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.

I'm still wondering where this "Socialist" gak hole was the whole time Hillary was campaigning...about the only remotely "socialist" candidate was Sanders, and a relatively mild one at that by any definition of the term except that which is hurled around as an insult for its own sake.

And more to the point, why the term "socialist" is such a dirty word, particularly from people who make their living in collectively socialized sectors of the economy...

 Vaktathi wrote:


So...does anyone else recall an administration that has been this much of a train wreck in the first...almost month?

Obama in 2009?

South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle for HHS withdrew over ethical scandal, conflicts of interest, and tax avoidance?

NM Governor Bill Richardson had withdrawn as Commerce Secretary due to his records of corruption and incompetence?

Charles Freeman, in March 2009 withdrew for National Intelligence Council chairman slot over multitude conflicts of interests?

By the end of his first 100 days, Obama had set a turnover record for an incoming cabinet with four major withdrawals.

Admittedly... Trumpo may be breaking that... Pudzer withdrew and Flynn resigned. So... Trump has time.

 Pouncey wrote:
Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.

Thankyou for the latter clarification. Your answer here did sound dismissive, but you took the time to explain your meaning, and kudos for that.

You did say in that later post that you didn't want to discuss this, and to be honest I'm not too inclined either. And as it turned out you ended up discussing it in depth with some other posters, who said everything that I would have said to counter your argument.

So yeah... I don't agree with what you're saying, but I do give you credit for taking a step back and explaining your post clearly and avoiding what might have been a nasty escalation.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


So...does anyone else recall an administration that has been this much of a train wreck in the first...almost month?

Obama in 2009?

South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle for HHS withdrew over ethical scandal, conflicts of interest, and tax avoidance?

NM Governor Bill Richardson had withdrawn as Commerce Secretary due to his records of corruption and incompetence?

Charles Freeman, in March 2009 withdrew for National Intelligence Council chairman slot over multitude conflicts of interests?

By the end of his first 100 days, Obama had set a turnover record for an incoming cabinet with four major withdrawals.

Admittedly... Trumpo may be breaking that... Pudzer withdrew and Flynn resigned. So... Trump has time.

Those are all fair, but he also wasn't anywhere near the public relations low in other areas (or in any area really, that wasn't until 2013/2014) or awkward foreign policy and relations...issues.

So... I finally watched Trumpo's press conference.

Ballsy of him to come out and do a press conference...

Trump is sitll in "campaign mode"...

DC pundit: Wow!
DC reporters: This is baaaaaad!
Trump's supporters: This is awesome!
Trump's detractors: WTF?!?
Everyone else: Dude... I'm at work.

 d-usa wrote:
There are too many people making money off our military for me to believe that we are ever going to pull back on our NATO support. Decreasing our support of NATO would be political suicide for politicians.

They’re not talking about reducing US military spending. They’re talking about walking back from commitments with NATO. It’s a shift entirely in terms alliances and commitments, not spending.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
So... how does increasing NATO military spending help the world be safer from a country which can't go to war with NATO or vice-versa without starting a global nuclear war in the process?

NATO isn't just about Russia. When the US was attacked on 9/11, the operative to clear AQ out of Afghanistan was a NATO operation, The US triggered the defense clause and the NATO member nations agreed in mutual defense.

The issue is that many contributions where severely limited by nations' force projection capabilities. "Yes America, we'll help you but can you give our troops a lift and deliver all their supplies because our transport and logistics can't get us North of Warsaw?" is kind of embarrassing.

It's about the rest of NATO building capabilities that aren't dependent on the US. Europe saw the need for serious action in the Balkans, but had to wait for the US to commit because Europe couldn't launch an operation on their own doorstep. Libya was performed primarily by the European NATO members, but they had to wait for the US do the high level preparatory strikes before they could begin their own no-fly operations.

The new world has call for a lot of operations around the globe, and it's a reality that political dysfunction in the US means they can't always be relied on. Which makes it very dangerous that they are the only nation capable of taking a lead for anything above minor, Mali style operations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Well, not really a win as now you are paying slightly less but also have basically zero force projection.

