|
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. |
On December 11 2016 09:37 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 09:32 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 09:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 09:17 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 09:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:28 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 08:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:01 Nyxisto wrote: [quote]
Wait the CIA has reaffirmed this today, so the whole intelligence apparatus is just full of Hillary moles? CIA or WaPo saying the CIA did? One is more telling than the other, and the other is what we have. And yet still, the people who most care continue to be those who are least interested in the contents of the leaks being published. CIA officials literally confirmed this to NPR as well, this was posted earlier today in this thread. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/10/505072304/cia-concludes-russian-interference-aimed-to-elect-trump Guess that is at least some form of independent confirmation then. The question then is, what of it? As Hillary Clinton herself would say, at this point what difference does it make? we can probably assume that the concerns about Wikileaks are validated. If there was really data for both parties around and only DNC info ended up being published they seem to be more in the business of messing with the 'establishment' than with publishing confidential material, which was something most people suspected anyway. I could have told you at least three years ago that the mark of Russian intelligence can be seen all over Wikileaks and their actions. Frankly it's surprising that only now do people see it. Then you really need to stop treating it like a partisan issue or liberal hysteria. Having Russia mess with the American elections (successfully at that) is a fairly big deal. It shouldn't be a partisan issue but by virtue of who takes the "it's Russia" vs. "look at the hacks, Russia or someone else" side it happens to be split along Clinton vs anti-Clinton lines. That doesn't mean it's a partisan issue though in the genuine sense, that just means that Trump supporters act opportunistically by tolerating foreign interference in their elections although they should not and would not if their candidate was affected. You can't really go "Hillary stands to profit from it, so it's partisan by definition". That's not what partisan means. And I actually think Clinton + supporters would not do the same thing if the roles were reversed. Whichever word you wish to use, one group (Trump right and Bernie left) focuses on the contents of the leak, the other side (establishment Republicans and the Clinton base) focuses on Russia. Neither does both. Because there is nothing damning in the contents. Some minor favouritism with no signs of it being actively acted on and someone slipping them 2 debate questions.
There is no reason to discuss pizza parties and risotto recipes.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 11 2016 09:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 09:37 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 09:32 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 09:22 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 09:17 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 09:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:On December 11 2016 08:58 LegalLord wrote:Guess that is at least some form of independent confirmation then. The question then is, what of it? As Hillary Clinton herself would say, at this point what difference does it make? we can probably assume that the concerns about Wikileaks are validated. If there was really data for both parties around and only DNC info ended up being published they seem to be more in the business of messing with the 'establishment' than with publishing confidential material, which was something most people suspected anyway. I could have told you at least three years ago that the mark of Russian intelligence can be seen all over Wikileaks and their actions. Frankly it's surprising that only now do people see it. Then you really need to stop treating it like a partisan issue or liberal hysteria. Having Russia mess with the American elections (successfully at that) is a fairly big deal. It shouldn't be a partisan issue but by virtue of who takes the "it's Russia" vs. "look at the hacks, Russia or someone else" side it happens to be split along Clinton vs anti-Clinton lines. That doesn't mean it's a partisan issue though in the genuine sense, that just means that Trump supporters act opportunistically by tolerating foreign interference in their elections although they should not and would not if their candidate was affected. You can't really go "Hillary stands to profit from it, so it's partisan by definition". That's not what partisan means. And I actually think Clinton + supporters would not do the same thing if the roles were reversed. Whichever word you wish to use, one group (Trump right and Bernie left) focuses on the contents of the leak, the other side (establishment Republicans and the Clinton base) focuses on Russia. Neither does both. Because there is nothing damning in the contents. Some minor favouritism with no signs of it being actively acted on and someone slipping them 2 debate questions. There is no reason to discuss pizza parties and risotto recipes. It certainly was a conspiracy theorist's treasure trove more than anything else. But while you may feel that the leaks didn't give (certain threshold of proof) for (certain undesirable behavior) it's hard to say that they were nothing. James Comey and Julian Assange didn't play a central role in this campaign for nothing.
On December 11 2016 09:42 Gorsameth wrote: Its a tricky position. I wouldnt say that the Russian interference cost Hillary the election but and don't think its something you can take Trumps presidency away for (or should for that matter, the vote wasnt rigged. The information was).
