sex change operation. I think becoming a eunuch (what an odd looking word) is a fine penalty for treason.
Are these two sentences next to each other supposed to be related? I hope not. because it would say all kinds of unflattering things about you if these were connected.
I'll be honest. My attitude toward Manning is unflattering. We can't castrate people for crimes in this country but if the guy is adamant about volunteering, I say go for it. The whole sex change thing basically makes it's a civil right instead of punishment so I don't see a downside here.
Okay, so here's my problem with this:
We seem to agree that castration is off the table as a legal punishment, however we seem to disagree whether this is a bad thing. While I might half-heartedly support the death penalty, permanent maiming seems like a much crueler, and hopefully more unusual, form of punishment, especially when applied to a sentence that is meant to have a time limit for the offender. I really don't want the kinds of people I know who work in justice to have even an inkling of a say in whether or not someone gets castrated. I certainly don't want the state to use such horrific measures all...willy-nilly.
We also disagree about the severity of Manning's crimes. I doubt we'll make much traction here, but should castration become a ...thing, I'd certainly like for there to be a 'higher bar' of harm to reach before the offender gets that sentence.
Now, I assume you're aware of this, but in case you're not, a sex change operation is not the same thing as a castration. The nerves are still there. There is still sexual function, even if it is different. Conflating the two surgeries on purpose seems remarkably insulting to anyone who might be considering one of them, especially as such people are undoubtedly experiencing all kinds of unpleasantness, distrust and hostility.
Lastly, your two sentences read together kind of sound like "Let him be a woman. That's a fitting punishment for treason." I hope you can see how that might come across badly.
I disagree. What do you think the end result of the operation is? You lose your testes and don't get ovaries. I wouldn't force it on prisoners but since Manning wants it, I'm perfectly fine with him getting it.
I do wish they'd give him his sex change operation. I think becoming a eunuch (what an odd looking word) is a fine penalty for treason.
Are these two sentences next to each other supposed to be related? I hope not. because it would say all kinds of unflattering things about you if these were connected.
I'll be honest. My attitude toward Manning is unflattering. We can't castrate people for crimes in this country but if the guy is adamant about volunteering, I say go for it. The whole sex change thing basically makes it's a civil right or something instead of punishment so I don't see a downside here.
1. Complain about "liberals" calling people bigots
2. Be transphobic
3. ???
4. profit
Not sure advocating someone who wants a sex change operation, while thinking it's a justified punishment for their crime meets the transphobic definition(let's be honest, it obviously doesn't fit the crime for unwilling participant) .
It's hyperbolic & crass... yes... but as a civil right while in prison? Dunno about that...
I'm not saying it's a civil rights, I'm saying the way Breotan is referring to her and treating her is trans-phobic (using male pronouns, refering to the full sex-change operation as "castration", ect). It's nothing to do with her being in prison.
I do wish they'd give him his sex change operation. I think becoming a eunuch (what an odd looking word) is a fine penalty for treason.
Are these two sentences next to each other supposed to be related? I hope not. because it would say all kinds of unflattering things about you if these were connected.
Yeah, that right there is pretty much all you need to know about that poster...he let his own identity slip.
Slipped long time ago. Good thing forums have tools available.
I do wish they'd give him his sex change operation. I think becoming a eunuch (what an odd looking word) is a fine penalty for treason.
Are these two sentences next to each other supposed to be related? I hope not. because it would say all kinds of unflattering things about you if these were connected.
Yeah, that right there is pretty much all you need to know about that poster...he let his own identity slip.
Slipped long time ago. Good thing forums have tools available.
I guess I should have said credibility. But yeah, let it slip long ago just on the postings.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: We seem to agree that castration is off the table as a legal punishment, however we seem to disagree whether this is a bad thing. While I might half-heartedly support the death penalty, permanent maiming seems like a much crueler, and hopefully more unusual, form of punishment, especially when applied to a sentence that is meant to have a time limit for the offender.
I agree. It should not be implemented as part of the criminal justice system. The caveat here is that Manning is actively seeking the operation, not that the government is trying to punish him in some cruel way.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I really don't want the kinds of people I know who work in justice to have even an inkling of a say in whether or not someone gets castrated. I certainly don't want the state to use such horrific measures all...willy-nilly.
Not what I suggested.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: We also disagree about the severity of Manning's crimes. I doubt we'll make much traction here, but should castration become a ...thing, I'd certainly like for there to be a 'higher bar' of harm to reach before the offender gets that sentence.
Again, I said Manning should be granted his request for the operation, not that it be forced on him against his wishes.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Now, I assume you're aware of this, but in case you're not, a sex change operation is not the same thing as a castration. The nerves are still there. There is still sexual function, even if it is different. Conflating the two surgeries on purpose seems remarkably insulting to anyone who might be considering one of them, especially as such people are undoubtedly experiencing all kinds of unpleasantness, distrust and hostility.
Regardless of nerve endings or such, castration is a byproduct of the operation. Testes are gone and ovaries are not implanted.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Lastly, your two sentences read together kind of sound like "Let him be a woman. That's a fitting punishment for treason." I hope you can see how that might come across badly.
I do consider it fitting but I don't support the government imposing it.
Breotan wrote: So you're saying that Mother Jones, The Huffington Post, and others like that are unethical?
In the grand scheme of things, yes. Objectivity is important and a journalist shouldn't show bias and certainly shouldn't be biased while claiming otherwise. However, this isn't a black and white issue. There is a sliding scale when it comes to these things and not everything either of those outlets publish is smacking of bias, but it certainly clouds any air of objectivity they may have.
You're the one who brought up Laure Ingram and her biases in a post about BuzzFeed's ethics. You call my arguments strawmen but you're the one who's shoveling from the haystack.
That's not a strawman. You clearly don't even understand what you are even trying to argue at this point, but instead of backing down and admitting you we fooled into outrage by a not-so-cleverly written article designed especially to do it, you'll just double down and then accuse me of the things I'm saying that you're doing.
I can see why you love Trump, you're taking a play straight from his book. Kindred spirits, you are.
You can't argue or defend what BuzzFeed did so you attack the messenger (Ingram) instead and now you're trying to make this about me. Your arguments are vapid.
My arguments aren't vapid just because you don't know how to respond to them. You keep responding and drawing out the argument and pushing yourself off the deep end, so yeah, it's about you. It's pretty obvious that you still don't understand the irony of using a blatantly biased website in your complaint about journalistic ethics. It's even funnier because I agree with you that BuzzFeed sucks and shouldn't have published the memo, it's just that none of that makes your argument and outrage any less ridiculous.
It seems like you probably never will so you're probably just beyond help now. Enjoy your alternate reality bubble.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm saying the way Breotan is referring to her and treating her is trans-phobic (using male pronouns, refering to the full sex-change operation as "castration", ect). It's nothing to do with her being in prison.
I don't participate in identity politics or the pronoun game. That isn't transphobic.
I don't know about a pardon but he should be given an honest trial and the opportunity to mount a defense. Given all the classified stuff involved (including stuff he didn't release) I'm concerned he won't be able to do that.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm saying the way Breotan is referring to her and treating her is trans-phobic (using male pronouns, refering to the full sex-change operation as "castration", ect). It's nothing to do with her being in prison.
I don't participate in identity politics or the pronoun game. That isn't transphobic.
Using the old pronoun when you know the right one, and refering to the sex change operation as "castration" is pretty trans-phobic. Identaty politics have nothing to do with it, the the pronoun game isn't even what you think it is.
C) whistle blower laws does exist and for some reason, chose not to use it.
The US covered up its killings of civilians and Manning's superiors were hostile when she asked what to do with what she found. Granting us insight into the US operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay were good things. The US evidently can't be trusted and its courts and laws complaining about its crimes being revealed for scrutiny are worthless.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: We seem to agree that castration is off the table as a legal punishment, however we seem to disagree whether this is a bad thing. While I might half-heartedly support the death penalty, permanent maiming seems like a much crueler, and hopefully more unusual, form of punishment, especially when applied to a sentence that is meant to have a time limit for the offender.
I agree. It should not be implemented as part of the criminal justice system. The caveat here is that Manning is actively seeking the operation, not that the government is trying to punish him in some cruel way.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I really don't want the kinds of people I know who work in justice to have even an inkling of a say in whether or not someone gets castrated. I certainly don't want the state to use such horrific measures all...willy-nilly.
Not what I suggested.
Fair enough on these. I ascribed more malice to your posts than you might have meant, although I would suggest it's fairly easy to misread you when you affect a hostile tone towards the subject.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: We also disagree about the severity of Manning's crimes. I doubt we'll make much traction here, but should castration become a ...thing, I'd certainly like for there to be a 'higher bar' of harm to reach before the offender gets that sentence.
Again, I said Manning should be granted his request for the operation, not that it be forced on him against his wishes.
I also would like to see his request granted. I'm glad we can agree that forced surgery should be
impermissible.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Now, I assume you're aware of this, but in case you're not, a sex change operation is not the same thing as a castration. The nerves are still there. There is still sexual function, even if it is different. Conflating the two surgeries on purpose seems remarkably insulting to anyone who might be considering one of them, especially as such people are undoubtedly experiencing all kinds of unpleasantness, distrust and hostility.
Regardless of nerve endings or such, castration is a byproduct of the operation. Testes are gone and ovaries are not implanted.
Context is a thing. For me, castration implies a loss of sexual function. It aslo carries historical implications of shame and punishment. Tying either of those with modern gender-reassignment surgery is factually wrong, usually knowingly done to disparage the patient undergoing the surgery. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I'm having trouble not seeing your comment as a willful denigration of transpeople, or at least the process they must undergo.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Lastly, your two sentences read together kind of sound like "Let him be a woman. That's a fitting punishment for treason." I hope you can see how that might come across badly.
I do consider it fitting but I don't support the government imposing it.
Two things.
1. maybe it would be clearer if instead I said I read it as "Let her be a woman. That's a fitting punishment for treason," a remark that was probably barbed more for the trans-community but comes across as really retro sexism.
2. It's unfortunate that you feel that way, but whatever. The real issue is in the communicating of it. Your statement is easily read as an insult to a vulnerable minority. While not the same thing, the connotations are very similar to what they would be if you said "Let him be black if he wants to be. That's punishment enough." Basically something you might think, and that would be sad, but becomes an issue when you say it out loud, especially where a member of the minority group is likely to hear/see it. It goes from being a personal belief into become a part of the hostile background noise that affects the vulnerable disproportionately.
Great. It looks like everybody's said their peace. I think...
Frazzled wrote: Here's an idea, lets move on from the entire subject eh?
Back to the confirmation hearings then.
Sen. Maggie Hassan decided to bring up the allegations that the Russians had hacked that electrical grid in Vermont. Apparently nobody told her that it was a private laptop with a trojan and not actual Russians hacking into the power grid. Come on, Senator, you can do better than that.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm saying the way Breotan is referring to her and treating her is trans-phobic (using male pronouns, refering to the full sex-change operation as "castration", ect). It's nothing to do with her being in prison.
I don't participate in identity politics or the pronoun game. That isn't transphobic.
Dismissing it as "identity politics or the pronoun game" is transphobic. I'm appalled that the things you're saying are considered acceptable behavior here.
Manning is in prison for giving information to the same organization that is now the darling of the same people that are now the "good guys" for leaking illegally obtained information.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I think the phrase "Senator, you can do better than that" is both a tautology and incredibly naive.
Naïve? I was going for hopelessly optimistic.
That is a wonderful quote
I assumed it was a block ops team of russian leather clad soviet spies weilding silenced walter ppks somersaulting over chain fences and hacking a data center with apple watches
d-usa wrote: ...the same organization that is now the darling of the same people that are now the "good guys" for leaking illegally obtained information.
WikiLeaks does seem to be given a pass or condemnation by various groups depending on who is being targeted by any given leak.
In still other news, it seems like Trump is finally onboard with the rest of the world regarding allegations that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC.
Still looking for something else in news? Apparently US gasoline prices are cheap enough that Mexicans are coming across the border to buy gas here instead of their local stations in Mexico.
Drivers are flooding across the border to southern California to fill up on gasoline, after protesters blocking distribution centers near the Baja California capital of Mexicali caused stations to run dry. Antunez’s Shell gas station in Calexico is just five blocks away from the Mexican border and rarely has business been as busy as now. Mexicali drivers wait four to five hours to cross into the U.S. just to fill their fuel tanks and then wait another two hours to cross back into Mexico again.
I thought market liberalization was supposed to lead to lower prices.
Breotan wrote: Still looking for something else in news? Apparently US gasoline prices are cheap enough that Mexicans are coming across the border to buy gas here instead of their local stations in Mexico.
Drivers are flooding across the border to southern California to fill up on gasoline, after protesters blocking distribution centers near the Baja California capital of Mexicali caused stations to run dry. Antunez’s Shell gas station in Calexico is just five blocks away from the Mexican border and rarely has business been as busy as now. Mexicali drivers wait four to five hours to cross into the U.S. just to fill their fuel tanks and then wait another two hours to cross back into Mexico again.
I thought market liberalization was supposed to lead to lower prices.
Yeah it isn't super cheap oil or the fact that we are killing our environment with shale oil production and getting crap tons of oil from it.
This is more of a problem with Mexico, and not the markets. There's a whole thing happening with the Mexican petrol company and corruption and other things.
Breotan wrote: Still looking for something else in news? Apparently US gasoline prices are cheap enough that Mexicans are coming across the border to buy gas here instead of their local stations in Mexico.
Drivers are flooding across the border to southern California to fill up on gasoline, after protesters blocking distribution centers near the Baja California capital of Mexicali caused stations to run dry. Antunez’s Shell gas station in Calexico is just five blocks away from the Mexican border and rarely has business been as busy as now. Mexicali drivers wait four to five hours to cross into the U.S. just to fill their fuel tanks and then wait another two hours to cross back into Mexico again.
I thought market liberalization was supposed to lead to lower prices.
What does this have to do with market regulations? The issue is a temporary shortage caused by protests shutting down the distribution company. You might as well talk about how US gas prices are too high based on the single data point of that pipeline leak that had price spikes and shortages (at least in NC) last year.
To get back to the important news, Trump has now Godwinned the thread.
Out of interest, who thinks it could be true?
What I mean is I find it very hard indeed to imagine Reagan, either of the Bushes or the Clintons getting up to that kind of stuff, but with Trump it doesn't seem all that unlikely, certainly not impossible.
Truth is irrelevant. This is the post truth age and this is the Internet. Do I believe he did something silly in front of cameras in a Russian hotel room with prostiturtes and pee? Of course, who hasn't? Have you seen my Facebook page? Have you seen my Twitterers? Have you seen my Etsy? My Etsy is where it is at. I built a swing with twizzlers. It is fantastic and lined with gold...pee.
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.
Kilkrazy wrote:To get back to the important news, Trump has now Godwinned the thread.
Out of interest, who thinks it could be true?
What I mean is I find it very hard indeed to imagine Reagan, either of the Bushes or the Clintons getting up to that kind of stuff, but with Trump it doesn't seem all that unlikely, certainly not impossible.
I don't think the scenario is true. If I remember correctly his wife (no idea which one, it was related to a Trump/Arrested Development joke on twitter) mentioned in an interview that he's kinda a never-nude type who likes his bedroom with the lights off, changes quickly in the dark, and is quite conservative in that regard. Of course it could be that he's looking to satisfy his more exotic kinks outside his marriage
But from his reaction, general behaviour, and attitude towards Russia it does look like Russia has something he doesn't want the world to know.
Co'tor Shas wrote: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.
When I order prostitutes and pee I always support my local small businesses. Sin should be Made In America, not bought from the filthy Russians! They aren't even capitalists!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mario wrote: I don't think the scenario is true. If I remember correctly his wife (no idea which one, it was related to a Trump/Arrested Development joke on twitter) mentioned in an interview that he's kinda a never-nude type who likes his bedroom with the lights off, changes quickly in the dark, and is quite conservative in that regard. Of course it could be that he's looking to satisfy his more exotic kinks outside his marriage
To be fair, the report says that Trump hired them to perform a show in front of him, not that he was personally involved in any of the acts.
Breotan wrote: Still looking for something else in news? Apparently US gasoline prices are cheap enough that Mexicans are coming across the border to buy gas here instead of their local stations in Mexico.
Drivers are flooding across the border to southern California to fill up on gasoline, after protesters blocking distribution centers near the Baja California capital of Mexicali caused stations to run dry. Antunez’s Shell gas station in Calexico is just five blocks away from the Mexican border and rarely has business been as busy as now. Mexicali drivers wait four to five hours to cross into the U.S. just to fill their fuel tanks and then wait another two hours to cross back into Mexico again.
I thought market liberalization was supposed to lead to lower prices.
What does this have to do with market regulations?
The article stated that this is the result of market liberalization put in place by Mexico. Mexicans are calling it gasolinazo.
Spinner wrote: Check his Twitter feed. Apparently, our intelligence agencies are now Nazis.
I don't follow his Twitter, but I did see this headline in the Daily Mail (online).
Trump conducts his own sting operation to ensnare intelligence briefers – and says he caught them leaking
I think SNL is going to have a hard time outdoing Trump.
Today Fox News has publicly defended CNN on how that network handled the dossier documents.
Fox News anchor Shepard Smith defended CNN on Wednesday after Donald Trump accused the network of being “fake news” at a news conference for reporting on the existence of a Russian dossier of unverified allegations about the president-elect.
“President-elect Trump today told CNN’s Jim Acosta that his organization amounts to fake news. CNN’s exclusive reporting on the Russian matter was separate and distinctly different from the document dump executed by an online news property,” Smith said, drawing a distinction between CNN’s reporting and that of BuzzFeed News, which released the entire contents of the Russian dossier.
“Though we at Fox News cannot confirm CNN’s report, it is our observation that its correspondents followed journalistic standards,” Smith said. “Neither they, nor any other journalists, should be subjected to belittling and delegitimizing by the president-elect of the United States.”
Just 10 days before his inauguration as our 45th president, Donald Trump’s nascent administration has been turned upside down by new accusations of secret Russian machinations that aided his election. These new allegations are largely unsubstantiated and salacious to a degree never seen before about any American president.
First, CNN fired a shot across Trump’s bow late yesterday with a report alleging deep links between the president-elect and the Kremlin. Specifically, CNN stated that the heads of our Intelligence Community, who recently briefed Trump on Russian hacking and propaganda during 2016 that tried to influence our election, also informed the president-elect that Russian intelligence has compromising materials on him.
Kompromat, as they call it in Moscow, is the mother’s milk of Kremlin espionage, and given Trump’s larger-than-life persona, with its decades of dodgy finances and edgy dalliances with women, it should surprise no one that Russian spies have juicy information there which the public hasn’t seen, particularly given the president-elect’s numerous trips to Russia going back to 1987.