So there would be no point in filling the bases in the US as you will never need those things in the US.

Yep. People don't realize, but outside of South Korea the US bases aren't really there for localised defence*. They're there for US force projection. Ramstein air base might have originally been there to support the defence of Europe against Russia, but now it is entirely about facilitating US operations in the mid-east.






*And even the base in South Korea isn't there to give meaningful local defence, but as a trip wire wherein any attack by NK on SK will kill US soldiers, which means the US is guaranteed to commit fully to SK.

I don't see how we're going to pull off 10 billions out of our collective canuck asses. I even less see why would we do that. Doubling our military spending would still leave us barely capable of making any imprints in any hypothetical Russia-US war. And the USA would absolutely never allow russians to get a foothold on the NA continent, so them empty threats are pretty empty, as far as we go.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I don't see how we're going to pull off 10 billions out of our collective canuck asses. I even less see why would we do that. Doubling our military spending would still leave us barely capable of making any imprints in any hypothetical Russia-US war. And the USA would absolutely never allow russians to get a foothold on the NA continent, so them empty threats are pretty empty, as far as we go.

So... when Mattis speaks, you'd best listen:




Seriously... if ya'll can't afford it, I'm sure we can take some of ya'lls Maple Syrup!

SemperMortis wrote:
Europe NEEDS American military might. But on the flip side of that, we don't NEED our troops stationed overseas. We still have force projection, just not at nearly the same level. At the end of the day the WORLD has a grand total of 40 Aircraft carriers of various types on active service. 19 of those are US, the world has 2 aircraft carriers in reserve, 1 is US, and finally the world has a grand total of 11 carriers under construction with 27 more planned, 3 under construction are US and 16 planned are US. Adding to that, the US has the worlds BIGGEST fleet so we still have force projection.

You can't run a land operation of carrier supply. Just try and imagine the logistics of that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
When the containment strategy is outmanoeuvred or otherwise fails, new plans have to be devised. Eventually they will be more drastic than the previous set. Do you think that Russia wouldn't do anything in response to expanded and increased sanctions? You want to pressure them but can't imagine that they would do something other than cave in and you get indignant at the suggestion that things might not go 100% the way you want them to. What should the US do if the sanctions fail to achieve the desired result? What will be the consequences of the sanctions and how is Russia handling those? What does the Russian leadership think?

I like how you just assert that containment will be subverted, just as a statement of fact. You attempt no explanation of how Russia might somehow make trading bans and asset freezes just stop existing. You give no example of a country that bypassed multi-national trading bans. I mean seriously, Iran got hit with sanctions, and their response was to suck and go backwards until they finally came back to the bargaining table. Iraq floundered for decades under trade bans, and just sat there with a sinking economy until Bush decided to invade.

You ignore the actual history of countries with sanctions being unable to bypass them in any material ways, and instead just claim it will happen.

 whembly wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I don't see how we're going to pull off 10 billions out of our collective canuck asses. I even less see why would we do that. Doubling our military spending would still leave us barely capable of making any imprints in any hypothetical Russia-US war. And the USA would absolutely never allow russians to get a foothold on the NA continent, so them empty threats are pretty empty, as far as we go.

So... when Mattis speaks, you'd best listen:

Seriously... if ya'll can't afford it, I'm sure we can take some of ya'lls Maple Syrup!

I respect Gen. Mattis, but we're already bumping the military budget 1.1 billion each year for the next three years. Your government has known that since 2015.
Even with this, we will still be left absolutely unprepared to deploy our military forces without the help of the US.

We're generally willing to help you in some fashion because our military strategy are mostly integrated. That means we either hitch a ride, or end up spending disproportionate amounts of our budget on enabling the transportation of what... 8000 men and women?

 whembly wrote:
Look up what TS-SAP means. Since you're reflectively handwaving my responses, at least try to be cognizant the magnitude of having that on an unprotected, unauthorized server.