But one the other hand you cant let is pass unaddressed either, especially when there is a good reason to believe there is further Russian influence in Trumps staff and department picks.
I don't know how the US should deal with this. I just know that doing nothing is a terrible choice. Who should do what? The people who won the election should retaliate against the people who used shady means to help them along? You could go pitch it to the cheeto president-elect but I don't think you'd get much support for that. Obama lame duck vengeance would do more harm than good as well.
|
On December 11 2016 09:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 09:22 Dan HH wrote:On December 11 2016 09:01 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 08:56 Dan HH wrote:On December 11 2016 08:22 LegalLord wrote: And yet still, the people who most care continue to be those who are least interested in the contents of the leaks being published. Then I hope you'll appreciate the reverse, that the people who made the biggest stink about Obama meddling by arguing in favor of Remain are now saying so what if Russia hacked a presidential candidate's camp to get the candidate favorable to them to win. I don't believe for a second that if this were an abstract hypothetical with made up countries and x and y instead of people, anyone would have said that the former of the two actions is worse. That it's a partisan issue in both cases is a problem. Frankly the fact that there isn't universal denunciation of foreign entities butting their way into local elections is a sign of something not so close to a healthy democracy. And that's not even noting the fact that the people now making a fuss over the Russians are the same who said "no big deal about Obama." So we can play that hypocrisy game in reverse. I don't think we can, I'd have no problem with Putin publicly supporting/arguing in favor of Trump. Though I won't rehash why I disagree with the equivalency between trying to persuade via publicly speaking and trying to influence via covert actions because it didn't go through the last time. "Back of the queue" is more than just making the case, it's a thinly veiled threat. Not really much different from saying "here's what your candidate's staff have been saying behind closed doors." Neither is really very great and I'm not the world's biggest fan of the hack-and-leak strategy but I'll give the Day9 explanation of "I don't really agree with a lot of these choices but they seem to be working." Though, again, what would you like to be done about it all? Acknowledgment that a foreign country is meddling? I'm pretty sure few people would argue that Russia wasn't responsible and I'm not one of the exceptions there (though I might disagree that intelligence says so = proof). I don't expect it or want it to result in some massive upheaval. The most the resurgence of this story does is put some more pressure on Trump not to be too giving with Russia. Not something I particularly care about, we're discussing this story like any other. I found it strange to see a few comments like Travis' saying it's bullshit if the point of it is not to result in Trump losing the presidency. Like the whole purpose of every discussion was to determine the result of the election and now that it's a done deal all politics is void for 3 years. I don't see the need for the special treatment, we've discussed far smaller stories over a dozen pages.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Ultimately I see it as one of those "it's bullshit but it worked and there isn't likely to be an effective way to respond." Again, I don't like hacking and leaking as a political tool but the president would most likely let it go and it's not something that will be likely to come up in 2020.
Someone just figured out a clever way to further feed partisan divide in an already polarized climate without being punished for it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On another note, Michigan recount seems to be dead and Stein should be refunded with about the cash equivalent of her entire campaign war chest.
|
Among the queries included in a questionnaire sent by President-elect Donald Trump's transition team to workers at the Department of Energy is a request for an inventory of all agency employees or contractors who attended meetings or conferences on climate change. Another question asks for a current list of professional society memberships of any lab staff.
The 74-point questionnaire has raised fears among civil rights lawyers specializing in federal worker whistleblower protections, who say the incoming administration is at a minimum trying to influence or limit the research at the Department of Energy. And at worst, attempting to target employees with views that run counter to the president-elect.
The questionnaire also asks employees for a listing of when the climate change meetings took place, and to provide any materials distributed to them "or materials created by Department employees or contractors in anticipation of or as a result of those meetings."