CNN noted that a dossier compiled by a former British intelligence official with long experience in Russian matters had been circulating in Washington since late last year, and was causing heartburn for American spies, since its allegations were explosive. Most seriously, it posited an on-going clandestine relationship between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin to swing the election Trump’s way.
Just as the commentariat began to shudder at the implications of this bombshell, Buzzfeed released the actual dossier, 35 pages crammed with allegations of grave wrongdoing, including espionage by Trump surrogates against fellow Americans. This was a rather standard example of raw human intelligence reporting, a mishmash of claims, some of them obviously untrue. But the essence of its case—that Trump has been playing footsie with Vladimir Putin for years and knowingly accepted his secret help to win the White House—may well turn out to be true.
The media, unaccustomed to seeing raw HUMINT reports, acted aghast at the salacious nature of some of the claims in the dossier: Trumpian sex romps caught on camera by Russian spies, our new commander-in-chief paying prostitutes to urinate on a hotel bed where President Obama had slept. Whether those particular claims are true or not—and they ought to be looked at with immense skepticism and even the PEOTUS himself said today that his infamy as a germophobe, which way predates these accusations, ought to raise concerns about some of these tales—there’s no doubt that Putin’s Federal Security Service, the all-seeing FSB, keeps close tabs on foreign VIP’s when they’re on their turf. If Trump was unwise enough to engage in randy behavior in Russia, the FSB unquestionably has it on video.
Some of the dossier’s other claims are almost pedestrian. Putin long ago showed his hand, so the idea that he ordered his spy-minions to help Trump move into the White House isn’t exactly shocking, even if the alleged details of that sordid game may be. Moreover, claims that people like Paul Manafort and Carter Page, who were both officially purged from the Trump campaign last year for their glaringly obvious Kremlin links, kept talking to the Russians, sub rosa, right up to election day, are wholly credible.
The media is focusing on the juicy aspects of the dossier at the expense of the only truly important and potentially game-changing one. That’s the allegation that Trump’s representatives had clandestine meetings last summer with Russian government representatives—that’s the nice way of saying spies—to coordinate their secret anti-Hillary activities.
The report names several Russian representatives said to have met with Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, including Oleg Solodukhin, who serves in Prague, posing as a diplomat, but is actually well known to Czech counterintelligence as a Kremlin spy. So far, so plausible—particularly since Prague is a hotbed of Russian espionage, and the number of Kremlin spies pretending to be diplomats there is remarkably high.
It’s time for some clarity. If Trump’s lawyer secretly met with Russian spies to coordinate anti-Hillary activities, it’s difficult to term that activity anything but treasonous, not to mention the “smoking gun” that links the president-elect to Putin. This claim, if true, would sink the Trump presidency before it even begins.
But did the meeting actually happen?
It’s looking less and less likely.
Jake Tapper from CNN, which has been very tough on Trump, tweeted before the press conference that “Government source confirms different Michael Cohen was in Prague.” Then Trump himself said his team had asked Cohen for his passport and confirmed that he had never been to the Czech Republic, a stance Cohen himself had taken by tweeting a picture of his passport—a bizarre gesture since any stamps indicating he had been to the Czech Republic would be inside the passport, not on the front jacket. If Michael Cohen, well known as a Trump loyalist and highly recognizable, had visited Prague in the summer, some proof of that trip would have likely surfaced by now. And it would have been incredibly reckless, even for a risk-taker like Trump, to state affirmatively that Cohen had not been in Prague if he actually had. So it’s more than likely that charge—the most damaging in the dossier, if not the most lurid—is false. But that doesn’t mean all the rest of the charges are false.
This invariably brings to mind another strange saga of an alleged meeting in Prague. Back in 2002, as the Bush White House assembled an intelligence case to sell invading Saddam’s Iraq, reports circulated of a supposed rendezvous in the Czech capital, a few months before 9/11, between Iraqi intelligence and Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of Al-Qaida’s Planes Operation.
This was exactly what the White House wanted to hear, since it tied Saddam to 9/11, and it was hardly implausible on the face of it. Atta really had moved around Europe a lot—where exactly nobody could be sure—and Iraqi intelligence had a robust presence in Prague, where they surveilled American diplomatic facilities in a sinister fashion. However, hard evidence of any meeting was lacking.
White House pressure on the Intelligence Community mounted—I got caught up in it too, searching vainly for proof of Atta’s secret trip to Prague—and the hunt grew intense. The Czechs eventually backed away, their security service, known as BIS, officially deciding that Atta had not been in Prague and therefore could not have met with Iraqi spies. It all appeared to be a case of honest misunderstanding combined with circular reporting—and a Bush administration desperate for the the story to be true.
Back to today: on cue, right-wing social media has come to the president-elect’s defense, absurdly claiming that the dossier is an Internet hoax that fooled anti-Trump Republicans. There is as much evidence for this claim as for the assertion that the dossier was compiled by Jimmy Hoffa with help from Bigfoot.
For their part, the Russians are denying everything. Castigating the dossier as “pulp fiction” and a “clear attempt to damage relations,’ the Kremlin is following the “fake news” path illuminated by Trump’s fans in the West. This lives up to the old spy wag that you should only believe any report when Moscow publicly denies it.
At this point, it’s functionally impossible to differentiate between social media claims made by the Trump administration, the Kremlin, the Wikileaks-Greenwald axis, and the Alt-Right. Now that Moscow has taken up the Nazi-frog meme beloved by the Alt-Right, any propaganda line between these groups has been erased altogether.
As usual, the president-elect is denying anything and everything, howling gigantic curses via Twitter against his foes and their “fake news.” He has pointed the finger at the Intelligence Community, bizarrely comparing 2017 America to Nazi Germany. Trump’s online meltdown has included a lot of tweeting in capital letters, and has cited the Kremlin as proof of his innocence. We’re in a new and uncharted era when the soon-to-be-president thinks Moscow is to be taken at face value in espionage matters.
In truth, the provenance of the 35-page dossier is well known in proper channels. Some of its assertions have been made by other NATO intelligence agencies, privately. Some of its claims are false, some are true, and some may linger between truth and fiction indefinitely. What’s important here is that the IC leadership decided to brief a small circle of the most senior American officials on that dossier’s findings. They don’t do that, ever—treating raw private intelligence reports by foreigners as worthy of briefing to “the top”—unless they can corroborate significant portions of it.
The Czechs are laying low. BIS is avoiding any public comment on Cohen’s alleged visit to their capital—and after the messy public spat back in 2002, who can blame them? The latest firm report from Prague indicates that BIS believes Cohen didn’t land at Prague airport, but it’s very easy to enter the Czech Republic from its neighbors, all of which are fellow members of the European Union, so there are no border controls. Anybody can drive right in, without any passports being stamped.
The president-elect wants this mess to go away at once, before it swallows his new administration whole. This morning, in his first press conference since last summer, Trump’s team was adamant that the dossier is “fake news.” The president elect angrily pronounced leaks of intelligence a “disgrace,” seeming to forget how gleefully his campaign greeted IC leaks which badly harmed Hillary Clinton over her emails.
Sean Spicer, his spokesman, shared that anger and unambiguously stated that Cohen never visited Prague, there was no meeting with any Russians, and the entire story is bogus. CNN today reported that this may be a case of mistaken identity, since another Michael Cohen visited Prague at the time in question (eerily, the same thing happened with Atta’s pre-9/11 visit to the Czech capital: it was the wrong Mohammed Atta). This matter can be quickly resolved if Trump’s lawyer sits down with the FBI, on the record, to clear this matter up before the inauguration. Unlike Mohammed Atta 15 years ago, Michael Cohen is available for interviews.
News organizations more respectable than Buzzfeed sat on the dossier for months, sensing it was a spooky morass of truth and fiction that could not be untangled to meet proper journalistic standards. Several tried, in fact, but after efforts to verify the claims failed, they declined to publish.
There is a darker possibility, however—namely that the dossier was leaked to muddy the waters, perhaps even to distract from even more troubling information about Trump’s ties to the Kremlin.
Russian intelligence calls this provokatsiya—provocation—and it’s as commonplace as kompromat in their ranks. This wouldn’t be the first time that Kremlin spies leaked secret information, partly true, to throw spies and journalists off the real trail. “It would be what I’d do,” explained a former KGB senior officer whom I’ve known for years. Possessing long experience with provocation against Western governments, my friend added how Russian spies would approach this: “I would certainly let the media know some of what we have on Trump, to confuse reporters, and also to let the new president know we can take him down at any time, so he better do what Moscow wants.”
As I recently explained, the heart of Trump’s longstanding secret ties to Russia is about money, not espionage. The Trump Organization gives the appearance of possessing dubious financial ties to Russian organized crime, which is linked to the Kremlin and its intelligence agencies. Putin and his spies know all about Trump—they have no need for clandestine meetings in Central European capitals to arrange anything.
Trump needs this issue to go away, and he can easily make that happen by releasing his tax returns and financial records for the last couple decades, thereby demonstrating that he has no dark Kremlin secrets. However, in his presser today, the president-elect stated that nobody but journalists care about his tax returns, which he reiterated he has no intention of releasing to the public.
This continued stalling is a grave mistake, and things will only get nastier as more of Trump’s secrets are leaked to the media. Having repeatedly warned the president-elect to avoid needless fights with our spies, since they know things, let me add that it only will get worse from here if Trump doesn’t come clean soon.
Trump finally made a pick for SoVA, and of course it goes against everything he said on the campaign trail. He said VA leadership is responsible for everything wrong at the VA, drain the swamp, etc. So of course he picks the current VA undersecretary placed by Trump.
Rosebuddy wrote: "Greater unemployment and similar things*" are not trivialities and are not without risks of backfiring. The Russian people is fully capable of understanding that their worsening lives are due to Western sanctions. That would not necessarily produce a new Russian government that caved to everything the US wanted.
There's nothing saying success is only measured by a caving Russian government. Success comes when countries, Russia or anyone else, is inclined to take similar actions, sees what happened in Russia and decides maybe they won't invade neighbours or commit human rights abuses in support of allies in civil war.
Have you not considered that your plan would fail?
It's foreign policy, it is complex and unpredictable by definition. Of course things can fail and many plans will. The alternative, do nothing and just hope Russia and the rest decide to start respecting sovereign borders and human rights is fething bonkers, so this is what we have.
Have you not considered what the Russian government might do to counteract it?
Such as undertaking an extensive hacking and propaganda campaign to tilt the presidential election towards a buffoon who ignore Russia's crimes and chase close relations to further his own business interests? Nah, that reads like bad fiction.
d-usa wrote: Trump finally made a pick for SoVA, and of course it goes against everything he said on the campaign trail. He said VA leadership is responsible for everything wrong at the VA, drain the swamp, etc. So of course he picks the current VA undersecretary placed by Trump.
That said, it's a pick I am very happy with.
Maybe he really needed someone with intimate knowledge how the VA works in order to push substantial changes? If so... actually a smart pick imo. Running a healthcare organization ain't easy peasy folks.
thekingofkings wrote: I am not sure there is anything that anyone can use to blackmail Trump, blackmail requires the victim to have some sense of shame.
Trump has no sense of shame, but he has an intense sense of vanity. Back in 2011 he laid out a bunch of things comedians could and couldn't roast him over. It was okay to roast him about wanting to have sex with his daughter, but it wasn't okay to roast him about having less money than he claimed. That's the kind of guy Trump is.
This has led to speculation that the Russians could have something as minor as an actual value of Trump's wealth. He went to their banks asking for money, so if he handed over a record of net assets that is much less than the billions he claims publicly, then the Russians could be using that.
That's all speculation of course. But it shows how someone like Trump is still vulnerable to blackmail, despite having so little shame in so many areas of his life, because he's got so much vanity in others.
I think maybe Trump isn't the real problem. Trump likely never expected to win the election and probably planned to use the publicity of running for office to build his brand. I think Trump is just the symptom of a much, much more serious problem brewing.
The fact that he won the election suggests a very, very serious problem that's probably going to get a lot worse before it gets better. If you listen to the absurd things Trump says at rallies and debates, keep listening after he's done talking. Listen to the crowd's reaction. They love what they're hearing from him.
Having spent a lot of time online around Americans, I've noticed that while most of them are very reasonable, sane individuals who keep things in perspective, there are a growing number of Americans who believe things that seem very unAmerican. They treat the concept of tolerating differences as an evil concept that should be demonized. They believe that the concept of political correctness, which is an attempt to avoid causing unnecessary conflicts by choosing terminology that does not cause offense, is abhorrent. They do not believe that persecuted minorities deserve protection under the law. They do not believe that bigotry is something to be ashamed of, but instead that it should be embraced. They approve of banning entire religions from being practiced within American borders.
America is supposed to be a melting pot. A melting pot does not use assimilation to make everyone like the locals. A melting pot openly embraces as many differences and varieties of people as possible, because having a variety of things strengthens the overall whole by reducing the number of weak points. America's legal system is designed around this idea.
And yet, there is a very large, and growing number of Americans, who view the concepts of "progressiveness" "tolerance" "acceptance" and "equality" as being contrary to America's fundamentals. They are growing in influence, and there is a very real possibility that if left unchecked, America may find itself becoming a theocracy that enforces Christian values upon its citizens regardless of the Constitution. These people are especially intolerant of Islam, and I can easily see that if they get their way, America's powerful military will be used to launch a new holy war against countries with large numbers of Muslims in them.
An honest-to-God holy crusade, in the 21st century, enacted by the most powerful nation on the planet. The world would not simply sit by and let it happen, either. And that's how World War 3 starts, with America as the aggressor.
Heh, a funny, but also scary comment I heard came from one of America's military leaders, in reaction to Trump's plans for changing the people in charge of America's nuclear arsenal. It is never comforting to hear words like these coming from a person in charge of nuclear ordnance, and he said something like, "I am more and more coming around to the idea that we are completely fethed."
And I honestly hope it never happens. I hope reason and sanity will prevail, and if many years from now these problems have disappeared, and someone tells me that I worried for nothing, my response will be, "I have never been so glad to be so wrong before."
I think in this specific case at least, it's more the frustration with saying X, doing Y, saying you do X. Then portions of the public go, "see, he did X."
Even if you agree with Y, it can still be very, very frustrating hearing about X all the time. It kinda all fits into that "gaslighting America" thing. Which, now that I've even just mentioned, will result in a barrage of "libtard" insults at me.
One of the things that really does seem to, well, I guess 'vex me' fits as a phrase is. If I were American, I 'should' be the ideal Republican voter. I'm certainly one of the people on the 'more right' side of discussions in the UK Politics thread. But so much of the stuff I see on the news, I'm just like, "gonnae no dae that. Just... gonnae no."
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Let's not underestimate how much Clinton is hated by some sections of American society.
Let's say for argument' sake that these allegations are true, and that Trump was involved in some orgy with a group of Russian prostitutes.
We have clearly seen that no matter what, people will still support him over Clinton.
Trump could set fire to the declaration of independence, dig up George Washington, and then crash a Sherman tank into the Lincoln memorial, and Clinton would still be blamed and people would still vote for Trump.
Clinton is now irrelevant. She lost and is now political history. Trump now has to stand alone, appeal to the Republican base in and of himself.
Compel wrote: I think in this specific case at least, it's more the frustration with saying X, doing Y, saying you do X. Then portions of the public go, "see, he did X."
Even if you agree with Y, it can still be very, very frustrating hearing about X all the time. It kinda all fits into that "gaslighting America" thing. Which, now that I've even just mentioned, will result in a barrage of "libtard" insults at me.
Mwahaha! I mean, buzzfeed as the original source was crappy enough, but now you're claiming zerohedge and 4chan in the rebuttal.
This is really a battle of the heavyweight news sources, isn't it?
EDIT - Credit to you for posting a good article from the NYT, that effectively summarises how little substance there is to this story. "“An anonymous person, claiming to be an ex-British intel agent & working as a Dem oppo researcher, said anonymous people told him things,” wrote Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who was instrumental in publishing Edward Snowden’s leaks about government surveillance." That's a pretty good summary of how little there is to this at this time.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: ZeroHedge? Really? Of one of the biggest pro-Russia and pro-Trump "news" outlets is going to defend Glorious Leader.
To be fair, zerohedge is pro 'whoever is paying them at that moment in time'. In the wake of the GFC they struck up a deal with the gold industry, and flogged 'gold is best investment stocks are going to crash again any second now also hyperinflation is coming so buy gold'. There was a guy here on dakka who bought in to it hard, kept linking to zerohedge stories. I hope he didn't actually invest in money in gold, because he would have lost somewhere between a third to a half of it when gold did exactly what it always does.
Funny thing about journalism compared to investment is that an investment fund that gave out results like that would be out of business in a week, but investment and journalist sites like zerohedge carry on without any hit to their reputation at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Nah... this is coming from the New Yorker magazine... where the author thinks they're the expert(the pilot) and how dare the plebes (passengers) challenge them.
As if their self-appointed expertise in on the same level as a fething airline pilot.
Umm, no, because the various writers and readership of the New Yorker aren't actually running for the presidency. They're merely voters, who are watching as other voters elect the guy who's campaign, among other things, contained open contempt for politicians and a call to vote for someone with no political experience and zero political knowledge.
Mwahaha! I mean, buzzfeed as the original source was crappy enough, but now you're claiming zerohedge and 4chan in the rebuttal.
This is really a battle of the heavyweight news sources, isn't it?
EDIT - Credit to you for posting a good article from the NYT, that effectively summarises how little substance there is to this story. "“An anonymous person, claiming to be an ex-British intel agent & working as a Dem oppo researcher, said anonymous people told him things,” wrote Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who was instrumental in publishing Edward Snowden’s leaks about government surveillance." That's a pretty good summary of how little there is to this at this time.
Didn't the BBC just identify the author? Sure I caught it on the news. Christopher Steele is the name currently being bandied about as the author. And as the old saying goes 'mud sticks' Whether they are true or not, Trump isn't controlling the situation well at all.
Alpharius wrote: When did this thread turn into the Dakka Fiction Extension?!?
November 8, 2016.
Yes. I'm glad that the world has decided to LARP what would happen if Donald Trump were elected President. They're all pretty hardcore in their commitment to the roleplaying, but I'm glad we've all gotten over the silliness about LARP and have embraced it as a species. I keep wondering when people will get bored of pretending and go back to real life, but whatever.
whembly wrote: If anything, I read that the pilot are stand-in for experts with vast experience and credentials. Much of the political class and punditry see themselves as these 'experts'. Hence why they're so smug about their viewpoints and declare heresies for those who hold opposing viewpoints.
The passengers (ordinary people) are just carried along for the ride, while the country is run by experts (the pilots).
The subliminal context here is that letting ordinary people (the passengers) take charge would result in a disastrous crash.
