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.
On November 18 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote: Where does this moralizing in war come from regarding torture? It should be an option in some circumstances, people are Blowing each other up for unjustified reasons to begin with and suddenly if it involves water boarding or some other form of intel gathering they have commited a huge sin. That's great that we have ethical boundaries in an unethical game, cute really.
the geneva conventions and the history of mankind? if you think ethical boundaries are bad then you should study the long-term effects of things more.
did you actually need an explanation of the history of it, or are you just using that form of speech to state your opinion?
Just stating my opinion. If you are morally against waterboarding because of ethical concerns, how can you then say it is morally acceptable to go to war and kill people in the first place. Seems a bit hypocritical and silly to me.
I notice you're assuming it is very useful for intelligence agencies. From everything I've read it is far to unreliable to be useful. Why hedge any moral authority we have left for unreliable information?
On November 18 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote: Where does this moralizing in war come from regarding torture? It should be an option in some circumstances, people are Blowing each other up for unjustified reasons to begin with and suddenly if it involves water boarding or some other form of intel gathering they have commited a huge sin. That's great that we have ethical boundaries in an unethical game, cute really.
Basic human rights. Google Geneva Conventions. A question like that is disturbing to be quite frank.
The disturbing aspect is when people like you try to color it entirely one way or another. The rules of war aren't being followed by terrorists disguising themselves among a civilian population and committing acts of war against a civilian population. In centuries past, uniformed fighters for either side were captured and treated as prisoners of war at the same time as spies caught wearing their enemy's uniform were summarily shot or hanged. The last batch of polls I saw agreed that harsh interrogation techniques should be used against terrorists and they're believed to be effective (This was back in the days of the senate investigations on the use of torture and the CIA defense). It should be debated still with respect to what methods are used and on what suspects. The pithy high moral ground argument is absolutely craven. But, hey, if we're going to moral grandstanding, let's also include Cheney's definition: "[it's] an American citizen on a cell phone making a last call to his four young daughters shortly before he burns to death in the upper levels of the Trade Center in New York City on 9/11. There's this notion that somehow there's moral equivalence between what the terrorists and what we do."
In other news, I'm all for Democrats putting radical Keith Ellison in as DNC chair.
Despite the furor over Trump aide Steve Bannon’s alleged anti-Semitism, there’s been virtually no media attention paid to the man likely to become the next chair of the Democratic National Committee, Cong. Keith Ellison (D-MN).
The man poised to head the Democratic Party was a spokesman for the Nation of Islam well into his 30’s who publicly spewed anti-Semitism and later in life as a Congressional candidate knowingly accepted $50,000 in campaign contributions given and raised by Islamic radicals who openly supported Islamic terrorism and were leaders of front groups for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
And once in office as a Congressman, Keith Ellison more than hinted that 9/11 was an inside job carried out to create pretext for war against Muslims – a trope often pushed by anti-Semites who claim Israeli or “Mossad” complicity – by comparing 9/11 to the Reichstag Fire, the infamous 1933 arson of the German Parliament building, which the Nazis pinned on Communists and thus used to gain majority control of the government and establish Nazi Germany.
To be clear, Ellison has never genuinely repudiated his past anti-Semitism or his close association with the terror-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or its co-founder, Nihad Awad, who has publicly supported Islamic terrorism.
In an attempt to stave off a civil war in the ranks, Democratic leaders are scrambling to unite behind a candidate for the party's chairmanship – and have landed for now on a Louis Farrakhan-linked congressman who once called for Dick Cheney’s impeachment and compared George W. Bush to Hitler.
Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to Congress and a leading progressive among House Democrats, already has picked up the backing of both the Democratic Party’s left – with support from Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren – and its establishment, receiving endorsements from Senate leaders Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and retiring Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Republicans will probably need the extra push when Trump fails to appease conservatives, trade protectionists, and the alt-right leaning nationalist populists.
On November 18 2016 09:17 Danglars wrote: The disturbing aspect is when people like you try to color it entirely one way or another. The rules of war aren't being followed by terrorists disguising themselves among a civilian population and committing acts of war against a civilian population. In centuries past, uniformed fighters for either side were captured and treated as prisoners of war at the same time as spies caught wearing their enemy's uniform were summarily shot or hanged.
There is no actual war going on in the traditional sense, you're not gaining anything by using these measures apart from creating propaganda material for terrorists. 'War on terror' always was a misnomer.
David Petraeus – the former US army general and CIA director who was prosecuted for mishandling classified information – has entered the race to become Donald Trump’s secretary of state, diplomatic sources said on Thursday.
