|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I already heard about his political stance some time ago.. yeah he's quite out there to say the least
|
On July 28 2016 03:45 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 03:24 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 03:19 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 03:12 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 03:01 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:57 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 02:51 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:39 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 02:34 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:28 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
My general opinion is my specific opinion.
The latter is an issue of the DNC and how fucking bad it is at protecting its own servers. I have mentioned this in the past and the hackee matters more than the hacker.
LegalLord: Obama is not a FP president. I assess actions in terms of foolish or not foolish. LegalLord: The above clarifies whether I think Obama's reaction to Crimea was foolish or not foolish. Alrighty, so let's just answer this simply and specifically. Getting involved in Ukraine and encouraging the situation that led to the Crimean referendum was foolish and short-sighted. His response to the situation as it arose, was pretty garden variety for US FP: sanctions and posturing. He didn't start a war, which is a good benchmark for "not John Rambo McCain." He didn't do a good job of defusing the situation, but honestly I don't think that's a task that would happen within his presidency anyways, so I have little to comment about in that regard. I take it from you giving credence to the "referendum" that you think Putin's invasion wasn't that bad of a thing (after all, Obama got involved in Ukraine so we can't really blame Putin for invading). Now, Trump should let Russia have Crimea. I guess those are at least consistent positions, if surprisingly approving of Russia's ambitions w/r/t sphere of influence. I just hope you aren't adopting a Russia apologist stance to downplay the DNC hacking itself. The referendum was about as legitimate as a hastily organized event like that can be. At the very least only a clueless moron would doubt that the result was the favored result of a straight majority of the entire (voting and nonvoting) population. Anyone with at least a high school understanding of Russian history would realize that Russia was never going to give up Crimea, ever. If not for the Ukraine situation right now, Russia would have gotten it back through more diplomatic means, eventually. The US FP actors knew this and pushed forward anyways as a deliberate provocation. That sort of provocation is most consistent with the Wolfowitz Doctrine approach to foreign policy (preserve the US as the one and only superpower in the world) but it's ultimately short-sighted because no empire has ever been able to do that throughout all of human history, and it's a fool's errand to think this case will be any different. We're getting far away from the DNC hack argument here but I'm seeing a good bit of leniency from you on letting Russia have what it wants and hacking the DNC. On Russia: Call it political reality. FP is influenced strongly by what you can expect other nations to do if you try to mess with them. On the hacks: I'll give you another story that will perhaps show you why I say "the DNC fucking up matters more than Russia doing the hacking." I have a few friends who work in a nuclear power plant here in the US - an obvious target for foreign influence for perhaps extremely obvious reasons. They work specifically in cyber security, and they deal with at least 40 credible foreign every single day - most from China but plenty from all over the world. A lot of clever ones too that almost slipped through the radar. It's not that that plant is so important, it's just that they just keep pecking for weaknesses to see if they can get something. I don't blame the Chinese or anyone else for trying, it's just how the game works. Hell, they themselves once hacked into the control panel for the entire Ukrainian power grid as part of a research project. The only one who is really at fault for being constantly under siege by security threats and failing to properly address them is the hackee. Because they should know damn well that they are under siege and take proper security measures. The DNC is probably a bigger target than some nuclear power plant. Or maybe not, it's honestly hard to tell because science is about as big as politics in terms of hacker efforts. I at least am admitting the DNC corruption is a big issue. You are downplaying the release of espionage information during an election and instead shifting the focus to whether the hack should have been prevented. BTW, I'll bet attacks have gotten by your friends at the plant. Foreign espionage, it happens. It's a fact of life, and everyone does it to everyone if they can. Allies do it to each other too. Leaking it is, as I said, rare but not unheard of. Obviously some hacks get by, but they're mostly small scale - one document, maybe one project, a single email chain, one computer. Getting your email servers hacked is a fuckup that is massive in scope and I'm pretty sure they never had that happen. Getting your power grid hacked is even worse - if they were terrorists they literally could have turned off Ukraine and cost the government a few billion dollars worth of damages. Can you at least admit that releasing stolen informatioN during an election is very bad? I admit that the DNC corruption is very bad.
It's definitely a dick move, and it's also obviously politically motivated, but it's not exactly unheard of for foreign governments to be a dick to people they don't like.
My above statement is made with the presumption that it is a Russian state-sponsored leak, which has not yet been proven.
|
Climate change denier Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) is in the news again denying climate change “brainwashng” in the schools.
The senator, speaking last week on the syndicated Eric Metaxas radio show, said his granddaughter once asked him, “Popi, why is it you don’t understand global warming?”
Here’s the full quote:
"You know, our kids are being brainwashed? I never forget because I was the first one back in 2002 to tell the truth about the global warming stuff and all of that. And my own granddaughter came home one day and said “Popi — see “I” is for Inhofe, so it’s Momi and Popi, okay? — Popi, why is it you don’t understand global warming?” I did some checking and Eric, the stuff that they teach our kids nowadays, you have to un-brainwash them when they get out."
Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has long denied the existence of human-induced climate change, blaming instead divine providence for weather events.
www.washingtonpost.com
|
Chuck is a hardcore conservative, so it's not surprising. Pretty sure he endorsed Huckabee and Gingrich in previous elections.
|
On July 28 2016 04:03 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +Climate change denier Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) is in the news again denying climate change “brainwashng” in the schools.
The senator, speaking last week on the syndicated Eric Metaxas radio show, said his granddaughter once asked him, “Popi, why is it you don’t understand global warming?”
Here’s the full quote:
"You know, our kids are being brainwashed? I never forget because I was the first one back in 2002 to tell the truth about the global warming stuff and all of that. And my own granddaughter came home one day and said “Popi — see “I” is for Inhofe, so it’s Momi and Popi, okay? — Popi, why is it you don’t understand global warming?” I did some checking and Eric, the stuff that they teach our kids nowadays, you have to un-brainwash them when they get out."
Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has long denied the existence of human-induced climate change, blaming instead divine providence for weather events. www.washingtonpost.com
This is what we're referring to when we talk about the shitty wing of the GOP.
That aside. nothing new to see here, really.
|
United States43536 Posts
On July 28 2016 03:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 03:58 xDaunt wrote:On July 28 2016 03:55 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2016 03:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Actor and martial artist Chuck Norris penned his support for Donald Trump in a new op-ed, in which he also takes a few jabs at Democrat Hillary Clinton. Norris, who has starred in several movies and the popular TV show "Walker, Texas Ranger," writes for WND.com he is backing Trump for president. "This weekend, as I sat watching Dinesh D'Souza's new documentary, 'Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,' a must-see for all patriots across our country, I was thinking again about the monumental consequences of another Clinton presidency," Norris writes. "I also thought: If reluctant Republicans and other freedom-loving citizens don't rally now behind GOP nominee Donald Trump, we could elect Hillary by default, or by those who merely stay at home on Election Day." Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Chuck-Norris-Announces-Support-Trump/2016/07/25/id/740401/#ixzz4FdVGG4gW Urgent: Do You Back Trump or Hillary? Vote Here Now! I guess that settles it. Sorry Clinton supporters but Chuck Norris has spoken xD Do we think Chuck knows that Dinesh is not really an impartial source on the matter? I just finished watching Der Ewige Jude and I must say it really left me thinking about the real problems in our society. Dinesh is just as impartial as all of the media outlets parroting the "the republican convention was dark" talking point. The only difference is that Dinesh is up front with where he's coming from. No, Dinesh's credibility is comparable to that of a Nazi. Keep up with the implications!
Goebbels was, at least, good at his job. A better craftsman than D'Souza, if nothing else. Dinesh D'Souza makes propaganda pieces. xDaunt is right in that they're not even disguised propaganda pieces, they're simply a list of baseless accusations levied at a strawman to validate the beliefs of those who already believe in it and earn the derision of everyone else.
He's not impartial, nor does he try to be. He's a propaganda maker, hence the comparison to Goebbels. That's why it's funny that Chuck Norris wrote that he watched the film and was swayed by it. The amount of critical thinking one must deliberately avoid to be swayed by that kind of material is staggering.
Hell, one of D'Souza's most often repeated attacks on Obama is that Obama must be an anti-west, anti-colonialist Kenyan because he expelled a bust of Winston Churchill from the White House. I myself actually repeated that one in the past. So basically the White House always had a Churchill bust (like since WW2) outside the Treaty Room. Blair loaned Bush a second Churchill bust because Bush wanted another one for his office because he's a fan. When Obama took over Bush's office the second Churchill bust went out with the rest of the outgoing President's personal decorations. Obama still has a Churchill bust in the White House, the one that's always been there, he just didn't realize someone was going to accuse him of hating the British if he didn't insist upon keeping Bush's one when he took over. It's that kind of shit that makes D'Souza the laughing stock that he is. You might as well accuse Obama of hating Christmas because of that time all the Christmas decorations were removed from the White House (in early January). It's a nonsense story.
|
Donald Trump said that Hillary Clinton's runningmate, Tim Kaine, did an awful job as governor of New Jersey.
Unfortunately for Trump, Tim Kaine never was governor (or any elected official) of New Jersey; it turns out that Trump was talking about fellow Republican and ex-governor of New Jersey, Thomas Kean.
Well done, Trump.
He's basically just a (possibly) rich, (definitely) orange version of Sarah Palin.
|
On July 28 2016 03:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 03:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Democratic attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts are refusing to comply with House Republicans’ subpoena over their climate change investigations.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey wrote letters to House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) Tuesday saying that the subpoenas issued this month fall outside of the panel’s authority and violate their states’ rights.
