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.

MSNBC now saying CEO of Exxon to be Chief of Staff.

"Drain the swamp."

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This reply is primarily directed at Sebster, but were the Russians hacking into the US election?

More than likely. I don't doubt it.

What? If Russia was behind the hacks isn't even the question anymore. Russian hacking is known, and the only question is whether Russia did it just to feth with the US, or whether they did it to help Trump win. And given we now know hacked Republican info was withheld, the answer is clear.

However, it's the moral grandstanding that gets my goat.

Who gives a feth? This isn't about who is a nice guy and who isn't, that's just moralism nonsense.

This is about what Russia did, and what parts of the US political scene appear to be okay with it.

Taking the moral high ground is dishonest in this situation IMO.

There is no more moral high ground needed to be outraged about foreign interference in your own elections. Its just plain and simple preservation.

 Frazzled wrote:
MSNBC now saying CEO of Exxon to be Chief of Staff.

That, and Giuliani's being out, puts Romney one step closer to SoS.

Correction Exxon for SoS all your worlds belong to us!

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Of course everybody spies on each other. But the point is to not get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

And the thing with the CIA is, you don't hear about the successes. That's often the whole purpose behind what they do: when they do it right, you don't know they did it.

That's the point though, they don't seem to have any success

Afghanistan 10 years ago. Man approaches CIA and says: give me 10 million dollars as a sweetener and I can set up meeting with the Taliban.

CIA: Hell, here's 30 million dollars, get us that meeting buddy.

Man last seen buying first class air ticket to luxury island, report of suitcases being weighed down with something

I simplify things, but the CIA were stung like this quite a few times, and to be fair, they weren't the only agency, but you'd need a heart of stone not to laugh...

If the USA took the CIA funding money and said here Mr Terrorist, take this money and don't attack us, you'd probably have more success!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This reply is primarily directed at Sebster, but were the Russians hacking into the US election?

More than likely. I don't doubt it.

What? If Russia was behind the hacks isn't even the question anymore. Russian hacking is known, and the only question is whether Russia did it just to feth with the US, or whether they did it to help Trump win. And given we now know hacked Republican info was withheld, the answer is clear.

However, it's the moral grandstanding that gets my goat.

Who gives a feth? This isn't about who is a nice guy and who isn't, that's just moralism nonsense.

This is about what Russia did, and what parts of the US political scene appear to be okay with it.

Taking the moral high ground is dishonest in this situation IMO.

There is no more moral high ground needed to be outraged about foreign interference in your own elections. Its just plain and simple preservation.

There's only one country claiming to be the land of the free, home of the brave, and it sure as hell ain't Russia

If America, a superpower, wants to act like every great empire from the dawn of history, fair enough, that's reality, and great powers always make their own rules, but when they dress themselves up as the 'good' guys, then I start laughing.

No disrespect to American dakka members, but let's take a taxi to reality street.

 Frazzled wrote:
MSNBC now saying CEO of Exxon to be Chief of Staff.

Could be worse. After all, I initially read that as "CEO of Enron".

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
"Drain the swamp."

Why? Is there oil at the bottom?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The CIA is so incompetent, has squandered so much tax payers' money over the years, that it amazes me that a lynch mob hasn't chased them out of the USA.

Yes, that's one opinion and quite frankly, the incorrect one.

How so? The CIA's track record of failure is as long as my arm, and my arm is two feet long!

Were it not for their supreme ability and talent to bury failure deeply, and keep prying eyes away, by constant use of the divine intervention card, aka 'National Security,' the CIA would have been run out of town long ago.

Their 'successes' include:

Confident belief in America winning the Vietnam War. Even when the US military withdrew, they still believed South Vietnam could win the day. I kid you not.

No Soviet Missiles in Cuba. I REPEAT. No Soviet Missiles in Cuba

After the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban people will rise up against Castro. I REPEAT the Cuban people will rise up against Castro...

China getting involved in the Korean war? Get the hell out of here!

Next you'll be telling us that the Soviet Union will invade Afghanistan and that the US embassy in Iran will be captured.

And the Shah of Iran is safe. Absolutely safe. Nothing to see here, move along...

CIA: Yes, I know our reputation is damaged, but we have proof that terrorists might be planning an attack in 2001...

Bush Administration: ever heard about the boy who cried wolf?

And the rest, tragically, is history

I could go on and on, but I can obviously only speak for myself, but If that's a track record of success, I'd hate to see what failure looked like...

You only ever here about the failures, When they are great and successful, you never hear about it.

 BigWaaagh wrote:


Way to keep it civil and adult. All that profanity and I'm "hysterical"? Maybe a dictionary for Christmas is in the cards for you.

You mean like the asinine way you responded to the post that started this? Naw, son. You keep that dictionary. You need more than I do.

Rant addressed, in order:

While I agree that I could have gone a bit easy on the cussing, it's customary to respond to asinine posts/comments with a bit of heat, especially after a bad day and being dumb enough to actually take your bait.

"We're a divided species." -Yes, let's stay tribal and xenophobic because that's always been the recipe for world peace.

