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.
whembly wrote: D) if there were some smoking gun, and the intelligence/Obama admin withheld it, that's a god damned disaster imo. The people has the right to know this, and our government ought to spill the beans. If it does exist... the only reason I can think of why Obama admin would suppress it, is because it's casus belli for fething war.
Another reason for not releasing the "smoking gun" could be how that proof was acquired. Could be a mole/spy within the Russian government itself. Could be some secret government system or monitoring program. There's also something to be said for keeping the proof secret, so that Russia can't be certain about what we really know. Could be the proof was gained because we hacked Russia, and we don't want them to know we hacked them because we're just that good.
That's... a good point.
However, I'd argue that it worth burning those systems in favor of publically displaying the smoking gun prior to the elections.
Unless it's another PRISM, or something similar that would cause an even greater uproar than Russia's hacking.
"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
whembly wrote: D) if there were some smoking gun, and the intelligence/Obama admin withheld it, that's a god damned disaster imo. The people has the right to know this, and our government ought to spill the beans. If it does exist... the only reason I can think of why Obama admin would suppress it, is because it's casus belli for fething war.
Another reason for not releasing the "smoking gun" could be how that proof was acquired. Could be a mole/spy within the Russian government itself. Could be some secret government system or monitoring program. There's also something to be said for keeping the proof secret, so that Russia can't be certain about what we really know. Could be the proof was gained because we hacked Russia, and we don't want them to know we hacked them because we're just that good.
That's... a good point.
However, I'd argue that it worth burning those systems in favor of publically displaying the smoking gun prior to the elections.
Unless it's another PRISM, or something similar that would cause an even greater uproar than Russia's hacking.
I don't know about that man... a provable evidence that a foreign power tries to affect an election is serious. I mean, nations go to war for much less...
Which is scary.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/31 20:06:46
Vash108 wrote: And for SoS the man who has ties to Russian oil and US oil?
You got some skewed views on. This is nothing more then just creating his own swamp full of multi millionaires to boost his own gain.
This makes me sick.
Its whembly it is to be expected that he does stuff like this
Do you have anything to add?
Besides you being hypocritical on almost a page basis? No
Then help me out... what exactly do you think I've been hypocritical?
Well, when people had got meetings with Clinton after donating to her charity it was the worst thing ever. But now you're fine with Trump giving people control of federal departments after they funded his "charity" and political campaign.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Vash108 wrote: And for SoS the man who has ties to Russian oil and US oil?
You got some skewed views on. This is nothing more then just creating his own swamp full of multi millionaires to boost his own gain.
This makes me sick.
Its whembly it is to be expected that he does stuff like this
Do you have anything to add?
Besides you being hypocritical on almost a page basis? No
Then help me out... what exactly do you think I've been hypocritical?
Well, when people had got meetings with Clinton after donating to her charity it was the worst thing ever. But now you're fine with Trump giving people control of federal departments after they funded his "charity" and political campaign.
That is a huge one, he complained for weeks about stuff like that, and now the fact that the possible incoming SoS has large investments in a company that has huge investments in Russia and other countries is not a problem for him it is a "wait and see" or "he is taking a pay cut" when if HRC did something similar he would be screaming bloody murder
Vash108 wrote: And for SoS the man who has ties to Russian oil and US oil?
You got some skewed views on. This is nothing more then just creating his own swamp full of multi millionaires to boost his own gain.
This makes me sick.
Its whembly it is to be expected that he does stuff like this
Do you have anything to add?
Besides you being hypocritical on almost a page basis? No
Then help me out... what exactly do you think I've been hypocritical?
There's a distinction you're missing...
Well, when people had got meetings with Clinton after donating to her charity it was the worst thing ever.
So are you admitting that she did a bad thing?
Its obvious that she's using her office to enrich herself and her foundation. (for the record, the FBI is *still* investigating this... and I'm willing to bet that Trump will ask the FBI to squash it)
But now you're fine with Trump giving people control of federal departments after they funded his "charity" and political campaign.
This sucks, but that's how it has worked in every past administration! You just have to pray that the nominees are competent. 'Tis why what Harry Reid did when he nuked the filibuster for all political appointees (sans SCoTUS) was so short-sighted... as it really weakened not only the minority party, but weakened the entire 'Checks and Balances' power of the Senate.
People donates to their favored campaign (no guarantee that the candidate would win)...
Then the winning candidates "rewards" the donors with nice positions. Just look at how the ambassadorship positions are handed out.
Do you see the distinction?