In a letter to Smith, Schneiderman’s counsel Leslie Dubeck called his subpoena an “unprecedented effort to target ongoing state law enforcement” operation and said that if enforced, it would “would have the obvious consequence of interfering” when Schneiderman’s investigation into whether Exxon Mobil Corp. illegally lied about what it knew about climate change.
“The subpoena brings us one step closer to a protracted, unnecessary legal confrontation, which will only distract and detract from the work of our respective offices,” Dubeck said.
She offered to meet with Smith or his staff to discuss the committee’s requests, though she asked that representatives of the Democrats on the panel, led by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), be present as well.
Richard Johnston, chief legal counsel to Healey, wrote that she “objects to the subpoena as an unconstitutional and unwarranted interference with a legitimate ongoing state investigation,” and “a dangerous overreach by the committee and an affront to states’ rights.”
He said that Smith and his colleagues ignored Healey’s offer to discuss the issue, as well as her objections to his authority and assertions that the documents are privileged.
“This sequence of events suggest that the majority had no intention of considering the substance of Attorney General Healey’s objections.”
Wednesday is the deadline Smith gave Schneiderman, Healey and numerous environmental groups to respond to wide-ranging subpoenas about their Exxon investigations. Source roflmao, the irony of state AGs telling Congress a subpoena is outside Congress's authority when their entire investigation is an illegitimate affront to the first amendment, an attempt to use the coercive power of government to stop the expression of opinions the government does not like. because the issue is just TOO IMPORTANT. what other issues are TOO IMPORTANT to allow people and organizations to exercise free speech regarding them?
Fraud and free speech have very little to do with each other. Companies are allowed to express their opinion. And the states are allowed to investigate fraud. The federal government can come for our AG, she is doing what we pay her for.
|
Mistakes aside, "how good your running mate was at being a state governor" is really not a battle Trump should pick with Hillary and expect to win.
In fact, basically any comparison you invite between Kaine and Pence is going to make Hillary look better and Trump look worse.
|
On July 28 2016 04:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 03:45 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 03:24 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 03:19 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 03:12 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 03:01 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:57 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 02:51 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:39 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 02:34 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
LegalLord: Obama is not a FP president. I assess actions in terms of foolish or not foolish.
LegalLord: The above clarifies whether I think Obama's reaction to Crimea was foolish or not foolish.
Alrighty, so let's just answer this simply and specifically. Getting involved in Ukraine and encouraging the situation that led to the Crimean referendum was foolish and short-sighted. His response to the situation as it arose, was pretty garden variety for US FP: sanctions and posturing. He didn't start a war, which is a good benchmark for "not John Rambo McCain." He didn't do a good job of defusing the situation, but honestly I don't think that's a task that would happen within his presidency anyways, so I have little to comment about in that regard. I take it from you giving credence to the "referendum" that you think Putin's invasion wasn't that bad of a thing (after all, Obama got involved in Ukraine so we can't really blame Putin for invading). Now, Trump should let Russia have Crimea. I guess those are at least consistent positions, if surprisingly approving of Russia's ambitions w/r/t sphere of influence. I just hope you aren't adopting a Russia apologist stance to downplay the DNC hacking itself. The referendum was about as legitimate as a hastily organized event like that can be. At the very least only a clueless moron would doubt that the result was the favored result of a straight majority of the entire (voting and nonvoting) population. Anyone with at least a high school understanding of Russian history would realize that Russia was never going to give up Crimea, ever. If not for the Ukraine situation right now, Russia would have gotten it back through more diplomatic means, eventually. The US FP actors knew this and pushed forward anyways as a deliberate provocation. That sort of provocation is most consistent with the Wolfowitz Doctrine approach to foreign policy (preserve the US as the one and only superpower in the world) but it's ultimately short-sighted because no empire has ever been able to do that throughout all of human history, and it's a fool's errand to think this case will be any different. We're getting far away from the DNC hack argument here but I'm seeing a good bit of leniency from you on letting Russia have what it wants and hacking the DNC. On Russia: Call it political reality. FP is influenced strongly by what you can expect other nations to do if you try to mess with them. On the hacks: I'll give you another story that will perhaps show you why I say "the DNC fucking up matters more than Russia doing the hacking." I have a few friends who work in a nuclear power plant here in the US - an obvious target for foreign influence for perhaps extremely obvious reasons. They work specifically in cyber security, and they deal with at least 40 credible foreign every single day - most from China but plenty from all over the world. A lot of clever ones too that almost slipped through the radar. It's not that that plant is so important, it's just that they just keep pecking for weaknesses to see if they can get something. I don't blame the Chinese or anyone else for trying, it's just how the game works. Hell, they themselves once hacked into the control panel for the entire Ukrainian power grid as part of a research project. The only one who is really at fault for being constantly under siege by security threats and failing to properly address them is the hackee. Because they should know damn well that they are under siege and take proper security measures. The DNC is probably a bigger target than some nuclear power plant. Or maybe not, it's honestly hard to tell because science is about as big as politics in terms of hacker efforts. I at least am admitting the DNC corruption is a big issue. You are downplaying the release of espionage information during an election and instead shifting the focus to whether the hack should have been prevented. BTW, I'll bet attacks have gotten by your friends at the plant. Foreign espionage, it happens. It's a fact of life, and everyone does it to everyone if they can. Allies do it to each other too. Leaking it is, as I said, rare but not unheard of. Obviously some hacks get by, but they're mostly small scale - one document, maybe one project, a single email chain, one computer. Getting your email servers hacked is a fuckup that is massive in scope and I'm pretty sure they never had that happen. Getting your power grid hacked is even worse - if they were terrorists they literally could have turned off Ukraine and cost the government a few billion dollars worth of damages. Can you at least admit that releasing stolen informatioN during an election is very bad? I admit that the DNC corruption is very bad. It's definitely a dick move, and it's also obviously politically motivated, but it's not exactly unheard of for foreign governments to be a dick to people they don't like. My above statement is made with the presumption that it is a Russian state-sponsored leak, which has not yet been proven.