Yes, the pilots are seen as experts. Thinking that you should get rid of experts in favour of one of the people is the basis of the joke.
However, you read way too much in to it after that. There's no argument that people should just accept whoever is deemed an expert. Instead, while the comic makes no comment on it, it seems pretty logical to assume that passengers get a choice of pilots (choosing which airline to fly, for instance). The point being that any choice should be the various people who are skilled in that field, not between skilled people and random idiots.
whembly wrote: If anything, I read that the pilot are stand-in for experts with vast experience and credentials. Much of the political class and punditry see themselves as these 'experts'. Hence why they're so smug about their viewpoints and declare heresies for those who hold opposing viewpoints.
The passengers (ordinary people) are just carried along for the ride, while the country is run by experts (the pilots).
The subliminal context here is that letting ordinary people (the passengers) take charge would result in a disastrous crash.
Yes, the pilots are seen as experts. Thinking that you should get rid of experts in favour of one of the people is the basis of the joke.
However, you read way too much in to it after that. There's no argument that people should just accept whoever is deemed an expert. Instead, while the comic makes no comment on it, it seems pretty logical to assume that passengers get a choice of pilots (choosing which airline to fly, for instance). The point being that any choice should be the various people who are skilled in that field, not between skilled people and random idiots.
Nah... when you get on a plane, you are literally putting your life in that pilot's hand. You are, by explicit consent, accepting the the pilot's experience and crendential.
That's what, imo, the cartoon represent and why comparing it to politics is a wee bit much.
whembly wrote: Not sure advocating someone who wants a sex change operation, while thinking it's a justified punishment for their crime meets the transphobic definition(let's be honest, it obviously doesn't fit the crime for unwilling participant) .
He's saying that in getting their sex change, they'd become a eunuch. That transgender surgery is nothing more than castration.
It's pretty obviously an attack at transgender people.
Nah... when you get on a plane, you are literally putting your life in that pilot's hand. You are, by explicit consent, accepting the the pilot's experience and crendential.
That's what, imo, the cartoon represent and why comparing it to politics is a wee bit much.
Generally it's a good idea for people to be qualified for the job they're applying for.
It's unfortunate that the required qualifications for the job of US President do not include any sort of political experience or knowledge, but I gather that the possibility for any American to become President if elected is a very important and necessary part of the system, so I don't think there's anything that can really be done to prevent someone like Trump from being elected President if the voters choose to put him into that office.
It's important to keep in mind a very famous historical quote, "Democracy is the worst form of government there is, except for all the others." Democracy is not a good system, as it relies nearly exclusively on some form of popularity contest. However, the alternatives to democracy are all even worse, so democracy is simply the least-awful option we have available. It's odd, then, to hear people espousing the supposed virtues of democracy and insist it is the best system of government possible, when no, it's not, it's simply the least awful option available. It should be considered a necessary evil, not the pinnacle of human society.
whembly wrote: Not sure advocating someone who wants a sex change operation, while thinking it's a justified punishment for their crime meets the transphobic definition(let's be honest, it obviously doesn't fit the crime for unwilling participant) .
He's saying that in getting their sex change, they'd become a eunuch. That transgender surgery is nothing more than castration.
It's pretty obviously an attack at transgender people.
Someone should suggest that he actually look things up at some point, because transitioning involves a hell of a lot of time, effort and money, and simply going in for surgery isn't going to cut it.
Pouncey wrote: I think maybe Trump isn't the real problem. Trump likely never expected to win the election and probably planned to use the publicity of running for office to build his brand. I think Trump is just the symptom of a much, much more serious problem brewing.
The fact that he won the election suggests a very, very serious problem that's probably going to get a lot worse before it gets better. If you listen to the absurd things Trump says at rallies and debates, keep listening after he's done talking. Listen to the crowd's reaction. They love what they're hearing from him.
Having spent a lot of time online around Americans, I've noticed that while most of them are very reasonable, sane individuals who keep things in perspective, there are a growing number of Americans who believe things that seem very unAmerican. They treat the concept of tolerating differences as an evil concept that should be demonized. They believe that the concept of political correctness, which is an attempt to avoid causing unnecessary conflicts by choosing terminology that does not cause offense, is abhorrent. They do not believe that persecuted minorities deserve protection under the law. They do not believe that bigotry is something to be ashamed of, but instead that it should be embraced. They approve of banning entire religions from being practiced within American borders.
America is supposed to be a melting pot. A melting pot does not use assimilation to make everyone like the locals. A melting pot openly embraces as many differences and varieties of people as possible, because having a variety of things strengthens the overall whole by reducing the number of weak points. America's legal system is designed around this idea.
And yet, there is a very large, and growing number of Americans, who view the concepts of "progressiveness" "tolerance" "acceptance" and "equality" as being contrary to America's fundamentals. They are growing in influence, and there is a very real possibility that if left unchecked, America may find itself becoming a theocracy that enforces Christian values upon its citizens regardless of the Constitution. These people are especially intolerant of Islam, and I can easily see that if they get their way, America's powerful military will be used to launch a new holy war against countries with large numbers of Muslims in them.
I think there's always been reactionaries, and there always will be. What strikes me as different is that in the past is that such reactionary desires are no longer tempered by any sense of decency. Trump mocks a disabled reporter publicly then denies having done so despite it being clearly recorded on film. Trump doesn't seem to not only survive things like that, he actually gains support from them. His tendency to lie shamelessly isn't a detriment, it's actually the cornerstone of his popularity, it is the basis of his whole coward/bully persona.
It appears that the common sense of decency that would have once pushed someone like Trump from the public as soon as he appeared has gone. That's more than a bit scary, because that shared sense of decency is the absolute foundation of public debate and democracy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AndrewC wrote: Didn't the BBC just identify the author? Sure I caught it on the news. Christopher Steele is the name currently being bandied about as the author. And as the old saying goes 'mud sticks' Whether they are true or not, Trump isn't controlling the situation well at all.
Cheers
Andrew
Thanks for the heads up on the identified author. But it seems the rest of it, the anonymous sources, are the bigger issue.
And yeah, mud sticks. It's LBJ's pig fether theory - it doesn't matter whether its true or even if anyone believes it, the point is to get Trump denying it. That doesn't make it okay, of course.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Nah... when you get on a plane, you are literally putting your life in that pilot's hand. You are, by explicit consent, accepting the the pilot's experience and crendential.
That's what, imo, the cartoon represent and why comparing it to politics is a wee bit much.
Yes, and you accept that the person flying the plane should be an expert. But then when it comes to politics we don't just want a choice between different experts, we also (apparently) want to elect people with no expertise at all. That's all the comic is saying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pouncey wrote: Someone should suggest that he actually look things up at some point, because transitioning involves a hell of a lot of time, effort and money, and simply going in for surgery isn't going to cut it.
Not much point suggesting that. People don't just accidentally miss the reading it would take to learn about other people's struggles. They choose to ignore any such information, because that makes it easier for them to be dismissive and cruel to those people.
Pouncey wrote: Someone should suggest that he actually look things up at some point, because transitioning involves a hell of a lot of time, effort and money, and simply going in for surgery isn't going to cut it.
My understanding is that Manning has been "in transition" for some time now and I believe ACLU lawyers are fighting to get the surgery approved.
whembly wrote: Not sure advocating someone who wants a sex change operation, while thinking it's a justified punishment for their crime meets the transphobic definition(let's be honest, it obviously doesn't fit the crime for unwilling participant) .
He's saying that in getting their sex change, they'd become a eunuch.
It is a byproduct of the surgery.
sebster wrote: That transgender surgery is nothing more than castration.
This is an interpretation of my statement that you provided, not what I actually said anywhere at any time. The surgery is obviously far more involved as includes reconstruction to simulate female genitalia. Nonetheless, castration is a byproduct of the procedure.
sebster wrote: It's pretty obviously an attack at transgender people.
It's an attack on Manning. Saying it is anything else is simply you applying a false filter to my statement so it becomes what you want it to be. I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself to whom and within what scope my comments are directed.
Pouncey wrote: I think maybe Trump isn't the real problem. Trump likely never expected to win the election and probably planned to use the publicity of running for office to build his brand. I think Trump is just the symptom of a much, much more serious problem brewing.
The fact that he won the election suggests a very, very serious problem that's probably going to get a lot worse before it gets better. If you listen to the absurd things Trump says at rallies and debates, keep listening after he's done talking. Listen to the crowd's reaction. They love what they're hearing from him.
Having spent a lot of time online around Americans, I've noticed that while most of them are very reasonable, sane individuals who keep things in perspective, there are a growing number of Americans who believe things that seem very unAmerican. They treat the concept of tolerating differences as an evil concept that should be demonized. They believe that the concept of political correctness, which is an attempt to avoid causing unnecessary conflicts by choosing terminology that does not cause offense, is abhorrent. They do not believe that persecuted minorities deserve protection under the law. They do not believe that bigotry is something to be ashamed of, but instead that it should be embraced. They approve of banning entire religions from being practiced within American borders.
America is supposed to be a melting pot. A melting pot does not use assimilation to make everyone like the locals. A melting pot openly embraces as many differences and varieties of people as possible, because having a variety of things strengthens the overall whole by reducing the number of weak points. America's legal system is designed around this idea.
And yet, there is a very large, and growing number of Americans, who view the concepts of "progressiveness" "tolerance" "acceptance" and "equality" as being contrary to America's fundamentals. They are growing in influence, and there is a very real possibility that if left unchecked, America may find itself becoming a theocracy that enforces Christian values upon its citizens regardless of the Constitution. These people are especially intolerant of Islam, and I can easily see that if they get their way, America's powerful military will be used to launch a new holy war against countries with large numbers of Muslims in them.
I think there's always been reactionaries, and there always will be. What strikes me as different is that in the past is that such reactionary desires are no longer tempered by any sense of decency. Trump mocks a disabled reporter publicly then denies having done so despite it being clearly recorded on film. Trump doesn't seem to not only survive things like that, he actually gains support from them. His tendency to lie shamelessly isn't a detriment, it's actually the cornerstone of his popularity, it is the basis of his whole coward/bully persona.
It appears that the common sense of decency that would have once pushed someone like Trump from the public as soon as he appeared has gone. That's more than a bit scary, because that shared sense of decency is the absolute foundation of public debate and democracy.
There's a song I used to listen to, written during the Bush Jr. years, with a couple of lyrics describing the world's reaction to things Bush was saying. At first, the world laughed at Bush's silliness and said, "What did he say?" because it was so far out there it was hard to take seriously. Later in the song, the lyric is used again, only now the world is not amused when they hear him speak, they are scared and angry.
I'm a Canadian, and it well describes Trump's campaign to the Presidency. At first, it seemed like a funny joke, because obviously no one would take things like that seriously. In recent months, I have grown scared, and occasionally angry, about things Trump has said, because it's not a funny joke anymore when it becomes reality. There was a particular comment he made that evoked a strong reaction, I can't remember exactly what he said, but I interpreted it as him stating outright that he intended to start expanding American territory. Given the current geography of Earth, the only way to do that is by invading and taking over other countries.
You know the curse, "May you live in interesting times"? We live in interesting times. And sometimes I really want to ask my dad what he thinks about what's going on in the USA right now. Other times, as horrible as it sounds, I'm glad he didn't live to see this day, and I think maybe he got a bit lucky.
Breotan wrote: It's an attack on Manning. Saying it is anything else is simply you applying a false filter to my statement so it becomes what you want it to be. I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself to whom and within what scope my comments are directed.
It's absolutely an attack on transgender people in general. Remember your "I don't play the pronoun game" bit, and deliberately misgendering her? That's a statement to other transgender people that you don't think their identities are valid or worth acknowledging.
Pouncey wrote: Other times, as horrible as it sounds, I'm glad he didn't live to see this day, and I think maybe he got a bit lucky.
Canada is and will continue to be Canada. Daily life in the USA and Eruope won't actually change much for 99% of us. We've had bad Presidents before and we'll eventually have outstanding Presidents in the future. At worst Trump will be wind up lost in the ash heap of history. But who knows, he might actually wind up being competent. We'll just have to see how it plays out. Either way, I think the situation is not as dire as you make it out to be.
Breotan wrote: It's an attack on Manning. Saying it is anything else is simply you applying a false filter to my statement so it becomes what you want it to be.
If the surgery was to turn Manning in to a eunuch, then it would turn all people who undertake that surgery in to eunuchs. Is that what you believe? Or do you believe that there is some magical component to the surgery that means while all other operations will produce people of their preferred sex, when that surgery is applied to people in prison for exposing government secrets then they become eunuchs.
I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself to whom and within what scope my comments are directed.
Apparently not, as you appear to lack the ability to apply your Manning specific argument to all people who would undertake that surgery. Without such logic, it is impossible for you to understand the scope of your words.
Pouncey wrote: Other times, as horrible as it sounds, I'm glad he didn't live to see this day, and I think maybe he got a bit lucky.
Canada is and will continue to be Canada. Daily life in the USA and Eruope won't actually change much for 99% of us. We've had bad Presidents before and we'll eventually have outstanding Presidents in the future. At worst Trump will be wind up lost in the ash heap of history. But who knows, he might actually wind up being competent. We'll just have to see how it plays out. Either way, I think the situation is not as dire as you make it out to be.
Like I said, I think Trump's election is just a symptom of a very serious problem.
Breotan wrote: It's an attack on Manning. Saying it is anything else is simply you applying a false filter to my statement so it becomes what you want it to be.
If the surgery was to turn Manning in to a eunuch, then it would turn all people who undertake that surgery in to eunuchs. Is that what you believe? Or do you believe that there is some magical component to the surgery that means while all other operations will produce people of their preferred sex, when that surgery is applied to people in prison for exposing government secrets then they become eunuchs.
I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself to whom and within what scope my comments are directed.
Apparently not, as you appear to lack the ability to apply your Manning specific argument to all people who would undertake that surgery. Without such logic, it is impossible for you to understand the scope of your words.
New question.
Who is Manning, and why does anyone care about his or her private medical issues to the point we're discussing it in a politics thread?
Could really give a gak about the requested surgery.
Manning was convicted via court-marshal in releasing over 700,000 classified documents which wikileak published, that put America, military and our allies at risks.
The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Hell of a whiplash after this election when some are admonishing wikileak in trying to weaken the Hillary Clinton campaign (by publishing the DNC / Podesta email hack)... but, yet the Obama administration apparently thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning.
EDIT: Obama has every right to pardon Manning. There's nothing stopping him... but, I'd argue it'd be another gak stain on his legacy.
Could really give a gak about the requested surgery.
Manning was convicted via court-marshal in releasing over 700,000 classified documents which wikileak published, that put America, military and our allies at risks.
The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Hell of a whiplash after this election when some are admonishing wikileak in trying to weaken the Hillary Clinton campaign (by publishing the DNC / Podesta email hack)... but, yet the Obama administration apparently thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning.
EDIT: Obama has every right to pardon Manning. There's nothing stopping him... but, I'd argue it'd be another gak stain on his legacy.
What makes you draw the conclusion that Obama "...thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning."? Just because a request for pardon was put in, by Snowden I believe, to the administration doesn't mean said administration is a fan of the request, much less will do anything about it. Or did I miss something?
Could really give a gak about the requested surgery.
Manning was convicted via court-marshal in releasing over 700,000 classified documents which wikileak published, that put America, military and our allies at risks.
The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Hell of a whiplash after this election when some are admonishing wikileak in trying to weaken the Hillary Clinton campaign (by publishing the DNC / Podesta email hack)... but, yet the Obama administration apparently thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning.
Pardoning convicted criminals is one of the powers that the US President has. However, I don't think that releasing Manning from prison is likely to result in any more security breaches, because after releasing classified documents to the Internet, the odds of getting any sort of relevant security clearance again is zero, regardless of whether she is pardoned or not.
And I've never been a fan of using the criminal justice system as a form of punishment. To me, incarceration is a way to prevent dangerous individuals from harming society. There is no harm she could cause if released. Her crimes were non-violent, and no one will ever trust her with classified information again, so keeping her in prison will not prevent any further leaks from occurring.
whembly wrote: The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Commuting her sentence, not pardoning. And the reason is because her sentence and subsequent treatment in prison was vastly disproportionate compared to similar offenses, and because the primary "crime" was embarrassing the US by publishing some of our dirty laundry rather than any quantifiable harm (like, for example, selling nuclear secrets to Russia). It's pretty blatantly a case of "you made us look bad, now we're going to make an example of you", not justice. The punishment she has already received is more than sufficient.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BigWaaagh wrote: What makes you draw the conclusion that Obama "...thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning."? Just because a request for pardon was put in, by Snowden I believe, to the administration doesn't mean said administration is a fan of the request, much less will do anything about it. Or did I miss something?
Recent news is she's on the "short list" for consideration, Snowden's statement was in support of this decision.
Could really give a gak about the requested surgery.
Manning was convicted via court-marshal in releasing over 700,000 classified documents which wikileak published, that put America, military and our allies at risks.
The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Hell of a whiplash after this election when some are admonishing wikileak in trying to weaken the Hillary Clinton campaign (by publishing the DNC / Podesta email hack)... but, yet the Obama administration apparently thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning.
EDIT: Obama has every right to pardon Manning. There's nothing stopping him... but, I'd argue it'd be another gak stain on his legacy.
What makes you draw the conclusion that Obama "...thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning."? Just because a request for pardon was put in, by Snowden I believe, to the administration doesn't mean said administration is a fan of the request, much less will do anything about it. Or did I miss something?
I imagine both Manning and Snowden (not to mention various human rights and privacy activists) requested for their own clemency... I know I would.
It sure looks like a trial balloon by this administration.
Breotan wrote: It's an attack on Manning. Saying it is anything else is simply you applying a false filter to my statement so it becomes what you want it to be.
If the surgery was to turn Manning in to a eunuch, then it would turn all people who undertake that surgery in to eunuchs. Is that what you believe? Or do you believe that there is some magical component to the surgery that means while all other operations will produce people of their preferred sex, when that surgery is applied to people in prison for exposing government secrets then they become eunuchs.
Sexual reassignment surgery is a process where an individual's genitalia are surgically altered to resemble that of the other gender. In the case of a man undergoing the procedure to become a woman, it involves removal of the testes. The remaining gonads are then used to create a facsimile of a vagina. At no time is a uterus or ovaries provided to the person undergoing the surgery and thus that person never actually becomes a biological woman. This means that in every case of a man undergoing a surgery to become a woman, that man is castrated and by definition is an eunuch - "a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals". Your wanting it to be something more than that does not change reality.
I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself to whom and within what scope my comments are directed.
Apparently not, as you appear to lack the ability to apply your Manning specific argument to all people who would undertake that surgery. Without such logic, it is impossible for you to understand the scope of your words.
