Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
But it could easily be fixed to get Trump in, since the Russians and Chinese like him so much and have form for hacking US government databases. (DNC technically isn't the government but it's close enough to worry about.)
I can't be the only one who finds Putin's presence in this election to be troubling, can I?
Trump's man-crush on Putin is...whatever. His daughter was friends with Putin's girlfriend previously. Fine.
But his advisor, Paul Manafort, has many real, close connections to Putin and his cronies as that Slate article outlined. And today I saw more info about Manafort in the Ukraine from the NYT article , which states
And Mr. Manafort’s presence remains elsewhere here in the capital, where government investigators examining secret records have found his name, as well as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr. Manafort’s main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine’s newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials.
Right there with you buddy. I think I've brought this up before ITT as well.
The Clinton's have "Moscow Connections" as well... but, at least they tried to keep it down low.
And then, of course, we have all the hacking Russia did on the DNC. Is Putin the old KGB chief trying to rig/influence/steal an election in the U.S.?
Allegedly...
However, if true that should piss off all of us... what should be our "response"?
We don't need a "response" we're already hacking them back. The whole point of us having an intelligence agency is to spy on other countries like Russia and China. The Cold War never really ended because we have opposing interests with Russia in a many key strategic regions in the world.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: He's going to have to spin really hard to make that a case of negligence rather than actively and knowingly breaking the rules.
Ya mean, like what Hillary did?
EDIT: I mean... The FBI director claimed a need to show intent in order to indict Hillary Clinton, whose entire email server scheme was designed to thwart the Federal Records Act and legitimate Congressional/judicial oversight over the State Department and her activities.
On the other hand, the DoJ is trying to "throw the book" at this sailor whose only intent (misguided as it might have been) was to have a few souvenirs of his time serving his country.
EDIT2: Further more, this sailor plead guilty to 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which does NOT require intent. Meaning, he had classified information in prohibited devices. Same way as Clinton having prohibited documents on her private server.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/16 16:07:54
But it could easily be fixed to get Trump in, since the Russians and Chinese like him so much and have form for hacking US government databases. (DNC technically isn't the government but it's close enough to worry about.)
I can't be the only one who finds Putin's presence in this election to be troubling, can I?
Trump's man-crush on Putin is...whatever. His daughter was friends with Putin's girlfriend previously. Fine.
But his advisor, Paul Manafort, has many real, close connections to Putin and his cronies as that Slate article outlined. And today I saw more info about Manafort in the Ukraine from the NYT article , which states
And Mr. Manafort’s presence remains elsewhere here in the capital, where government investigators examining secret records have found his name, as well as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr. Manafort’s main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine’s newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials.
Right there with you buddy. I think I've brought this up before ITT as well.
The Clinton's have "Moscow Connections" as well... but, at least they tried to keep it down low.
And then, of course, we have all the hacking Russia did on the DNC. Is Putin the old KGB chief trying to rig/influence/steal an election in the U.S.?
Allegedly...
However, if true that should piss off all of us... what should be our "response"?
We don't need a "response" we're already hacking them back. The whole point of us having an intelligence agency is to spy on other countries like Russia and China. The Cold War never really ended because we have opposing interests with Russia in a many key strategic regions in the world.
Hacking your adversary for intelligence is one thing...
If proven true, it's another to try to have an effect on your adversary's election process by releasing these hacks.
Hillary Clinton won't take this kindly...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/16 16:14:39
AlmightyWalrus wrote: He's going to have to spin really hard to make that a case of negligence rather than actively and knowingly breaking the rules.
Ya mean, like what Hillary did?
EDIT: I mean... The FBI director claimed a need to show intent in order to indict Hillary Clinton, whose entire email server scheme was designed to thwart the Federal Records Act and legitimate Congressional/judicial oversight over the State Department and her activities.
On the other hand, the DoJ is trying to "throw the book" at this sailor whose only intent (misguided as it might have been) was to have a few souvenirs of his time serving his country.
EDIT2: Further more, this sailor plead guilty to 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which does NOT require intent. Meaning, he had classified information in prohibited devices. Same way as Clinton having prohibited documents on her private server.
FFS these two cases couldn't be more different. If you've served you'd know that there are huge, well notified restrictions on photography. This sailor knowing breeched that restriction.
But let's not let that get in the way of the endless,boring, and ultimately futile attempt to justify an attack on a democrat eh? The email saga is a dead end, but seeing as it's the only thing you seem to have in your arsenal, why not bring it up endlessly? It's certainly convincing absolutely no one, not a single person who isn't already a republican. No one cares, no one is in the slightest bit interested or convinced.
Please, get the feth over it and try a different argument,
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
AlmightyWalrus wrote: He's going to have to spin really hard to make that a case of negligence rather than actively and knowingly breaking the rules.
Ya mean, like what Hillary did?
EDIT: I mean... The FBI director claimed a need to show intent in order to indict Hillary Clinton, whose entire email server scheme was designed to thwart the Federal Records Act and legitimate Congressional/judicial oversight over the State Department and her activities.
On the other hand, the DoJ is trying to "throw the book" at this sailor whose only intent (misguided as it might have been) was to have a few souvenirs of his time serving his country.
EDIT2: Further more, this sailor plead guilty to 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which does NOT require intent. Meaning, he had classified information in prohibited devices. Same way as Clinton having prohibited documents on her private server.
FFS these two cases couldn't be more different. If you've served you'd know that there are huge, well notified restrictions on photography. This sailor knowing breeched that restriction.