I'm not handwaving it, we have simply been over it dozens of times. I think it was a serious issue that should warranted FBI investigation, and I then accept the findings of that FBI investigation as being fair and complete. I do not think it materially impacts on the possibility of someone's suitability to the role of President. Whereas you have elevated the act to the level of the world's greatest sin, the act that brought forth the fifth Chaos Daemon, Wikileakia, Destroyer of Secrets, and signalled the end of great human empire.

By my point of view, what Clinton did is nothing like as serious as colluding with a foreign power, because holy gak of course it isn't arguing otherwise is absolutely, completely ridiculous on every possible level. But given you believe Clinton receiving highly confidential emails on a private server has doomed humanity to wander the stars a shadow of their former selves, I guess our opinions are just gonna have to differ.

James Comey was required by law to report the 're-opening' to Congress... he had no choice.

Nope. First of all, he told them before they'd even secured a warrant to review those emails, there was no reason to inform them before the warrant was received. Second up, there's discretion on timing, and every reason to delay telling them until after the election, to prevent it being leaked to the public and impact the election. Lastly, if he had any interest in preventing a leak, he could have informed them verbally, instead it was presented in a formal memo - the latter making the leak immediately substianted and thereby newsworthy. He also left all context out of that memo, such as the matter being entirely based on opportunity, with no reason to suspect they were likely to find any new emails, and even less reason to believe there may be anything of value in those emails.

With every choice, every bit of discretion, he chose to ensure the re-opening was made as big a story as possible. Why he did that is a good question, with the most likely answer being that he caved to political pressure from Republicans both within and outside the FBI.

Before you respond to that, remember that the FBI was also investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. When asked about this, Coney denied such an investigation was taking place. Which was the right course of action, because it would have cast aspersions on the the Trump campaign without them being able to properly defend themselves. And yet with Clinton this standard was totally ignored, finally ending in that ridiculous memo send 11 days before the election. The difference in treatment is impossible to deny.

That was Obama in 2012:

And then Crimea happened in 2014. When circumstances change, policies change.

Now, that said, I thought the reset button was a mistake, because there are times to look to bring countries back in to the fold, and times when you have to recognise that a kleptocracy which murders its own people, and had already invaded Georgia should continue to be kept at arm's length. But Obama wanted New START, and got it, and that didn't hurt his later attempts to get international sanctions in the wake of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, so I guess he got away with it. But the reset button was still a bad idea.

Agreed... just wished Obama had the cajones to do something about it. (and no, sanctions isn't enough).

What else do you want? Military action against a nuclear power?

 sebster wrote:


What else do you want? Military action against a nuclear power?

He wants his prize money for winning the game.

 sebster wrote:


By my point of view, what Clinton did is nothing like as serious as colluding with a foreign power, because holy gak of course it isn't arguing otherwise is absolutely, completely ridiculous on every possible level. But given you believe Clinton receiving highly confidential emails on a private server has doomed humanity to wander the stars a shadow of their former selves, I guess our opinions are just gonna have to differ.

It's doubly amusing when W's secretaries of state did the same thing and disappeared 22 million emails, on a system members of the new administration use as well, and not a word is heard about that...no talk of these people having committed treason, no talk of these people going to jail, not even the merest whimper of a request for an investigation.

 whembly wrote:
It's wrecking havoc, yes... but, it's the joe schmoes feeling the impact moreso than the RU leadership.

You should read about the sanctions. They're quite cleverly designed. They actually started with massive asset freezes, which were possible because the thieves running Russia had smuggled most of their money in to offshore accounts, which they are now unable to access until they come to terms with the rest of the world. Then there was the targeting of sanctions. In a country like Iraq the sanctions were across the board and mostly aimed at bulk goods because they're the most practical to block, which meant bulk food goods and simple manufactured products were cut from import and export, which hurt the poor and did little to the rich. In contrast, these sanctions are aimed not just at higher end goods, but at specific companies and the people who own them. The major public assets that Putin and his friends 'bought' from the government for basement level prices in the 90s and 00s have been hit with specific quarantines.