If, say SoS Rex Tillerman received some benefit whereby his oil buddies (worldwide) donated to his foundation or gave preferential treatment to Exxon and then he does something for that person/group/country later in a strange manner, then YES I'll be right there with you criticising him.
Ustrello wrote: Oh look whembly is posting another debunked "news" story
Oh... look... posting an opinion without any supporting arguments.
You know why I dont whembly? Because it has been done multiple times by multiple people and yet you continue to post it as if the people that post on here drastically have changed or have forgotten that you were wrong
whembly wrote: D) if there were some smoking gun, and the intelligence/Obama admin withheld it, that's a god damned disaster imo. The people has the right to know this, and our government ought to spill the beans. If it does exist... the only reason I can think of why Obama admin would suppress it, is because it's casus belli for fething war.
Another reason for not releasing the "smoking gun" could be how that proof was acquired. Could be a mole/spy within the Russian government itself. Could be some secret government system or monitoring program. There's also something to be said for keeping the proof secret, so that Russia can't be certain about what we really know. Could be the proof was gained because we hacked Russia, and we don't want them to know we hacked them because we're just that good.
If your head of state being an agent to a foreign power isn't an acceptable time to just burn a source, nothing is. Also, that the US might be doing far worse things to Russia than revealing the Democrats as liars is not a very good reason for trusting them on such serious allegations.
There is no good reason to not reveal proof, even if there are reasons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/31 21:12:00
1) Trump and Clinton are both criminals who are using pay-to-play schemes in violation of federal laws to enrich themselves and donors to their foundation.
2) Trump and Clinton are both acting within the law.
What makes you a hypocrite is not wether or not what they are doing is criminal or not. What makes you a hypocrite is that you preach an interest in the sacredness of the law when Clinton does anything, but that righteousness is completely absent when Trump now does it.
Pick a side: either what they are both doing is against the law and the law matters, or they are both doing legal stuff and there is nothing to investigate.
Disconnect your brain from the echo chamber of blogs and twitter accounts that have been destroying it for years now, we have all watched you climb deeper down the rabbit hole for a long time. If you want to keep on playing Team Red vs Team Blue then fine, just be consistent about being upset about the actions that piss you off. And stop expecting us to dumb ourselves down and not see when you are being hypocritical.
whembly wrote: 'Tis why what Harry Reid did when he nuked the filibuster for all political appointees (sans SCoTUS) was so short-sighted... as it really weakened not only the minority party, but weakened the entire 'Checks and Balances' power of the Senate.
No, we've been over this already. What weakened the filibuster was the republicans turning its normal role of "checks and balances, for extreme situations only" into a de facto re-writing of the constitution so that everything required a 60/40 majority to pass the senate instead of the 51/49 that our founders thought was good enough. If you're going to undermine the basic functioning of government as standard policy then you can't really complain when everyone else says "well, the system is broken, we need to fix it somehow".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote: If your head of state being an agent to a foreign power isn't an acceptable time to just burn a source, nothing is.
And if there's proof that Trump is a Russian agent then yes, that proof needs to be provided. But nobody credible is accusing Trump that. In fact, nobody (IIRC) is even accusing Trump of being aware of Russian involvement in this. The accusation is that Trump is a useful idiot with policy positions that could favor Russia, so it was in their best interest to work to persuade people to vote for him. Being the more pro-Russia of the two candidates falls well short of being an agent of a foreign power, and it's much less obvious that it's necessary to provide 100% proof no matter what it costs us in future information-gathering.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/31 21:48:41
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
A foreign power intervening in your elections to install the candidate they prefer, then. Your sovereignty being denied is definitely worth losing agents to proove, as well.
A big deal is most certainly being made over this.
Rosebuddy wrote: A foreign power intervening in your elections to install the candidate they prefer, then. Your sovereignty being denied is definitely worth losing agents to proove, as well.
A big deal is most certainly being made over this.
Let's put this into perspective here. Russia didn't hack the voting system, they hacked a private organization and leaked information that was unfavorable to one of the candidates. We shouldn't just accept it, but in the bigger picture it's not really any different from foreign groups giving campaign donations, domestic lobbyists for companies with foreign ties having influence, etc. The voting system itself is untouched even if some people were influenced by a foreign power. So whether or not it's worth giving up future information-gathering options to prove the influence beyond any doubt is hardly an obvious question. Is it really important to turn "we're pretty sure it's the Russians" into "here, look at the proof it was the Russians" if it means giving up a source of information that could prove future attempts at more significant manipulation?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
It absolutely is, given that the US has a terrible track record and can't be trusted when they claim that this time Iraq/Libya/Syria is extremely bad, you just gotta trust us, honest. Especially when they're already trying to hurtle into armed conflict with a nuclear power.