It's reality, son. Deal with it. File thirteen those utopian thoughts, because that's where they belong: In the trash can. This is the Real World. Not the little bubble world liberals with your worldview tend to enclose themselves in.

"The FACT is that illegal immigration (via border violation) can only be estimated." -So you readily admit that you can't actually show the numbers, but you base your entire argument on how this, far and away, is the means by which we're supposedly being overrun by those scary illegal immigrants?! Not the, according to you, "BS" actual empirical numbers provided by various agencies and independent reports. I'll cite another bit of empirical "BS" for you to tilt against: 2013 Pew Report - "The most interesting part of the report is the news that our illegal immigrant population is now more diverse — Mexicans now make up just 52 percent of that group, compared to 57 percent in 2007 — and is more often arriving legally and overstaying temporary visas than sneaking across the border." Or maybe this little fact from The Hoover Institute: "The overall rate of immigration into the United States stands at about 3.1 immigrants per 1,000 per year, trending slightly downward from 2000 onward.
More concretely, the net rate of immigration from Mexico, which was very high, totaling 600,000 in the boom years of 2006-2007, was sharply negative in the recession years of 2012-2013, at minus 600,000, and roughly neutral since that time. The same picture has applied globally since 2009, with net immigration and outflow of illegal aliens about constant, with between 300,000 and 400,000 in each group per year."
You know the concept of "BS" right? It's trying to make a point without corroborating facts? Yeah...

Everything you posted here basically hits on some of my previous points, except with more specifics than what I got into.


And I did give an example of numbers, from the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. You know, the agency that's in charge of the ICE since it was founded in 2002? And the DHS numbers show fluctuation each fiscal year (as I pointed out before, you just chose to ignore it). In fact, the numbers are climbing back into record numbers as of 2014-2015 onwards, according to the DHS, because of the worsening domestic situation in Mexico and marked increase in cross border people smuggling operations and illegal drug/gun smuggling. According to the DHS, the decline that Pew's Hispanic Center and Hoover Institute mentions was only a temporary decline, with a combine total (visa violations and border violations) of well over a million per year from 2015 onwards. The absolute totals that routinely violate the borders are what can only be estimated. But the KNOWN numbers I give are from DHS scientific estimates (two slip in for every one caught and deported), and they are considerably more that the number of visa overstays. Also, the guesstimates of the absolute totals neither support your argument or mine 100%. But the hard numbers support my position. And the amount WE DO KNOW ABOUT is way too much.

According to the DHS, the total of illegals residing in the United States was 11.3 million in 2014, and was estimated by the DHS, according to the number of yearly offenses, was expected to be as high as 13 million by 2016, with the recent increase in border violations. The majority of those are believed to be those from areas most effected by the Mexican drug war and from other Latin American countries south of Mexico (which is a growing phenomena, and one the Mexican government doesn't see fit to deal with).


And personally, despite Pew's claim to being "non-partisan" and "non-profit", I haven't put much stock in the PRC's so-called "numbers" and "studies" every since their owners, the Pew Charitable Trusts, involvement in the Barnes Collection Controversy, and the fact that they played their part for financial gain. In other words, they have a crooked streak. That makes me question their supposed "neutrality" on any issue.

"Whoever wrote this is blowing smoke out their ass. It's not something new or recent." -It's 2014 statistics, so one year old as 2016 isn't in the books yet and it was presented in 'The Economist', which is a globally respected periodical on political and economic issues. But it doesn't fit with your unchecked invasion of the aliens storyline, so, sure, disregard it.

You only skimmed what I posted, didn't you? I didn't question everything in that article. The part where they were "blowing smoke out their ass" was regarding their statement regarding the Border Patrol. Because, it's one that I know about personally. And that's including the fact that Border Patrol/INS was cooperating with other Federal, State, and local agencies even back when my Old Man was a county narc (when local tobacco farmers were bringing in migrant workers because local farm labor started drying up in the late 1980's). They usually dealt with reps from the Border Patrol, because the regional INS 'crats proper were sorry as hell back then.

"Obama hasn't been any better or any worse than any previous administration." -Even when presented with actual ICE numbers showing that he has been not only better at addressing and deporting illegal aliens THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT, but has been so by a very dramatic margin. But, again, it doesn't fit the fantastical "sky is falling" narrative you espouse. Darned FACTS getting in the way.

Wow, I get slammed by a leftist for ACTUALLY DEFENDING Obama! These are certainly strange times we live in, indeed!


And spare me the hyperbole, Hoss. I never said the sky is falling, so don't put words into my mouth, and learn to carefully read posts and their context. My point is that the illegal alien issue is a very serious one for our country, and one that needs to be addressed/corrected mosh skosh, and I gave the reasons why. You, on the other hand, like any other good Southern Kommiefornia leftist, prefer to whistle through the graveyard after dark.