Whether it's unheard of is not relevant to whether it's very bad.
|
On July 28 2016 04:09 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 04:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 03:45 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 03:24 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 03:19 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 03:12 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 03:01 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:57 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 02:51 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:39 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Alrighty, so let's just answer this simply and specifically.
Getting involved in Ukraine and encouraging the situation that led to the Crimean referendum was foolish and short-sighted. His response to the situation as it arose, was pretty garden variety for US FP: sanctions and posturing. He didn't start a war, which is a good benchmark for "not John Rambo McCain." He didn't do a good job of defusing the situation, but honestly I don't think that's a task that would happen within his presidency anyways, so I have little to comment about in that regard.
I take it from you giving credence to the "referendum" that you think Putin's invasion wasn't that bad of a thing (after all, Obama got involved in Ukraine so we can't really blame Putin for invading). Now, Trump should let Russia have Crimea. I guess those are at least consistent positions, if surprisingly approving of Russia's ambitions w/r/t sphere of influence. I just hope you aren't adopting a Russia apologist stance to downplay the DNC hacking itself. The referendum was about as legitimate as a hastily organized event like that can be. At the very least only a clueless moron would doubt that the result was the favored result of a straight majority of the entire (voting and nonvoting) population. Anyone with at least a high school understanding of Russian history would realize that Russia was never going to give up Crimea, ever. If not for the Ukraine situation right now, Russia would have gotten it back through more diplomatic means, eventually. The US FP actors knew this and pushed forward anyways as a deliberate provocation. That sort of provocation is most consistent with the Wolfowitz Doctrine approach to foreign policy (preserve the US as the one and only superpower in the world) but it's ultimately short-sighted because no empire has ever been able to do that throughout all of human history, and it's a fool's errand to think this case will be any different. We're getting far away from the DNC hack argument here but I'm seeing a good bit of leniency from you on letting Russia have what it wants and hacking the DNC. On Russia: Call it political reality. FP is influenced strongly by what you can expect other nations to do if you try to mess with them. On the hacks: I'll give you another story that will perhaps show you why I say "the DNC fucking up matters more than Russia doing the hacking." I have a few friends who work in a nuclear power plant here in the US - an obvious target for foreign influence for perhaps extremely obvious reasons. They work specifically in cyber security, and they deal with at least 40 credible foreign every single day - most from China but plenty from all over the world. A lot of clever ones too that almost slipped through the radar. It's not that that plant is so important, it's just that they just keep pecking for weaknesses to see if they can get something. I don't blame the Chinese or anyone else for trying, it's just how the game works. Hell, they themselves once hacked into the control panel for the entire Ukrainian power grid as part of a research project. The only one who is really at fault for being constantly under siege by security threats and failing to properly address them is the hackee. Because they should know damn well that they are under siege and take proper security measures. The DNC is probably a bigger target than some nuclear power plant. Or maybe not, it's honestly hard to tell because science is about as big as politics in terms of hacker efforts. I at least am admitting the DNC corruption is a big issue. You are downplaying the release of espionage information during an election and instead shifting the focus to whether the hack should have been prevented. BTW, I'll bet attacks have gotten by your friends at the plant. Foreign espionage, it happens. It's a fact of life, and everyone does it to everyone if they can. Allies do it to each other too. Leaking it is, as I said, rare but not unheard of. Obviously some hacks get by, but they're mostly small scale - one document, maybe one project, a single email chain, one computer. Getting your email servers hacked is a fuckup that is massive in scope and I'm pretty sure they never had that happen. Getting your power grid hacked is even worse - if they were terrorists they literally could have turned off Ukraine and cost the government a few billion dollars worth of damages. Can you at least admit that releasing stolen informatioN during an election is very bad? I admit that the DNC corruption is very bad. It's definitely a dick move, and it's also obviously politically motivated, but it's not exactly unheard of for foreign governments to be a dick to people they don't like. My above statement is made with the presumption that it is a Russian state-sponsored leak, which has not yet been proven. Whether it's unheard of is not relevant to whether it's very bad.