"This is a very scary indication of what might happen under a Trump administration," says Jason Zuckerman, a former legal adviser to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, an agency which protects federal workers, particularly on matters of retaliation.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/10/505105258/trump-questionnaire-raises-concerns-about-retaliation-against-energy-department
|
On December 11 2016 09:31 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 09:26 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 09:07 ChristianS wrote: Uh, a couple things. First of all, weren't you the one shitting on liberals a few months ago for saying the wikileaks were unconfirmed, on the basis that there is zero precedent for wikileaks fabricating info? If so, how does the same defense not apply to WaPo fabricating sources? I think you're thinking of GH. I mostly stayed out of the "legitimacy of wikileaks" argument. I could have said that but I don't recall doing so at all. On December 11 2016 09:07 ChristianS wrote: Also, how is it not relevant in a US politics thread whether or not the US president got elected partly on the back of illegal election interference by a foreign government whose interests may not align with our own? Seems a lot more relevant than when you guys get off on hypotheticals about whether genocide could be a moral or effective military tactic under the right conditions. Deflection and straw man. How does a different argument you don't care for have to do with anything? So say Russia wanted to get Trump elected. Mission accomplished. Now what? Would you like to have the entire election invalidated under Russian conspiracy and rerun the primaries and general? Should we just hand it to #2? Get rid of Trump and put Pence in as president? Be pouty and upset about it? That's my question: what of it? If there's a link between trump and russia, I think a good move would be to give presidency to Hillary and throw trump and maybe pence in jail. At the very least if trump does become president, impeach him if there is a link. Other than that? Heavier sanctions on russia, publicly denounce them for it and have our allies sanction russia. At least you aren't half-adding your previous "big problem" previous post. You think Russia-affiliated hackers exposing information damaging to Clinton is worth Trump/Pence resigning or being impeached. Sorry, unless you have a very lucky break of a conspiracy to hack and expose the emails (I would absolutely love another real watergate), these aren't high crimes and misdemeanors. Also, nobody in their right mind would fight a campaign only to abandon the fruits because sinister foreigners didn't play fair (and Trump won a free and fair election as far as voting went).
Like LegalLord was pointing out, tracing this directly to Putin's hands and enacting sanctions is pathetic. There's plausible deniability for days. Try getting the US Government to confess to centrifuge attacks or Flame/DuQu type activities to get your justified sanctions from abroad directed here. The rules on nation state cyberwarfare are a Wild West of sorts: public ally denounce their actions while we clandestinely ran domestic surveillance for years that would still be unknown if not for Snowden? We'd lose on the world stage and majestically.
Hillary's gone once electors vote, so the best you can hope for short of political revolution and upheaval is someone down the Republican chain like the speaker of the house. She's dead and gone in the process.
To the extent you have legitimate concerns, they're covered by Trump having no hope of spinning the Russian connection into incompetent CIA (this is assuming the investigation concludes Russian hackers and likely state affiliation). Their rep isn't that far down the toilet for America to believe Trump over the CIA. Also to the extent you are right about an issue, we're still limited to actions like making speeches where Trump is 'pouty and upset' because your other suggestions were utterly fatuous.
|
If congressional republicans nominate tillerson despite the foreign conflicts of interest, they've proven that their concern over the Clinton Foubdation was disingenuous.