Just as Clinton and her cronies knowingly created the unapproved/unsecured email server, which was used exclusively during Clinton Secretary of State tenure. Everyone knows the protocols for handling classified information. Just read up on "MAHOGANY ROW AND THE LINE":
Spoiler:
In Washington, the office of the secretary of state is located on the 7th floor of the department's headquarters along a corridor known as "Mahogany Row." Visitors are required to surrender their cellphones when entering the area, which is lined not only with the secretary's office suite but the offices of other senior department officials and aides. The job of some of these staffers is to receive and send correspondence related to the secretary, sort of a human firewall. Nearly all classified communication to and from the secretary passes through the hands and computers of these staffers, known collectively as "the line."
According to current and past employees, those on "the line" have generally made hard copies of classified documents requiring the secretary's comment, response or signature and hand-delivered them to his or her office for action. Those staffers are also responsible for the ultimate transmission and disposition of the documents once the secretary has responded. Current and past employees say even a secretary of state's references to classified information in electronic communications are often not sent directly by the secretary but through these aides or other more senior officials on a government email account.
So, it's absolutely obscene to believe that these people didn't know what they were doing...
But let's not let that get in the way of the endless,boring, and ultimately futile attempt to justify an attack on a democrat eh?
A democrat that I despise.
The email saga is a dead end, but seeing as it's the only thing you seem to have in your arsenal, why not bring it up endlessly?
It's not a dead-end. There's still opportunities for the Clintons to suffer a political price over this.... since, the FBI abdicated their responsibiity and opened a barndoor of a 'Hillary Defense' in future court case on this issue.
It's certainly convincing absolutely no one, not a single person who isn't already a republican. No one cares, no one is in the slightest bit interested or convinced.
And there it is... since Clinton is a Democrat, she's incapable of doing anything wrong in your eyes...amirite?
Please, get the feth over it
No.
and try a different argument,
Oh... now you want to talk about Clinton's impropriety of what transpired during her Secretary of State tenure with her Foundation favoritisms?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/16 16:40:08
AlmightyWalrus wrote: He's going to have to spin really hard to make that a case of negligence rather than actively and knowingly breaking the rules.
Ya mean, like what Hillary did?
EDIT: I mean... The FBI director claimed a need to show intent in order to indict Hillary Clinton, whose entire email server scheme was designed to thwart the Federal Records Act and legitimate Congressional/judicial oversight over the State Department and her activities.
On the other hand, the DoJ is trying to "throw the book" at this sailor whose only intent (misguided as it might have been) was to have a few souvenirs of his time serving his country.
EDIT2: Further more, this sailor plead guilty to 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which does NOT require intent. Meaning, he had classified information in prohibited devices. Same way as Clinton having prohibited documents on her private server.
FFS these two cases couldn't be more different. If you've served you'd know that there are huge, well notified restrictions on photography. This sailor knowing breeched that restriction.
Just as Clinton and her cronies knowingly created the unapproved/unsecured email server, which was used exclusively during Clinton Secretary of State tenure. Everyone knows the protocols for handling classified information. Just read up on "MAHOGANY ROW AND THE LINE":
Spoiler:
In Washington, the office of the secretary of state is located on the 7th floor of the department's headquarters along a corridor known as "Mahogany Row." Visitors are required to surrender their cellphones when entering the area, which is lined not only with the secretary's office suite but the offices of other senior department officials and aides. The job of some of these staffers is to receive and send correspondence related to the secretary, sort of a human firewall. Nearly all classified communication to and from the secretary passes through the hands and computers of these staffers, known collectively as "the line."
According to current and past employees, those on "the line" have generally made hard copies of classified documents requiring the secretary's comment, response or signature and hand-delivered them to his or her office for action. Those staffers are also responsible for the ultimate transmission and disposition of the documents once the secretary has responded. Current and past employees say even a secretary of state's references to classified information in electronic communications are often not sent directly by the secretary but through these aides or other more senior officials on a government email account.
So, it's absolutely obscene to believe that these people didn't know what they were doing...
But let's not let that get in the way of the endless,boring, and ultimately futile attempt to justify an attack on a democrat eh?
A democrat that I despise.
The email saga is a dead end, but seeing as it's the only thing you seem to have in your arsenal, why not bring it up endlessly?
It's not a dead-end. There's still opportunities for the Clintons to suffer a political price over this.... since, the FBI abdicated their responsibiity and opened a barndoor of a 'Hillary Defense' in future court case on this issue.
It's certainly convincing absolutely no one, not a single person who isn't already a republican. No one cares, no one is in the slightest bit interested or convinced.
And there it is... since Clinton is a Democrat, she's incapable of doing anything wrong in your eyes...amirite?
Please, get the feth over it
No.
and try a different argument,
Oh... now you want to talk about Clinton's impropriety of what transpired during her Secretary of State tenure with her Foundation favoritisms?
I'm no Democrat, I'm not even American, I'm just bored of reading your endless tirades attempting to make a big deal out of feth all.
Your arguments are going no where because no one cares, the Republicans have fethed up so badly that you are literally pissing directly into a force nine gale. You'd make more headway by changing the record, and trying to argue a positive case for a republican candidate, any candidate. Even trying to find something positive to say about Trump would make a change.
You might even change a mind, but your focus on the Clintons is just rabid, non-sensical partisanship.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
AlmightyWalrus wrote: He's going to have to spin really hard to make that a case of negligence rather than actively and knowingly breaking the rules.
Ya mean, like what Hillary did?
EDIT: I mean... The FBI director claimed a need to show intent in order to indict Hillary Clinton, whose entire email server scheme was designed to thwart the Federal Records Act and legitimate Congressional/judicial oversight over the State Department and her activities.
On the other hand, the DoJ is trying to "throw the book" at this sailor whose only intent (misguided as it might have been) was to have a few souvenirs of his time serving his country.