In the grand scheme of things it's about the FP equivalent of showing someone the finger. Nothing more.
|
On July 28 2016 04:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 03:59 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 28 2016 03:55 KwarK wrote:On July 28 2016 03:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Actor and martial artist Chuck Norris penned his support for Donald Trump in a new op-ed, in which he also takes a few jabs at Democrat Hillary Clinton. Norris, who has starred in several movies and the popular TV show "Walker, Texas Ranger," writes for WND.com he is backing Trump for president. "This weekend, as I sat watching Dinesh D'Souza's new documentary, 'Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,' a must-see for all patriots across our country, I was thinking again about the monumental consequences of another Clinton presidency," Norris writes. "I also thought: If reluctant Republicans and other freedom-loving citizens don't rally now behind GOP nominee Donald Trump, we could elect Hillary by default, or by those who merely stay at home on Election Day." Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Chuck-Norris-Announces-Support-Trump/2016/07/25/id/740401/#ixzz4FdVGG4gW Urgent: Do You Back Trump or Hillary? Vote Here Now! I guess that settles it. Sorry Clinton supporters but Chuck Norris has spoken xD Do we think Chuck knows that Dinesh is not really an impartial source on the matter? I just finished watching Der Ewige Jude and I must say it really left me thinking about the real problems in our society. Oh I haven't seen it myself. The fact that he endorsed Huckabee in the past alone renders this endorsement largely meaningless I think. I just wanted to make hype internet chuck norris joke sorry Chuck Norris, like most celebrities, reminds us that actors are just normal dumbfucks who happen to be good at acting.
chuck norris isn't even really good at acting
|
On July 28 2016 04:10 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 04:09 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 04:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 03:45 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 03:24 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 03:19 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 03:12 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 03:01 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:57 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 02:51 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
I take it from you giving credence to the "referendum" that you think Putin's invasion wasn't that bad of a thing (after all, Obama got involved in Ukraine so we can't really blame Putin for invading). Now, Trump should let Russia have Crimea.
I guess those are at least consistent positions, if surprisingly approving of Russia's ambitions w/r/t sphere of influence. I just hope you aren't adopting a Russia apologist stance to downplay the DNC hacking itself.
The referendum was about as legitimate as a hastily organized event like that can be. At the very least only a clueless moron would doubt that the result was the favored result of a straight majority of the entire (voting and nonvoting) population. Anyone with at least a high school understanding of Russian history would realize that Russia was never going to give up Crimea, ever. If not for the Ukraine situation right now, Russia would have gotten it back through more diplomatic means, eventually. The US FP actors knew this and pushed forward anyways as a deliberate provocation. That sort of provocation is most consistent with the Wolfowitz Doctrine approach to foreign policy (preserve the US as the one and only superpower in the world) but it's ultimately short-sighted because no empire has ever been able to do that throughout all of human history, and it's a fool's errand to think this case will be any different. We're getting far away from the DNC hack argument here but I'm seeing a good bit of leniency from you on letting Russia have what it wants and hacking the DNC. On Russia: Call it political reality. FP is influenced strongly by what you can expect other nations to do if you try to mess with them. On the hacks: I'll give you another story that will perhaps show you why I say "the DNC fucking up matters more than Russia doing the hacking." I have a few friends who work in a nuclear power plant here in the US - an obvious target for foreign influence for perhaps extremely obvious reasons. They work specifically in cyber security, and they deal with at least 40 credible foreign every single day - most from China but plenty from all over the world. A lot of clever ones too that almost slipped through the radar. It's not that that plant is so important, it's just that they just keep pecking for weaknesses to see if they can get something. I don't blame the Chinese or anyone else for trying, it's just how the game works. Hell, they themselves once hacked into the control panel for the entire Ukrainian power grid as part of a research project. The only one who is really at fault for being constantly under siege by security threats and failing to properly address them is the hackee. Because they should know damn well that they are under siege and take proper security measures. The DNC is probably a bigger target than some nuclear power plant. Or maybe not, it's honestly hard to tell because science is about as big as politics in terms of hacker efforts. I at least am admitting the DNC corruption is a big issue. You are downplaying the release of espionage information during an election and instead shifting the focus to whether the hack should have been prevented. BTW, I'll bet attacks have gotten by your friends at the plant. Foreign espionage, it happens. It's a fact of life, and everyone does it to everyone if they can. Allies do it to each other too. Leaking it is, as I said, rare but not unheard of. Obviously some hacks get by, but they're mostly small scale - one document, maybe one project, a single email chain, one computer. Getting your email servers hacked is a fuckup that is massive in scope and I'm pretty sure they never had that happen. Getting your power grid hacked is even worse - if they were terrorists they literally could have turned off Ukraine and cost the government a few billion dollars worth of damages. Can you at least admit that releasing stolen informatioN during an election is very bad? I admit that the DNC corruption is very bad. It's definitely a dick move, and it's also obviously politically motivated, but it's not exactly unheard of for foreign governments to be a dick to people they don't like. My above statement is made with the presumption that it is a Russian state-sponsored leak, which has not yet been proven. Whether it's unheard of is not relevant to whether it's very bad. In the grand scheme of things it's about the FP equivalent of showing someone the finger. Nothing more.