The hard fact of the matter is that deportations have varied by Administration. More were deported during the Eisenhower and Roosevelt Administrations (with many wrongly deported under Roosevelt). And deportations started to increase again during the Clinton Administration, with the new deportation laws and guidelines in 1996, and peaked under Obama thanks to the Patriot Act. But starting in 2013, the number of actual deportations has been declining because of the "extension prioritization guidance" guidelines were extended across the board, under the Obama Administration's "prosecutorial discretion plan, which put priority on the deportation of so-called "criminal illegals". But considering the number of Mexican nationals (among others from Latin America) in the prison systems as far north as Virginia and Washington State, not very many are being deported. They are being incarcerated and putting additional unneeded strain on corrections resources. Ironically, this is the very reason why illegals in general are not being incarcerated for violations under Title 8 of the United States Code, Section 1325, ss 1-3.


The number of illegals apprehended that were actually detained and prosecuted was less than 4% of the total in the early 2000's. When I was a cop, I actually would see some of the same ones come back within a year or two, after we busted them for various offenses and turned them over to the ICE/Border Patrol, rather than prosecute them for the offenses in question. Because of that, State and local governments started throwing the book at them for crap like DUI, strong arm robbery, petty larceny, prowling, domestic violence, etc., rather than turn them over to the Feds. And for the more serious offenses, they were denied bail because they were a flight risk. It was nothing for them to haul ass back to Mexico, and come back it a new identity, since Mexico was (and still is) notoriously bad at keeping records (like birth certificates, to name an example). Even the ones that came back legally under a green card (one migrant worker that worked for my grandpops had a different SSN, out of state driver's license, and name every other year, but we knew who he was).

"The number that successfully cross the border illegally exceed the numbers overstaying visas." -Once again arguing something as fact that you admit "can only be estimated". Do you get the whole idea of presenting a position and supporting with empirical evidence and not profanity as gravitas?

I gave the hard numbers based on scientific estimates from the DHS, using the FY2015 as an example. You didn't bother to read it ,and chose to cherry pick instead. Just because you use pretty words like some pseudo-intellectual doesn't erase that little fact. Prostitutes do the same thing in a roundabout way. Doesn't necessarily make what they say or do right.

"The hard, sad fact of the matter is that the numbers don't ing lie." -No, no they don't. Now if you could attempt to present your position with more of those on your side instead of the condescension and profanity you've thrown at this as a, I guess, desperate means to support your position, then maybe there'd be something to your statements. As it is, the rant just comes off as a bit desperate.

Desperate? That's hilarious. I supported my position. I gave examples. You just chose to cherry pick and ignore most of what I wrote, which is what further makes me suspect a bait attempt.


And don't presume to lecture me on how I responded, son. If I remember correctly, what fueled my somewhat heated response was the asinine and self-righteous way you responded to me. You reap what you sow, Cap'n. Practice what you preach.

I live in a city that has the second largest population of Mexican-born immigrants outside of LA. Next.

This explains everything. And I love how you smugly and arrogantly dismiss Mitochondria. So progressive and tolerant.


Anyway, with that, I'm done with you. In the interests of not getting another warning from the Mods, I'm dropping this BS. Neither of us is going to convince the other, no matter how many facts and citations we pull out of our asses.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
There's only one country claiming to be the land of the free, home of the brave, and it sure as hell ain't Russia

If America, a superpower, wants to act like every great empire from the dawn of history, fair enough, that's reality, and great powers always make their own rules, but when they dress themselves up as the 'good' guys, then I start laughing.

To repeat my point so that maybe this time you'll get it - the moralism means nothing. It is nonsense. You don't like the CIA - fine, I don't like them much either. Though in my case it is less to do with the pop culture idea of the CIA as buffoons, and more to do with the pile of bodies around the world as a result their often very effective work of protecting US favoured tyrants.

But none of that means gak to this issue. We are talking about a foreign power acting to manipulate a US election to get a specific candidate elected. And while there is no evidence of collusion, there is certainly evidence that the Trump campaign was aware of DNC leaks ahead of time.

Pointing out the CIA did some bad gak in South America isn't wrong, but it means nothing in terms of Americans being concerned about their own democracy.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Also kind of funny that Syria's military used Sarin on its own people. You know, a chemical weapon listed as a "weapon of mass destruction", and the same exact chemical weapon used extensively by Saddam Hussein. Real funny, that.

Is Saddam Hussein the person in human history to invent and create chemical weapons?

Is it beyond Syria to create and manufacture chemical weapons or even buy them from other nations?

Russia/Soviet Union has/had large stocks of chemical weapons and are a long time ally of Syria...

If memory serves, the United States has or had an extensive stock of chemical weapons tucked away...

Saddam Hussein did use chemical weapons in Halabja against the Kurds. He actively used a WMD on his own people. And yes, the US and Russia all have similar weapons. So do Britain, France, etc.. But Iraq is the one that used them. Bush did not "lie" the weapons do exist. The left moved the goal posts to "nuclear" which also Iraq was trying to build before Israel destroyed the reactor at Osirak.

Wasn't so much the left, as everyone assuming that when WMD's get talked about, it means nukes, as that's probably the most associated thing about WMD's.

 sebster wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
There's only one country claiming to be the land of the free, home of the brave, and it sure as hell ain't Russia

If America, a superpower, wants to act like every great empire from the dawn of history, fair enough, that's reality, and great powers always make their own rules, but when they dress themselves up as the 'good' guys, then I start laughing.