EDIT2: Further more, this sailor plead guilty to 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which does NOT require intent. Meaning, he had classified information in prohibited devices. Same way as Clinton having prohibited documents on her private server.
FFS these two cases couldn't be more different. If you've served you'd know that there are huge, well notified restrictions on photography. This sailor knowing breeched that restriction.
Just as Clinton and her cronies knowingly created the unapproved/unsecured email server, which was used exclusively during Clinton Secretary of State tenure. Everyone knows the protocols for handling classified information. Just read up on "MAHOGANY ROW AND THE LINE":
Spoiler:
In Washington, the office of the secretary of state is located on the 7th floor of the department's headquarters along a corridor known as "Mahogany Row." Visitors are required to surrender their cellphones when entering the area, which is lined not only with the secretary's office suite but the offices of other senior department officials and aides. The job of some of these staffers is to receive and send correspondence related to the secretary, sort of a human firewall. Nearly all classified communication to and from the secretary passes through the hands and computers of these staffers, known collectively as "the line."
According to current and past employees, those on "the line" have generally made hard copies of classified documents requiring the secretary's comment, response or signature and hand-delivered them to his or her office for action. Those staffers are also responsible for the ultimate transmission and disposition of the documents once the secretary has responded. Current and past employees say even a secretary of state's references to classified information in electronic communications are often not sent directly by the secretary but through these aides or other more senior officials on a government email account.
So, it's absolutely obscene to believe that these people didn't know what they were doing...
But let's not let that get in the way of the endless,boring, and ultimately futile attempt to justify an attack on a democrat eh?
A democrat that I despise.
The email saga is a dead end, but seeing as it's the only thing you seem to have in your arsenal, why not bring it up endlessly?
It's not a dead-end. There's still opportunities for the Clintons to suffer a political price over this.... since, the FBI abdicated their responsibiity and opened a barndoor of a 'Hillary Defense' in future court case on this issue.
It's certainly convincing absolutely no one, not a single person who isn't already a republican. No one cares, no one is in the slightest bit interested or convinced.
And there it is... since Clinton is a Democrat, she's incapable of doing anything wrong in your eyes...amirite?
Please, get the feth over it
No.
and try a different argument,
Oh... now you want to talk about Clinton's impropriety of what transpired during her Secretary of State tenure with her Foundation favoritisms?
I'm no Democrat, I'm not even American, I'm just bored of reading your endless tirades attempting to make a big deal out of feth all.
Your arguments are going no where because no one cares, the Republicans have fethed up so badly that you are literally pissing directly into a force nine gale. You'd make more headway by changing the record, and trying to argue a positive case for a republican candidate, any candidate. Even trying to find something positive to say about Trump would make a change. You might even change a mind, but your focus on the Clintons is just rabid, non-sensical partisanship.
I'm 100% confident that the next president will be Madam President Clinton. She'll win big in the electoral college with the lowest voter turnout in years.
Book it.
As such, Trump is a dumpster fire that insults the decent dumpster fires.
As for the Republicans... the current leadership deserves this clusterfeth and their status quo is going to be short-lived.
You think the Tea Party in 2010 was impressive? Wait till you see the mid-terms in 2018.
So... the focus ought to be on the Clintons.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/16 17:53:49
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Normally, I'd post this in the ISIS thread, but I feel it has special significance for this thread.
Russia Today is saying that Chinese State Media has announced Chinese military support and assistance for Syria...
Details of what this support is, was not made clear, but alarm bells should be ringing in Washington....
As I've mentioned before on this topic, both Trump and HRC are campaigning as though foreign policy does not exist or is not needed...
They, and I include Obama in this, could start by asking the logical question: why now?
The war has been going on for 5 years, and yet, here we are with China about to get involved...
IMO, China is taking advantage of that great American weakness: the presidential cycle and the transition between November and January, with a lame duck President out the door, and a new President who'll need time to get their feet under the table...
Clearly, China is testing the water. We've already seen them increase influence in Gulf states with oil purchases, but this is a whole new dimension...They will be looking and judging any American reaction...
The new president needs to sit down with their team and have a long hard think, and ask their strategists some tough questions: What are our interests? What do we have? What are we prepared to spend? How far will we go to defend those interests? Do we want to maintain the status quo in the Middle East, or are we looking to defeat our enemies through economic might? Soft power? Expanding democracy? Getting others to fight for us? And so on and so on...
The USA and its allies are already engaged in a proxy war against Russia/Iran + their allies in the Middle East, so Chinese involvement could add a whole new dimension...
Luckily, the USA has some strong cards itself to play in the ME, notably Israel, and their Kurdish allies,
But the next American president has got to have a long, hard think about American policy in the Middle East...
Do you have a link? I am not seeing this. China has been involving itself in the diplomacy around Syria for a while. Last December they passed an anti-terrorism bill allowing for international use of the Red Army to fight "terrorism". They have been building a new base in Djibouti, but most reports indicate that China is reluctant to provide ground force support to Syria opting instead to provide weapons and support.
Syria is tied into a larger conflict that probably goes beyond the scope of this thread, but is another reason why someone like Trump is completely unsuited to the presidency.
But it could easily be fixed to get Trump in, since the Russians and Chinese like him so much and have form for hacking US government databases. (DNC technically isn't the government but it's close enough to worry about.)
I can't be the only one who finds Putin's presence in this election to be troubling, can I?
Trump's man-crush on Putin is...whatever. His daughter was friends with Putin's girlfriend previously. Fine.
But his advisor, Paul Manafort, has many real, close connections to Putin and his cronies as that Slate article outlined. And today I saw more info about Manafort in the Ukraine from the NYT article , which states
And Mr. Manafort’s presence remains elsewhere here in the capital, where government investigators examining secret records have found his name, as well as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr. Manafort’s main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine’s newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials.