There's a reason that Trump just happened to have his foreign policy advisor during the campaign with very close links to Gazprom, and then nominated a Sec. of State with even closer links to Gazprom...

Maybe because Clinton is continually fething things up?

Maybe there's more faith in the likes of Mattis?

Mattis is Sec of Defence. Clinton was Sec of State. So the comparison is to Rex Tillerson. I don't think Clinton was great as Sec. of State, but the only reason to conclude Tillerson is likely to be better is because of Republican coloured glasses. Or possibly because you own a major stake in Gazprom, I guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Furthermore, this is a weird line attack on Trump voters as TRUMP himself has advocated to 'taking out ISIS'. So... it isn't a "new idea"...

Yeah, but that's because Trump advocated everything. He simultaneously wanted to avoid the US getting stuck in any wars, and annihilating ISIS. I think he believes that if you're just manly and aggressive enough, then planes in the air can completely destroy enemies on the ground. I think he just plain doesn't understand that you need troops on the ground.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
I voted against Clinton because she's a socialist

Seriously, words have fething meanings. While it is perfectly possible to play make believe with politics, don't think it does any good for anyone or anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Obama in 2009?

By this stage in 2009 Obama had already passed his stimulus bill, laid out a set of principles for healthcare reform, and released his legislative agenda.

Never mind that Trump hasn't put forward any policy. He hasn't even given an indication of what general shape his policies might hold. About the only policy thing we've seen announced is that he promise to replace ACA on day one has been abandoned, now for it to be replaced by some unknown thing maybe 1 to 2 years from now.

And once again, this isn't just a Trump thing. If there was any kind of coherent platform agreed to among the GOP congress they would have been able to offer it up Trump, who would happily take it and so give his administration some direction and therefore distance from its scandals. But 8 years of basic policy dishonesty among Republicans have meant their cupboard is utterly bare. All they did for 8 years was invent hyperbolic and imaginary things to be angry at Obama about, and now they've won government and they're facing the reality that 'Benghazi, emails, replace and repeal' is no way to run a country. You need actual fething policies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I don't see how we're going to pull off 10 billions out of our collective canuck asses. I even less see why would we do that. Doubling our military spending would still leave us barely capable of making any imprints in any hypothetical Russia-US war. And the USA would absolutely never allow russians to get a foothold on the NA continent, so them empty threats are pretty empty, as far as we go.

Again, NATO isn't just about Russia. It hasn't been for decades now.

Second up, we had a pretty big learning experience about what happens when liberal democracies go it alone against tyrants. Sooner or later you will end up fighting, better to do it before they've conquered half your mates.

Finally, doubt about what Canada can do to help is exactly why that 2% figure is such a terrible standard. What you spend is meaningless, what you can do to support a combined operation is very meaningful. Canada committing to have certain levels of force projection without aid, and other levels of force projection with aid, and certain levels of transport capability would be a meaningful contribution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
He wants his prize money for winning the game.

Like a dog that just caught the car and has no idea what to do next.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's doubly amusing when W's secretaries of state did the same thing and disappeared 22 million emails, on a system members of the new administration use as well, and not a word is heard about that...no talk of these people having committed treason, no talk of these people going to jail, not even the merest whimper of a request for an investigation.

Yep, and then you consider Petraeus is once again back in line for a cabinet posting in the Trump administration. Clinton failed to properly secure her emails, Petraeus gave access to his mistress. The hypocrisy is astounding, especially on the 22 million Bush admin emails, which just happened to include all the emails in the weeks before the Iraq war was committed to.

 Pouncey wrote:


The earliest orbital photographs from space show Earth as blue-green.

If you look at the photographs of those same green areas from orbit now. They're not green anymore. They're tan.

Like this?

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-blue-marble-photos-show-a-changing-earth.t6616/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
If the US is planning to isolate themselves even more and leave the world to its own devices, it will absolutely make more sense to spend way the hell more money than they are now on their militaries, since they can't rely on the US for anything.