To repeat my point so that maybe this time you'll get it - the moralism means nothing. It is nonsense. You don't like the CIA - fine, I don't like them much either. Though in my case it is less to do with the pop culture idea of the CIA as buffoons, and more to do with the pile of bodies around the world as a result their often very effective work of protecting US favoured tyrants.

But none of that means gak to this issue. We are talking about a foreign power acting to manipulate a US election to get a specific candidate elected. And while there is no evidence of collusion, there is certainly evidence that the Trump campaign was aware of DNC leaks ahead of time.

Pointing out the CIA did some bad gak in South America isn't wrong, but it means nothing in terms of Americans being concerned about their own democracy.

Americans didn't seem to be too concerned about their own democracy when the 4th Amendment was removed from the bill of rights. It no longer exists in any meaningful form. That wasn't as a result of Russian action. That was done under the watch of a man who took an oath to defend the 4th amendment, amongst others of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Also kind of funny that Syria's military used Sarin on its own people. You know, a chemical weapon listed as a "weapon of mass destruction", and the same exact chemical weapon used extensively by Saddam Hussein. Real funny, that.

Is Saddam Hussein the person in human history to invent and create chemical weapons?

Is it beyond Syria to create and manufacture chemical weapons or even buy them from other nations?

Russia/Soviet Union has/had large stocks of chemical weapons and are a long time ally of Syria...

If memory serves, the United States has or had an extensive stock of chemical weapons tucked away...

Saddam Hussein did use chemical weapons in Halabja against the Kurds. He actively used a WMD on his own people. And yes, the US and Russia all have similar weapons. So do Britain, France, etc.. But Iraq is the one that used them. Bush did not "lie" the weapons do exist. The left moved the goal posts to "nuclear" which also Iraq was trying to build before Israel destroyed the reactor at Osirak.

We know what kind of person Sadddam was, good riddance to him, but the nuclear threat was talked up by British Intelligence, and is not a figment of the Left's imagination.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Wasn't so much the left, as everyone assuming that when WMD's get talked about, it means nukes, as that's probably the most associated thing about WMD's.

Exactly. It was our own MI6 that made the nuclear claim.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Confident belief in America winning the Vietnam War. Even when the US military withdrew, they still believed South Vietnam could win the day. I kid you not.

No Soviet Missiles in Cuba. I REPEAT. No Soviet Missiles in Cuba

After the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban people will rise up against Castro. I REPEAT the Cuban people will rise up against Castro...

China getting involved in the Korean war? Get the hell out of here!

Next you'll be telling us that the Soviet Union will invade Afghanistan and that the US embassy in Iran will be captured.

And the Shah of Iran is safe. Absolutely safe. Nothing to see here, move along...

Lets see... six wrong out of.... what, 48k+ operations in that time frame? Really? The Army doesn't have that good of an average rate of success.

I'll take those odds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
"Drain the swamp."

Unfortunately, they're draining it right into the oval office.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Americans didn't seem to be too concerned about their own democracy when the 4th Amendment was removed from the bill of rights. It no longer exists in any meaningful form. That wasn't as a result of Russian action. That was done under the watch of a man who took an oath to defend the 4th amendment, amongst others of course.

And now they've elected someone who may nominate Sessions as AG, a man who is a big fan of civil forfeiture laws (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to when you say the 4th amendment has been weakened).

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
And personally, despite Pew's claim to being "non-partisan" and "non-profit", I haven't put much stock in the PRC's so-called "numbers" and "studies" every since their owners, the Pew Charitable Trusts, involvement in the Barnes Collection Controversy, and the fact that they played their part for financial gain. In other words, they have a crooked streak. That makes me question their supposed "neutrality" on any issue.

I'm not entering the immigration debate here, but if anyone wants a guide in how to spot someone arguing by reading wikipedia as he goes along, this is it.

Notice how the source is rejected by a casual comment to an unrelated contraversy? I mean, he is essentially trying to claim that because the Pew Charitable Trusts put $20 million in to a museum to re-house an art collection, then research done by a subsidiary on immigration can't be trusted. The contrivance is strong enough that it demands a quick bit of googling.

So the next step is to go to wiki and see if this supposed issues just happens the first, only, or easiest understood item on the list of contraversies on the wiki page. If it is then you've just spotted someone who went to wiki looking for a reason to dismiss a source.

And sure enough the wiki page for Pew Charitable Trust has one issue listed under contraversies, the Barnes Art Collection.

Funny stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Saddam Hussein did use chemical weapons in Halabja against the Kurds.

He did, but the was never past use, but an existing national program that might be used in the future. This national program didn't exist, of course.

The left moved the goal posts to "nuclear".

You've gotten this totally tits up. Following Hiroshima and Nagasaki WMD was understood as nuclear only. It was when the US wanted to highlight the danger of Iraqi chemicals weapons that successive US presidents, Bush, Clinton the Bush again used WMD to refer to include chemical and biological weapons, giving those weapons the same fear factor as nuclear.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Americans didn't seem to be too concerned about their own democracy when the 4th Amendment was removed from the bill of rights. It no longer exists in any meaningful form. That wasn't as a result of Russian action. That was done under the watch of a man who took an oath to defend the 4th amendment, amongst others of course.