Right there with you buddy. I think I've brought this up before ITT as well.
The Clinton's have "Moscow Connections" as well... but, at least they tried to keep it down low.
And then, of course, we have all the hacking Russia did on the DNC. Is Putin the old KGB chief trying to rig/influence/steal an election in the U.S.?
Allegedly...
However, if true that should piss off all of us... what should be our "response"?
We don't need a "response" we're already hacking them back. The whole point of us having an intelligence agency is to spy on other countries like Russia and China. The Cold War never really ended because we have opposing interests with Russia in a many key strategic regions in the world.
Exactly. Like I've said before when something similar happened, the only real problem here is that, publicly, Russia appears to be doing a better job in the hacking game than us. It's like when we got busted for spying on Germany a couple years back: everyone knows we all spy on each other, we just made the mistake of getting caught with our hand in the cookie jar.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Normally, I'd post this in the ISIS thread, but I feel it has special significance for this thread.
Russia Today is saying that Chinese State Media has announced Chinese military support and assistance for Syria...
Details of what this support is, was not made clear, but alarm bells should be ringing in Washington....
As I've mentioned before on this topic, both Trump and HRC are campaigning as though foreign policy does not exist or is not needed...
They, and I include Obama in this, could start by asking the logical question: why now?
The war has been going on for 5 years, and yet, here we are with China about to get involved...
IMO, China is taking advantage of that great American weakness: the presidential cycle and the transition between November and January, with a lame duck President out the door, and a new President who'll need time to get their feet under the table...
Clearly, China is testing the water. We've already seen them increase influence in Gulf states with oil purchases, but this is a whole new dimension...They will be looking and judging any American reaction...
The new president needs to sit down with their team and have a long hard think, and ask their strategists some tough questions: What are our interests? What do we have? What are we prepared to spend? How far will we go to defend those interests? Do we want to maintain the status quo in the Middle East, or are we looking to defeat our enemies through economic might? Soft power? Expanding democracy? Getting others to fight for us? And so on and so on...
The USA and its allies are already engaged in a proxy war against Russia/Iran + their allies in the Middle East, so Chinese involvement could add a whole new dimension...
Luckily, the USA has some strong cards itself to play in the ME, notably Israel, and their Kurdish allies,
But the next American president has got to have a long, hard think about American policy in the Middle East...
Do you have a link? I am not seeing this. China has been involving itself in the diplomacy around Syria for a while. Last December they passed an anti-terrorism bill allowing for international use of the Red Army to fight "terrorism". They have been building a new base in Djibouti, but most reports indicate that China is reluctant to provide ground force support to Syria opting instead to provide weapons and support.
Syria is tied into a larger conflict that probably goes beyond the scope of this thread, but is another reason why someone like Trump is completely unsuited to the presidency.
I'm on the move with a basic phone, so posting links is a bit fiddly, so I'll try and get something tomorrow. But it flashed up as breaking news on Russia Today.
But then again, Russia Today has close links to Putin, so this could be a Russian plot to panic the USA with disinformation
Two points I want to make:
1) I don't think Clinton has much of a clue either when it comes to foreign policy. I fully expect a continuation of the last 8 years...
2) A while ago, a friend of mine was banging on about some geo-political research paper (its name escapes me,) but the core of the argument was this:
China has been reading a lot of history, especially history concerning how and why England, and then Britain, defeated a great maritime power like Spain, and then the French...they probably skipped the bits about democratic parliament, rule of law, Protestant work ethic
None the less, the Chinese leadership concluded that great maritime powers are good at building empires. Britain was one, the USA is another...
China's potential to be a maritime power is somewhat limited. Japan is a rival, Taiwan a US ally, US troops in South Korea and a dozen other Pacific islands are a block to this...a ring of steel is close by...
The Chinese don't want the US doing to them what the British blockade did to Germany in WW1 or attacking coastal areas with impunity...
So the Chinese have adopted a Eurasia land mass strategy - links with Russia, mainland Asia, which stretches all the way to the Middle East...
China's slow but gradual involvement in the ME is the next step...
If normal people like us can see that, then I'm sure those highly paid advisors and strategists in Washington can also see that...
But we don't have to make the big decision: what is the USA going to do about it?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
But it could easily be fixed to get Trump in, since the Russians and Chinese like him so much and have form for hacking US government databases. (DNC technically isn't the government but it's close enough to worry about.)
I can't be the only one who finds Putin's presence in this election to be troubling, can I?
Trump's man-crush on Putin is...whatever. His daughter was friends with Putin's girlfriend previously. Fine.
But his advisor, Paul Manafort, has many real, close connections to Putin and his cronies as that Slate article outlined. And today I saw more info about Manafort in the Ukraine from the NYT article , which states
And Mr. Manafort’s presence remains elsewhere here in the capital, where government investigators examining secret records have found his name, as well as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr. Manafort’s main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine’s newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials.
Right there with you buddy. I think I've brought this up before ITT as well.
The Clinton's have "Moscow Connections" as well... but, at least they tried to keep it down low.
[/spoiler]
And then, of course, we have all the hacking Russia did on the DNC. Is Putin the old KGB chief trying to rig/influence/steal an election in the U.S.?
Allegedly...
However, if true that should piss off all of us... what should be our "response"?
whembly wrote: We don't need a "response" we're already hacking them back. The whole point of us having an intelligence agency is to spy on other countries like Russia and China. The Cold War never really ended because we have opposing interests with Russia in a many key strategic regions in the world.
Hacking your adversary for intelligence is one thing...