Petraeus resigned in November 2012 after the FBI discovered he had had an affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, and had shared classified information with her. He eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for mishandling the information. People who have seen him recently say he is anxious to return to public life and has privately refused to rule out serving in a Trump administration.
Petraeus, who was also a US commander in Afghanistan and Iraq, has made flattering remarks about Trump since the election. “He’s right to criticise Washington over its partisanship and its inability to forge compromises,” he told the German cable news channel Deutsche Welle this week. “He’s a dealmaker. Let’s see if he can make some deals in Washington.”
He added: “This is an individual who is a political outsider. Perhaps he can do something in Washington that the political insiders, who he rightly criticises, have been unable to do, which is to come together to give a little, to gain a lot for our country.”
The favourite for the secretary of defence, according to diplomats who have been in touch with the Trump team in recent days, is Jeff Sessions, a rightwing, anti-immigration senator from Alabama who has been accused of making racist remarks.
But the battle for top national security and foreign policy jobs is still intense, and foreign governments are being warned a comprehensive announcement may not be made until after the Thanksgiving holiday on 24 November.
On Thursday, Trump’s team announced he had met Sessions at Trump Tower in New York the day before. “While nothing has been finalized and he is still talking with others as he forms his cabinet, the president-elect has been unbelievably impressed with Senator Sessions and his phenomenal record as Alabama’s attorney general and US attorney,” a spokesperson said. “It is no wonder the people of Alabama re-elected him without opposition.”
Earlier this week, the main contenders for secretary of state appeared to be former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and former ambassador to the UN John Bolton, but Giuliani ran into significant opposition over his extensive lobbying ties with foreign governments, and Bolton’s fiercely held convictions on the strategic need to confront Russian expansionism are at odds with the views of Trump’s inner circle.
Wait. What? First he says he'll get a special prosecutor to throw Hillary in jail for the emails. Then he turns around and wants Petraeus in his cabinet, after that guy has actually already been convicted of leaking secret information?!
The one thing America needs after hearing about the Secretary of State that couldn't properly handle classified information is another Secretary of State that can't properly handle classified information. The highest position I could stand for him is something along the lines of deputy assistant advisor to the department of defense's chief spokesperson liason.
Keith Elison is not a radical hes a Minnesotan from a relatively Somali immigrated community voting him through because hes a muslim. They're a bit more conservative then the average Black community.
He also works well with republicans from Minnesota.
also I would consider raping and pillaging as a better strategy then torture. One of them has results is cruel and hateful while the other is just cruel and hateful.
On November 18 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote: Where does this moralizing in war come from regarding torture? It should be an option in some circumstances, people are Blowing each other up for unjustified reasons to begin with and suddenly if it involves water boarding or some other form of intel gathering they have commited a huge sin. That's great that we have ethical boundaries in an unethical game, cute really.
Basic human rights. Google Geneva Conventions. A question like that is disturbing to be quite frank.
The disturbing aspect is when people like you try to color it entirely one way or another. The rules of war aren't being followed by terrorists disguising themselves among a civilian population and committing acts of war against a civilian population. In centuries past, uniformed fighters for either side were captured and treated as prisoners of war at the same time as spies caught wearing their enemy's uniform were summarily shot or hanged. The last batch of polls I saw agreed that harsh interrogation techniques should be used against terrorists and they're believed to be effective (This was back in the days of the senate investigations on the use of torture and the CIA defense). It should be debated still with respect to what methods are used and on what suspects. The pithy high moral ground argument is absolutely craven. But, hey, if we're going to moral grandstanding, let's also include Cheney's definition: "[it's] an American citizen on a cell phone making a last call to his four young daughters shortly before he burns to death in the upper levels of the Trade Center in New York City on 9/11. There's this notion that somehow there's moral equivalence between what the terrorists and what we do."
As stated, it is law. So you are saying that you are against the rule of law? And, just in my opinion, I think it far more craven to torture someone at one's mercy than to stand in for one's ideals.
Please, just look at this shitshow. This is the danger of a Trump administration, is the disorganization and incompetence.
Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who has reportedly been offered the role of national security adviser in Donald Trump’s White House, began receiving classified national security briefings last summer while he was also running a private consulting firm that offered “all-source intelligence support” to international clients.
Flynn's own record with classified information has been called into question during his military career. On at least two occasions, his handling of classified information came under scrutiny by the US military.