Not that anybody could really rely on US anyway. They help if they feel it's in their best interest or not and no current treaty ensures support anyway. And frankly if US wants to oppose the enemy they will send troops in with or without treaty anyway.

Sneaky scam to get more troops from other countries without actually agreeing to send own troops anywhere unless they deem it's good for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Remember when people were voting against Clinton because she would get us involved in a land war in Syria? Now we are celebrated anticipated military ribbons and badges.

Well when we got biggest warhawk candinate into presidency...Who's surprised?

I just a bit of Trump's press conference. Surreal. Amazing that his vanity demanded that he once again trotted out that line about winning more electoral votes than anyone since Reagan. At the end a reporter pointed out both Obama and GHW Bush got more electoral college votes. Trump replied "I've seen that information around."

Holy fething gak. We are actually dealing with a president who simply ignores basic maths. Trump won 304 EV. That number is smaller than Obama's 332 and 365 EV. It is smaller than Clinton's 379 and 370. It is smaller than GHW Bush's 426. The person Trump has beaten since Reagan was GW Bush. He actually cannot stick to reality on as simple an issue as one number being smaller than some other numbers.

And Trump has repeated that claim a lot, and been corrected every time. And here he was directly contradicted on it, and all he can muster was "I've seen that information around."

I said a lot of times during the campaign that Trump didn't so much lie as just not care what the truth was. He doesn't speak that nonsense to trick people, he says it because he's already fooled himself and now expects you to come along with him. I think maybe I didn't make enough of an issue of that during the campaign, though in my defence there were so many other issues with Trump that demanded attention. But I now realise that this issue, more than his policy ignorance, vanity, collection of sleazy associates, laziness or bullying, may be more disturbing than any of the others. Because it's the one that is going to get worse and worse as the pressures of the Whitehouse grow, and he becomes tempted to isolate himself more and more with a fantasy world where he is in control of what is going on.

And I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about it. I mean, present him with basic maths that what he is saying is fantasy, and he replies "I've seen that information around."

 sebster wrote:
I like how you just assert that containment will be subverted, just as a statement of fact. You attempt no explanation of how Russia might somehow make trading bans and asset freezes just stop existing. You give no example of a country that bypassed multi-national trading bans. I mean seriously, Iran got hit with sanctions, and their response was to suck and go backwards until they finally came back to the bargaining table. Iraq floundered for decades under trade bans, and just sat there with a sinking economy until Bush decided to invade.

You ignore the actual history of countries with sanctions being unable to bypass them in any material ways, and instead just claim it will happen.

Iran and Iraq are also much smaller than Russia and was hit when the US and the West in general wasn't in as much turmoil as it is now. NATO and the EU aren't looking as rock solid as they used to.

It's not just Trump. A lot of his close staffers like his press secretary have the same attitude. One of his press guys had a big fight with the BBC's News Night anchor because of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39000118

The role of the press in a liberal democracy is to hold Authority to account and call out their lies. As long as Trump keeps lying he will have a rocky relationship with the press.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's not just Trump. A lot of his close staffers like his press secretary have the same attitude. One of his press guys had a big fight with the BBC's News Night anchor because of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39000118

The role of the press in a liberal democracy is to hold Authority to account and call out their lies. As long as Trump keeps lying he will have a rocky relationship with the press.

The role of the press in a liberal democracy is whatever task its owners set it to.

And the owners traditionally have set the press to questioning authority. The press is questioning Trump's authority, that is why he is so upset.

Did anyone see Alex Jones on the BBC's sunday politics show?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22832994

The clip is an old one. I expect a lot of people have like me seen it on YouTube since broadcast.

He seems a complete loony.

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/local/indiana/Banks--1st-bill-would-inspect-social-media-postings-of-visa-applicants

The first bill introduced by freshman Rep. Jim Banks, R-3rd, would require the Department of Homeland Security to review the social media activity of all foreign citizens seeking visas to enter the United States.

Banks announced Thursday he is introducing the Visa Investigation and Social Media Act of 2017, or VISA Act, in an attempt the strengthen the vetting process for immigration and travel visa applicants.

