|
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. |
Getting the election results overturned is the most legitimate way to protect democracy. Of course, by "overturned" I mean only the electoral college result. Ending the legitimacy of that institution would be a moral victory on par with ending slavery and apartheid.
|
On December 13 2016 07:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 13 2016 07:21 Mohdoo wrote:On December 13 2016 07:13 ragz_gt wrote:
Before I thought my house might turn into a waterfront property was the biggest threat... but now we have a non trivial chance of actually going to war with China.... what an amazing month. Under no circumstances will the US ever go to war with China. I would argue we are past the point of war in history. Or at least major war. Little shit countries fighting for coconuts will always happen. Its fairly naive to think we have evolved past war. It only takes one aggressor to force one-front war to happen. The main thing stopping war right now is that the US is so far ahead of everyone. But one can never assume that the dominant empire will always be dominant. Anyone ever going all-out against any nuclear-allied nation will get blown up. There's no escaping the nuclear issue. Best case scenario against the US is both sides being eliminated. No one is going to consider the elimination of their nation a suitable outcome.
That's a lot of variables that are assumed though.
A.) People won't find ways to counteract the nuclear option.
B.) You're assuming "America" or any nuclear armed nation is a certainty throughout time. All nations at the top of the food chain seem like they'll last forever. But history has shown that it is not a truism that they will.
C.) Nukes only work against an enemy with a specific and known local center. I.E. enemies with cities to bomb. If ISIS managed to start a ground war in the US. What would we nuke? Afghanistan? Iran? If the US had another Civil War, would we use nukes? If the US started having a Civil war, and then china joined one side, and the UK joined the other side, would we nuke China and the UK? Would we Nuke Arkansas?
D.) Will the US actually pull the trigger should a nation actually say "fuck it" and invade anyway? A nuke capable nation just gets their top leaders scared of the US enough that they decide to pull the trigger. Will the US shoot back? Are they prepared to? Would they have the chance?
Assuming that matters anyway. What if we actually do colonize _____ and now half the people are on earth and the other half is on wherever--will nukes be an option again? Nukes being a deference now does not mean that deference will always be present.
|
On December 13 2016 09:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:
C.) Nukes only work against an enemy with a specific and known local center. I.E. enemies with cities to bomb. If ISIS managed to start a ground war in the US. What would we nuke? Afghanistan? Iran? If the US had another Civil War, would we use nukes? If the US started having a Civil war, and then china joined one side, and the UK joined the other side, would we nuke China and the UK? Would we Nuke Arkansas?
If ISIS started a war in the US, that would mean that ISIS has a significant base of support somewhere to support the war in the US, which would be a prime target for a nuke. There's nothing particularly mystical about the tactical use of nukes. They are best used in areas where there is much to value from mass destruction (and comparatively little to lose).
|
On December 13 2016 09:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 09:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:
C.) Nukes only work against an enemy with a specific and known local center. I.E. enemies with cities to bomb. If ISIS managed to start a ground war in the US. What would we nuke? Afghanistan? Iran? If the US had another Civil War, would we use nukes? If the US started having a Civil war, and then china joined one side, and the UK joined the other side, would we nuke China and the UK? Would we Nuke Arkansas? If ISIS started a war in the US, that would mean that ISIS has a significant base of support somewhere to support the war in the US, which would be a prime target for a nuke. There's nothing particularly mystical about the tactical use of nukes. They are best used in areas where there is much to value from mass destruction (and comparatively little to lose).
So if ISIS starts a ground war in the US just start nuking random countries until money stops flowing into ISIS?
|
On December 13 2016 09:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 09:36 xDaunt wrote:On December 13 2016 09:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:
C.) Nukes only work against an enemy with a specific and known local center. I.E. enemies with cities to bomb. If ISIS managed to start a ground war in the US. What would we nuke? Afghanistan? Iran? If the US had another Civil War, would we use nukes? If the US started having a Civil war, and then china joined one side, and the UK joined the other side, would we nuke China and the UK? Would we Nuke Arkansas? If ISIS started a war in the US, that would mean that ISIS has a significant base of support somewhere to support the war in the US, which would be a prime target for a nuke. There's nothing particularly mystical about the tactical use of nukes. They are best used in areas where there is much to value from mass destruction (and comparatively little to lose). So if ISIS starts a ground war in the US just start nuking random countries until money stops flowing into ISIS?
When I said "base of support," I was referring to ISIS controlling significant territory and resources. You can't invade another country just with the financial backing of others.
|
"CIA veterans" urge caution on revelations and say that something seems politicized.
Updated | CIA veterans—none of them fans of Donald Trump–are urging caution about leaked allegations that Russia waged a secret campaign to put the New York Republican into the White House.
“I am not saying that I don't think Russia did this,” Nada Bakos, a top former CIA counterterrorism officer tells Newsweek, in a typical comment. “My main concern is that we will rush to judgment. The analysis needs to be cohesive and done the right way.”
Reports on the alleged Russian effort have been anything but cohesive, or complete. During a closed-door briefing to the House Intelligence Committee last week, a senior FBI counterintelligence official reportedly scoffed at the CIA’s conclusion that Russia had plotted to put Trump in office, calling the evidence “fuzzy” and “ambiguous.” Details of the meeting were leaked to The Washington Post.