Two former government officials with direct knowledge of the issue tell CNN that while Flynn oversaw intelligence in Afghanistan, he shared classified information with Pakistan on terror networks responsible for killing American troops. The intelligence, the sources say, came from another agency. Flynn wasn't supposed to share it. They say he was trying to convince Pakistan to stop sheltering terrorists.
On November 18 2016 13:41 Doodsmack wrote: Please, just look at this shitshow. This is the danger of a Trump administration, is the disorganization and incompetence.
Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who has reportedly been offered the role of national security adviser in Donald Trump’s White House, began receiving classified national security briefings last summer while he was also running a private consulting firm that offered “all-source intelligence support” to international clients.
edit: this tops email server levels of outrage I'm pretty sure. He also had Manafort, a foreign lobbyist. Giuliani, foreign lobbyist.
I agree, though since Hillary the standard has been set at "proof that the conflict of interest resulted in different actions than would have happened anyway" or even worse "a conviction for a crime related to the conflict of interest" otherwise it's just noise.
On November 18 2016 13:41 Doodsmack wrote: Please, just look at this shitshow. This is the danger of a Trump administration, is the disorganization and incompetence.
Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who has reportedly been offered the role of national security adviser in Donald Trump’s White House, began receiving classified national security briefings last summer while he was also running a private consulting firm that offered “all-source intelligence support” to international clients.
edit: this tops email server levels of outrage I'm pretty sure. He also had Manafort, a foreign lobbyist. Giuliani, foreign lobbyist.
Jesus that is actually infinitely more troubling than the whole email thing. This is downright scary and disturbing. I'm curious how that can be simply allowed to happen with no action taken, and if it being in the media will maybe cause some action. Seems like multiple people on my facebook news feed are now linking this article, all from different sources. So perhaps this will go big.
Well. He would be wrong. The history of the world is full of nation states growing wealthy and diverse. The Austria-Hungarian empire, Rome, Carthage, the byzantine empire, the mongols, the Assyrians, Persia, and there are probably others who I've failed to mention because i am not the most well read on the subject.
he only thing that is unprecedented with america is that your only external threats are so far removed away that the concept of a conquering force that the only thing threatening your way of life is more obscure (nuclear war, the economy etc).
In terms of draining the swamp, which is a laudable goal which I might try were I president, how does one measure success at that?
many of the things people have concerns about are not illegal, so you cannot do it by a metric based on convictions or other law-breaking assessments. Public perception, while measurable, is not accurate about the actual degree of such things. So how does one measure whether you have in fact made progress on the issue?
There's no defending how bad Trump's picks are in general. However, I want to draw attention to the fact that the alternative isn't "basic competent choices for every position" but rather Hillary Clinton. She would make some rather unpleasant choices as well if she were the pick.
On November 18 2016 23:15 LegalLord wrote: There's no defending how bad Trump's picks are in general. However, I want to draw attention to the fact that the alternative isn't "basic competent choices for every position" but rather Hillary Clinton. She would make some rather unpleasant choices as well if she were the pick.
presumably indeed. What would constitute basic competent choices for the positions though? One should look at the overall % of good/bad picks and the quality of the picks. What overall quality of picks do you think hillary would have?
On November 18 2016 07:19 biology]major wrote: Where does this moralizing in war come from regarding torture? It should be an option in some circumstances, people are Blowing each other up for unjustified reasons to begin with and suddenly if it involves water boarding or some other form of intel gathering they have commited a huge sin. That's great that we have ethical boundaries in an unethical game, cute really.
Basic human rights. Google Geneva Conventions. A question like that is disturbing to be quite frank.
The disturbing aspect is when people like you try to color it entirely one way or another. The rules of war aren't being followed by terrorists disguising themselves among a civilian population and committing acts of war against a civilian population. In centuries past, uniformed fighters for either side were captured and treated as prisoners of war at the same time as spies caught wearing their enemy's uniform were summarily shot or hanged. The last batch of polls I saw agreed that harsh interrogation techniques should be used against terrorists and they're believed to be effective (This was back in the days of the senate investigations on the use of torture and the CIA defense). It should be debated still with respect to what methods are used and on what suspects. The pithy high moral ground argument is absolutely craven. But, hey, if we're going to moral grandstanding, let's also include Cheney's definition: "[it's] an American citizen on a cell phone making a last call to his four young daughters shortly before he burns to death in the upper levels of the Trade Center in New York City on 9/11. There's this notion that somehow there's moral equivalence between what the terrorists and what we do."
In other news, I'm all for Democrats putting radical Keith Ellison in as DNC chair.
Despite the furor over Trump aide Steve Bannon’s alleged anti-Semitism, there’s been virtually no media attention paid to the man likely to become the next chair of the Democratic National Committee, Cong. Keith Ellison (D-MN).