And now you're wandering off on to some other argument with little relation to Russian manipulation of the US election.

I mean, just consider this was about the CIA screwing around with democratic process in another country. That has happened plenty of times and it was never okay. Imagine if someone came in here to defend one of those instances by talking about how that country has its own dirty intel services, and they don't keep to their constitution quite as the poster thinks they should, and leaving as an unstated conclusion thst people shouldn't be bothered by interference in their own democracy. Obviously that's some serious nonsense

It isn't different when the victim happens to be the US.

 Frazzled wrote:
MSNBC now saying CEO of Exxon to be Chief of Staff.

Huh? I thought that was Reince Pubis?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
"Drain the swamp."

non-DC critter.

But, still...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This reply is primarily directed at Sebster, but were the Russians hacking into the US election?

More than likely. I don't doubt it.

What? If Russia was behind the hacks isn't even the question anymore. Russian hacking is known, and the only question is whether Russia did it just to feth with the US, or whether they did it to help Trump win. And given we now know hacked Republican info was withheld, the answer is clear.

However, it's the moral grandstanding that gets my goat.

Who gives a feth? This isn't about who is a nice guy and who isn't, that's just moralism nonsense.

This is about what Russia did, and what parts of the US political scene appear to be okay with it.

Taking the moral high ground is dishonest in this situation IMO.

There is no more moral high ground needed to be outraged about foreign interference in your own elections. Its just plain and simple preservation.

We don't know any of that is true.

Right?

All of this is from an unamed intelligence source.

Wow a climate change denier at the head of the EPA and a CEO of Exxon, this must be a dream come true for whembly and his climate change denier buddies

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
MSNBC now saying CEO of Exxon to be Chief of Staff.

Could be worse. After all, I initially read that as "CEO of Enron".

Oh.

I don't know enough about the Exxon CEO... (off to google!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
Wow a climate change denier at the head of the EPA and a CEO of Exxon, this must be a dream come true for whembly and his climate change denier buddies

Bandying the terms "climate change denier" won't get you far...

Except if they are true, which in this case they are

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
There's only one country claiming to be the land of the free, home of the brave, and it sure as hell ain't Russia

If America, a superpower, wants to act like every great empire from the dawn of history, fair enough, that's reality, and great powers always make their own rules, but when they dress themselves up as the 'good' guys, then I start laughing.

To repeat my point so that maybe this time you'll get it - the moralism means nothing. It is nonsense. You don't like the CIA - fine, I don't like them much either. Though in my case it is less to do with the pop culture idea of the CIA as buffoons, and more to do with the pile of bodies around the world as a result their often very effective work of protecting US favoured tyrants.

But none of that means gak to this issue. We are talking about a foreign power acting to manipulate a US election to get a specific candidate elected. And while there is no evidence of collusion, there is certainly evidence that the Trump campaign was aware of DNC leaks ahead of time.

Pointing out the CIA did some bad gak in South America isn't wrong, but it means nothing in terms of Americans being concerned about their own democracy.

Americans didn't seem to be too concerned about their own democracy when the 4th Amendment was removed from the bill of rights. It no longer exists in any meaningful form. That wasn't as a result of Russian action. That was done under the watch of a man who took an oath to defend the 4th amendment, amongst others of course.

What are you talking about regarding the 4th? I've seen you bang on this drum for quite some time...

 whembly wrote:

We don't know any of that is true.

Right?

All of this is from an unamed intelligence source.

Nope. DHS and DNI released a statement in October that the hacks were the work of the Russians. The only thing up for debate was whether the Russians were doing it just to feth with US elections, or if it was to help Trump.

What we now have is a WaPo story thst an unnamed CIA official stated before a senate committee that they now know it was to help Trump. Maybe the WaPo made this official up... but you'll note that no-one is denying that testimony before a senate committee took place. Even Trump accepts the testimony happened, instead he's attacking the CIA for coming to that conclusion.

We need to do a thorough review of every freaking step of every state's voting process and review every freaking piece of equipment and assess every freaking individual with so much as enough clearance to carry the actual freaking ballots.


In the light of the hacking revelations. Heck, even if these were just accusations we should do this for the sake of the public's trust in the system.


I feel there are some spots that no one wants looked at too closely. I don't see any other explanation for this dilly dallying about.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:

We don't know any of that is true.

Right?

All of this is from an unamed intelligence source.

Nope. DHS and DNI released a statement in October that the hacks were the work of the Russians. The only thing up for debate was whether the Russians were doing it just to feth with US elections, or if it was to help Trump.

What we now have is a WaPo story thst an unnamed CIA official stated before a senate committee that they now know it was to help Trump. Maybe the WaPo made this official up... but you'll note that no-one is denying that testimony before a senate committee took place. Even Trump accepts the testimony happened, instead he's attacking the CIA for coming to that conclusion.

I'm not denying that the Russians did indeed try to influence our elections. I'm pissed off at that...