If proven true, it's another to try to have an effect on your adversary's election process by releasing these hacks.
Hillary Clinton won't take this kindly...
Well, perhaps the DNC hack and the pushback against Clinton is Putin wanting payback for the US interference in the Ukraine govt when Clinton was SecState. I don't see what you think Hillary could/would do in retaliation beyond the level of spying and cyber warfare operations we already have ongoing against countries like Russia.
Hillary Clinton claims her experience in foreign policy makes her a better candidate for the U.S. Presidency. Media outlets and voters who understand ‘foreign policy’ is one of the most important issues in this election, are checking up on her claim, and it does not look good.
Mrs. Clinton has been receiving some criticism for her Honduras policy. She openly admits to supporting the current Honduras Government that came to power after the 2009 military coup that ousted the country’s democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. Unfortunately, supporting fascistic coup governments was a pattern during her tenure as a Secretary of State.
What happened in Ukraine?
Hillary and Bill Clinton run the Clinton Foundation, established by the couple. The foundation accepts monetary donations from foreign donors, amassing to billions of dollars. Some of the top donors of the foundation were Ukrainian oligarchs. One of them, Victor Pinchuk, was a former member of the Ukrainian Parliament and a strong advocate of Neoliberalism in Ukraine. Pinchuk became wealthy during chaotic privatization of large state enterprises after the country’s separation from the Soviet Union.
In return, the Clinton Global Initiative which is a wing of the Clinton Foundation that coordinates charitable projects but does not handle money, made a pledge to Mr. Pinchuk, to train future Ukrainian leaders. Several alumni from this training program are now in the current Ukraine Parliament. The same government that came to power after the bloody coup d’etat.
Stephen F. Cohen, an internationally prominent scholar of Russia, explains the reasons behind Clinton’s actions regarding Ukraine, during an interview organized by the American Committee for East West Accord Ltd. “This problem began in the 1990s, when the Clinton Administration adopted a winner-take-all policy toward post-Soviet Russia … Russia gives, we take. … This policy was adopted by the Clinton Administration but is pursued by every [meaning both] political party, every President, every American Congress, since President Clinton, to President Obama. This meant that the United States was entitled to a sphere or zone of influence as large as it wished, right up to Russia’s borders, and Russia was entitled to no sphere of influence, at all, not even in Georgia… or in Ukraine (with which Russia had been intermarried for centuries).”
Victoria Nuland, assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, who has been the lead U.S. point person for the Ukraine crisis was a deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs under the Bill Clinton administration. Nuland also served as Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney.
A recording of a phone call between Nuland and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt on January 28, 2014, was published on YouTube, proving that the U.S. was already planning who should be in the government after Viktor Yanukovych’s forced resignation. The name Nuland gave in the phone call, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, indeed became the Prime Minister of Ukraine on February 27, 2014, a month after that phone conversation.
Reader Supported News journalist Steve Weisman’s report on how the Clinton led State Department laid the foundation for the regime change in Ukraine is an eye opener. It is truly one of the best investigative reporting pieces of our time, beginning with the evidence on the so called “rebel” who started the “revolution” against the Viktor Yanukovych administration. A polyglot Afghan immigrant who happened to work as a journalist in the news channel established by, none other than, the US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt. “Arriving in the Ukrainian capital on August 3 [2013], Pyatt almost immediately authorized a grant for an online television outlet called Hromadske.TV, which would prove essential to building the Euromaidan street demonstrations against Yanukovych.”
The United States and the European Union have embraced the regime change in Ukraine as a flowering of democracy. Conversely, what replaced the ousted government was another authoritarian dictum which included Neo-Nazi Parties such as Svaboda and the Right Sector. Although, Yatsenuyk’s Fatherland Party controls the majority of the posts in the Ukraine’s parliament, and Svoboda Neo-Nazi leader Oleh Tyahnybok was not granted a major cabinet post, members of Svoboda and the Right Sector occupy key positions in the areas of Defense, Law Enforcement, Education and Economic Affairs.
Hillary Clinton claims her experience in foreign policy makes her a better candidate for the U.S. Presidency. Media outlets and voters who understand ‘foreign policy’ is one of the most important issues in this election, are checking up on her claim, and it does not look good.
Mrs. Clinton has been receiving some criticism for her Honduras policy. She openly admits to supporting the current Honduras Government that came to power after the 2009 military coup that ousted the country’s democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. Unfortunately, supporting fascistic coup governments was a pattern during her tenure as a Secretary of State.
What happened in Ukraine?
Hillary and Bill Clinton run the Clinton Foundation, established by the couple. The foundation accepts monetary donations from foreign donors, amassing to billions of dollars. Some of the top donors of the foundation were Ukrainian oligarchs. One of them, Victor Pinchuk, was a former member of the Ukrainian Parliament and a strong advocate of Neoliberalism in Ukraine. Pinchuk became wealthy during chaotic privatization of large state enterprises after the country’s separation from the Soviet Union.
In return, the Clinton Global Initiative which is a wing of the Clinton Foundation that coordinates charitable projects but does not handle money, made a pledge to Mr. Pinchuk, to train future Ukrainian leaders. Several alumni from this training program are now in the current Ukraine Parliament. The same government that came to power after the bloody coup d’etat.
Stephen F. Cohen, an internationally prominent scholar of Russia, explains the reasons behind Clinton’s actions regarding Ukraine, during an interview organized by the American Committee for East West Accord Ltd. “This problem began in the 1990s, when the Clinton Administration adopted a winner-take-all policy toward post-Soviet Russia … Russia gives, we take. … This policy was adopted by the Clinton Administration but is pursued by every [meaning both] political party, every President, every American Congress, since President Clinton, to President Obama. This meant that the United States was entitled to a sphere or zone of influence as large as it wished, right up to Russia’s borders, and Russia was entitled to no sphere of influence, at all, not even in Georgia… or in Ukraine (with which Russia had been intermarried for centuries).”