That's a pretty arrogant statement and it is also completely wrong. If you dislike what I say and wish to argue against my position, that's fine. Do not put words in my mouth or suggest that what I said means anything other than what I said. If I misspeak, I will make the effort to correct myself. You do not get that privilege.
whembly wrote: The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Commuting her sentence, not pardoning. And the reason is because her sentence and subsequent treatment in prison was vastly disproportionate compared to similar offenses, and because the primary "crime" was embarrassing the US by publishing some of our dirty laundry rather than any quantifiable harm (like, for example, selling nuclear secrets to Russia). It's pretty blatantly a case of "you made us look bad, now we're going to make an example of you", not justice. The punishment she has already received is more than sufficient.
Two things.
First, it's pretty disgraceful that the US justice system does crap like that to prisoners.
Second... I don't think Russia needs America's nuclear secrets. They're pretty good at making their own nuclear weaponry with their own scientists and engineers, and thanks to their satellites they probably have a pretty good idea of where to aim their nuclear arsenal if they ever need to participate in the willful annihilation of all computers on Earth and the subsequent destruction of human civilization.
Could really give a gak about the requested surgery.
Manning was convicted via court-marshal in releasing over 700,000 classified documents which wikileak published, that put America, military and our allies at risks.
The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Hell of a whiplash after this election when some are admonishing wikileak in trying to weaken the Hillary Clinton campaign (by publishing the DNC / Podesta email hack)... but, yet the Obama administration apparently thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning.
EDIT: Obama has every right to pardon Manning. There's nothing stopping him... but, I'd argue it'd be another gak stain on his legacy.
What makes you draw the conclusion that Obama "...thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning."? Just because a request for pardon was put in, by Snowden I believe, to the administration doesn't mean said administration is a fan of the request, much less will do anything about it. Or did I miss something?
I imagine both Manning and Snowden (not to mention various human rights and privacy activists) requested for their own clemency... I know I would.
It sure looks like a trial balloon by this administration.
It all looks like out-the-door pardon speculation hype to me. I'd give 0% chance of Snowden getting anything from Obama and I'd give 35% chance of Manning getting clemency in the form of a reduced sentence and 0% chance for a pardon. Frankly, in this charged political environment with regards to anything re: leaks, etc., I think 35% might be too high.
Breotan wrote: It's an attack on Manning. Saying it is anything else is simply you applying a false filter to my statement so it becomes what you want it to be.
If the surgery was to turn Manning in to a eunuch, then it would turn all people who undertake that surgery in to eunuchs. Is that what you believe? Or do you believe that there is some magical component to the surgery that means while all other operations will produce people of their preferred sex, when that surgery is applied to people in prison for exposing government secrets then they become eunuchs.
Sexual reassignment surgery is a process where an individual's genitalia are surgically altered to resemble that of the other gender. In the case of a man undergoing the procedure to become a woman, it involves removal of the testes. The remaining gonads are then used to create a facsimile of a vagina. At no time is a uterus or ovaries provided to the person undergoing the surgery and thus that person never actually becomes a biological woman. This means that in every case of a man undergoing a surgery to become a woman, that man is castrated and by definition is an eunuch - "a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals". Your wanting it to be something more than that does not change reality.
You're missing the entire point of transitioning. Reproduction does not have anything to do with it, and the lack of a functional reproductive system due to not having the proper organs is simply a necessary price to pay. Besides, if you ever want kids, you could always adopt.
Also, it involves years of taking massive doses of hormone supplements to change the rest of the body, lifestyle changes to adopt the clothing styles of the proper sex, and years of therapy before anything gets started.
They'd avoid doing it entirely if the patient's brain could be convinced to accept the body it was born with, but having reached the point where you decide to transition means that the brain simply cannot be convinced by any current methods, and thus the only solution is to physically alter the body to suit the brain, because the amount of suffering caused by your brain insisting your body is incorrect is immense enough that it simply cannot be allowed to continue.
Breotan wrote: It's an attack on Manning. Saying it is anything else is simply you applying a false filter to my statement so it becomes what you want it to be.
If the surgery was to turn Manning in to a eunuch, then it would turn all people who undertake that surgery in to eunuchs. Is that what you believe? Or do you believe that there is some magical component to the surgery that means while all other operations will produce people of their preferred sex, when that surgery is applied to people in prison for exposing government secrets then they become eunuchs.
Sexual reassignment surgery is a process where an individual's genitalia are surgically altered to resemble that of the other gender. In the case of a man undergoing the procedure to become a woman, it involves removal of the testes. The remaining gonads are then used to create a facsimile of a vagina. At no time is a uterus or ovaries provided to the person undergoing the surgery and thus that person never actually becomes a biological woman. This means that in every case of a man undergoing a surgery to become a woman, that man is castrated and by definition is an eunuch - "a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals". Your wanting it to be something more than that does not change reality.
I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself to whom and within what scope my comments are directed.
Apparently not, as you appear to lack the ability to apply your Manning specific argument to all people who would undertake that surgery. Without such logic, it is impossible for you to understand the scope of your words.
That's a pretty arrogant statement and it is also completely wrong. If you dislike what I say and wish to argue against my position, that's fine. Do not put words in my mouth or suggest that what I said means anything other than what I said. If I misspeak, I will make the effort to correct myself. You do not get that privilege.
Your dictionary definition of "eunuch" is, of course, correct. However, I think the disconnect and flak you're receiving on this has to do with the not insignificant fact that the trans individual receiving said operation does not identify as "a man or boy..." and hence, is accordingly disqualified from being categorized as a eunuch. At least that's what I'm picking up.
BigWaaagh wrote: It all looks like out-the-door pardon speculation hype to me. I'd give 0% chance of Snowden getting anything from Obama and I'd give 35% chance of Manning getting clemency in the form of a reduced sentence and 0% chance for a pardon.
I'm very interested in hearing what numbers you crunched to come up with those odds.
BigWaaagh wrote: It all looks like out-the-door pardon speculation hype to me. I'd give 0% chance of Snowden getting anything from Obama and I'd give 35% chance of Manning getting clemency in the form of a reduced sentence and 0% chance for a pardon.
I'm very interested in hearing what numbers you crunched to come up with those odds.
To badly paraphrase Han Solo: "Never ask me how I got the odds!"
whembly wrote: The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Commuting her sentence, not pardoning. And the reason is because her sentence and subsequent treatment in prison was vastly disproportionate compared to similar offenses, and because the primary "crime" was embarrassing the US by publishing some of our dirty laundry rather than any quantifiable harm (like, for example, selling nuclear secrets to Russia). It's pretty blatantly a case of "you made us look bad, now we're going to make an example of you", not justice.
She very clearly intentionally broke the law and leaked information that was damaging. The investigators found records of searches which Manning performed on government workstations with keywords that included “WikiLeaks,” “Julian Assange” and “Guantanamo Bay detainee assessments.” (rule of darwinism: don't do that on government devices)
The content of those documents shouldn't factor in the prosecution nor sentencing. She very clearly broke several laws and was justifiably convicted.
The punishment she has already received is more than sufficient.
She's what, 4 years in? I disagree... but really, that's up to Obama now.
Could really give a gak about the requested surgery.
Manning was convicted via court-marshal in releasing over 700,000 classified documents which wikileak published, that put America, military and our allies at risks.
The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Hell of a whiplash after this election when some are admonishing wikileak in trying to weaken the Hillary Clinton campaign (by publishing the DNC / Podesta email hack)... but, yet the Obama administration apparently thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning.
EDIT: Obama has every right to pardon Manning. There's nothing stopping him... but, I'd argue it'd be another gak stain on his legacy.
What makes you draw the conclusion that Obama "...thinks it's kosher to pardon Manning."? Just because a request for pardon was put in, by Snowden I believe, to the administration doesn't mean said administration is a fan of the request, much less will do anything about it. Or did I miss something?
I imagine both Manning and Snowden (not to mention various human rights and privacy activists) requested for their own clemency... I know I would.
It sure looks like a trial balloon by this administration.
It all looks like out-the-door pardon speculation hype to me. I'd give 0% chance of Snowden getting anything from Obama and I'd give 35% chance of Manning getting clemency in the form of a reduced sentence and 0% chance for a pardon. Frankly, in this charged political environment with regards to anything re: leaks, etc., I think 35% might be too high.
I actually give it a better that 50% odd that Obama will commute Manning's sentence... she has alot...ALOT of supporters.
whembly wrote: The Obama administration is deliberating in pardoning Manning... because reasons.
Commuting her sentence, not pardoning. And the reason is because her sentence and subsequent treatment in prison was vastly disproportionate compared to similar offenses, and because the primary "crime" was embarrassing the US by publishing some of our dirty laundry rather than any quantifiable harm (like, for example, selling nuclear secrets to Russia). It's pretty blatantly a case of "you made us look bad, now we're going to make an example of you", not justice. The punishment she has already received is more than sufficient.
Two things.
First, it's pretty disgraceful that the US justice system does crap like that to prisoners.
Second... I don't think Russia needs America's nuclear secrets. They're pretty good at making their own nuclear weaponry with their own scientists and engineers, and thanks to their satellites they probably have a pretty good idea of where to aim their nuclear arsenal if they ever need to participate in the willful annihilation of all computers on Earth and the subsequent destruction of human civilization.
Perhaps a better comparison would have been to allude to Aldrich Ames, Bob Hanson, John Walker, or Ana Montes.
BigWaaagh wrote: It all looks like out-the-door pardon speculation hype to me. I'd give 0% chance of Snowden getting anything from Obama and I'd give 35% chance of Manning getting clemency in the form of a reduced sentence and 0% chance for a pardon.
I'm very interested in hearing what numbers you crunched to come up with those odds.
To badly paraphrase Han Solo: "Never ask me how I got the odds!"
I am well aware that there is no way to actually calculate those odds.
I am more interested in the amusing excuse that will be created to explain the process of pulling numbers out of one's butt. Should be funny.
Breotan wrote: Sexual reassignment surgery is a process where an individual's genitalia are surgically altered to resemble that of the other gender. In the case of a man undergoing the procedure to become a woman, it involves removal of the testes. The remaining gonads are then used to create a facsimile of a vagina. At no time is a uterus or ovaries provided to the person undergoing the surgery and thus that person never actually becomes a biological woman. This means that in every case of a man undergoing a surgery to become a woman, that man is castrated and by definition is an eunuch - "a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals". Your wanting it to be something more than that does not change reality.
What I want is for people to be decent, and choose their words carefully when talking about people going through a very difficult thing. You obviously don't give a gak about that, as you chose to mock one person wanting such a change, and thereby mocked everyone going through that change.
That's a pretty arrogant statement and it is also completely wrong. If you dislike what I say and wish to argue against my position, that's fine. Do not put words in my mouth or suggest that what I said means anything other than what I said. If I misspeak, I will make the effort to correct myself. You do not get that privilege.
You are still trying to live in a world where the process Manning wants is somehow different to the process undertaken by other people undertaking gender change surgery. Here in the real world, when you mock Manning for that surgery, you mock everyone who has or wants that surgery.
You don't get to pretend that basic logic stops existing because you don't want it to.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Perhaps a better comparison would have been to allude to Aldrich Ames, Bob Hanson, John Walker, or Ana Montes.
Generally it's pretty contradictory for America to consider treason to be a heinous offense. Treason is how that country was founded, it's just that the traitors happened to win the civil war they started.
BigWaaagh wrote: Your dictionary definition of "eunuch" is, of course, correct. However, I think the disconnect and flak you're receiving on this has to do with the not insignificant fact that the trans individual receiving said operation does not identify as "a man or boy..." and hence, is accordingly disqualified from being categorized as a eunuch. At least that's what I'm picking up.
I'm fully aware of this. What someone decides to call themselves is their own business. That does not mean I am under any obligation to participate.
sebster wrote: ... and thereby mocked everyone going through that change. <snip> Here in the real world, when you mock Manning for that surgery, you mock everyone who has or wants that surgery.
Nope. As I said previously, do not put words in my mouth or suggest that what I said means anything other than what I actually said. You do not get to do that.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Perhaps a better comparison would have been to allude to Aldrich Ames, Bob Hanson, John Walker, or Ana Montes.
Generally it's pretty contradictory for America to consider treason to be a heinous offense. Treason is how that country was founded, it's just that the traitors happened to win the civil war they started.
Yeah, we decided to shed the UK yoke earlier rather than later. For some countries it was much, much later. Ahem, *cough*...
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Perhaps a better comparison would have been to allude to Aldrich Ames, Bob Hanson, John Walker, or Ana Montes.
Generally it's pretty contradictory for America to consider treason to be a heinous offense. Treason is how that country was founded, it's just that the traitors happened to win the civil war they started.
Yeah, we decided to shed the UK yoke earlier rather than later. For some countries it was much, much later. Ahem, *cough*...
Canada decided to negotiate politically for independence. It was granted without bloodshed.
This year we celebrate the 150th anniversary of Canada's founding as an independent country.
BigWaaagh wrote: Your dictionary definition of "eunuch" is, of course, correct. However, I think the disconnect and flak you're receiving on this has to do with the not insignificant fact that the trans individual receiving said operation does not identify as "a man or boy..." and hence, is accordingly disqualified from being categorized as a eunuch. At least that's what I'm picking up.
I'm fully aware of this. What someone decides to call themselves is their own business. That does not mean I am under any obligation to participate.
Cool.
Is it fine if I refuse to consider you a human being then?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Perhaps a better comparison would have been to allude to Aldrich Ames, Bob Hanson, John Walker, or Ana Montes.
Generally it's pretty contradictory for America to consider treason to be a heinous offense. Treason is how that country was founded, it's just that the traitors happened to win the civil war they started.
Yeah, we decided to shed the UK yoke earlier rather than later. For some countries it was much, much later. Ahem, *cough*...
Canada decided to negotiate politically for independence. It was granted without bloodshed.
This year we celebrate the 150th anniversary of Canada's founding as an independent country.
If your idea of "independent country" is one existing within another country's empire, then yes, happy sesquicentennial. But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Perhaps a better comparison would have been to allude to Aldrich Ames, Bob Hanson, John Walker, or Ana Montes.
Generally it's pretty contradictory for America to consider treason to be a heinous offense. Treason is how that country was founded, it's just that the traitors happened to win the civil war they started.
Actually, our founding fathers knew they were committing treason against the crown and were prepared to pay the price. Many people were executed for treason during the war.
BigWaaagh wrote: If your idea of "independent country" is one existing within another country's empire, then yes, happy sesquicentennial. But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?
The Queen of England is a symbolic figurehead. She is our head of state only as a technicality. We don't care about her opinion regarding our politics and we don't even try to find out what it is.
As for what you're referring to 30 years ago, I have no idea what it could possibly be, but I feel comfortable telling you that you have seriously misunderstood something or have been drastically misinformed.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Perhaps a better comparison would have been to allude to Aldrich Ames, Bob Hanson, John Walker, or Ana Montes.
Generally it's pretty contradictory for America to consider treason to be a heinous offense. Treason is how that country was founded, it's just that the traitors happened to win the civil war they started.
Actually, our founding fathers knew they were committing treason against the crown and were prepared to pay the price. Many people were executed for treason during the war.
BigWaaagh wrote: If your idea of "independent country" is one existing within another country's empire, then yes, happy sesquicentennial. But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?
The Queen of England is a symbolic figurehead. She is our head of state only as a technicality. We don't care about her opinion regarding our politics and we don't even try to find out what it is.
As for what you're referring to 30 years ago, I have no idea what it could possibly be, but I feel comfortable telling you that you have seriously misunderstood something or have been drastically misinformed.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Perhaps a better comparison would have been to allude to Aldrich Ames, Bob Hanson, John Walker, or Ana Montes.
Generally it's pretty contradictory for America to consider treason to be a heinous offense. Treason is how that country was founded, it's just that the traitors happened to win the civil war they started.
Actually, our founding fathers knew they were committing treason against the crown and were prepared to pay the price. Many people were executed for treason during the war.
That's my point.
I was under the impression that until April 1982, when the Canada Act passed and Canada severed the last vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament, that you weren't completely[i] a formally independent nation. Athough you were mostly independent after the 1931 Statute of Westminster passed and British Parliament could no longer make Canadian laws. I think I even read that until 1977 when The Canadian Citizenship Act was revised that the phrase "A Canadian citizen is a British subject" appeared on your passports.
Breotan wrote: I'm fully aware of this. What someone decides to call themselves is their own business. That does not mean I am under any obligation to participate.
And this is why people are calling you a transphobic . The only question here is why the mods are content to allow your appalling comments to continue to exist.
BigWaaagh wrote: I was under the impression that until April 1982, when the Canada Act passed, that you weren't a formally independent nation. I think I read that until 1977 when The Canadian Citizenship Act was revised that the phrase "A Canadian citizen is a British subject" appeared on your passports.
Well, I was born in 1988 and pretty much everything I've heard about Canadian history says that my country was created in 1867 when we got our own federal government.
I am not really interested in the opinions of Americans regarding when my country technically gained independence though.
Breotan wrote: I'm fully aware of this. What someone decides to call themselves is their own business. That does not mean I am under any obligation to participate.
And this is why people are calling you a transphobic . The only question here is why the mods are content to allow your appalling comments to continue to exist.
Referring to him as "transphobic" isn't likely to get the message across. Many people who are intolerant have come to embrace such words, and there are a few who argue that the term is simply inaccurate due to the literal meaning of the greek or latin word "phobia". Trying to explain that the term "transphobic" does not necessarily imply fear and is simply the common English word to describe people who are prejudiced or bigoted of transgendered people falls on deaf ears even after they admit that there is no other word that could be substituted.
Essentially you're dealing with someone who does not view intolerance and bigotry as bad things.
BigWaaagh wrote: I was under the impression that until April 1982, when the Canada Act passed, that you weren't a formally independent nation. I think I read that until 1977 when The Canadian Citizenship Act was revised that the phrase "A Canadian citizen is a British subject" appeared on your passports.
Well, I was born in 1988 and pretty much everything I've heard about Canadian history says that my country was created in 1867 when we got our own federal government.
I am not really interested in the opinions of Americans regarding when my country technically gained independence though.
Can we get back to trash-talking Trump?
I'm just saying. If another country can make laws in your country, i.e. Great Britain pre-1931, then independence isn't happening.
So, you see, going the decisive and bloody route to nationdom is most effect in removing of all the technicalities!
And don't worry, we've got at least 4 more years to throw darts at Donnie.
BigWaaagh wrote: I was under the impression that until April 1982, when the Canada Act passed, that you weren't a formally independent nation. I think I read that until 1977 when The Canadian Citizenship Act was revised that the phrase "A Canadian citizen is a British subject" appeared on your passports.