|
On December 11 2016 11:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 09:31 hunts wrote:On December 11 2016 09:26 LegalLord wrote:On December 11 2016 09:07 ChristianS wrote: Uh, a couple things. First of all, weren't you the one shitting on liberals a few months ago for saying the wikileaks were unconfirmed, on the basis that there is zero precedent for wikileaks fabricating info? If so, how does the same defense not apply to WaPo fabricating sources? I think you're thinking of GH. I mostly stayed out of the "legitimacy of wikileaks" argument. I could have said that but I don't recall doing so at all. On December 11 2016 09:07 ChristianS wrote: Also, how is it not relevant in a US politics thread whether or not the US president got elected partly on the back of illegal election interference by a foreign government whose interests may not align with our own? Seems a lot more relevant than when you guys get off on hypotheticals about whether genocide could be a moral or effective military tactic under the right conditions. Deflection and straw man. How does a different argument you don't care for have to do with anything? So say Russia wanted to get Trump elected. Mission accomplished. Now what? Would you like to have the entire election invalidated under Russian conspiracy and rerun the primaries and general? Should we just hand it to #2? Get rid of Trump and put Pence in as president? Be pouty and upset about it? That's my question: what of it? If there's a link between trump and russia, I think a good move would be to give presidency to Hillary and throw trump and maybe pence in jail. At the very least if trump does become president, impeach him if there is a link. Other than that? Heavier sanctions on russia, publicly denounce them for it and have our allies sanction russia. At least you aren't half-adding your previous "big problem" previous post. You think Russia-affiliated hackers exposing information damaging to Clinton is worth Trump/Pence resigning or being impeached. Sorry, unless you have a very lucky break of a conspiracy to hack and expose the emails (I would absolutely love another real watergate), these aren't high crimes and misdemeanors. Also, nobody in their right mind would fight a campaign only to abandon the fruits because sinister foreigners didn't play fair (and Trump won a free and fair election as far as voting went). Like LegalLord was pointing out, tracing this directly to Putin's hands and enacting sanctions is pathetic. There's plausible deniability for days. Try getting the US Government to confess to centrifuge attacks or Flame/DuQu type activities to get your justified sanctions from abroad directed here. The rules on nation state cyberwarfare are a Wild West of sorts: public ally denounce their actions while we clandestinely ran domestic surveillance for years that would still be unknown if not for Snowden? We'd lose on the world stage and majestically. Hillary's gone once electors vote, so the best you can hope for short of political revolution and upheaval is someone down the Republican chain like the speaker of the house. She's dead and gone in the process. To the extent you have legitimate concerns, they're covered by Trump having no hope of spinning the Russian connection into incompetent CIA (this is assuming the investigation concludes Russian hackers and likely state affiliation). Their rep isn't that far down the toilet for America to believe Trump over the CIA. Also to the extent you are right about an issue, we're still limited to actions like making speeches where Trump is 'pouty and upset' because your other suggestions were utterly fatuous.
Unfortunately I don't expect much to come of this, but on the off chance that trump was aware of the Russian interference and was in any way working with them, I definitely think he would get impeached. The real question is, is trump or pence worse? I'm honestly not sure. Trump supporters are certainly much more annoying in my eyes than reguler republicans, and with pence the odds of him starting a nuclear war over a tweet are lower. But I think trump while woefully incompetent and narcissistic might be less bad for the country than pence who is willfully just evil.
I would love for this to be a new Watergate that ends in both trump and pence gone, but Im sure unless they were directly involved or had knowledge of this all that will come of it will be people being mad at Russia and other people being convinced the cia is out to make trump look bad or sonething.
Unrelated ly I like your sig.
|
On December 11 2016 10:57 LegalLord wrote: On another note, Michigan recount seems to be dead and Stein should be refunded with about the cash equivalent of her entire campaign war chest. And Stein has no legal requirement to refund the donors who threw money at her over this recount. Good move from Stein and The Green party - plenty of funding to expand their party and operation. Trump was right though, it was a money raising scam.
|
On December 11 2016 11:53 Doodsmack wrote: If congressional republicans nominate tillerson despite the foreign conflicts of interest, they've proven that their concern over the Clinton Foubdation was disingenuous.
But really that's as if everything that's been said wasn't absolutely disingenuous either, Trump and co. blaming Obama for not getting anything done during his 8 years when all his proposals have been blocked, Trump attacking Clinton's Saudi CF donations and then praising Saudi leaders, Trump considering appointing Goldman execs after campaigning on draining the swamp. It's pretty clear that none of this actually matters.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Here's something I think the lot of you might find interesting, hopefully somewhat comforting...
WASHINGTON—They had never met, and they had had only harsh words toward each other during the campaign. But President Barack Obama and his successor, Donald Trump, are discussing policy and politics with more frequency than many anticipated after this past year’s bitterly fought election.
The two men have spoken a handful of times by phone since their 90-minute meeting in the Oval Office last month, setting aside resentments that built up during the campaign, advisers to both said. Though it is hardly a “bromance,” both men see it in their mutual interest to stay in touch and forge a rapport during the transition, aides said.
On Friday, Mr. Trump said he has gotten along “so well” with Mr. Obama, and he dissuaded his supporters from booing when he mentioned the president’s name. “No, no—he’s really doing great. He’s been so nice,” he told them at an event in Louisiana.