The man poised to head the Democratic Party was a spokesman for the Nation of Islam well into his 30’s who publicly spewed anti-Semitism and later in life as a Congressional candidate knowingly accepted $50,000 in campaign contributions given and raised by Islamic radicals who openly supported Islamic terrorism and were leaders of front groups for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
And once in office as a Congressman, Keith Ellison more than hinted that 9/11 was an inside job carried out to create pretext for war against Muslims – a trope often pushed by anti-Semites who claim Israeli or “Mossad” complicity – by comparing 9/11 to the Reichstag Fire, the infamous 1933 arson of the German Parliament building, which the Nazis pinned on Communists and thus used to gain majority control of the government and establish Nazi Germany.
To be clear, Ellison has never genuinely repudiated his past anti-Semitism or his close association with the terror-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or its co-founder, Nihad Awad, who has publicly supported Islamic terrorism.
In an attempt to stave off a civil war in the ranks, Democratic leaders are scrambling to unite behind a candidate for the party's chairmanship – and have landed for now on a Louis Farrakhan-linked congressman who once called for Dick Cheney’s impeachment and compared George W. Bush to Hitler.
Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to Congress and a leading progressive among House Democrats, already has picked up the backing of both the Democratic Party’s left – with support from Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren – and its establishment, receiving endorsements from Senate leaders Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and retiring Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Republicans will probably need the extra push when Trump fails to appease conservatives, trade protectionists, and the alt-right leaning nationalist populists.
First off, it blows my mind how little you understand the ethics of warfare. "They don't follow the rules of war" isn't an excuse for us not to. That's textbook stuff. Not only is torture a morally despicable act that undermines our credibility as an ethical authority in the world, torture doesn't work, and this has been shown repeatedly. People will say whatever they think their captors want to hear to stop the torture. They won't say the truth necessarily.
Second, your credibility continues to be suspect when you link the Daily Caller.
Third, most of the things that article said are straight-up lies. To name a few, Ellison wasn't a Nation of Islam spokesman because he was never part of the Nation of Islam, he did publicly denounce writings he made in law school concerning the Nation of Islam, and he never said 9/11 was an inside job. In fact, he explicitly said that he didn't believe that.
On November 18 2016 23:15 LegalLord wrote: There's no defending how bad Trump's picks are in general. However, I want to draw attention to the fact that the alternative isn't "basic competent choices for every position" but rather Hillary Clinton. She would make some rather unpleasant choices as well if she were the pick.
presumably indeed. What would constitute basic competent choices for the positions though? One should look at the overall % of good/bad picks and the quality of the picks. What overall quality of picks do you think hillary would have?
I wish I got to pick the cabinet
Probably mostly long-time politically involved people with a smattering of academics and military guys. Some would have potential conflicts of interest like a brother who runs some shipping company that does business with some country, or sits on the board of some company in an industry that they'd be regulating and that would be duly investigated in depth during confirmation and so forth. However, I'd think that Clinton would have vetted most picks to avoid any issue that would definitely be a no go.
Meanwhile Trump is picking Sessions who got rejected for a judgeship by a Republican controlled judiciary committee for being too racist (I don't think he's gotten any better, though I'd love to be wrong), and many of his other picks aren't exactly better.
That a populist has a cabinet consisting largely of political rejects is to be expected. Populism doesn't make many allies nor is it common among inexperienced leaders that we get competent administrators. But it's the first step towards forcing change. Things may have to get worse before they get better.
The once again disclaimer is that I voted Clinton. But she lost and I expect and hope that she and her retainers will fall off the national stage and lose relevance. We will have president Donald J. Trump and we have to make the best of it and realize that all his faults should be put in context of who he was fighting against. Electable.
Also, fun fact: Trump is not only the wealthiest president is history, he is also wealthier than all previous presidents combined. At 2.9 billion, he has more inflation-adjusted money than all others combined (Kennedy is $1 billion, Washington is $500 million, the rest are $800 million total). At $4 billion he would also be the wealthiest candidate in history (Perot is his only competitor and his wealth is in the $3 billion range). For all the shit Romney got for being wealthy, we got a guy as president who not only puts Romney's wealth to shame but also proudly shows off how rich he is.
So Trump is sticking with his loyalists and outsiders for cabinet picks. Excellent. I'm guessing that these meetings with former foes like Cruz and Romney are "kiss the ring" meetings where Trump also gets to pick their brains on some things that he'd like their feedback on.
EPT