Victoria Nuland, assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, who has been the lead U.S. point person for the Ukraine crisis was a deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs under the Bill Clinton administration. Nuland also served as Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney.
A recording of a phone call between Nuland and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt on January 28, 2014, was published on YouTube, proving that the U.S. was already planning who should be in the government after Viktor Yanukovych’s forced resignation. The name Nuland gave in the phone call, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, indeed became the Prime Minister of Ukraine on February 27, 2014, a month after that phone conversation.
Reader Supported News journalist Steve Weisman’s report on how the Clinton led State Department laid the foundation for the regime change in Ukraine is an eye opener. It is truly one of the best investigative reporting pieces of our time, beginning with the evidence on the so called “rebel” who started the “revolution” against the Viktor Yanukovych administration. A polyglot Afghan immigrant who happened to work as a journalist in the news channel established by, none other than, the US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt. “Arriving in the Ukrainian capital on August 3 [2013], Pyatt almost immediately authorized a grant for an online television outlet called Hromadske.TV, which would prove essential to building the Euromaidan street demonstrations against Yanukovych.”
The United States and the European Union have embraced the regime change in Ukraine as a flowering of democracy. Conversely, what replaced the ousted government was another authoritarian dictum which included Neo-Nazi Parties such as Svaboda and the Right Sector. Although, Yatsenuyk’s Fatherland Party controls the majority of the posts in the Ukraine’s parliament, and Svoboda Neo-Nazi leader Oleh Tyahnybok was not granted a major cabinet post, members of Svoboda and the Right Sector occupy key positions in the areas of Defense, Law Enforcement, Education and Economic Affairs.
Right. But of your two choices, she is still the better one, yeah?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Just to add to my earlier reply to jmurph, that report about China is up and running on Russia Today and Youtube...
To summarise, a senior commander from the People's Liberation Army has visited Damascus, and China has promised aid, training, and assistance to Syria.
There is talk of a closer coalition with Syria and Russia, with energy security and fighting terrorism cited as the key reasons.
Students of geography will note that the Middle East is thousands of miles away from China...
To cut a long story short and to stay OT, as sure as day follows night, Chinese interests in the ME and American interests in the ME are going to meet...
The question is: what is Trump or Clinton going to do about it?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Hillary Clinton claims her experience in foreign policy makes her a better candidate for the U.S. Presidency. Media outlets and voters who understand ‘foreign policy’ is one of the most important issues in this election, are checking up on her claim, and it does not look good.
Mrs. Clinton has been receiving some criticism for her Honduras policy. She openly admits to supporting the current Honduras Government that came to power after the 2009 military coup that ousted the country’s democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. Unfortunately, supporting fascistic coup governments was a pattern during her tenure as a Secretary of State.
What happened in Ukraine?
Hillary and Bill Clinton run the Clinton Foundation, established by the couple. The foundation accepts monetary donations from foreign donors, amassing to billions of dollars. Some of the top donors of the foundation were Ukrainian oligarchs. One of them, Victor Pinchuk, was a former member of the Ukrainian Parliament and a strong advocate of Neoliberalism in Ukraine. Pinchuk became wealthy during chaotic privatization of large state enterprises after the country’s separation from the Soviet Union.
In return, the Clinton Global Initiative which is a wing of the Clinton Foundation that coordinates charitable projects but does not handle money, made a pledge to Mr. Pinchuk, to train future Ukrainian leaders. Several alumni from this training program are now in the current Ukraine Parliament. The same government that came to power after the bloody coup d’etat.
Stephen F. Cohen, an internationally prominent scholar of Russia, explains the reasons behind Clinton’s actions regarding Ukraine, during an interview organized by the American Committee for East West Accord Ltd. “This problem began in the 1990s, when the Clinton Administration adopted a winner-take-all policy toward post-Soviet Russia … Russia gives, we take. … This policy was adopted by the Clinton Administration but is pursued by every [meaning both] political party, every President, every American Congress, since President Clinton, to President Obama. This meant that the United States was entitled to a sphere or zone of influence as large as it wished, right up to Russia’s borders, and Russia was entitled to no sphere of influence, at all, not even in Georgia… or in Ukraine (with which Russia had been intermarried for centuries).”
Victoria Nuland, assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, who has been the lead U.S. point person for the Ukraine crisis was a deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs under the Bill Clinton administration. Nuland also served as Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney.
A recording of a phone call between Nuland and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt on January 28, 2014, was published on YouTube, proving that the U.S. was already planning who should be in the government after Viktor Yanukovych’s forced resignation. The name Nuland gave in the phone call, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, indeed became the Prime Minister of Ukraine on February 27, 2014, a month after that phone conversation.
Reader Supported News journalist Steve Weisman’s report on how the Clinton led State Department laid the foundation for the regime change in Ukraine is an eye opener. It is truly one of the best investigative reporting pieces of our time, beginning with the evidence on the so called “rebel” who started the “revolution” against the Viktor Yanukovych administration. A polyglot Afghan immigrant who happened to work as a journalist in the news channel established by, none other than, the US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt. “Arriving in the Ukrainian capital on August 3 [2013], Pyatt almost immediately authorized a grant for an online television outlet called Hromadske.TV, which would prove essential to building the Euromaidan street demonstrations against Yanukovych.”