But the WaPo article is in stark contrast to previous statements from the FBI and IC that the Russians had tried, but failed to hack the RNC at large - succeeding only in accessing the private accounts of a few individual Republicans.

To me, what's missing from these revelations is some shred of evidence, beyond unnamed sources, saying that the Kremlin wanted Cheeto Jesus to win and that was the motivation for their actions. That may be the conclusion that some in the agency have reached, but if they have anything to back it up they’re not providing it.

Let's say there weren't any smoking gun evidence, but a strong preponderance of evidences that Russa did indeed try to help Cheeto Jesus. How come the Obama administration NOT release this information during the elections?

He's the CiC... he can declassify anything he wants. A foreign power directly influence our nations elections is a good enough reason to declassify any information that points to the Kremlin's interference.

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
There's only one country claiming to be the land of the free, home of the brave, and it sure as hell ain't Russia

If America, a superpower, wants to act like every great empire from the dawn of history, fair enough, that's reality, and great powers always make their own rules, but when they dress themselves up as the 'good' guys, then I start laughing.

To repeat my point so that maybe this time you'll get it - the moralism means nothing. It is nonsense. You don't like the CIA - fine, I don't like them much either. Though in my case it is less to do with the pop culture idea of the CIA as buffoons, and more to do with the pile of bodies around the world as a result their often very effective work of protecting US favoured tyrants.

But none of that means gak to this issue. We are talking about a foreign power acting to manipulate a US election to get a specific candidate elected. And while there is no evidence of collusion, there is certainly evidence that the Trump campaign was aware of DNC leaks ahead of time.

Pointing out the CIA did some bad gak in South America isn't wrong, but it means nothing in terms of Americans being concerned about their own democracy.

Americans didn't seem to be too concerned about their own democracy when the 4th Amendment was removed from the bill of rights. It no longer exists in any meaningful form. That wasn't as a result of Russian action. That was done under the watch of a man who took an oath to defend the 4th amendment, amongst others of course.

What are you talking about regarding the 4th? I've seen you bang on this drum for quite some time...

This is what I'm talking about, and I quote:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, shall not be violated..."

I won't bother with the rest as you probably know it.

So when you have a mass spy programme on a scale the Stasi could only dream of, that sucks up internet and phone data from every American, suspect or not, then that is as clear a violation of the 4th amendment that you will ever see. Ever.

James Madison must be spinning in his grave.

I am all to aware that my own government is eqaully as bad, having just passed a similar bill, probably a worse one, last week


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scrabb wrote:
We need to do a thorough review of every freaking step of every state's voting process and review every freaking piece of equipment and assess every freaking individual with so much as enough clearance to carry the actual freaking ballots.


In the light of the hacking revelations. Heck, even if these were just accusations we should do this for the sake of the public's trust in the system.


I feel there are some spots that no one wants looked at too closely. I don't see any other explanation for this dilly dallying about.

Even without Russian involvement, that's a pretty big can of worms to open, and I suspect people on both sides would rather keep the lid on it...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Americans didn't seem to be too concerned about their own democracy when the 4th Amendment was removed from the bill of rights. It no longer exists in any meaningful form. That wasn't as a result of Russian action. That was done under the watch of a man who took an oath to defend the 4th amendment, amongst others of course.

And now they've elected someone who may nominate Sessions as AG, a man who is a big fan of civil forfeiture laws (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to when you say the 4th amendment has been weakened).

I was pointing to the mass harvesting of internet data, which sadly, is even worse in our own country

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:


Way to keep it civil and adult. All that profanity and I'm "hysterical"? Maybe a dictionary for Christmas is in the cards for you.

You mean like the asinine way you responded to the post that started this? Naw, son. You keep that dictionary. You need more than I do.

Rant addressed, in order:

While I agree that I could have gone a bit easy on the cussing, it's customary to respond to asinine posts/comments with a bit of heat, especially after a bad day and being dumb enough to actually take your bait.

"We're a divided species." -Yes, let's stay tribal and xenophobic because that's always been the recipe for world peace.

It's reality, son. Deal with it. File thirteen those utopian thoughts, because that's where they belong: In the trash can. This is the Real World. Not the little bubble world liberals with your worldview tend to enclose themselves in.

"The FACT is that illegal immigration (via border violation) can only be estimated." -So you readily admit that you can't actually show the numbers, but you base your entire argument on how this, far and away, is the means by which we're supposedly being overrun by those scary illegal immigrants?! Not the, according to you, "BS" actual empirical numbers provided by various agencies and independent reports. I'll cite another bit of empirical "BS" for you to tilt against: 2013 Pew Report - "The most interesting part of the report is the news that our illegal immigrant population is now more diverse — Mexicans now make up just 52 percent of that group, compared to 57 percent in 2007 — and is more often arriving legally and overstaying temporary visas than sneaking across the border." Or maybe this little fact from The Hoover Institute: "The overall rate of immigration into the United States stands at about 3.1 immigrants per 1,000 per year, trending slightly downward from 2000 onward.
More concretely, the net rate of immigration from Mexico, which was very high, totaling 600,000 in the boom years of 2006-2007, was sharply negative in the recession years of 2012-2013, at minus 600,000, and roughly neutral since that time. The same picture has applied globally since 2009, with net immigration and outflow of illegal aliens about constant, with between 300,000 and 400,000 in each group per year."
You know the concept of "BS" right? It's trying to make a point without corroborating facts? Yeah...