Well, I was born in 1988 and pretty much everything I've heard about Canadian history says that my country was created in 1867 when we got our own federal government.
I am not really interested in the opinions of Americans regarding when my country technically gained independence though.
Can we get back to trash-talking Trump?
I'm just saying. If another country can make laws in your country, i.e. Great Britain pre-1931, then independence isn't happening.
So, you see, going the decisive and bloody route to nationdom is most effect in removing of all the technicalities!
I... really don't care. Also I guess I shouldn't be surprised that an American is advocating war.
And don't worry, we've got at least 4 more years to throw darts at Donnie.
I still think we should send him to Mars and force him to pay for it.
BigWaaagh wrote: I was under the impression that until April 1982, when the Canada Act passed, that you weren't a formally independent nation. I think I read that until 1977 when The Canadian Citizenship Act was revised that the phrase "A Canadian citizen is a British subject" appeared on your passports.
Well, I was born in 1988 and pretty much everything I've heard about Canadian history says that my country was created in 1867 when we got our own federal government.
I am not really interested in the opinions of Americans regarding when my country technically gained independence though.
Can we get back to trash-talking Trump?
I'm just saying. If another country can make laws in your country, i.e. Great Britain pre-1931, then independence isn't happening.
So, you see, going the decisive and bloody route to nationdom is most effect in removing of all the technicalities!
I... really don't care. Also I guess I shouldn't be surprised that an American is advocating war.
And don't worry, we've got at least 4 more years to throw darts at Donnie.
I still think we should send him to Mars and force him to pay for it.
Sorry if the facts I've cited don't jibe with your understanding of your country's history, but they are what they are. Once again, they're just fact, not opinions btw, as you stated earlier.
And yeah, I'm a regular warmonger. What a patently absurd statement.
BigWaaagh wrote: Yeah, I'm a regular warmonger. What a patently absurd statement.
You literally just finished suggesting that Canada should have had its own war of independence. How is advocating wars not warmongering?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BigWaaagh wrote: Sorry if the facts I've cited don't jibe with your understanding of your country's history, but they are what they are. Once again, they're just fact, not opinions btw, as you stated earlier.
Was there some part of "I don't care" that was difficult to understand or something?
Breotan wrote: Nope. As I said previously, do not put words in my mouth or suggest that what I said means anything other than what I actually said. You do not get to do that.
I simply noted that your attempt to mock Chelsea Manning also mocked everyone else wanting a similar surgery. This doesn't require me putting any words in your mouth, it is a simple piece of logic - if Manning is seen as a eunuch, then so is everyone else who undertakes the same surgery.
It is not possible for you to not understand this. It is a basic function of human conversation. If I was to say 'that is a dog, therefore it must have four legs' it would not be putting words in my mouth for you to conclude that I think dogs have four legs. This is basic stuff.
I don't believe you are actually confused by this. You are feigning confusion in order to avoid owning up to what you posted. That's bad form. Not as bad as mocking someone for transgender surgery, but pretty crappy all the same.
BigWaaagh wrote: Yeah, I'm a regular warmonger. What a patently absurd statement.
You literally just finished suggesting that Canada should have had its own war of independence. How is advocating wars not warmongering?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BigWaaagh wrote: Sorry if the facts I've cited don't jibe with your understanding of your country's history, but they are what they are. Once again, they're just fact, not opinions btw, as you stated earlier.
Was there some part of "I don't care" that was difficult to understand or something?
Sorry, falling back on "I don't care" when confronted with facts to the contrary of one of your positions, or statements, just goes to undermine your posting on these boards. Don't go there.
BigWaaagh wrote: If your idea of "independent country" is one existing within another country's empire, then yes, happy sesquicentennial. But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?
It's not an empire, it's a commonwealth. No taxes are sent to the UK, there is no obligation to provide troops in time of war. What it means basically is the UK provides some various legal and administrative services for the really small nations of the commonwealth (high courts etc), and every four years there are the Commonwealth Games, which only Australia seems to care about because it's the only time we get to win track and field medals.
BigWaaagh wrote: If your idea of "independent country" is one existing within another country's empire, then yes, happy sesquicentennial. But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?
It's not an empire, it's a commonwealth. No taxes are sent to the UK, there is no obligation to provide troops in time of war. What it means basically is the UK provides some various legal and administrative services for the really small nations of the commonwealth (high courts etc), and every four years there are the Commonwealth Games, which only Australia seems to care about because it's the only time we get to win track and field medals.
My Australian friend, take no notice of these damn Yankee rebels.
I'm not going to say that Australians are like the Canadians,
But you gave us Neighbours and Home and Away, and Crocodile Dundee
Breotan wrote: Nope. As I said previously, do not put words in my mouth or suggest that what I said means anything other than what I actually said. You do not get to do that.
I simply noted that your attempt to mock Chelsea Manning also mocked everyone else wanting a similar surgery. This doesn't require me putting any words in your mouth, it is a simple piece of logic - if Manning is seen as a eunuch, then so is everyone else who undertakes the same surgery.
It is not possible for you to not understand this. It is a basic function of human conversation. If I was to say 'that is a dog, therefore it must have four legs' it would not be putting words in my mouth for you to conclude that I think dogs have four legs. This is basic stuff.
I don't believe you are actually confused by this. You are feigning confusion in order to avoid owning up to what you posted. That's bad form. Not as bad as mocking someone for transgender surgery, but pretty crappy all the same.
I think you're misunderstanding his viewpoint.
To him, he's not doing anything wrong. Because he believes that transgendered people are immoral and deserve to be mocked. He doesn't care to understand the reality, because his moral values dictate to him that transgendered people are doing something very, very wrong that should not be condoned by society. Probably his belief system insists that a deity individually crafted every person individually, thus everyone is born as they were meant to be, and any alteration made to the body is a violation of his deity's will.
He also feels perfectly comfortable with enforcing his personal morals on others, regardless of their opinions, because he believes that as the majority religion in his region, his belief system should be made law and enforced on the rest of society.
Personally, I derive great satisfaction from describing my own belief system and hearing comments like, "Wow. It's weird to hear that Satanism is much more tolerant and accepting than Christianity is."
Generally Christians don't follow the teachings of Jesus at all. If they did, well, they'd probably find themselves more at home following Satanism because it would be more in line with their values and morals.
BigWaaagh wrote: If your idea of "independent country" is one existing within another country's empire, then yes, happy sesquicentennial. But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?
It's not an empire, it's a commonwealth. No taxes are sent to the UK, there is no obligation to provide troops in time of war. What it means basically is the UK provides some various legal and administrative services for the really small nations of the commonwealth (high courts etc), and every four years there are the Commonwealth Games, which only Australia seems to care about because it's the only time we get to win track and field medals.
Nowadays, no, it's not an empire. But in the context of the relevant conversation relating to the 150 year anniversary of Canada as an independent nation, it wasn't until 1948 that King George VI dropped the title "Emperor", formally ending the "British Empire". So, it was within that "Empire" for well over half that time.
BigWaaagh wrote: If your idea of "independent country" is one existing within another country's empire, then yes, happy sesquicentennial. But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?
It's not an empire, it's a commonwealth. No taxes are sent to the UK, there is no obligation to provide troops in time of war. What it means basically is the UK provides some various legal and administrative services for the really small nations of the commonwealth (high courts etc), and every four years there are the Commonwealth Games, which only Australia seems to care about because it's the only time we get to win track and field medals.
Nowadays, no, it's not an empire. But in the context of the relevant conversation relating to the 150 year anniversary of Canada as an independent nation, it wasn't until 1948 that King George VI dropped the title "Emperor", formally ending the "British Empire". So, it was within that "Empire" for well over half that time.
It was Empire in name only for nations such as Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand. They were de facto independent.
Canadian troops that fought in both world wars were by and large volunteers, not conscripts. I believe the same was true for Australia and New Zealand.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Canadian troops that fought in both world wars were by and large volunteers, not conscripts. I believe the same was true for Australia and New Zealand.
Our troops occasionally had a fearsome reputation. I'm not a military expert by any means, but I like to think of Canada as a friendly, peace-loving country that's tough to get to fight a war, but like all democracies, once you convince the people that war is necessary, well, they become a fearsome opponent since the people are behind the war, not just the rulers.
Crazyterran wrote: Americans talking about Canadian history, still deny they lost 1812.
Goal was to conquer Canada, they failed, and got the White House burned, yet it somehow doesn't count as a loss.
Is this whole Canadian backlash because we just beat you at the World Junior Hockey Championship? It is, isn't it!
I prefer to remember that time when our women's hockey teams squared off at the Olympics with a score of 40-something for the Canadians and low single digits for the Americans.
BigWaaagh wrote: If your idea of "independent country" is one existing within another country's empire, then yes, happy sesquicentennial. But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?
It's not an empire, it's a commonwealth. No taxes are sent to the UK, there is no obligation to provide troops in time of war. What it means basically is the UK provides some various legal and administrative services for the really small nations of the commonwealth (high courts etc), and every four years there are the Commonwealth Games, which only Australia seems to care about because it's the only time we get to win track and field medals.
Nowadays, no, it's not an empire. But in the context of the relevant conversation relating to the 150 year anniversary of Canada as an independent nation, it wasn't until 1948 that King George VI dropped the title "Emperor", formally ending the "British Empire". So, it was within that "Empire" for well over half that time.
It was Empire in name only for nations such as Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand. They were de facto independent.
Canadian troops that fought in both world wars were by and large volunteers, not conscripts. I believe the same was true for Australia and New Zealand.
As I pointed out earlier, it wasn't until the -30's that Britain ceased to be able to make Canadian laws and that's not a sign of independence. Also, I think you're underestimating the power of that "Empire in name only..." bit. In 1914- Canadian Prime Minister Borden declares war, pledging Canada's support to "The Empire".
BigWaaagh wrote: As I pointed out earlier, it wasn't until the -30's that Britain ceased to be able to make Canadian laws and that's not a sign of independence. Also, I think you're underestimating the power of that "Empire in name only..." bit. In 1914- Canadian Prime Minister Borden declares war, pledging Canada's support to "The Empire".
Yup, because that's a thing an independent country does. Declare war on their own and pledge to support one of their allies who is being attacked.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Canadian troops that fought in both world wars were by and large volunteers, not conscripts. I believe the same was true for Australia and New Zealand.
Our troops occasionally had a fearsome reputation. I'm not a military expert by any means, but I like to think of Canada as a friendly, peace-loving country that's tough to get to fight a war, but like all democracies, once you convince the people that war is necessary, well, they become a fearsome opponent since the people are behind the war, not just the rulers.
Crazyterran wrote: Americans talking about Canadian history, still deny they lost 1812.
Goal was to conquer Canada, they failed, and got the White House burned, yet it somehow doesn't count as a loss.
Is this whole Canadian backlash because we just beat you at the World Junior Hockey Championship? It is, isn't it!
I prefer to remember that time when our women's hockey teams squared off at the Olympics with a score of 40-something for the Canadians and low single digits for the Americans.
1812 wasn't it? Anyways, that trend is changing, we beat ourselves in Sochi.
BigWaaagh wrote: If your idea of "independent country" is one existing within another country's empire, then yes, happy sesquicentennial. But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?
It's not an empire, it's a commonwealth. No taxes are sent to the UK, there is no obligation to provide troops in time of war. What it means basically is the UK provides some various legal and administrative services for the really small nations of the commonwealth (high courts etc), and every four years there are the Commonwealth Games, which only Australia seems to care about because it's the only time we get to win track and field medals.
Nowadays, no, it's not an empire. But in the context of the relevant conversation relating to the 150 year anniversary of Canada as an independent nation, it wasn't until 1948 that King George VI dropped the title "Emperor", formally ending the "British Empire". So, it was within that "Empire" for well over half that time.
It was Empire in name only for nations such as Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand. They were de facto independent.
Canadian troops that fought in both world wars were by and large volunteers, not conscripts. I believe the same was true for Australia and New Zealand.
As I pointed out earlier, it wasn't until the -30's that Britain ceased to be able to make Canadian laws and that's not a sign of independence. Also, I think you're underestimating the power of that "Empire in name only..." bit. In 1914- Canadian Prime Minister Borden declares war, pledging Canada's support to "The Empire".
In both world wars, the USA pledged support to the British Empire, obviously because they were allies, but that didn't make the USA part of the Empire.
BigWaaagh wrote: As I pointed out earlier, it wasn't until the -30's that Britain ceased to be able to make Canadian laws and that's not a sign of independence. Also, I think you're underestimating the power of that "Empire in name only..." bit. In 1914- Canadian Prime Minister Borden declares war, pledging Canada's support to "The Empire".
Yup, because that's a thing an independent country does. Declare war on their own and pledge to support one of their allies who is being attacked.
It beats waiting for British Parliament to pass a law and declare war for you. Face it, Canada didn't have, essentially, complete political independence from Britain until 1931.
BigWaaagh wrote: If your idea of "independent country" is one existing within another country's empire, then yes, happy sesquicentennial. But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?
It's not an empire, it's a commonwealth. No taxes are sent to the UK, there is no obligation to provide troops in time of war. What it means basically is the UK provides some various legal and administrative services for the really small nations of the commonwealth (high courts etc), and every four years there are the Commonwealth Games, which only Australia seems to care about because it's the only time we get to win track and field medals.
Nowadays, no, it's not an empire. But in the context of the relevant conversation relating to the 150 year anniversary of Canada as an independent nation, it wasn't until 1948 that King George VI dropped the title "Emperor", formally ending the "British Empire". So, it was within that "Empire" for well over half that time.
It was Empire in name only for nations such as Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand. They were de facto independent.
Canadian troops that fought in both world wars were by and large volunteers, not conscripts. I believe the same was true for Australia and New Zealand.
As I pointed out earlier, it wasn't until the -30's that Britain ceased to be able to make Canadian laws and that's not a sign of independence. Also, I think you're underestimating the power of that "Empire in name only..." bit. In 1914- Canadian Prime Minister Borden declares war, pledging Canada's support to "The Empire".
In both world wars, the USA pledged support to the British Empire, obviously because they were allies, but that didn't make the USA part of the Empire.
Now you're just fishing.
EDIT: I think we need to get this thread back to a US Politics-related topic.
BigWaaagh wrote: EDIT: I think we need to get this thread back to a US Politics-related topic.
Yes.
I would like to present this XKCD What If? article that explores the statistical likelihood of a single vote making the difference in a federal election in the USA.
Yes, obviously a single person's vote is extremely unlikely to make a difference. However, the efforts being made are to convince people to consider the concept of voting to be valuable enough to participate in. These messages are not aimed at a single individual, but spread to the entire country.
Where 1 vote is unlikely to make any difference, millions of votes easily could.
It's too bad a lot of Americans abhor the concept of collective bargaining, their political system is founded on it.
Like that bizarrely-shaped opera house in Sydney that's used in every Hollywood movie that needs an establishing shot for a scene taking place in Australia.
Pouncey wrote: I think you're misunderstanding his viewpoint.
To him, he's not doing anything wrong. Because he believes that transgendered people are immoral and deserve to be mocked. He doesn't care to understand the reality, because his moral values dictate to him that transgendered people are doing something very, very wrong that should not be condoned by society. Probably his belief system insists that a deity individually crafted every person individually, thus everyone is born as they were meant to be, and any alteration made to the body is a violation of his deity's will.
Maybe, but I've never gotten a huge moralism vibe from Breotan. I don't think it's that. But then I get posters around here confused with each other all the time, I could be wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pouncey wrote: Like that bizarrely-shaped opera house in Sydney that's used in every Hollywood movie that needs an establishing shot for a scene taking place in Australia.
It's visible from every single window in Sydney. Even if you go the windows on the other side of the house, it'll still be there. Truly an architectural marvel.
Although we've only got ourselves to blame. I remember seeing an ad in China for Jacob's Creek, a wine, and the ad was the Opera House at day, kangaroos, the Harbour Bridge , the Opera House at night, and finally wine pouring. Jacob's Creek isn't even a NSW wine, it's from South Australia, a totally different state.
Pouncey wrote: I think you're misunderstanding his viewpoint.
To him, he's not doing anything wrong. Because he believes that transgendered people are immoral and deserve to be mocked. He doesn't care to understand the reality, because his moral values dictate to him that transgendered people are doing something very, very wrong that should not be condoned by society. Probably his belief system insists that a deity individually crafted every person individually, thus everyone is born as they were meant to be, and any alteration made to the body is a violation of his deity's will.
Maybe, but I've never gotten a huge moralism vibe from Breotan. I don't think it's that. But then I get posters around here confused with each other all the time, I could be wrong.
I'll admit it's possible for someone to have a different motivation. I have yet to encounter such an individual though.
BigWaaagh wrote: Nowadays, no, it's not an empire. But in the context of the relevant conversation relating to the 150 year anniversary of Canada as an independent nation, it wasn't until 1948 that King George VI dropped the title "Emperor", formally ending the "British Empire". So, it was within that "Empire" for well over half that time.
Yeah, it does get to be a bit of a strange question, as independence came in pieces, and actual independence came well in advance of formal recognition. Even now, Australia's head of state is technically the Queen, but that's nothing to do with reality.
sebster wrote: It's visible from every single window in Sydney. Even if you go the windows on the other side of the house, it'll still be there. Truly an architectural marvel.
Although we've only got ourselves to blame. I remember seeing an ad in China for Jacob's Creek, a wine, and the ad was the Opera House at day, kangaroos, the Harbour Bridge , the Opera House at night, and finally wine pouring. Jacob's Creek isn't even a NSW wine, it's from South Australia, a totally different state.
I remember watching a political humor show. They made a reference to Ottawa in an episode about Canada, and the establishing photograph used was of a building in Gatineau, which is in a different province.
However, because I've lived in the Ottawa Valley region all my life, I'm pretty sure I know what happened. The photograph was of a building in Gatineau, but the photo was taken from Ottawa. Because the two cities were built on opposite sides of a river.
And here's what Parliament looks like from Gatineau.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It was Empire in name only for nations such as Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand. They were de facto independent.
Canadian troops that fought in both world wars were by and large volunteers, not conscripts. I believe the same was true for Australia and New Zealand.
There were struggles in the first world war for Australia to be granted independent command, especially when they reached the Western Front. In WWII there was a hell of a diplomatic shitstorm when Churchill ordered Australian troops to Africa following the fall of Singapore. PM Curtin ordered the ships to return to defend Australia. It's a big reason (along with Singapore itself and the collapse of the British defence of Asia) that after the war we looked to the US as a our key strategic ally.
Memos claiming Russia has compromising material on Donald Trump are understood to have been prepared by ex-MI6 officer Christopher Steele.
They include unsubstantiated claims the US president-elect's team colluded with Russia and that Moscow has a video recording of Mr Trump with prostitutes.