Mr. Trump has come to value Mr. Obama as one of only five living Americans who knows firsthand what it is like to be president and who can give a realistic assessment of the job, aides said. As he fills out his administration, Mr. Trump has called Mr. Obama to ask what specific positions entail so that he can match people to the job, they said.
The budding relationship hasn’t all gone smoothly. Though Mr. Trump has voiced flexibility when it comes to policy, he has placed in key positions some conservatives who want to roll back Mr. Obama’s initiatives on health care, immigration, the environment and labor.
And White House officials were irritated that Mr. Trump’s team didn’t forewarn them about his phone conversation with the president of Taiwan, which broke with decades of U.S. policy. The White House fielded calls from Chinese officials protesting that call and seeking guidance on Mr. Trump’s intentions.
Still, Mr. Obama views Mr. Trump as a pragmatic figure with no hard ideological leanings, aides said. The president’s conversations with Mr. Trump are largely aimed at trying to preserve pieces of his legacy that his successor’s administration might be looking to dismantle.
Mr. Obama has walked Mr. Trump through the details of some of his most noted foreign-policy achievements. He outlined to him the agreement with Iran aimed at restraining its nuclear program and what, in his view, are the pitfalls of backtracking on it. In one 45-minute phone call, Mr. Obama detailed what he sees as the upsides of maintaining U.S. relations with Cuba, the re-establishment of which has been one of Mr. Obama’s top priorities.
The president also has advised Mr. Trump on how to prioritize some of the challenges he will face beginning next month. Mr. Obama told Mr. Trump, for instance, that North Korea will be the biggest foreign-policy threat with which he has to contend, people familiar with the conversation said.
Mr. Trump seemed to signal that he had heard the advice when, during a rally in Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday, he called on China to rein in North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
Though they are far apart on policy goals, Messrs. Obama and Trump share a common political experience: Both ran for president as underdogs who were expected to lose to Hillary Clinton.
“There are some common denominators. They were both improbable candidates,” said Kellyanne Conway, who managed Mr. Trump’s campaign. “They were up against someone everyone was told can’t lose and that she had it all wrapped up. Eight years apart, they were told the same thing: Don’t even bother. And they both defeated Hillary Clinton, which is no small feat.”
Mr. Obama has directed his staff to ensure a smooth transition to a Trump administration, and the president-elect’s team has noted the White House’s cooperative approach. Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, one of Mr. Obama’s close friends, sent Ms. Conway an email offering to help during the transition, a gesture that the Trump camp welcomed.
In contrast to what Ms. Conway termed “election deniers,” Mr. Obama has “conceded and vowed to help make the transition” work, she said.
The relationship between the 44th and 45th presidents had an inauspicious start. In past years, Mr. Trump was a central figure in promoting the fiction that Mr. Obama was born overseas and thus not legitimately serving as president. It wasn’t until September that Mr. Trump publicly acknowledged that Mr. Obama was born in the U.S. As the campaign played out, Mr. Trump called Mr. Obama possibly the “worst” president in the nation’s history; Mr. Obama said Mr. Trump was proving himself “unfit for the office every single day.”
The rancor makes the relationship that has developed all the more unique, analysts said.
“With so much baggage, that these men would be willing to do this speaks well of both of them. After all, the office is more important than any individual,” said Tim Naftali, a history professor at New York University.
Mr. Obama has concluded that keeping open a dialogue with Mr. Trump can pay dividends, and he has taken steps not to antagonize his successor.
“I think he believes he can have a positive impact on Donald Trump’s presidency, and if you can do that, why wouldn’t you?” said Bill Burton, one of Mr. Obama’s former aides.
White House senior aides have been tight-lipped about the phone calls between the two men.
Chief of Staff Denis McDonough has warned aides not to leak details of the discussions after reports surfaced that Mr. Trump, during his meeting with Mr. Obama, seemed shocked by the breadth of the job and repeatedly discussed his campaign and the size of the crowds he drew. Mr. Obama was concerned the leaks would alienate Mr. Trump and leave the president without the ability to influence him.