Everything you posted here basically hits on some of my previous points, except with more specifics than what I got into.


And I did give an example of numbers, from the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. You know, the agency that's in charge of the ICE since it was founded in 2002? And the DHS numbers show fluctuation each fiscal year (as I pointed out before, you just chose to ignore it). In fact, the numbers are climbing back into record numbers as of 2014-2015 onwards, according to the DHS, because of the worsening domestic situation in Mexico and marked increase in cross border people smuggling operations and illegal drug/gun smuggling. According to the DHS, the decline that Pew's Hispanic Center and Hoover Institute mentions was only a temporary decline, with a combine total (visa violations and border violations) of well over a million per year from 2015 onwards. The absolute totals that routinely violate the borders are what can only be estimated. But the KNOWN numbers I give are from DHS scientific estimates (two slip in for every one caught and deported), and they are considerably more that the number of visa overstays. Also, the guesstimates of the absolute totals neither support your argument or mine 100%. But the hard numbers support my position. And the amount WE DO KNOW ABOUT is way too much.

According to the DHS, the total of illegals residing in the United States was 11.3 million in 2014, and was estimated by the DHS, according to the number of yearly offenses, was expected to be as high as 13 million by 2016, with the recent increase in border violations. The majority of those are believed to be those from areas most effected by the Mexican drug war and from other Latin American countries south of Mexico (which is a growing phenomena, and one the Mexican government doesn't see fit to deal with).


And personally, despite Pew's claim to being "non-partisan" and "non-profit", I haven't put much stock in the PRC's so-called "numbers" and "studies" every since their owners, the Pew Charitable Trusts, involvement in the Barnes Collection Controversy, and the fact that they played their part for financial gain. In other words, they have a crooked streak. That makes me question their supposed "neutrality" on any issue.

"Whoever wrote this is blowing smoke out their ass. It's not something new or recent." -It's 2014 statistics, so one year old as 2016 isn't in the books yet and it was presented in 'The Economist', which is a globally respected periodical on political and economic issues. But it doesn't fit with your unchecked invasion of the aliens storyline, so, sure, disregard it.

You only skimmed what I posted, didn't you? I didn't question everything in that article. The part where they were "blowing smoke out their ass" was regarding their statement regarding the Border Patrol. Because, it's one that I know about personally. And that's including the fact that Border Patrol/INS was cooperating with other Federal, State, and local agencies even back when my Old Man was a county narc (when local tobacco farmers were bringing in migrant workers because local farm labor started drying up in the late 1980's). They usually dealt with reps from the Border Patrol, because the regional INS 'crats proper were sorry as hell back then.

"Obama hasn't been any better or any worse than any previous administration." -Even when presented with actual ICE numbers showing that he has been not only better at addressing and deporting illegal aliens THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT, but has been so by a very dramatic margin. But, again, it doesn't fit the fantastical "sky is falling" narrative you espouse. Darned FACTS getting in the way.

Wow, I get slammed by a leftist for ACTUALLY DEFENDING Obama! These are certainly strange times we live in, indeed!


And spare me the hyperbole, Hoss. I never said the sky is falling, so don't put words into my mouth, and learn to carefully read posts and their context. My point is that the illegal alien issue is a very serious one for our country, and one that needs to be addressed/corrected mosh skosh, and I gave the reasons why. You, on the other hand, like any other good Southern Kommiefornia leftist, prefer to whistle through the graveyard after dark.


The hard fact of the matter is that deportations have varied by Administration. More were deported during the Eisenhower and Roosevelt Administrations (with many wrongly deported under Roosevelt). And deportations started to increase again during the Clinton Administration, with the new deportation laws and guidelines in 1996, and peaked under Obama thanks to the Patriot Act. But starting in 2013, the number of actual deportations has been declining because of the "extension prioritization guidance" guidelines were extended across the board, under the Obama Administration's "prosecutorial discretion plan, which put priority on the deportation of so-called "criminal illegals". But considering the number of Mexican nationals (among others from Latin America) in the prison systems as far north as Virginia and Washington State, not very many are being deported. They are being incarcerated and putting additional unneeded strain on corrections resources. Ironically, this is the very reason why illegals in general are not being incarcerated for violations under Title 8 of the United States Code, Section 1325, ss 1-3.


The number of illegals apprehended that were actually detained and prosecuted was less than 4% of the total in the early 2000's. When I was a cop, I actually would see some of the same ones come back within a year or two, after we busted them for various offenses and turned them over to the ICE/Border Patrol, rather than prosecute them for the offenses in question. Because of that, State and local governments started throwing the book at them for crap like DUI, strong arm robbery, petty larceny, prowling, domestic violence, etc., rather than turn them over to the Feds. And for the more serious offenses, they were denied bail because they were a flight risk. It was nothing for them to haul ass back to Mexico, and come back it a new identity, since Mexico was (and still is) notoriously bad at keeping records (like birth certificates, to name an example). Even the ones that came back legally under a green card (one migrant worker that worked for my grandpops had a different SSN, out of state driver's license, and name every other year, but we knew who he was).