Mr Trump has called the allegations "fake news" and "phoney stuff".
BBC news correspondent Paul Wood said he understood Mr Steele left his home this week and was now "in hiding".
He said he had been shown the memos in October last year, when he was told Mr Steele was "in fear of his life", believing he would be in danger for speaking out about potential Russian involvement in Mr Trump's election.
He said he had been told Mr Steele left home on either Tuesday or Wednesday, asking his neighbour to look after his cats, and that he had now "gone in to hiding".
Our correspondent said he had been told by people in the intelligence community that Mr Steele was "extremely, highly regarded" and was thought of as "competent".
He said the central allegation made in the memos was that Mr Trump was "vulnerable to blackmail".
Mr Steele has not responded to the BBC's request for a comment on the revelations about Mr Trump.
Mr Steele is believed to be a former member of the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, and has been a director of Orbis - which describes itself as a leading corporate intelligence company.
The research - published in some US media - is believed to have been commissioned initially by Republicans opposed to Mr Trump and consists of extensive allegations about his personal life and his campaign's relationship with the Russian state.
Claims about a Russian blackmail tape were made in one of a series of reports written by a former British intelligence agent.
As a member of MI6, he had been posted to the UK's embassy in Moscow and now runs a consultancy giving advice on doing business in Russia. He spoke to a number of his old contacts in the FSB, the successor to the KGB, paying some of them for information.
They told him that Mr Trump had been filmed with a group of prostitutes in the presidential suite of Moscow's Ritz-Carlton hotel.
I know this because the Washington political research company that commissioned his report showed it to me during the final week of the election campaign.
The BBC decided not to use it then, for the very good reason that without seeing the tape - if it exists - we could not know if the claims were true. The detail of the allegations were certainly lurid.
The entire series of reports has now been posted by BuzzFeed.
Among the allegations are that Moscow has a video recording of Mr Trump with prostitutes and damaging information about his business activities.
Intelligence agencies considered the claims relevant enough to brief both Mr Trump and President Obama last week.
But the allegations have not been independently substantiated or verified and some details have been challenged as incorrect by those who are mentioned.
Mr Trump himself was briefed about the existence of the allegations by the US intelligence community last week but has since described them as fake news.
.... Of course if we go back a few pages he apparently didn't recall or read -- MMV -- the info anyway..
.
It must be somewhat unpleasant.
Probably a bit like sitting through "questioning" with regards to, say, ones religion or sexuality or apparent willingness to murder people left right and centre.
I'm sure we're all glad that , say, the Obamas or the Clinton's didn't have to go through anything like that.
The nazi accusations well.... it's what we do these days isn't it ? Apparently.
Although one cannot help but note that one of the other aspects of a nazi regime was the registering of individuals by religion and horrific language and treatment towards homosexuals -- even by the standards of the era.
Good thing no one talks about doing things like that these days eh ?
Donald Trump has described as "fake news" allegations published in some media that his election team colluded with Russia - and that Russia held compromising material about his private life. The BBC's Paul Wood saw the allegations before the election, and reports on the fallout now they have come to light.
The significance of these allegations is that, if true, the president-elect of the United States would be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians.
I understand the CIA believes it is credible that the Kremlin has such kompromat - or compromising material - on the next US commander in chief. At the same time a joint taskforce, which includes the CIA and the FBI, has been investigating allegations that the Russians may have sent money to Mr Trump's organisation or his election campaign.
Claims about a Russian blackmail tape were made in one of a series of reports written by a former British intelligence agent.
As a member of MI6, he had been posted to the UK's embassy in Moscow and now runs a consultancy giving advice on doing business in Russia. He spoke to a number of his old contacts in the FSB, the successor to the KGB, paying some of them for information.
They told him that Mr Trump had been filmed with a group of prostitutes in the presidential suite of Moscow's Ritz-Carlton hotel. I know this because the Washington political research company that commissioned his report showed it to me during the final week of the election campaign.
The BBC decided not to use it then, for the very good reason that without seeing the tape - if it exists - we could not know if the claims were true. The detail of the allegations were certainly lurid. The entire series of reports has now been posted by BuzzFeed.
Mr Trump's supporters say this is a politically motivated attack.
The president-elect himself, outraged, tweeted this morning: "Are we living in Nazi Germany?"
Later, at his much-awaited news conference, he was unrestrained.
"A thing like that should have never been written," he said, "and certainly should never have been released."
He said the memo was written by "sick people [who] put that crap together."
The opposition research firm that commissioned the report had worked first for an anti-Trump superpac - political action committee - during the Republican primaries.
Then during the general election, it was funded by an anonymous Democratic Party supporter. But these are not political hacks - their usual line of work is country analysis and commercial risk assessment, similar to the former MI6 agent's consultancy. He, apparently, gave his dossier to the FBI against the firm's advice.
And the former MI6 agent is not the only source for the claim about Russian kompromat on the president-elect. Back in August, a retired spy told me he had been informed of its existence by "the head of an East European intelligence agency".
Later, I used an intermediary to pass some questions to active duty CIA officers dealing with the case file - they would not speak to me directly. I got a message back that there was "more than one tape", "audio and video", on "more than one date", in "more than one place" - in the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow and also in St Petersburg - and that the material was "of a sexual nature".
'Be very careful'
The claims of Russian kompromat on Mr Trump were "credible", the CIA believed. That is why - according to the New York Times and Washington Post - these claims ended up on President Obama's desk last week, a briefing document also given to Congressional leaders and to Mr Trump himself.
Mr Trump did visit Moscow in November 2013, the date the main tape is supposed to have been made. There is TV footage of him at the Miss Universe contest. Any visitor to a grand hotel in Moscow would be wise to assume that their room comes equipped with hidden cameras and microphones as well as a mini-bar.
At his news conference, Mr Trump said he warned his staff when they travelled: "Be very careful, because in your hotel rooms and no matter where you go you're going to probably have cameras." So the Russian security services have made obtaining kompromat an art form.
One Russian specialist told me that Vladimir Putin himself sometimes says there is kompromat on him - though perhaps he is joking. The specialist went on to tell me that FSB officers are prone to boasting about having tapes on public figures, and to be careful of any statements they might make.
A former CIA officer told me he had spoken by phone to a serving FSB officer who talked about the tapes. He concluded: "It's hokey as hell."
Mr Trump and his supporters are right to point out that these are unsubstantiated allegations.
But it is not just sex, it is money too. The former MI6 agent's report detailed alleged attempts by the Kremlin to offer Mr Trump lucrative "sweetheart deals" in Russia that would buy his loyalty.
Mr Trump turned these down, and indeed has done little real business in Russia. But a joint intelligence and law enforcement taskforce has been looking at allegations that the Kremlin paid money to his campaign through his associates.
Legal applications
On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything - giving up classified information would be illegal - but he would confirm or deny what I had heard from other sources.
"I'm going to write a story that says…" I would say. "I don't have a problem with that," he would reply, if my information was accurate. He confirmed the sequence of events below.
Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was - allegedly - a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign.
It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created.
The taskforce included six agencies or departments of government. Dealing with the domestic, US, side of the inquiry, were the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice. For the foreign and intelligence aspects of the investigation, there were another three agencies: the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency, responsible for electronic spying.
Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.
Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.
Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities - in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.
A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.
I spoke to all three of those identified by this source. All of them emphatically denied any wrongdoing. "Hogwash," said one. "bs," said another. Of the two Russian banks, one denied any wrongdoing, while the other did not respond to a request for comment.
The investigation was active going into the election. During that period, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid, wrote to the director of the FBI, accusing him of holding back "explosive information" about Mr Trump.
Mr Reid sent his letter after getting an intelligence briefing, along with other senior figures in Congress. Only eight people were present: the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, and the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties in Congress, the "gang of eight" as they are sometimes called. Normally, senior staff attend "gang of eight" intelligence briefings, but not this time. The Congressional leaders were not even allowed to take notes.
'Puppet'
In the letter to the FBI director, James Comey, Mr Reid said: "In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and co-ordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers, and the Russian government - a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Mr Trump praises at every opportunity.
"The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information."
The CIA, FBI, Justice and Treasury all refused to comment when I approached them after hearing about the Fisa warrant.
It is not clear what will happen to the inter-agency investigation under President Trump - or even if the taskforce is continuing its work now. The Russians have denied any attempt to influence the president-elect - with either money or a blackmail tape.
If a tape exists, the Russians would hardly give it up, though some hope to encourage a disloyal FSB officer who might want to make some serious money. Before the election, Larry Flynt, publisher of the pornographic magazine Hustler, put up a million dollars for incriminating tape of Mr Trump. Penthouse has now followed with its own offer of a million dollars for the Ritz-Carlton tape (if it exists).
It is an extraordinary situation, 10 days before Mr Trump is sworn into office, but it was foreshadowed during the campaign.
During the final presidential debate, Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump a "puppet" of Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin. "No puppet. No puppet," Mr Trump interjected, talking over Mrs Clinton. "You're the puppet. No, you're the puppet."
In a New York Times op-ed in August, the former director of the CIA, Michael Morell, wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr Putin had recruited Mr Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
Agent; puppet - both terms imply some measure of influence or control by Moscow.
Michael Hayden, former head of both the CIA and the NSA, simply called Mr Trump a "polezni durak" - a useful fool.
The background to those statements was information held - at the time - within the intelligence community. Now all Americans have heard the claims. Little more than a week before his inauguration, they will have to decide if their president-elect really was being blackmailed by Moscow.
Russia has of course denied these claims and says they don't have a file on Trump.
.. dunno about you I find it unlikely that they do not have a file on the next POTUS
especially given his previous excursions to Russia.
The director of the US Office of Government Ethics has criticised Donald Trump's plan to hand control of his business empire to his sons before his inauguration on 20 January.
The plan does not match the "standards" of US presidents over the last 40 years, Walter Shaub said.
of course.
This whole presidency is in danger of falling apart before it even begins.
This whole presidency is in danger of falling apart before it even begins.
You're a master of understatement, reds8n
This whole sorry saga has been a SHAMBLES from start to finish.
Trump's car crash news conference, US intelligence agencies all over the place, ex-MI6 agents crawling out the woodwork, journalistic ethics going out the window...
This has been shameful for the USA.
In many nations, America's reputation is already pretty low, but the USA has been reduced to a laughing stock these past days.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
.. dunno about you I find it unlikely that they do not have a file on the next POTUS
especially given his previous excursions to Russia.
Agreed, they would have started building a file on him when he threw his hat into the ring two years ago, but all this talk of Putin planning this for 8 years is like something out of the Manchurian candidate.
One would suggest that would've been the goal -- or one of anyway -- of any outside element who attempted to influence the recent elections.
Can't really hurt the USA militarily -- well you can try but 99.9% of the time that's gonna be a real short fight. Like Bambi versus Godzilla kind of short.
You can maybe try and hurt them economically -- that'll work a bit but is also going to cause issues for the aggressor too in all likelihood.
And it's not like the USA doesn't have economic muscles of its own either is it eh ?
I know a couple of people who live/visit Russia and the economic sanctions have and are hitting them hard.
Every American refugee we take in is a life we can save. And the Americans who flee to Canada are the ones we want to save.
I am male in real life. My two partners are also male, and both are Americans.
Trump's vice-President is in favor of bringing back conversion "therapy". And Trump has stated that he intends to let Pence handle a lot of his duties.
I don't know if you've read accounts from people who have survived conversion therapy. My partner has. After reading one person's account of what went on, he didn't believe that his country would ever allow such a thing to happen. Then he read more people's accounts. He describes the process as "beating the gay out of you" and it usually starts with a teenager's parents hiring people to kidnap and brutalize their own child. Usually it results in suicide.
Trump's election has made the man I love suicidal on occasion, because he fears for his life and safety from his own country's government.
reds8n wrote: One would suggest that would've been the goal -- or one of anyway -- of any outside element who attempted to influence the recent elections.
Can't really hurt the USA militarily -- well you can try but 99.9% of the time that's gonna be a real short fight. Like Bambi versus Godzilla kind of short.
You can maybe try and hurt them economically -- that'll work a bit but is also going to cause issues for the aggressor too in all likelihood.
And it's not like the USA doesn't have economic muscles of its own either is it eh ?
I know a couple of people who live/visit Russia and the economic sanctions have and are hitting them hard.
It's standard practice for nations, be they democracies, be they dictatorships, to build files and dossiers on foreign leaders and important ministers. Trump will be no exception and there's obviously a ton of material on him in the public domain already.
Remember the fuss a few years ago when our very own David Cameron was convinced the KGB had approached him back in the 1980s or something
But for some media outlets to be suggesting that Putin has been planning this for years, we'll, I think we're entering the realms of fantasy.
Every American refugee we take in is a life we can save. And the Americans who flee to Canada are the ones we want to save.
I am male in real life. My two partners are also male, and both are Americans.
Trump's vice-President is in favor of bringing back conversion "therapy". And Trump has stated that he intends to let Pence handle a lot of his duties.
I don't know if you've read accounts from people who have survived conversion therapy. My partner has. After reading one person's account of what went on, he didn't believe that his country would ever allow such a thing to happen. Then he read more people's accounts. He describes the process as "beating the gay out of you" and it usually starts with a teenager's parents hiring people to kidnap and brutalize their own child. Usually it results in suicide.
Trump's election has made the man I love suicidal on occasion, because he fears for his life and safety from his own country's government.
reds8n wrote: Can't really hurt the USA militarily -- well you can try but 99.9% of the time that's gonna be a real short fight. Like Bambi versus Godzilla kind of short.
If my country ever finds itself in a war with America, I intend to join the war regardless of whether my country's military wants my help or not.
I don't suffer any delusions of victory. I know America is too powerful to be stopped.
I simply refuse to ever live under American rule, and I would rather die in a hopeless last stand than live in a reality where America annexes Canada.
Sadly, this all seems to be the natural conclusion (oh god I hope it's the conclusion) of courting the Religious Right (you know, those who despite claiming to be Christian have a shocking lack of compassion) and the Far Right in the name of some extra votes.
I really hope this presidency does fall apart, and Congress or whomever has the power announces a mulligan/do-over.
I genuinely believe President-elect Trump may be suffering from a mental illness. I do not make that as a joke, as such things simply aren't funny, ever - let alone when it's possibly afflicting someone about to become the single most powerful person in the world.
How you get past that, I don't know. But he's clearly not cut out for office. He's short-tempered, reactionary and just doesn't seem to have political common sense. That's a very dangerous blend, even if there isn't an underlying medical condition behind it/exasperating it.
Pouncey wrote: I don't know if you've read accounts from people who have survived conversion therapy. My partner has. After reading one person's account of what went on, he didn't believe that his country would ever allow such a thing to happen. Then he read more people's accounts. He describes the process as "beating the gay out of you" and it usually starts with a teenager's parents hiring people to kidnap and brutalize their own child. Usually it results in suicide.
Trump's election has made the man I love suicidal on occasion, because he fears for his life and safety from his own country's government.
Yes, Pence is awful and conversion "therapy" is legalized torture, but let's keep a bit of perspective about this. There is absolutely zero chance of mandatory "therapy" for adults, so unless you're doing some really horrible things with children the men you love are not in danger from this. Nor are gay kids with parents who don't support child abuse. And it's questionable what Pence could do to overturn state-level laws banning conversion "therapy", especially in the face of determined opposition. Remember, the US is up to ~55% support for gay marriage and most of the other 45% are more the "just don't call it marriage" types than the hardcore anti-gay zealots. The backlash against an attempt to force states to allow conversion "therapy" would be immense and quite possibly fatal to the republican party.
The most likely outcome of a Pence presidency would be the absence of progress, rather than any steps backwards on the issue. Conservative states will continue to take a hands-off approach, less conservative states will continue to ban conversion "therapy", and the republican party will do its best to keep the issue quiet and not have "THEY WANT TO BEAT THE GAY OUT OF YOUR KIDS" all over the news.
Pouncey wrote: I don't know if you've read accounts from people who have survived conversion therapy. My partner has. After reading one person's account of what went on, he didn't believe that his country would ever allow such a thing to happen. Then he read more people's accounts. He describes the process as "beating the gay out of you" and it usually starts with a teenager's parents hiring people to kidnap and brutalize their own child. Usually it results in suicide.
Trump's election has made the man I love suicidal on occasion, because he fears for his life and safety from his own country's government.
Yes, Pence is awful and conversion "therapy" is legalized torture, but let's keep a bit of perspective about this. There is absolutely zero chance of mandatory "therapy" for adults, so unless you're doing some really horrible things with children the men you love are not in danger from this. Nor are gay kids with parents who don't support child abuse. And it's questionable what Pence could do to overturn state-level laws banning conversion "therapy", especially in the face of determined opposition. Remember, the US is up to ~55% support for gay marriage and most of the other 45% are more the "just don't call it marriage" types than the hardcore anti-gay zealots. The backlash against an attempt to force states to allow conversion "therapy" would be immense and quite possibly fatal to the republican party.
The most likely outcome of a Pence presidency would be the absence of progress, rather than any steps backwards on the issue. Conservative states will continue to take a hands-off approach, less conservative states will continue to ban conversion "therapy", and the republican party will do its best to keep the issue quiet and not have "THEY WANT TO BEAT THE GAY OUT OF YOUR KIDS" all over the news.
I hope you're right. I don't share your optimism, but I do hope you're right.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Sadly, this all seems to be the natural conclusion (oh god I hope it's the conclusion) of courting the Religious Right (you know, those who despite claiming to be Christian have a shocking lack of compassion) and the Far Right in the name of some extra votes.
I don't think Trump can really be blamed on courting the religious right. Remember, this is a guy with multiple divorces (after cheating on his wives) who is proudly crude and sexual and barely aware of Christian beliefs. If religion is important you can't possibly justify voting for Trump. But what the 2016 election revealed is that a lot of the religious right is far more concerned with right-wing issues like tax cuts, anti-immigration laws, etc, than with religion. IOW, the former religious right has lost its former power and sold its soul to cling to any last remaining scraps of influence.
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump exhibits a high degree of narcissism. That is a character fault rather than a mental illness like schizophrenia.
My older brother and I used to joke about what my campaign for becoming Prime Minister of Canada would be like.
He suggested that my slogan should be, "You've always suspected that your politicians were crazy, so now why not make it official and put a schizophrenic in charge?"
I think the only policy we came up with that I'd insist on was spending part of the federal budget to provide a WoW subscription for every citizen.
If I were an American, I wonder how being a Satanist would affect my chances of being elected President...
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Sadly, this all seems to be the natural conclusion (oh god I hope it's the conclusion) of courting the Religious Right (you know, those who despite claiming to be Christian have a shocking lack of compassion) and the Far Right in the name of some extra votes.