Part of what is driving Mr. Obama is the recognition that when he came into office in 2009, he benefited from Republican George W. Bush’s efforts to make the transition smooth, aides said. Mr. Obama wants to extend similar courtesies. www.wsj.com
|
That is interesting that Obama says North Korea is the biggest foreign policy issue when he claims Russia is putting out "fake news" and hacking the elections.Plus the Ukraine situation, the Syria situation? Maybe he knows something we don't.
Anyone catch this? Jimmy Carter to Obama: Before you leave office, recognize Palestinian state November 29, 2016 Former President Jimmy Carter is calling on the Obama administration to recognize Palestinian statehood before leaving office January 20.
Carter, who is strong proponent for Palestinian rights and a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians, praised the Obama administration in a New York Times op-ed out Monday for its support for a "negotiated end to the conflict based on two states," but warned this work could be undone with an incoming Republican administration.
"I am convinced that the United States can still shape the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before a change in presidents, but time is very short, " Carter wrote. "The simple but vital step this administration must take before its term expires on Jan. 20 is to grant American diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine."
The former President also called for the UN Security Council to pass a resolution "laying out the parameters for resolving the conflict."
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/29/politics/jimmy-carter-palestine-op-ed/
|
On December 11 2016 09:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 09:07 ChristianS wrote: Uh, a couple things. First of all, weren't you the one shitting on liberals a few months ago for saying the wikileaks were unconfirmed, on the basis that there is zero precedent for wikileaks fabricating info? If so, how does the same defense not apply to WaPo fabricating sources? I think you're thinking of GH. I mostly stayed out of the "legitimacy of wikileaks" argument. I could have said that but I don't recall doing so at all. Show nested quote +On December 11 2016 09:07 ChristianS wrote: Also, how is it not relevant in a US politics thread whether or not the US president got elected partly on the back of illegal election interference by a foreign government whose interests may not align with our own? Seems a lot more relevant than when you guys get off on hypotheticals about whether genocide could be a moral or effective military tactic under the right conditions. Deflection and straw man. How does a different argument you don't care for have to do with anything? So say Russia wanted to get Trump elected. Mission accomplished. Now what? Would you like to have the entire election invalidated under Russian conspiracy and rerun the primaries and general? Should we just hand it to #2? Get rid of Trump and put Pence in as president? Be pouty and upset about it? That's my question: what of it? So I'm a little unclear. in the following causal chain:
Russia intervenes in our election to support Trump ---> CIA, NSA, and other US intelligence agencies see evidence of Russia intervening in our election to support Trump ---> Reputable news organizations interview members of intelligence agencies, and publicize that Russians intervened in our election to support Trump
...where exactly do you stop believing it? We know the last one is true – reputable news organizations are, in fact, reporting that Russia intervened in our election to support Trump. Now you might think that they're lying their asses off and fabricating sources – but that's a fucking massive accusation that could destroy any paper if it was found out, and the payoff wouldn't even be that big. As both you and GH are noting, there's not really a lot to be gained by liberals harping on this now.
So if we believe the papers that say they have government sources saying this stuff, you might think the government sources got it wrong. Trump's team pointed out the US intelligence agency also unanimously said there were WMDs in Iraq (although I think he's wrong on two counts there – first, the US intelligence community was nowhere near unanimous on this point, and second, technically, there were WMDs in Iraq).
After that you're arguing basically, "so our president was elected partly by the illegal election interference of a foreign power, nbd," which seems a little insane. You don't think it's relevant to American politics that the president got his job partly on illegal Russian interference? It's relevant for the same reason the popular vote is relevant – it doesn't change who won, but it does have some influence on how much of a mandate the new president has. In this case, Trump won by basically as little as you can win by without it being decided in the House of Representatives (and arguably, less than that since you can win the popular vote and still have the election decided in the House). He's got the lowest approval rating any president has had going in – remember, the normal trend is for presidents to start with a relatively high approval rating and then for it to trend down over their presidency, spiking upward only when they do something spectacular or when we get ourselves into a war or something. And on top of that, a foreign power whose interests don't necessarily align with our own was interfering in our election specifically to help him get elected.