Homeland Security officials would be required to review all "publicly available social media activity" by visa applicants, such as Twitter messages, Facebook posts and photos, and YouTube videos, Banks said in a statement.

“We must have confidence that those entering our country do not intend us harm," Banks said. "Directing Homeland Security to review visa applicants’ social media before granting them access to our country is common sense. Employers vet job candidates this way, and I think it’s time we do the same for visa applicants.”

Other provisions of his bill would require Homeland Security to interview every visa applicant who is 11 years old or older, conduct a fraud-prevention check of each applicant’s documentation and require that applicants provide an English translation of their documents.

The legislation deploy a Homeland Security employee to all visa-issuing embassies and consulates and direct the U.S. Government Accountability Office to review and report to Congress on the visa process 18 months after its enactment, Banks said.

That seems entirely practical.



if you want to get in on the lucrative paid protest market then good news !




they've also released the new Apostles' Creed for the faithful to follow

https://action.donaldjtrump.com/mainstream-media-accountability-survey/

which is...well....


is it your whole nations water supply that's been affected ?

"Do you believe that if Republicans were obstructing Obama like Democrats are doing to President Trump, the mainstream media would attack Republicans?"


who could imagine that happening ?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The clip is an old one. I expect a lot of people have like me seen it on YouTube since broadcast.

He seems a complete loony.

He is a complete loony.

 sebster wrote:
I just a bit of Trump's press conference. Surreal. Amazing that his vanity demanded that he once again trotted out that line about winning more electoral votes than anyone since Reagan. At the end a reporter pointed out both Obama and GHW Bush got more electoral college votes. Trump replied "I've seen that information around."

Holy fething gak. We are actually dealing with a president who simply ignores basic maths. Trump won 304 EV. That number is smaller than Obama's 332 and 365 EV. It is smaller than Clinton's 379 and 370. It is smaller than GHW Bush's 426. The person Trump has beaten since Reagan was GW Bush. He actually cannot stick to reality on as simple an issue as one number being smaller than some other numbers.

And Trump has repeated that claim a lot, and been corrected every time. And here he was directly contradicted on it, and all he can muster was "I've seen that information around."

I said a lot of times during the campaign that Trump didn't so much lie as just not care what the truth was. He doesn't speak that nonsense to trick people, he says it because he's already fooled himself and now expects you to come along with him. I think maybe I didn't make enough of an issue of that during the campaign, though in my defence there were so many other issues with Trump that demanded attention. But I now realise that this issue, more than his policy ignorance, vanity, collection of sleazy associates, laziness or bullying, may be more disturbing than any of the others. Because it's the one that is going to get worse and worse as the pressures of the Whitehouse grow, and he becomes tempted to isolate himself more and more with a fantasy world where he is in control of what is going on.

And I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about it. I mean, present him with basic maths that what he is saying is fantasy, and he replies "I've seen that information around."

The clip of the conference I watched, where he was called on it, was even worse...

He kept saying, "well *shrugs* look, I was just given this information, so yah know... this is what I was given" There may have even been a "ehh, who really knows" sort of line in there somewhere. This is a cabinet that is quite fething delusional. We need an entire do-over. New primaries, new general, everything.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Look up what TS-SAP means. Since you're reflectively handwaving my responses, at least try to be cognizant the magnitude of having that on an unprotected, unauthorized server.

I'm not handwaving it, we have simply been over it dozens of times. I think it was a serious issue that should warranted FBI investigation, and I then accept the findings of that FBI investigation as being fair and complete. I do not think it materially impacts on the possibility of someone's suitability to the role of President. Whereas you have elevated the act to the level of the world's greatest sin, the act that brought forth the fifth Chaos Daemon, Wikileakia, Destroyer of Secrets, and signalled the end of great human empire.

By my point of view, what Clinton did is nothing like as serious as colluding with a foreign power, because holy gak of course it isn't arguing otherwise is absolutely, completely ridiculous on every possible level. But given you believe Clinton receiving highly confidential emails on a private server has doomed humanity to wander the stars a shadow of their former selves, I guess our opinions are just gonna have to differ.