Wow this thread is a bias shitshow and America is a bias shitshow.
Mods...just carpet bomb this place.
|
On July 28 2016 04:11 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 04:10 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 04:09 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 04:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 03:45 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 03:24 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 03:19 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 03:12 LegalLord wrote:On July 28 2016 03:01 Doodsmack wrote:On July 28 2016 02:57 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
The referendum was about as legitimate as a hastily organized event like that can be. At the very least only a clueless moron would doubt that the result was the favored result of a straight majority of the entire (voting and nonvoting) population.
Anyone with at least a high school understanding of Russian history would realize that Russia was never going to give up Crimea, ever. If not for the Ukraine situation right now, Russia would have gotten it back through more diplomatic means, eventually. The US FP actors knew this and pushed forward anyways as a deliberate provocation. That sort of provocation is most consistent with the Wolfowitz Doctrine approach to foreign policy (preserve the US as the one and only superpower in the world) but it's ultimately short-sighted because no empire has ever been able to do that throughout all of human history, and it's a fool's errand to think this case will be any different. We're getting far away from the DNC hack argument here but I'm seeing a good bit of leniency from you on letting Russia have what it wants and hacking the DNC. On Russia: Call it political reality. FP is influenced strongly by what you can expect other nations to do if you try to mess with them. On the hacks: I'll give you another story that will perhaps show you why I say "the DNC fucking up matters more than Russia doing the hacking." I have a few friends who work in a nuclear power plant here in the US - an obvious target for foreign influence for perhaps extremely obvious reasons. They work specifically in cyber security, and they deal with at least 40 credible foreign every single day - most from China but plenty from all over the world. A lot of clever ones too that almost slipped through the radar. It's not that that plant is so important, it's just that they just keep pecking for weaknesses to see if they can get something. I don't blame the Chinese or anyone else for trying, it's just how the game works. Hell, they themselves once hacked into the control panel for the entire Ukrainian power grid as part of a research project. The only one who is really at fault for being constantly under siege by security threats and failing to properly address them is the hackee. Because they should know damn well that they are under siege and take proper security measures. The DNC is probably a bigger target than some nuclear power plant. Or maybe not, it's honestly hard to tell because science is about as big as politics in terms of hacker efforts. I at least am admitting the DNC corruption is a big issue. You are downplaying the release of espionage information during an election and instead shifting the focus to whether the hack should have been prevented. BTW, I'll bet attacks have gotten by your friends at the plant. Foreign espionage, it happens. It's a fact of life, and everyone does it to everyone if they can. Allies do it to each other too. Leaking it is, as I said, rare but not unheard of. Obviously some hacks get by, but they're mostly small scale - one document, maybe one project, a single email chain, one computer. Getting your email servers hacked is a fuckup that is massive in scope and I'm pretty sure they never had that happen. Getting your power grid hacked is even worse - if they were terrorists they literally could have turned off Ukraine and cost the government a few billion dollars worth of damages. Can you at least admit that releasing stolen informatioN during an election is very bad? I admit that the DNC corruption is very bad. It's definitely a dick move, and it's also obviously politically motivated, but it's not exactly unheard of for foreign governments to be a dick to people they don't like. My above statement is made with the presumption that it is a Russian state-sponsored leak, which has not yet been proven. Whether it's unheard of is not relevant to whether it's very bad. In the grand scheme of things it's about the FP equivalent of showing someone the finger. Nothing more. Wow this thread is a bias shitshow and America is a bias shitshow.
Don't act like countries don't do this kind of shit to each other all the time. The US is probably the biggest offender in seeking to compromise candidates they don't like with politically motivated acts.
|
On July 28 2016 04:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 03:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 28 2016 03:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Democratic attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts are refusing to comply with House Republicans’ subpoena over their climate change investigations.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey wrote letters to House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) Tuesday saying that the subpoenas issued this month fall outside of the panel’s authority and violate their states’ rights.
In a letter to Smith, Schneiderman’s counsel Leslie Dubeck called his subpoena an “unprecedented effort to target ongoing state law enforcement” operation and said that if enforced, it would “would have the obvious consequence of interfering” when Schneiderman’s investigation into whether Exxon Mobil Corp. illegally lied about what it knew about climate change.
“The subpoena brings us one step closer to a protracted, unnecessary legal confrontation, which will only distract and detract from the work of our respective offices,” Dubeck said.
She offered to meet with Smith or his staff to discuss the committee’s requests, though she asked that representatives of the Democrats on the panel, led by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), be present as well.