Would he have won without the help from the Russians? We'll never know, of course, although given how fucking close the result was and how much those leaks dominated the conversation, I think I know where the smart money is. Does that matter? Not for determining the next president. But it sure as hell matters for determining how much political capital a new president has. For the time being, we still live in a democracy, and elected leaders are still responsible to public opinion, and if the public doesn't like the new president and doesn't think he has a mandate to put his policies in place, people in Congress will have a harder time getting re-elected if they support him, and will either act accordingly, or get voted out and replaced by someone who will act in accordance with public opinion.
|
On December 11 2016 16:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:That is interesting that Obama says North Korea is the biggest foreign policy issue when he claims Russia is putting out "fake news" and hacking the elections.Plus the Ukraine situation, the Syria situation? Maybe he knows something we don't. Anyone catch this? Jimmy Carter to Obama: Before you leave office, recognize Palestinian state November 29, 2016 Former President Jimmy Carter is calling on the Obama administration to recognize Palestinian statehood before leaving office January 20. Show nested quote + Carter, who is strong proponent for Palestinian rights and a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians, praised the Obama administration in a New York Times op-ed out Monday for its support for a "negotiated end to the conflict based on two states," but warned this work could be undone with an incoming Republican administration.
"I am convinced that the United States can still shape the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before a change in presidents, but time is very short, " Carter wrote. "The simple but vital step this administration must take before its term expires on Jan. 20 is to grant American diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine."
The former President also called for the UN Security Council to pass a resolution "laying out the parameters for resolving the conflict."
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/29/politics/jimmy-carter-palestine-op-ed/
I think it's because North Korea is seen as more unpredictable and more likely to create a type of flashpoint. Russia is an issue but their smart and not going to do anything incredibly stupid. NK could just go crazy and invade SK or something. (or at least thats probably how everyone sees it)
|
Chance of Tulsi Gabbard running in 2020? Seems like a balanced candidate with a backbone. Will the democrat establishment allow her to win after she supported Bernie over Hillary?
|
Quarter of inmates could have been spared prison without risk, study says
A quarter of the US prison population, about 364,000 inmates, could have been spared imprisonment without meaningfully threatening public safety or increasing crime, according to a new study.
Analyzing offender data on roughly 1.5 million US prisoners, researchers from the Brennan Center for Justice concluded that for one in four, drug treatment, community service, probation or a fine would have been a more effective sentence than incarceration.
“The current sentencing regime was largely a knee-jerk reaction to crime, not grounded in any scientific rationale,” said Inimai Chettiar, director of the justice program. “While it may have seemed like a reasonable approach to protect the public, a comprehensive examination of the data proves it is ineffective at that task.”
The study also concluded that another 14% of incarcerated individuals had already served an appropriate sentence. These people could be released within the next year “with little risk to public safety”, the researchers said. Combined, these two populations represent 39% of the current incarcerated public. Source
|
The problem with incarceration in the United States is that it's a literal for-profit industry. Companies make money by incarcerating people. Tax-payers pay. Prisons actually take steps to ensure that people go back to prison when they're done and prosecutors also hand out prison sentences too easily because they're corrupt fucks.
This is a major issue in the USA, but no one is going to look into that. :/
|
On December 11 2016 21:58 Incognoto wrote: The problem with incarceration in the United States is that it's a literal for-profit industry. Companies make money by incarcerating people. Tax-payers pay. Prisons actually take steps to ensure that people go back to prison when they're done and prosecutors also hand out prison sentences too easily because they're corrupt fucks.
This is a major issue in the USA, but no one is going to look into that. :/ Private prisons are a major issue (one that will go entirely unaddressed these next four years, I'd bet), but let's not get ahead of ourselves in terms of the scope of the problem. Private prisons in the US only account for 6 percent of state prisoners, 16 percent of federal prisoners, and then a smattering of local jails, mostly in states like Texas and Arizona. Part of what makes things difficult to parse is the manner in which state corrections departments are run; many now operate their facilities in the form of a private prison, and that'd be why state agencies in charge of prisons are some of the most sued organizations in the US. For example. MDOC, the Michigan Department of Corrections, is the most sued organization in the state by far.
Source
|
Have to agree with farvacola there. While private prisons have their own issues, having a public system that pushes a war on drug based on political objectives from 50 years ago certainly is a bigger part of this problem.
|
|
|
|