I don't think Trump can really be blamed on courting the religious right. Remember, this is a guy with multiple divorces (after cheating on his wives) who is proudly crude and sexual and barely aware of Christian beliefs. If religion is important you can't possibly justify voting for Trump. But what the 2016 election revealed is that a lot of the religious right is far more concerned with right-wing issues like tax cuts, anti-immigration laws, etc, than with religion. IOW, the former religious right has lost its former power and sold its soul to cling to any last remaining scraps of influence.
Christians don't actually follow the teachings of Jesus. Trump's stuff falls into the category of things Christianity teaches.
Pouncey wrote: Christians don't actually follow the teachings of Jesus. Trump's stuff falls into the category of things Christianity teaches.
Uh, no, Trump's stuff absolutely does not. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Thinking about sexual things outside of marriage is a sin. Divorce and adultery are certainly sins. Boasting about grabbing random women by the is a sin. The closest Trump comes to doing the things the religious right teaches is his occasional pandering with things like supporting bathroom bills in front of a right-wing Christian audience shortly after opposing them in front of a non-Christian audience. But it's very clearly nothing more than insincere pandering, Trump doesn't care one bit about the religious right or their beliefs except as useful tools for getting elected.
BigWaaagh wrote: I was under the impression that until April 1982, when the Canada Act passed, that you weren't a formally independent nation. I think I read that until 1977 when The Canadian Citizenship Act was revised that the phrase "A Canadian citizen is a British subject" appeared on your passports.
Well, I was born in 1988 and pretty much everything I've heard about Canadian history says that my country was created in 1867 when we got our own federal government.
I am not really interested in the opinions of Americans regarding when my country technically gained independence though.
Can we get back to trash-talking Trump?
I'm just saying. If another country can make laws in your country, i.e. Great Britain pre-1931, then independence isn't happening.
So, you see, going the decisive and bloody route to nationdom is most effect in removing of all the technicalities!
I... really don't care. Also I guess I shouldn't be surprised that an American is advocating war.
And don't worry, we've got at least 4 more years to throw darts at Donnie.
I still think we should send him to Mars and force him to pay for it.
Sorry if the facts I've cited don't jibe with your understanding of your country's history, but they are what they are. Once again, they're just fact, not opinions btw, as you stated earlier.
And yeah, I'm a regular warmonger. What a patently absurd statement.
With a name that in Ork means "big war" yeah its an easy leap to judgement.
Pouncey wrote: Christians don't actually follow the teachings of Jesus. Trump's stuff falls into the category of things Christianity teaches.
Uh, no, Trump's stuff absolutely does not. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Thinking about sexual things outside of marriage is a sin. Divorce and adultery are certainly sins. Boasting about grabbing random women by the is a sin. The closest Trump comes to doing the things the religious right teaches is his occasional pandering with things like supporting bathroom bills in front of a right-wing Christian audience shortly after opposing them in front of a non-Christian audience. But it's very clearly nothing more than insincere pandering, Trump doesn't care one bit about the religious right or their beliefs except as useful tools for getting elected.
I think we know different Christians then. Since it's a very diverse religion, I'll simply drop the subject at that.
If I were an American, I wonder how being a Satanist would affect my chances of being elected President...
Horribly. I doubt we'll have a non-christian president for the next forty years. Just being a Satanist loses you the vote of everyone who's brainwashed to believe that Satanists practice human sacrifice, summonings, blood orgies, etcetera. It would be taken about as well as transitioning to R'lyehian in a speech. ("My fellow Americans, it is necessary in this hard time to k'yarnak kadish sgn'wahl. Nyarlathotep c-nnn, c-vulgtlagln Nyarlathotep")
Sadly, you might get death threats.
I also doubt we'll have an unmarried president or president without children. "Traditional family" supporters make up too much of the population.
Crazyterran wrote: Americans talking about Canadian history, still deny they lost 1812.
Goal was to conquer Canada, they failed, and got the White House burned, yet it somehow doesn't count as a loss.
Likely because Canada had little to do with it, the British army repelled the invasion and burned the white house. The defeat of Napolean and the arrival of British elite troops turned the tide. Canada itself did nothing but provide a stomping ground.
If I were an American, I wonder how being a Satanist would affect my chances of being elected President...
Horribly. I doubt we'll have a non-christian president for the next forty years. Just being a Satanist loses you the vote of everyone who's brainwashed to believe that Satanists practice human sacrifice, summonings, blood orgies, etcetera. It would be taken about as well as transitioning to R'lyehian in a speech. ("My fellow Americans, it is necessary in this hard time to k'yarnak kadish sgn'wahl. Nyarlathotep c-nnn, c-vulgtlagln Nyarlathotep")
Sadly, you might get death threats.
I also doubt we'll have an unmarried president or president without children. "Traditional family" supporters make up too much of the population.
I'm a furry who spends a lot of time online. Death threats are nothing new.
Crazyterran wrote: Americans talking about Canadian history, still deny they lost 1812.
Goal was to conquer Canada, they failed, and got the White House burned, yet it somehow doesn't count as a loss.
Likely because Canada had little to do with it, the British army repelled the invasion and burned the white house. The defeat of Napolean and the arrival of British elite troops turned the tide. Canada itself did nothing but provide a stomping ground.
Uhhh... Canada was not its own country in 1812. Those British soldiers were Canadians, but before Canada was a thing.
And unlike America, we're not upset enough with Britain that we consider the distinction meaningful.
Pouncey wrote: Christians don't actually follow the teachings of Jesus. Trump's stuff falls into the category of things Christianity teaches.
Uh, no, Trump's stuff absolutely does not. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Thinking about sexual things outside of marriage is a sin. Divorce and adultery are certainly sins. Boasting about grabbing random women by the is a sin. The closest Trump comes to doing the things the religious right teaches is his occasional pandering with things like supporting bathroom bills in front of a right-wing Christian audience shortly after opposing them in front of a non-Christian audience. But it's very clearly nothing more than insincere pandering, Trump doesn't care one bit about the religious right or their beliefs except as useful tools for getting elected.
Indeed.
In fact, I know a few religious right-wing people that vehemently oppose(d) Trump for that exact reason.
Maybe the whole 'Pouncey regales dakka with stories of his personal life' business would be better placed in a blog somewhere rather than in the US politics thread?
Pouncey wrote: Christians don't actually follow the teachings of Jesus. Trump's stuff falls into the category of things Christianity teaches.
Uh, no, Trump's stuff absolutely does not. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Thinking about sexual things outside of marriage is a sin. Divorce and adultery are certainly sins. Boasting about grabbing random women by the is a sin. The closest Trump comes to doing the things the religious right teaches is his occasional pandering with things like supporting bathroom bills in front of a right-wing Christian audience shortly after opposing them in front of a non-Christian audience. But it's very clearly nothing more than insincere pandering, Trump doesn't care one bit about the religious right or their beliefs except as useful tools for getting elected.
Indeed.
In fact, I know a few religious right-wing people that vehemently oppose(d) Trump for that exact reason.
I wasn't referring solely to that particular group of Christians, you know.
Zywus wrote: Maybe the whole 'Pouncey regales dakka with stories of his personal life' business would be better placed in a blog somewhere rather than in the US politics thread?
The whole, "Hey, let's blame Pouncey for continuing a conversation that other people started and engaged willingly in like it's all his fault," thing just needs to stop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: One would suggest the ones made to Presidents tend to be a bit more serious.
Zywus wrote: Maybe the whole 'Pouncey regales dakka with stories of his personal life' business would be better placed in a blog somewhere rather than in the US politics thread?
The whole, "Hey, let's blame Pouncey for continuing a conversation that other people started and engaged willingly in like it's all his fault," thing just needs to stop.
Well, you do have a knack for constantly inserting your person into any conversation. As if your presence in the thread isn't primarily to discuss politics, but rather putting yourself and your personal life over
Zywus wrote: Maybe the whole 'Pouncey regales dakka with stories of his personal life' business would be better placed in a blog somewhere rather than in the US politics thread?
The whole, "Hey, let's blame Pouncey for continuing a conversation that other people started and engaged willingly in like it's all his fault," thing just needs to stop.
Well, you do have a knack for constantly inserting your person into any conversation. As if your presence in the thread isn't primarily to discuss politics, but rather putting yourself and your personal life over
You may have noticed that my references to my personal life are always in the context of discussing how US politics affects me. You may also remember that Americans frequently say things like, "You're a Canadian, why the hell do you care about American politics? This doesn't concern you."
If I were an American, I wonder how being a Satanist would affect my chances of being elected President...
Horribly. I doubt we'll have a non-christian president for the next forty years. Just being a Satanist loses you the vote of everyone who's brainwashed to believe that Satanists practice human sacrifice, summonings, blood orgies, etcetera. It would be taken about as well as transitioning to R'lyehian in a speech. ("My fellow Americans, it is necessary in this hard time to k'yarnak kadish sgn'wahl. Nyarlathotep c-nnn, c-vulgtlagln Nyarlathotep")
Sadly, you might get death threats.
I also doubt we'll have an unmarried president or president without children. "Traditional family" supporters make up too much of the population.
I'm a furry who spends a lot of time online. Death threats are nothing new.
Crazyterran wrote: Americans talking about Canadian history, still deny they lost 1812.
Goal was to conquer Canada, they failed, and got the White House burned, yet it somehow doesn't count as a loss.
Likely because Canada had little to do with it, the British army repelled the invasion and burned the white house. The defeat of Napolean and the arrival of British elite troops turned the tide. Canada itself did nothing but provide a stomping ground.
Uhhh... Canada was not its own country in 1812. Those British soldiers were Canadians, but before Canada was a thing.
And unlike America, we're not upset enough with Britain that we consider the distinction meaningful.
They were not, most of them were Irish regiments and later East Anglians, West Indies, and regiments from the midlands.
Zywus wrote: Maybe the whole 'Pouncey regales dakka with stories of his personal life' business would be better placed in a blog somewhere rather than in the US politics thread?
The whole, "Hey, let's blame Pouncey for continuing a conversation that other people started and engaged willingly in like it's all his fault," thing just needs to stop.
Well, you do have a knack for constantly inserting your person into any conversation. As if your presence in the thread isn't primarily to discuss politics, but rather putting yourself and your personal life over
You may have noticed that my references to my personal life are always in the context of discussing how US politics affects me.
Keep telling yourself that if you like. You like to talk about yourself and that's fine I guess. But it gets a bit tiresome and is better fitting for a personal blog. But I suppose you'd get far fever people reading that.
Pouncey wrote: You may also remember that Americans frequently say things like, "You're a Canadian, why the hell do you care about American politics? This doesn't concern you."
I have not seen a single person say that , no.
American politics might indeed concern us all, not just US citizens and it's rather silly for anyone to discount anyone discussing it just because their nationality.
Passages like this though is obviously just you wishing to flaunt your personal quirks to an audience.
My older brother and I used to joke about what my campaign for becoming Prime Minister of Canada would be like.
He suggested that my slogan should be, "You've always suspected that your politicians were crazy, so now why not make it official and put a schizophrenic in charge?"
I think the only policy we came up with that I'd insist on was spending part of the federal budget to provide a WoW subscription for every citizen.
If I were an American, I wonder how being a Satanist would affect my chances of being elected President...
I guess we're all guilty of this from time to time, but most keep it to a reasonable level? It's no problem with that in moderation, but please don't try to make the thread all about you.
It's not worth making a fuzz over this and derail the thread really and I should have kept my mouth shut, but it's been bothering me now for a while.
Yes, Pence is awful and conversion "therapy" is legalized torture, but let's keep a bit of perspective about this. There is absolutely zero chance of mandatory "therapy" for adults, so unless you're doing some really horrible things with children the men you love are not in danger from this. Nor are gay kids with parents who don't support child abuse. And it's questionable what Pence could do to overturn state-level laws banning conversion "therapy", especially in the face of determined opposition. Remember, the US is up to ~55% support for gay marriage and most of the other 45% are more the "just don't call it marriage" types than the hardcore anti-gay zealots. The backlash against an attempt to force states to allow conversion "therapy" would be immense and quite possibly fatal to the republican party.
The most likely outcome of a Pence presidency would be the absence of progress, rather than any steps backwards on the issue. Conservative states will continue to take a hands-off approach, less conservative states will continue to ban conversion "therapy", and the republican party will do its best to keep the issue quiet and not have "THEY WANT TO BEAT THE GAY OUT OF YOUR KIDS" all over the news.
Is the idea of conversion therapy being re-legalized in some capacity more impossible than Trump's election was a year ago?
I think you're right; you'll likely only take a few small steps backwards, but I don't think you can rule anything out anymore.
I honestly can't tell the difference between political news and parody any more.
Herzlos wrote: Is the idea of conversion therapy being re-legalized in some capacity more impossible than Trump's election was a year ago?
Yes. Aside from the cultural change required to go from majority support for gay marriage to majority support for beating gay kids until they pretend to be straight (or kill themselves to escape) there are some major "does the federal government even have the power to do this" questions that would be a major obstacle. Remember, conversion "therapy" bans exist at the state level. Having the federal government say "we won't ban this" isn't sufficient, the federal government would have to pass a law banning states from making laws about this and somehow survive the inevitable court challenges. And there's a huge difference between an unlikely presidential candidate winning and a complete reinvention of the relationship between state and federal governments.
Yes, Pence is awful and conversion "therapy" is legalized torture, but let's keep a bit of perspective about this. There is absolutely zero chance of mandatory "therapy" for adults, so unless you're doing some really horrible things with children the men you love are not in danger from this. Nor are gay kids with parents who don't support child abuse. And it's questionable what Pence could do to overturn state-level laws banning conversion "therapy", especially in the face of determined opposition. Remember, the US is up to ~55% support for gay marriage and most of the other 45% are more the "just don't call it marriage" types than the hardcore anti-gay zealots. The backlash against an attempt to force states to allow conversion "therapy" would be immense and quite possibly fatal to the republican party.
The most likely outcome of a Pence presidency would be the absence of progress, rather than any steps backwards on the issue. Conservative states will continue to take a hands-off approach, less conservative states will continue to ban conversion "therapy", and the republican party will do its best to keep the issue quiet and not have "THEY WANT TO BEAT THE GAY OUT OF YOUR KIDS" all over the news.
Is the idea of conversion therapy being re-legalized in some capacity more impossible than Trump's election was a year ago?
I think you're right; you'll likely only take a few small steps backwards, but I don't think you can rule anything out anymore.
I honestly can't tell the difference between political news and parody any more.
So I've been hearing on NPR about a possible 'perfect storm' scenario that I haven't seen much discussion on here about.
Best Korea is apperently planning to test ICBM's capable of reaching the states this year, combined with what experts are warning a growing competant nuclear program.
Now I am far less worried about North Korea nuking us and much more concerned with how cheeto jesus is going to handle this.
He's already caused a handful of diplomatic problems with China, and I cannot imagine they'll be thrilled if Mr. Tiny Hands starts trying to swing that little thing around in their backyard, especially if he jumps straight to military intervention. Which considering how much of a buffoon he is, not outside of the realm of possibility.
I genuinely wish I could link the stories where this worry came from, but phone posting sadly. In any case just thought I'd share this horrible thought.
lonestarr777 wrote: So I've been hearing on NPR about a possible 'perfect storm' scenario that I haven't seen much discussion on here about.
Best Korea is apperently planning to test ICBM's capable of reaching the states this year, combined with what experts are warning a growing competant nuclear program.
Now I am far less worried about North Korea nuking us and much more concerned with how cheeto jesus is going to handle this.
He's already caused a handful of diplomatic problems with China, and I cannot imagine they'll be thrilled if Mr. Tiny Hands starts trying to swing that little thing around in their backyard, especially if he jumps straight to military intervention. Which considering how much of a buffoon he is, not outside of the realm of possibility.
I genuinely wish I could link the stories where this worry came from, but phone posting sadly. In any case just thought I'd share this horrible thought.
Fear not America. Soon, the North Koreans will discover the joy of knowing that nuclear weapons are the most useless thing that mankind ever invented, as
a) you can't actually use them
and
b) The North Vietnamese, Argentina, various Middle Eastern terrorists groups etc etc can tell them that you can still cause trouble even if you opponents (Israel/UK/USA) possess nuclear weapons.
Peregrine wrote: The most likely outcome of a Pence presidency would be the absence of progress, rather than any steps backwards on the issue. Conservative states will continue to take a hands-off approach, less conservative states will continue to ban conversion "therapy", and the republican party will do its best to keep the issue quiet and not have "THEY WANT TO BEAT THE GAY OUT OF YOUR KIDS" all over the news.
I live in Indiana. After 4 years as governor of Indiana, we have enjoyed a budget SURPLUS for the last two years. Granted, the state senate isn't nearly as... fussy as the national congress, but if he could pull that same bit off nationwide? Well, except Illinois, the unions have squeezed them to the point they are a black hole. Since I doubt a President Pence will have the Pencian Stormtroopers ripping LGBTQA (Did they add any more letters? I want to be accurate.) citizens out of their beds at night like the LGBTQA community seems to think it will, I'd say at least fiscally a Pence presidency wouldn't be that bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lonestarr777 wrote: So I've been hearing on NPR about a possible 'perfect storm' scenario that I haven't seen much discussion on here about.
Best Korea is apperently planning to test ICBM's capable of reaching the states this year, combined with what experts are warning a growing competant nuclear program.
Now I am far less worried about North Korea nuking us and much more concerned with how cheeto jesus is going to handle this.
He's already caused a handful of diplomatic problems with China, and I cannot imagine they'll be thrilled if Mr. Tiny Hands starts trying to swing that little thing around in their backyard, especially if he jumps straight to military intervention. Which considering how much of a buffoon he is, not outside of the realm of possibility.
I genuinely wish I could link the stories where this worry came from, but phone posting sadly. In any case just thought I'd share this horrible thought.
Back when Kim Jong Il was in charge, China itself were a deterrent to their more... combative natures. China has no interest in a war, and no interest in an upstart nation bringing it straight to their back yard. I have a feeling that if they thought Un was a legitimate threat, there'd be something said addressing it, just like they did with his papa.
I don't know anything about this guy but I do remember how intelligence was shaped to fit an agenda (WMD's in Iraq) and how that all turned out. I say people need to prove what's true so it can be dealt with by Congress and flush the rest as gossip.
This whole thing is reaching "Revenge of the Birthers" level stupid.
Peregrine wrote: The most likely outcome of a Pence presidency would be the absence of progress, rather than any steps backwards on the issue. Conservative states will continue to take a hands-off approach, less conservative states will continue to ban conversion "therapy", and the republican party will do its best to keep the issue quiet and not have "THEY WANT TO BEAT THE GAY OUT OF YOUR KIDS" all over the news.