"The number that successfully cross the border illegally exceed the numbers overstaying visas." -Once again arguing something as fact that you admit "can only be estimated". Do you get the whole idea of presenting a position and supporting with empirical evidence and not profanity as gravitas?

I gave the hard numbers based on scientific estimates from the DHS, using the FY2015 as an example. You didn't bother to read it ,and chose to cherry pick instead. Just because you use pretty words like some pseudo-intellectual doesn't erase that little fact. Prostitutes do the same thing in a roundabout way. Doesn't necessarily make what they say or do right.

"The hard, sad fact of the matter is that the numbers don't ing lie." -No, no they don't. Now if you could attempt to present your position with more of those on your side instead of the condescension and profanity you've thrown at this as a, I guess, desperate means to support your position, then maybe there'd be something to your statements. As it is, the rant just comes off as a bit desperate.

Desperate? That's hilarious. I supported my position. I gave examples. You just chose to cherry pick and ignore most of what I wrote, which is what further makes me suspect a bait attempt.


And don't presume to lecture me on how I responded, son. If I remember correctly, what fueled my somewhat heated response was the asinine and self-righteous way you responded to me. You reap what you sow, Cap'n. Practice what you preach.

I live in a city that has the second largest population of Mexican-born immigrants outside of LA. Next.

This explains everything. And I love how you smugly and arrogantly dismiss Mitochondria. So progressive and tolerant.


Anyway, with that, I'm done with you. In the interests of not getting another warning from the Mods, I'm dropping this BS. Neither of us is going to convince the other, no matter how many facts and citations we pull out of our asses.

Glad to see you at least carried the condescension over, that certainly reinforced the maturity level of your posts. But when that's what you've got to work with, fine.

Sorry, but your hand on this matter was clearly played out in your last expletive filled post. At this point you're just trying to push a string with insults. It didn't work the first time and it isn't working now.

I was going to make an observation that whenever I see a response that disjointed and frothy that flies in the face of, and disregards, facts and history to the contrary with regards to one's position on the subject matter then there's a good chance that it's because there's a personal driver at work. But as I don't know you or what drives you...even though you've pretty much shown your cards in this exchange...I'll choose to not go there and just leave the low road with all it's vulgarity and condescension to those who feel more at home on it.

What I don't get though, is that you say you're worried about "another warning from the Mods"? Why? As rude and crude as you've been to me, with all the prejudicial, profane and dismissive ridicule you've thought appropriate to lace your posts with, I don't take nonsense like this personally. I mean we're just having a conversation here on a board dedicated to people who play with toy soldiers, it's not like anyone is doing anything extreme like posting racist videos sourced from Aryan websites or anything crazy like that, right!

It's quite fascinating to see so many scandals and "revelations" are popping up when the President-elect isn't even officially at his office. I mean, the 4 years didn't even truly start.

And yes, Whembly already started to defend all of this mess. 4 years of this non stop...it's really depressing, when you think about it.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Wasn't so much the left, as everyone assuming that when WMD's get talked about, it means nukes, as that's probably the most associated thing about WMD's.

That's not so at all.

No-one ever suggested Saddam had nuclear weapons, but we were all clear he had chemical weapons since he used them on rebel groups after Gulf War 1. Half of us also were clear that by the time of Gulf War 2 Saddam had reluctantly given up his chemical weapons under the impact of UN sanctions, etc. and that is why the UN weapon inspectors never found any solid evidence of WMDs in Iraq.

The fact that Saddam didn't have any WMDs explains why no WMDs were found in Iraq after Gulf War 2, despite months of intense searching. Of course one can assume the whole programmes and stockpiles were hidden or shipped out to somewhere. They have never surfaced anywhere in the 15 years of insurgency, guerrilla fighting and general chaos around the region since then, so you have to assume that for example the ISIL, who are capable of taking over half of Iraq and are happy to burn people alive on YouTube, and sponsor massacres all over the place, don't want to use WMDs for some reason.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
[
“America is expelling illegal immigrants at nine times the rate of 20 years ago; nearly 2m so far under Barack Obama, easily outpacing any previous president,” the Economist wrote in February 2014. “Border patrol agents no longer just patrol the border; they scour the country for illegals to eject. The deportation machine costs more than all other areas of federal criminal law-enforcement combined.”
"Critics may declare President Obama soft on immigration but according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data the Department of Homeland Security deported 414,481 people in fiscal year 2014, down from 438,421 the year before. Each year of the Obama administration has seen more deportations than any preceding president; the pre-Obama high of 358,886 removals in FY2008 came during President George W. Bush’s last full fiscal year in office."
!

Actually, no this is not quite true. Obama's numbers are better because they redefined what "deported" meant. Unlike previous Presidents Obama is counting "self deportation" (moving back to Mexico on your own), and also counts those that are turned away when caught at the boarder. If this standard had been used before Bush would have vastly outnumbered Obama.