The United States and the European Union have embraced the regime change in Ukraine as a flowering of democracy. Conversely, what replaced the ousted government was another authoritarian dictum which included Neo-Nazi Parties such as Svaboda and the Right Sector. Although, Yatsenuyk’s Fatherland Party controls the majority of the posts in the Ukraine’s parliament, and Svoboda Neo-Nazi leader Oleh Tyahnybok was not granted a major cabinet post, members of Svoboda and the Right Sector occupy key positions in the areas of Defense, Law Enforcement, Education and Economic Affairs.
Right. But of your two choices, she is still the better one, yeah?
I'm not voting for either of them personally. I do think Clinton is a good representation of mainstream Democrats and while I think her political style is outmoded she's certainly more adept and experienced than Trump.
President Barack Obama arranged for New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to receive a $15,000 donation in exchange for investigating Trump University, Donald Trump alleged in February in comments that were overlooked, likely due to the even more ridiculous and offensive remarks that he was making at the time.
Trump didn’t quite accuse Obama of handing Schneiderman an envelope with $15,000 stuffed in it. Instead, Trump said, Obama appears to have arranged a campaign contribution to Schneiderman from a law firm representing victims of Trump’s scam. (Like Trump’s usual claims, there’s no evidence to support this one.)
“The attorney general of New York meets with Barack Obama in Syracuse,” Trump said at a rally in Bentonville, Arkansas. “The following day he sues me. What they don’t say is, I believe, fifteen thousand or a lot of money was paid to the attorney general by the law firm in California that is suing me.”
As a NY resident, I trust Schniederman. Corruption/nepotism has been an issue as of late in the government here, but I'd seriously doubt he'd get involved in that sort of stuff.
I mean besides the fact Trump is a loony.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Well, Trump seems to think there was nothing wrong with Trump University, and thus no real reason to investigate or for him to have been sued. I mean why would people sue a fake university with no accreditation that doesn't give out degrees or grant college credits but charges $1500-$35000 for "classes."
Come on Trump. Every other scam university had the foresight to put up a fake accreditation service to accredit themselves, why didn't you?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/17 00:13:29
Prestor Jon wrote: The number of speeches Clinton gave to Wall St investment banks is irrelevant, it still creates the appearance of impropriety when Hillary profits from taking speaking engagements from companies whose chief officers will likely be the pool from which she draws personnel to work in federal departments under her administration. Whether taking the $1.8m in speaking fees from them isn't really a quid pro quo for some of them getting jobs in the federal govt under Clinton or not, it still looks bad and Clinton doesn't need the money so it feeds a narrative that hurts Clinton.
It isn't bad, but it looks bad and hurts her polling, just so long as lots of people who know it isn't bad or meaningful at all keep saying it's bad.
Pretty much.
I personally don't care if she releases the transcripts. I don't think there would be anything in them that would infer any corruption on Clinton's part. There may be parts of the speeches that would conflict with some of her campaign speeches about the economy/financial district so it may be smart for her to never release them.
That's pretty much what this is. There's probably parts in there that don't align with her move to the left to capture/keep the Sanders supporters.
The issue with speeches to Wall St isn't the content, it's the fact that it looks like another example of wealthy people buying access and influence that's compounded by the revolving door relationship that the federal agencies have with those companies when it comes to the people managing them. It hurts Clinton because it furthers the narrative that Hillary is just more politics as usual at a time when a lot of people are fed up with our politics. By itself it's a minor thing but added together with others it creates a lot of tarnish for the idea that Hillary is any kind of white knight that can ride in and help fix the problems we're facing.
The issue to me is that political connections between Wall Street and government isn't a minor thing. It's a serious thing. But it is utterly unrelated to Clinton. Clinton getting paid crazy money for some talks is as politically contraversial as Kim Kardashian getting $500k for turning up to a nightclub.
The issue with Wall St isn't even corruption, the real problem is group think. When people learn their trade on Wall St, they come to believe Wall St theories about how the world should work. When those same people then move in to government they bring those same ideas with them. The de-regulation of the 80s through to the 00s wasn't from corruption, but a genuine belief that the best way to produce growth was through letting the 'titans' of Wall St act without restraint. It was no surprise that Wall St guys thought they were awesome... the problem was that regulators and financial advisors to Washington also thought Wall St guys were awesome... because they were also Wall St or ex-Wall St guys.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: He's going to have to spin really hard to make that a case of negligence rather than actively and knowingly breaking the rules.
Ya mean, like what Hillary did?
EDIT: I mean... The FBI director claimed a need to show intent in order to indict Hillary Clinton, whose entire email server scheme was designed to thwart the Federal Records Act and legitimate Congressional/judicial oversight over the State Department and her activities.
On the other hand, the DoJ is trying to "throw the book" at this sailor whose only intent (misguided as it might have been) was to have a few souvenirs of his time serving his country.
EDIT2: Further more, this sailor plead guilty to 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which does NOT require intent. Meaning, he had classified information in prohibited devices. Same way as Clinton having prohibited documents on her private server.
You might want to read the letter that accompanied the FBI supplied to congress with the probe documents today. In it you can find a more expansive discussion of why they recommended no charges be brought and tears down the notion that "extremely careless" equates with "gross negligence" and why the Clinton case differs from Petreaus, Berger, or Nishimura. And it explains how the one case in the 99 years the statute has existed that was based on "gross negligence", the charge was dismissed. http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/Herring%20to%20JEC%20%208.16.2016.pdf
If the end result of the Clinton email thing is a precedent that breaches of security protocols that are careless or reckless should be given administrative sanction and not legal sanction, I think that'd be really good. I mean, that precedent already exists, but if it is made clearer then good-oh.