Rosebuddy wrote: Especially when they're already trying to hurtle into armed conflict with a nuclear power.
They aren't.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Rosebuddy wrote: What do you think that enforcing a no-fly zone in Syria would mean?
Political embarrassment for one side as they have to back down to avoid escalating to a shooting war.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Rosebuddy wrote: It absolutely is, given that the US has a terrible track record and can't be trusted when they claim that this time Iraq/Libya/Syria is extremely bad, you just gotta trust us, honest. Especially when they're already trying to hurtle into armed conflict with a nuclear power.
Obama's and Clinton's failures on display here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/31 22:32:28
Rosebuddy wrote: It absolutely is, given that the US has a terrible track record and can't be trusted when they claim that this time Iraq/Libya/Syria is extremely bad, you just gotta trust us, honest. Especially when they're already trying to hurtle into armed conflict with a nuclear power.
Obama's and Clinton's failures on display here.
And Bush's. Let's not forget who was responsible for the intelligence debacle on Iraq.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Rosebuddy wrote: It absolutely is, given that the US has a terrible track record and can't be trusted when they claim that this time Iraq/Libya/Syria is extremely bad, you just gotta trust us, honest. Especially when they're already trying to hurtle into armed conflict with a nuclear power.
Obama's and Clinton's failures on display here.
And Bush's. Let's not forget who was responsible for the intelligence debacle on Iraq.
1) Trump and Clinton are both criminals who are using pay-to-play schemes in violation of federal laws to enrich themselves and donors to their foundation.
2) Trump and Clinton are both acting within the law.
What makes you a hypocrite is not wether or not what they are doing is criminal or not. What makes you a hypocrite is that you preach an interest in the sacredness of the law when Clinton does anything, but that righteousness is completely absent when Trump now does it.
Pick a side: either what they are both doing is against the law and the law matters, or they are both doing legal stuff and there is nothing to investigate.
Disconnect your brain from the echo chamber of blogs and twitter accounts that have been destroying it for years now, we have all watched you climb deeper down the rabbit hole for a long time. If you want to keep on playing Team Red vs Team Blue then fine, just be consistent about being upset about the actions that piss you off. And stop expecting us to dumb ourselves down and not see when you are being hypocritical.
Please show me where Clinton's actions as SoS are comparable to Trump's action as President.
There are more than ample enough evidence that the Clintons used their Foundation as a means to facilitate backdoor access to the Department of State.
So far, you are projecting.
We don't know what Trump is going to do.
We don't now what Rex Tillerman is going to do.
So... No... there's nothing hypocritical here because there's no comparison (yet, as Trump isn't President yet). Once the Trump administration gets the keys to the executive branch, of course we should be on lookout for these kinds of things.
But.. hey... if it makes you feel better, rant away. :shrug:
whembly wrote: 'Tis why what Harry Reid did when he nuked the filibuster for all political appointees (sans SCoTUS) was so short-sighted... as it really weakened not only the minority party, but weakened the entire 'Checks and Balances' power of the Senate.
No, we've been over this already. What weakened the filibuster was the republicans turning its normal role of "checks and balances, for extreme situations only" into a de facto re-writing of the constitution so that everything required a 60/40 majority to pass the senate instead of the 51/49 that our founders thought was good enough. If you're going to undermine the basic functioning of government as standard policy then you can't really complain when everyone else says "well, the system is broken, we need to fix it somehow".
No. The Constituion gave the Senate leeway in how they should conduct their business.
I'd argue that the system wasn't 'broken'. Sure, gak didn't get done to the level of what the majority party wanted, but the intent of the 60 votes needed to allow bills/nominations on the floor was to protect the minority party AND force the group to be more 'deliberative'.
Can you at least acknowledge that Reid's invoking the nuclear option weakened the minority party?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/31 23:25:06
Sure we do. And this is exactly what we're talking about: Clinton hasn't been president, but you have no problem using her past actions (whether or not there is even proof of them) to predict what she would do as president. But when it comes to the guy on Your Team suddenly we have to forget his entire history, because he hasn't actually been president yet and maybe everything will change after inauguration day. This is a blatant double standard.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
To be honest, under Clinton, I think we had more possibility of military engagements than under Trump, if her past voting record and actions are any guide.