Richard Johnston, chief legal counsel to Healey, wrote that she “objects to the subpoena as an unconstitutional and unwarranted interference with a legitimate ongoing state investigation,” and “a dangerous overreach by the committee and an affront to states’ rights.”
He said that Smith and his colleagues ignored Healey’s offer to discuss the issue, as well as her objections to his authority and assertions that the documents are privileged.
“This sequence of events suggest that the majority had no intention of considering the substance of Attorney General Healey’s objections.”
Wednesday is the deadline Smith gave Schneiderman, Healey and numerous environmental groups to respond to wide-ranging subpoenas about their Exxon investigations. Source roflmao, the irony of state AGs telling Congress a subpoena is outside Congress's authority when their entire investigation is an illegitimate affront to the first amendment, an attempt to use the coercive power of government to stop the expression of opinions the government does not like. because the issue is just TOO IMPORTANT. what other issues are TOO IMPORTANT to allow people and organizations to exercise free speech regarding them? Fraud and free speech have very little to do with each other. Companies are allowed to express their opinion. And the states are allowed to investigate fraud. The federal government can come for our AG, she is doing what we pay her for.
You pay your state AG to violate the first amendment?
I'm glad you agree that someone should come after your state AG, because your state AG should be in jail for civil rights violations.
The argument that they are investigating fraud and not trying to chill free speech is laughable. It is based on the very tenuous premise that global warming will significantly harm these companies in the future, so their "denial" of it in the past and today will harm shareholders in the future, and they know this, so they are committing fraud to line their pockets in the past and today, and thus leave their shareholders in the future with nothing.
That might be plausible but certainly not in the sense of justifying legal prosecution. You can't legally prove harm that hasn't happened just because you really, really, really, really believe it will happen.
It's astonishing that with all the controversy over global warming that has been a huge issue for 25 years, no one thought to do this before the last year if it is so cut and dried justifiable. It's political coercion by the government to chill the right to free speech and association. You better not vigorously oppose the government or you're gonna get subpoena'd out the ass and threatened with prosecution and generally harassed and obstructed by the agents of the state. They did it in Wisconsin before they got slapped down and their entire unconstitutional apparatus dismantled, they did it with the IRS and Tea Party groups (still haven't managed to find a single left-wing group that had its application for tax-free status delayed or had the IRS demand its membership and donor lists or copies of its emails), they're doing it now with these authoritarian investigations and their subpoenas.
Maybe some Republican state AGs or Trump once he wins can start some investigations into companies that advocate wealth redistribution and other socialist policies since the evidence is solid that socialism is a fraud that significantly harms human civilization everywhere it is attempted. Far more solid than the evidence that global warming will significantly harm human civilization. I'm sure you'll agree that we need to stamp out this fraud being perpetrated on shareholders by, say, Ben & Jerry's, because my opinion is now fact and yours is now fraud. Or perhaps Unilever since Unilever owns Ben & Jerry's. In fact, the rather unique ownership agreement between Unilever and Ben & Jerry's could be a way to shield Unilever from the legal consequences of Ben & Jerry's fraudulent statements and activities and that is simply unacceptable. Corporations can't shield themselves from the consequences of fraud by putting up a legal wall between themselves and their subsidiaries. Now all this is true because I said so and can point to evidence that seemingly backs up my opinion but really does not and in no way justifies my allegation that your political opinion or Ben & Jerry's political opinions are legally fraud.
Which is why the government has no business getting involved in political opinions.
|
On July 28 2016 04:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Donald Trump said that Hillary Clinton's runningmate, Tim Kaine, did an awful job as governor of New Jersey.
Unfortunately for Trump, Tim Kaine never was governor (or any elected official) of New Jersey; it turns out that Trump was talking about fellow Republican and ex-governor of New Jersey, Thomas Kean.
Well done, Trump.
He's basically just a (possibly) rich, (definitely) orange version of Sarah Palin.
If you had actually watched the press conference you would know Trump corrected himself almost immediately but I doubt that that would make a difference to you.
|
On July 28 2016 04:25 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 04:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Donald Trump said that Hillary Clinton's runningmate, Tim Kaine, did an awful job as governor of New Jersey.
Unfortunately for Trump, Tim Kaine never was governor (or any elected official) of New Jersey; it turns out that Trump was talking about fellow Republican and ex-governor of New Jersey, Thomas Kean.
Well done, Trump.
He's basically just a (possibly) rich, (definitely) orange version of Sarah Palin. If you had actually watched the press conference you would know Trump corrected himself almost immediately but I doubt that that would make a difference to you.