The simple matter is if it were anyone else... that person/persons would be in the slammer, regardless of intent. No IF.AND.BUT. about it.

It's a 100% disqualifier for me.

My ex's family member (who I still talk to) works for NGA (National Geospatial Agency)... ya'know, where all spy satellites get analyzed. He's a Bernie-bro... and voted for Trump because of Hillary's TS transgression. He'd take incompetent (Trump) over someone who knowingly gets away with breaking TS handling laws.

James Comey was required by law to report the 're-opening' to Congress... he had no choice.

Nope. First of all, he told them before they'd even secured a warrant to review those emails, there was no reason to inform them before the warrant was received. Second up, there's discretion on timing, and every reason to delay telling them until after the election, to prevent it being leaked to the public and impact the election. Lastly, if he had any interest in preventing a leak, he could have informed them verbally, instead it was presented in a formal memo - the latter making the leak immediately substianted and thereby newsworthy. He also left all context out of that memo, such as the matter being entirely based on opportunity, with no reason to suspect they were likely to find any new emails, and even less reason to believe there may be anything of value in those emails.

With every choice, every bit of discretion, he chose to ensure the re-opening was made as big a story as possible. Why he did that is a good question, with the most likely answer being that he caved to political pressure from Republicans both within and outside the FBI.

Before you respond to that, remember that the FBI was also investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. When asked about this, Coney denied such an investigation was taking place. Which was the right course of action, because it would have cast aspersions on the the Trump campaign without them being able to properly defend themselves. And yet with Clinton this standard was totally ignored, finally ending in that ridiculous memo send 11 days before the election. The difference in treatment is impossible to deny.

So Hillary's emails are worse than potential treason?

Man the mental gymnastics.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Look up what TS-SAP means. Since you're reflectively handwaving my responses, at least try to be cognizant the magnitude of having that on an unprotected, unauthorized server.

I'm not handwaving it, we have simply been over it dozens of times. I think it was a serious issue that should warranted FBI investigation, and I then accept the findings of that FBI investigation as being fair and complete. I do not think it materially impacts on the possibility of someone's suitability to the role of President. Whereas you have elevated the act to the level of the world's greatest sin, the act that brought forth the fifth Chaos Daemon, Wikileakia, Destroyer of Secrets, and signalled the end of great human empire.

By my point of view, what Clinton did is nothing like as serious as colluding with a foreign power, because holy gak of course it isn't arguing otherwise is absolutely, completely ridiculous on every possible level. But given you believe Clinton receiving highly confidential emails on a private server has doomed humanity to wander the stars a shadow of their former selves, I guess our opinions are just gonna have to differ.

The simple matter is if it were anyone else... that person/persons would be in the slammer, regardless of intent. No IF.AND.BUT. about it.

It's a 100% disqualifier for me.

My ex's family member (who I still talk to) works for NGA (National Geospatial Agency)... ya'know, where all spy satellites get analyzed. He's a Bernie-bro... and voted for Trump because of Hillary's TS transgression. He'd take incompetent (Trump) over someone who knowingly gets away with breaking TS handling laws.

I would have suggested that there were other alternative candidates and options, and that voting for the fascist business oligarch-loon over the scummy political oligarch from the other side, when other alternatives are available, over a subject that seemingly *every* secretary of state and administration since the inventional of email is apparently guilty of (and nobody seems to care squat all about in those cases), betrays other inherent alternative biases and reasons, with the TS handling being an excuse rather than a fundamental deal breaker.

Particularly when the chosen candidate has been in almost open conflict with the intelligence community and been lying through their teeth in demonstrably provable ways on even the most trivial of subjects and is apparently highly prone to irrational ranting behavior.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So Hillary's emails are worse than potential treason?

How on earth could that be construed as 'Treason'?

Man the mental gymnastics.

It's pretty straight forward.

 whembly wrote:

There's a whole lotta steps between sanctions and outright war.

So, what would you have done instead?