I live in Indiana. After 4 years as governor of Indiana, we have enjoyed a budget SURPLUS for the last two years. Granted, the state senate isn't nearly as... fussy as the national congress, but if he could pull that same bit off nationwide? Well, except Illinois, the unions have squeezed them to the point they are a black hole. Since I doubt a President Pence will have the Pencian Stormtroopers ripping LGBTQA (Did they add any more letters? I want to be accurate.) citizens out of their beds at night like the LGBTQA community seems to think it will, I'd say at least fiscally a Pence presidency wouldn't be that bad.
Out of curiosity, what did that budget surplus get you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: I don't know anything about this guy but I do remember how intelligence was shaped to fit an agenda (WMD's in Iraq) and how that all turned out. I say people need to prove what's true so it can be dealt with by Congress and flush the rest as gossip.
This whole thing is reaching "Revenge of the Birthers" level stupid.
If Russia is sitting on info that could blackmail Trump or destroy any legitimacy the Trump presidency has and the US intelligence community can prove this, then they absolutely need to speak up and show the info. If we carry out the swearing in and an independent group leaks the information then not only do we lose a legitimate president but also the last bits of legitimacy in the intelligence community of the US as well as the legislative branch of the government. All would be very bad.
If there is nothing, then someone like Obama needs to step up real quick before he ETSs and say its BS. If that dossier has any truths in it, they are going to come out eventually.
Breotan wrote: I don't know anything about this guy but I do remember how intelligence was shaped to fit an agenda (WMD's in Iraq) and how that all turned out. I say people need to prove what's true so it can be dealt with by Congress and flush the rest as gossip.
This whole thing is reaching "Revenge of the Birthers" level stupid.
Its quite ironic how the mainstream media is simultaneously freaking out over "fake news"...whilst uncritically accepting these (as yet unproven) allegations as fact. And they wonder why they're slowly losing relevance and losing ground to alternative media and the Alt Right etc.
If US Intelligence has evidence, then they need to put up or shut-up.
Yes, Pence is awful and conversion "therapy" is legalized torture, but let's keep a bit of perspective about this. There is absolutely zero chance of mandatory "therapy" for adults, so unless you're doing some really horrible things with children the men you love are not in danger from this. Nor are gay kids with parents who don't support child abuse. And it's questionable what Pence could do to overturn state-level laws banning conversion "therapy", especially in the face of determined opposition. Remember, the US is up to ~55% support for gay marriage and most of the other 45% are more the "just don't call it marriage" types than the hardcore anti-gay zealots. The backlash against an attempt to force states to allow conversion "therapy" would be immense and quite possibly fatal to the republican party.
The most likely outcome of a Pence presidency would be the absence of progress, rather than any steps backwards on the issue. Conservative states will continue to take a hands-off approach, less conservative states will continue to ban conversion "therapy", and the republican party will do its best to keep the issue quiet and not have "THEY WANT TO BEAT THE GAY OUT OF YOUR KIDS" all over the news.
Is the idea of conversion therapy being re-legalized in some capacity more impossible than Trump's election was a year ago?
I think you're right; you'll likely only take a few small steps backwards, but I don't think you can rule anything out anymore.
I honestly can't tell the difference between political news and parody any more.
No, he hasn't made 'zap the gays' part of his platform, but he and his wife have appeared in an advertising video for a business in the 'troubled teen' industry, which (among other things) practises conversion therapy. He's also made some very...open to interpretation statements. It's not quite fair to say there's no reason to worry about him.
Yes, Pence is awful and conversion "therapy" is legalized torture...
Can you point to me that he has advocated this "conversion therapy"? I'm beginning to think that this was a hoax.
Also, the irony about Drumpf is that he's the most pro-LGBQ to begin his Presidency. For all the man's faults, and believe me it's yuge, he never struck me as anti-LGBQ and has always held cosmopolitan views in this regard.
If I were an American, I wonder how being a Satanist would affect my chances of being elected President...
Horribly. I doubt we'll have a non-christian president for the next forty years. Just being a Satanist loses you the vote of everyone who's brainwashed to believe that Satanists practice human sacrifice, summonings, blood orgies, etcetera. It would be taken about as well as transitioning to R'lyehian in a speech. ("My fellow Americans, it is necessary in this hard time to k'yarnak kadish sgn'wahl. Nyarlathotep c-nnn, c-vulgtlagln Nyarlathotep") Sadly, you might get death threats. I also doubt we'll have an unmarried president or president without children. "Traditional family" supporters make up too much of the population.
Hey, a Satanist would probably still stand a better chance than an atheist. At least the Satanist accepts the existence of god!
Breotan wrote: I don't know anything about this guy but I do remember how intelligence was shaped to fit an agenda (WMD's in Iraq) and how that all turned out. I say people need to prove what's true so it can be dealt with by Congress and flush the rest as gossip.
This whole thing is reaching "Revenge of the Birthers" level stupid.
Its quite ironic how the mainstream media is simultaneously freaking out over "fake news"...whilst uncritically accepting these (as yet unproven) allegations as fact. And they wonder why they're slowly losing relevance and losing ground to alternative media and the Alt Right etc.
If US Intelligence has evidence, then they need to put up or shut-up.
Where have any mainstream media publications reported these allegations as facts? Reporting allegations as allegations is not saying the allegations are true.
The B Street Band, America’s No. 1 Springsteen tribute band, agrees to play Trump inaugural ball
I don't think Springsteen will be too thrilled to have his music linked in any way to Trump and Pence (or Republicans in general) other than as a protest. EDIT: Ah, apparently the Springsteen tribute band is playing a non-partisan event unconnected to Trumps inauguration ball
UPDATE: Shortly after this story was posted, Billboard spoke to a member of the B-Street Band who clarified that the Garden State Gala is a non-partisan event unconnected to official Trump inaugural balls and that the gig was booked four years ago, before Trump was a nominee for president.
No, he hasn't made 'zap the gays' part of his platform, but he and his wife have appeared in an advertising video for a business in the 'troubled teen' industry, which (among other things) practises conversion therapy. He's also made some very...open to interpretation statements. It's not quite fair to say there's no reason to worry about him.
There's a reason why the snopes article didn't say "False" and said "Mixed".
I'd think the troubled teen advertising video alone would be enough to set off warning bells, but I'd have thought the same about his attempts to make a state-sponsored newspaper to compete with the free press.
I guess all that really gets overshadowed when your running mate's attempt to address a controversy is to announce that he Tweeted about it.
Its quite ironic how the mainstream media is simultaneously freaking out over "fake news"...whilst uncritically accepting these (as yet unproven) allegations as fact. And they wonder why they're slowly losing relevance and losing ground to alternative media and the Alt Right etc.
If US Intelligence has evidence, then they need to put up or shut-up.
I'd be interested in reading a piece from a legitimate news source that is "uncritically accepting these ....allegations as fact."
I suspect they don't exist, but I'm happy to be proved wrong.
If I were an American, I wonder how being a Satanist would affect my chances of being elected President...
Horribly. I doubt we'll have a non-christian president for the next forty years. Just being a Satanist loses you the vote of everyone who's brainwashed to believe that Satanists practice human sacrifice, summonings, blood orgies, etcetera. It would be taken about as well as transitioning to R'lyehian in a speech. ("My fellow Americans, it is necessary in this hard time to k'yarnak kadish sgn'wahl. Nyarlathotep c-nnn, c-vulgtlagln Nyarlathotep")
Sadly, you might get death threats.
I also doubt we'll have an unmarried president or president without children. "Traditional family" supporters make up too much of the population.
James Buchanan was an unmarried president and with hindsight very likely was the first gay president in US history. So when Americans go back to worrying about issues that are not socially constructed we may yet see again some different stuff.
The astute amongst you will notice that the emphasis is on the dossier's author and not on the dossier's contents
That it appears he has also gone into hiding before this all came to light is a good indicator that the person thinks he is at risk from the released information. That implies he at least believes there is enough in it that he's worried that he or is family might become the next Litvinenko.
As we move on from 2 girls 1 Trump we search around for any good things about this new era...
Spoiler:
..well it's a start
Everytime we clap Bono looses a master recording.
Go Trump!
While I enjoy a good rip on Bono "believes his own hype" as much as the next guy, let's not sit around and pretend that Boy, War, Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby and Zooropa aren't genius pop records.
So, my opinion on some stuff has changed over time. I was one of those people that are, shall we say, highly alarmed, after reading about Pence's personal political beliefs back before the whole VP thing was, well, a thing.
Now though? Especially after watching the end of the speech yesterday. (EG, what surrounds the opening of this video)
Now though... I'm kind of thinking, "ok, so, best case scenario, Trump gets bored and wanders off after a year or so (EG 'my business / family needs me, I love my country and Pence is great guy, real great guy). So, what will happen is...
Civil Rights in the USA will probably go back 20 years. Which is well, really sucky and I feel sorry for those in the US who are the targeted demographics of such. On the other hand, it's not a nuclear winter...
Given that he is talking about blockading China's built islands that might not take too long...
That's Rex Tillerman, the candidate for Secretary of State.
He'd have to persuade Trump and Gen. Mattis... and have the Pacific countries on board.
Not sure Australia/Japan/Taiwan/Philliphines/etc... are ready for such confrontation.
EDIT: also, this is interesting:
BREAKING: Justice Dept. Inspector General launches review of FBI and DOJ actions ahead of 2016 presidential election https://t.co/n7TqA3E2wo pic.twitter.com/vg6d7mGd2t
WHAT'S FALSE: Pence never stated that he supported the use of electric shocks or "gay conversion" therapy.
Even the RNC Chair publicly stated that the electric conversion therapy is not part of the party's platform. It's a baseless accusation from the same types who were offended and outraged when this type of misinformation was spread about the outgoing POTUS.
BREAKING: Justice Dept. Inspector General launches review of FBI and DOJ actions ahead of 2016 presidential election https://t.co/n7TqA3E2wo pic.twitter.com/vg6d7mGd2t
The scope of the review covers more than just Mr Comey's actions throughout the campaign, however. It will also address concerns expressed by Republicans that some lower-level FBI officials may have improperly shared information with the Clinton campaign.
It'll be interesting to see if this investigation actually has teeth and finds evidence. Otherwise it risks looking like a further attempt to poison the well.
Compel wrote: So, my opinion on some stuff has changed over time. I was one of those people that are, shall we say, highly alarmed, after reading about Pence's personal political beliefs back before the whole VP thing was, well, a thing.
Now though? Especially after watching the end of the speech yesterday. (EG, what surrounds the opening of this video)
Now though... I'm kind of thinking, "ok, so, best case scenario, Trump gets bored and wanders off after a year or so (EG 'my business / family needs me, I love my country and Pence is great guy, real great guy). So, what will happen is...
Civil Rights in the USA will probably go back 20 years. Which is well, really sucky and I feel sorry for those in the US who are the targeted demographics of such. On the other hand, it's not a nuclear winter...
He really is a sniveling, self-centered coward isn't he.
Given that he is talking about blockading China's built islands that might not take too long...
We are currently overflying with military aircraft and running carrier groups right through there. Seems par for the course for escalation of the Obama Doctrine there.
Given that he is talking about blockading China's built islands that might not take too long...
We are currently overflying with military aircraft and running carrier groups right through there. Seems par for the course for escalation of the Obama Doctrine there.
There is a difference between freedom of the seas and actually blockading
Breotan wrote: I don't know anything about this guy but I do remember how intelligence was shaped to fit an agenda (WMD's in Iraq) and how that all turned out. I say people need to prove what's true so it can be dealt with by Congress and flush the rest as gossip.
This whole thing is reaching "Revenge of the Birthers" level stupid.
The Cambridge Spies were a group of British MI6 agents that worked for British intelligience in the 1930s/40s/50s.
They had all attended Cambridge University where they were recruited, hence the name
They were also secretly working for the Soviet Union...
Dozens of agents and operatives were betrayed to their deaths in Eastern Europe, and the scandal nearly destroyed MI6.
Point is, the agency has had more than its fair share of traitors, renegades, and rogue agents over the years.
Any story that involves MI6, I treat with caution...
Given that he is talking about blockading China's built islands that might not take too long...
We are currently overflying with military aircraft and running carrier groups right through there. Seems par for the course for escalation of the Obama Doctrine there.
There is a difference between freedom of the seas and actually blockading
Both will get you killed.
Barbary Pirates
War of 1812
WWI
Cuban Missile Crisis.
The astute amongst you will notice that the emphasis is on the dossier's author and not on the dossier's contents
That it appears he has also gone into hiding before this all came to light is a good indicator that the person thinks he is at risk from the released information. That implies he at least believes there is enough in it that he's worried that he or is family might become the next Litvinenko.
I stand by what I said a few pages ago: this evidence has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese.
Cohen says he's never been to Prague before in his life. With all the money and support at their service, it should be very very easy for American intelligience to check this out.
We're also supposed to believe that Clinton made unsecure phone calls in an unfriendly location, despite being an experienced politician, and despite having support staff around her who would have pointed this out...
And we're supposed to believe that elements of the Russian Secret Service acted without Putin's knowledge.
This would be Putin the former KGB man and former head of the FSB...
Perhaps this ex-MI6 character is on the run because he thinks he made a bad blunder?
Who knows?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
infinite_array wrote: Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence, the company he's a director of, played a major role in bringing the corruption within FIFA to light.
There's a world of difference between taking on a few ex-soccer players at FIFA and taking on the Russian secret service.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrotherGecko wrote: If Russia is sitting on info that could blackmail Trump or destroy any legitimacy the Trump presidency has and the US intelligence community can prove this, then they absolutely need to speak up and show the info. If we carry out the swearing in and an independent group leaks the information then not only do we lose a legitimate president but also the last bits of legitimacy in the intelligence community of the US as well as the legislative branch of the government. All would be very bad.
If there is nothing, then someone like Obama needs to step up real quick before he ETSs and say its BS. If that dossier has any truths in it, they are going to come out eventually.
A very good post.
American dakka members can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I assume that people working for US intelligience will take the oath to protect the constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic?
If this is the case, then they have a duty to act. Either verify or disprove the claim that Trump is compromised or fall on their swords and resign...
There's no middle ground on this one. The USA is being made into a laughing stock and these agents must act and clear this up once and for all.
American dakka members can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I assume that people working for US intelligience will take the oath to protect the constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic?
The intelligence departments are still civilian entities (outside of the military of course).
Therefore, I'm sure these folks has signed an oath via a legal contract, as a condition of employment.
American dakka members can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I assume that people working for US intelligience will take the oath to protect the constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic?
The intelligence departments are still civilian entities (outside of the military of course).
Therefore, I'm sure these folks has signed an oath via a legal contract, as a condition of employment.
None the less, whembly, your president elect is being made to look an idiot by a foreign intelligience service, and the reputation of your nation is being dragged through the gutter.
These agents have a duty to act. Instead, they seem to have an almighty fence up their rears, and are content to release hogwash through the media.
American dakka members can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I assume that people working for US intelligience will take the oath to protect the constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic?
The intelligence departments are still civilian entities (outside of the military of course).
Therefore, I'm sure these folks has signed an oath via a legal contract, as a condition of employment.
None the less, whembly, your president elect is being made to look an idiot by a foreign intelligience service, and the reputation of your nation is being dragged through the gutter.
These agents have a duty to act. Instead, they seem to have an almighty fence up their rears, and are content to release hogwash through the media.
That's dereliction of duty in my book.
I'd proffer that our reputation is already in the gutters.
On serious note, this was a leak. Pure and simply.
The DNI called Trump personally that the IC did indeed get these memos and hasn't declared that they're credible. In this take... they're doing their job.
American dakka members can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I assume that people working for US intelligience will take the oath to protect the constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic?
The intelligence departments are still civilian entities (outside of the military of course).
Therefore, I'm sure these folks has signed an oath via a legal contract, as a condition of employment.
None the less, whembly, your president elect is being made to look an idiot by a foreign intelligience service, and the reputation of your nation is being dragged through the gutter.
These agents have a duty to act. Instead, they seem to have an almighty fence up their rears, and are content to release hogwash through the media.
That's dereliction of duty in my book.
I'd proffer that our reputation is already in the gutters.
On serious note, this was a leak. Pure and simply.
The DNI called Trump personally that the IC did indeed get these memos and hasn't declared that they're credible. In this take... they're doing their job.
I thinks leaks are going to be a big problem for the Trump administration. He should form a select group to plug these leaks, have them answer only to the Oval office, should be called plumbers, and also to be on the safe side, they should meet at least once a month in the Watergate Hotel
My son was diagnosed with Down Syndrome very early on in my wife's pregnancy. One of the indicators that ticked off concern to check was the baby's heartbeat, which they detected in the last week of the first month of my wife's pregnancy. In well less than 30 days, his heart was beating well enough that anomalies could be picked out. Because people are fine with the thought of a fetus' head crushed with a pair of forceps doesn't change the developmental process, no matter how hard you try to rationalize/euphemize/come to grips with it.
Cohen says he's never been to Prague before in his life. With all the money and support at their service, it should be very very easy for American intelligience to check this out.
He was in Italy in July though by his own admission...The location (Italy is not that far from Prague) and dates (early August could easily become late July) are not massively out to be unreasonable The intelligence gathering in the documents clearly state that the person providing the information could not be completely open. It's not impossible to imagine that some of the details changed without the sources knowledge (especially if it came to him before the event).
We're also supposed to believe that Clinton made unsecure phone calls in an unfriendly location, despite being an experienced politician, and despite having support staff around her who would have pointed this out...
Well we already know that she used an unsecured server, so it's not impossible that she was being too blasé, especially if they included more personal matters.
And we're supposed to believe that elements of the Russian Secret Service acted without Putin's knowledge.
That's simply called plausible deniability. If the one thing he will know about is not leaving a paper trail. Just like he doesn't know there were/are Russian military personnel in Ukraine.
Perhaps this ex-MI6 character is on the run because he thinks he made a bad blunder?
This person has spent his life as a spy in the shadows, someone that effectively put his life at risk for the Country. Are you really suggesting that he might go into hiding simply because he got it wrong? It's more likely that now people know who he is that it is because a) what he has released or b) what people think he could release in the future. Given what happened with Litvinenko I can't really say I blame him.
Your cheap attempt to use emotion-based arguments has failed. Abortion is a necessary procedure. Is it unpleasant? Yes. But it it necessary. If abortion were outlawed, it would he establishing a precedent that women do not have a right to their own bodies.
Also, fetuses do not have the necessary feel pain until 20 weeks. I'm going to entirely avoid your personal anecdote.
kidding me.
If true, pardoning or commuting Manning’s sentence would be end up rehabbing the actions of Wikileaks and undermine the arguments about it's impact to America...
But the formal independence really didn't happen until 30 or so years ago, now did it?
.JPG)