He indeed misspoke, but on the point of NJ he's openly criticized Chris Christie before so I don't know what the big point was supposed to be.
|
And either way, attacking Kaine isn't really a smart way for Trump to go about things regardless. Hillary has enough of her own problems worth attacking her on that it's best to stay away from things that would make people look at how shitty his own VP pick is.
|
On July 28 2016 04:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 04:07 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2016 03:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 28 2016 03:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Democratic attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts are refusing to comply with House Republicans’ subpoena over their climate change investigations.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey wrote letters to House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) Tuesday saying that the subpoenas issued this month fall outside of the panel’s authority and violate their states’ rights.
In a letter to Smith, Schneiderman’s counsel Leslie Dubeck called his subpoena an “unprecedented effort to target ongoing state law enforcement” operation and said that if enforced, it would “would have the obvious consequence of interfering” when Schneiderman’s investigation into whether Exxon Mobil Corp. illegally lied about what it knew about climate change.
“The subpoena brings us one step closer to a protracted, unnecessary legal confrontation, which will only distract and detract from the work of our respective offices,” Dubeck said.
She offered to meet with Smith or his staff to discuss the committee’s requests, though she asked that representatives of the Democrats on the panel, led by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), be present as well.
Richard Johnston, chief legal counsel to Healey, wrote that she “objects to the subpoena as an unconstitutional and unwarranted interference with a legitimate ongoing state investigation,” and “a dangerous overreach by the committee and an affront to states’ rights.”
He said that Smith and his colleagues ignored Healey’s offer to discuss the issue, as well as her objections to his authority and assertions that the documents are privileged.
“This sequence of events suggest that the majority had no intention of considering the substance of Attorney General Healey’s objections.”
Wednesday is the deadline Smith gave Schneiderman, Healey and numerous environmental groups to respond to wide-ranging subpoenas about their Exxon investigations. Source roflmao, the irony of state AGs telling Congress a subpoena is outside Congress's authority when their entire investigation is an illegitimate affront to the first amendment, an attempt to use the coercive power of government to stop the expression of opinions the government does not like. because the issue is just TOO IMPORTANT. what other issues are TOO IMPORTANT to allow people and organizations to exercise free speech regarding them? Fraud and free speech have very little to do with each other. Companies are allowed to express their opinion. And the states are allowed to investigate fraud. The federal government can come for our AG, she is doing what we pay her for. You pay your state AG to violate the first amendment? I'm glad you agree that someone should come after your state AG, because your state AG should be in jail for civil rights violations. The argument that they are investigating fraud and not trying to chill free speech is laughable. It is based on the very tenuous premise that global warming will significantly harm these companies in the future, so their "denial" of it in the past and today will harm shareholders in the future, and they know this, so they are committing fraud to line their pockets in the past and today, and thus leave their shareholders in the future with nothing. That might be plausible but certainly not in the sense of justifying legal prosecution. You can't legally prove harm that hasn't happened just because you really, really, really, really believe it will happen. It's astonishing that with all the controversy over global warming that has been a huge issue for 25 years, no one thought to do this before the last year if it is so cut and dried justifiable. It's political coercion by the government to chill the right to free speech and association. You better not vigorously oppose the government or you're gonna get subpoena'd out the ass and threatened with prosecution and generally harassed and obstructed by the agents of the state. They did it in Wisconsin before they got slapped down and their entire unconstitutional apparatus dismantled, they did it with the IRS and Tea Party groups (still haven't managed to find a single left-wing group that had its application for tax-free status delayed or had the IRS demand its membership and donor lists or copies of its emails), they're doing it now with these authoritarian investigations and their subpoenas. Maybe some Republican state AGs or Trump once he wins can start some investigations into companies that advocate wealth redistribution and other socialist policies since the evidence is solid that socialism is a fraud that significantly harms human civilization everywhere it is attempted. Far more solid than the evidence that global warming will significantly harm human civilization. I'm sure you'll agree that we need to stamp out this fraud being perpetrated on shareholders by, say, Ben & Jerry's, because my opinion is now fact and yours is now fraud. Or perhaps Unilever since Unilever owns Ben & Jerry's. In fact, the rather unique ownership agreement between Unilever and Ben & Jerry's could be a way to shield Unilever from the legal consequences of Ben & Jerry's fraudulent statements and activities and that is simply unacceptable. Corporations can't shield themselves from the consequences of fraud by putting up a legal wall between themselves and their subsidiaries. Now all this is true because I said so and can point to evidence that seemingly backs up my opinion but really does not and in no way justifies my allegation that your political opinion or Ben & Jerry's political opinions are legally fraud. Which is why the government has no business getting involved in political opinions.
Oh, you don’t believe in climate change or think its up for debate? My bad. Carry on. The government is coming for you and your ability to deny science to the extent that it will harm others.
Feels before science.
|
On July 28 2016 04:31 TheYango wrote:
And either way, attacking Kaine isn't really a smart way for Trump to go about things regardless. Hillary has enough of her own problems worth attacking her on that it's best to stay away from things that would make people look at how shitty his own VP pick is.
It was mostly a "Hillary sucks and Kaine isn't much better" attack than anything. Not super strongly going after him but it was mentioned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
