US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4514

On July 27 2016 22:15 zeo wrote:

Reading that article how is it possible that the FBI doesnt know if or who compromised Clintons email server?

On July 27 2016 22:15 Plansix wrote:

He commanded convoys from Kandahar Air Field into a bunch of places, but he was based out of that area. It was better than his Iraq assignment, which was a prison and local transport. He got shot at a lot more there.

On July 27 2016 22:18 m4ini wrote:


Nah, was around 500km (300ish miles in potato) from there. Guess not then.

On July 27 2016 22:20 Plansix wrote:

I don’t know how far he went. He isnt’ super talkative about that tour, beyond throwing pop tarts to kids and buying weird shit from hilarious afghan dudes.

On July 27 2016 22:03 m4ini wrote:


Right.. Could you tell me what she said as "excuse" to why she voted in favor? Makes the context of "bush lied" more interesting.

On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or “with any allies we can muster.” Such a course, she said, “is fraught with danger,” in part because “it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us,” legitimizing invasions that Russia might launch against Georgia, India against Pakistan, or China against Taiwan.

“So,” she continued, “the question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.”

She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.

“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

She added, “This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”

On July 27 2016 22:23 m4ini wrote:


Kabul, camp warehouse. Ask him, i personally don't recall convoys from kandahar, but i wasn't part of organisation.

On July 27 2016 22:58 Plansix wrote:
Trump will not be releasing his tax returns until after the election. Or ever. Not a great sign, especially since he self funded the run.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/289400-aide-trump-will-not-be-releasing-taxes

On July 27 2016 21:24 silynxer wrote:
Can you guys stop trying to be impressive with your cynicism? Hillary's main faults pretty much come from being involved in the political game too long. This is a big minus on a personal level, don't get me wrong, but there is so much more at stake.
We can endlessly debate which opinions Trump really has or not but it won't really matter if he gets to select the next two supreme court justices, where he has indicated to follow the standard conservative choices, just as an example. Moreover, the way he manages his campaign in particular the way he fills his positions should make you very vary of a Trump presidency just under the aspect of basic competency (and no Hillary is not as incompetent, she has already proven to be able to do politics in Washington even if her campaign is not stellar).
Someone compared Trump with rolling a dice but it will be more like rolling a dice thousands of times with the dice being slanted towards bad results (because of basic incompetency), while from time to time an unexpectedly good result can happen. Hillary is constant mediocre results with some bad and some good mixed in.

I know that I won't change any minds but the constant refrain of "Hillary being as bad as Trump" is just bonkers if you see yourself as even slightly progressive (if you don't then whatever) and the general very lazy tendency to just say "everything is bad anyway" without qualitative and quantitative nuance is a pet peeve of mine.

On July 27 2016 23:10 Plansix wrote:
Long term it could hurt him a lot. The combo of speculation about DNC hack, his son freely admitting that they received heavy Russian investment and the refusal to tell anyone how much money he really has will be point of attack forever. The speculation and theorizing will be almost as bad as whatever truth is in there.

It also blunts his ability to attack the Clinton Foundation or her speeches. Say what you will about the Clinton Foundation, we know way more about it and who gives it money than we know about Trump. And they will provide information on request, unlike Trump. The speeches are another matter, but they are just speeches.

On July 27 2016 22:58 Plansix wrote:
Trump will not be releasing his tax returns until after the election. Or ever. Not a great sign, especially since he self funded the run.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/289400-aide-trump-will-not-be-releasing-taxes

On July 27 2016 23:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Is there a way to legally "force" him to release his tax returns publicly?

On July 27 2016 23:17 Gorsameth wrote:

The speculation will be ignored by his supporters and the truth is probably worse then the speculation anyway. The guy isn't worth nearly what he says and he likely hasn't payed taxes in years.

On July 27 2016 23:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Is there a way to legally "force" him to release his tax returns publicly?

On July 27 2016 23:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Nixon I think? Ford?