I mean, does anyone honestly believe that the nation's interests are best served by spending very expensive DoJ resources building a criminal case against indivicuals who just made a mistake? Best case scenario it results in a fine and a meaningless probation sentence. Worst case scenario people go to jail and have their lives ruined for careless behavior.
whembly wrote: Hacking your adversary for intelligence is one thing...
If proven true, it's another to try to have an effect on your adversary's election process by releasing these hacks.
Hillary Clinton won't take this kindly...
Nah, what Putin is doing is sensible and to be expected. His country and the finances of his mates are being slaughtered by US led sanctions on Russia. He believes that those sanctions are likely to be lifted by Trump, but would be maintained by Clinton. So he's trying to influence the election, which just plain makes sense. Remember there's no real downside for Putin in this - we all know he's interfering with US democracy, but what's the retaliation - the sanctions are already in place.
The people should take action are the people who are planning on voting for Trump. It is outrageous that anyone would continue to support that guy. Sure, Trump will probably lose, but what about the rest of the Republican party that's falling in behind him? When do we say their actions have been unacceptable?
Next President/Congress is going to have one hella gak sammich to deal with...
It's an interesting one. Aetna quite publically led in to the exchanges, and said the approx $400m they expected to lose was the cost of courting new business. Now their proposed merger is shut down and a couple of weeks later they make a lot of noise about how much money they lost because exchange participants tend to be sick.
Now, don't get me wrong, the whole thing is a mess. But it's a mess that you can't begin to understand as long you think this is just about ACA and Aetna are an innocent company just looking after their profits.
From here one of a few things will happen. The first is that government will blink, let Aetna have its merger, and there will be less insurers, less competition and an even bigger problem in private insurance going forward. Or possibly government won't blink, Aetna and a few others will remain out of the market, and prices will rise in accordance with the actual cost of covering people on the exchanges. Maybe Aetna and the others will come back, or maybe they won't.
Meanwhile, the real issue of needing a government player in the exchanges ensuring everyone is honest just won't happen. And that's a shame for everyone who will need to see a doctor at some point in their lives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Exactly. Like I've said before when something similar happened, the only real problem here is that, publicly, Russia appears to be doing a better job in the hacking game than us. It's like when we got busted for spying on Germany a couple years back: everyone knows we all spy on each other, we just made the mistake of getting caught with our hand in the cookie jar.
Russia appears to be doing a better job publicly. Which kind of means they're doing a worse job
The absolute, #1 a-game guide for cyber warfare remains the US attack on the Iranian nuclear program. And that thing left no actual trace of its origin, the only reason people believe it was the Americans is because no-one else could have done it. That's probably the best statement about where each country stands in terms of capability.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 1) I don't think Clinton has much of a clue either when it comes to foreign policy. I fully expect a continuation of the last 8 years...
The thing to remember with international politics is that China is a disruptive power, while the US (and UK, and other major European nations) are status quo powers. People just look at wins and losses in isolation, see that China has something today that it didn't have yesterday, and think China is winning and must be smarter. But the game when you're the status quo power is a game of defense - you don't look for wins because there's not really anything more to win, you just look to keep things as they are. And sure China has more power now than it did in, say, 1990, but they're grown in economic power many times over since then, with a only a small increase in their political clout.
The US hasn't played the perfect game, but they've been pretty good, at least as well as China has.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2016/08/17 03:02:51
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
The thing to remember with international politics is that China is a disruptive power, while the US (and UK, and other major European nations) are status quo powers. People just look at wins and losses in isolation, see that China has something today that it didn't have yesterday, and think China is winning and must be smarter. But the game when you're the status quo power is a game of defense - you don't look for wins because there's not really anything more to win, you just look to keep things as they are. And sure China has more power now than it did in, say, 1990, but they're grown in economic power many times over since then, with a only a small increase in their political clout.
The US hasn't played the perfect game, but they've been pretty good, at least as well as China has.
Not for the first time, I'm in disagreement with you, Sebster.
Iraq is an Iranian satellite, I have no doubt of that.
I also have on my bookcase a stack of books about where the Iraq invasion went wrong, and believe me, when Cheney, Rumsfeld, DoD, Pentagon, etc etc
are planning their Iraq invasion, Iraq as a Iranian satellite is the last thing on their minds. That's an American loss.
Russia becoming more entrenched with the Assad regime in Syria is another American loss, the USA having backed the wrong side, and then suffered the embarrassment of a President drawing a red line and then looking like a chump...
Far from maintaining the status quo, the USA is 2 points down...
And IMO, Clinton or Trump will only add to this decline...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I also have on my bookcase a stack of books about where the Iraq invasion went wrong, and believe me, when Cheney, Rumsfeld, DoD, Pentagon, etc etc
are planning their Iraq invasion, Iraq as a Iranian satellite is the last thing on their minds. That's an American loss.
Nothing in what I said required or implied that the US or its allies could suffer no loss, nor made any mistakes.
Look at it like this - imagine you are big brother and I'm little brother. As the big brother you get to ride the best bike, sleep on the top bunk, and watch tv from the best position. Five years on and I've caught up in height and am now almost as big as you. I've got you to agree that twice a week I get the best tv spot, but you still have the best bike and sleep on the top bunk. Some people would interpret that as you having lost ground, and while that's true in a technical sense, its a very unreasonable way of looking at the overall situation. You started with everything, and now have almost everything. Once you accept that absolute dominance never lasts forever, the question becomes one of how well you can hold to as much of it as possible.
By that measure the US has done pretty well. China has become a vastly bigger, more powerful country, and for all that increase in power they've achieved some regional influence, and very little global influence.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
FFS these two cases couldn't be more different. If you've served you'd know that there are huge, well notified restrictions on photography. This sailor knowing breeched that restriction.