Source
|
On December 13 2016 09:09 Meta wrote:
Getting the election results overturned is the most legitimate way to protect democracy. Of course, by "overturned" I mean only the electoral college result. Ending the legitimacy of that institution would be a moral victory on par with ending slavery and apartheid.
Its an institution based on logistical realities of the late 1700's and only continued out of a sense of tradition and a lack of an acceptable alternative. Cool your jets before comparing it to slavery and apartheid let alone putting any moral aspects into it.
|
On December 13 2016 10:46 LegalLord wrote:"CIA veterans" urge caution on revelations and say that something seems politicized. Show nested quote +Updated | CIA veterans—none of them fans of Donald Trump–are urging caution about leaked allegations that Russia waged a secret campaign to put the New York Republican into the White House.
“I am not saying that I don't think Russia did this,” Nada Bakos, a top former CIA counterterrorism officer tells Newsweek, in a typical comment. “My main concern is that we will rush to judgment. The analysis needs to be cohesive and done the right way.”
Reports on the alleged Russian effort have been anything but cohesive, or complete. During a closed-door briefing to the House Intelligence Committee last week, a senior FBI counterintelligence official reportedly scoffed at the CIA’s conclusion that Russia had plotted to put Trump in office, calling the evidence “fuzzy” and “ambiguous.” Details of the meeting were leaked to The Washington Post. Source
Of course all of this nonsense is highly politicized. There has been no evidence in support of the allegations made other than anonymous CIA sources saying things that could be utter bullshit, and which we know that the FBI is not supporting.
|
On December 13 2016 10:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 10:46 LegalLord wrote:"CIA veterans" urge caution on revelations and say that something seems politicized. Updated | CIA veterans—none of them fans of Donald Trump–are urging caution about leaked allegations that Russia waged a secret campaign to put the New York Republican into the White House.
“I am not saying that I don't think Russia did this,” Nada Bakos, a top former CIA counterterrorism officer tells Newsweek, in a typical comment. “My main concern is that we will rush to judgment. The analysis needs to be cohesive and done the right way.”
Reports on the alleged Russian effort have been anything but cohesive, or complete. During a closed-door briefing to the House Intelligence Committee last week, a senior FBI counterintelligence official reportedly scoffed at the CIA’s conclusion that Russia had plotted to put Trump in office, calling the evidence “fuzzy” and “ambiguous.” Details of the meeting were leaked to The Washington Post. Source Of course all of this nonsense is highly politicized. There has been no evidence in support of the allegations made other than anonymous CIA sources saying things that could be utter bullshit, and which we know that the FBI is not supporting.
“I am not saying that I don't think Russia did this”
Its not the conclusion he is disagreeing with, its his fear for how people will react to it.
|
They are also questioning how the CIA folk can be so certain of the motives. And that was my criticism as well.
|
On December 13 2016 10:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 10:46 LegalLord wrote:"CIA veterans" urge caution on revelations and say that something seems politicized. Updated | CIA veterans—none of them fans of Donald Trump–are urging caution about leaked allegations that Russia waged a secret campaign to put the New York Republican into the White House.
“I am not saying that I don't think Russia did this,” Nada Bakos, a top former CIA counterterrorism officer tells Newsweek, in a typical comment. “My main concern is that we will rush to judgment. The analysis needs to be cohesive and done the right way.”
Reports on the alleged Russian effort have been anything but cohesive, or complete. During a closed-door briefing to the House Intelligence Committee last week, a senior FBI counterintelligence official reportedly scoffed at the CIA’s conclusion that Russia had plotted to put Trump in office, calling the evidence “fuzzy” and “ambiguous.” Details of the meeting were leaked to The Washington Post. Source Of course all of this nonsense is highly politicized. There has been no evidence in support of the allegations made other than anonymous CIA sources saying things that could be utter bullshit, and which we know that the FBI is not supporting.
Actually, the FBI is in complete agreement that Russia was behind the hacks. The difference in assessments between the agencies mostly boils down to the motives behind Russia's actions (from what I'm reading, the FBI is also apparently not sure the RNC was hacked as well, while the CIA believes that to be the case) -- the CIA has apparently reached the conclusion that it was done to get Trump elected, while the FBI still sees different possibilities, including "simply" destabilizing the U.S. political system and weakening public trust in its political institutions.
|
On December 13 2016 10:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 10:46 LegalLord wrote:"CIA veterans" urge caution on revelations and say that something seems politicized. Updated | CIA veterans—none of them fans of Donald Trump–are urging caution about leaked allegations that Russia waged a secret campaign to put the New York Republican into the White House.
“I am not saying that I don't think Russia did this,” Nada Bakos, a top former CIA counterterrorism officer tells Newsweek, in a typical comment. “My main concern is that we will rush to judgment. The analysis needs to be cohesive and done the right way.”
Reports on the alleged Russian effort have been anything but cohesive, or complete. During a closed-door briefing to the House Intelligence Committee last week, a senior FBI counterintelligence official reportedly scoffed at the CIA’s conclusion that Russia had plotted to put Trump in office, calling the evidence “fuzzy” and “ambiguous.” Details of the meeting were leaked to The Washington Post. Source Of course all of this nonsense is highly politicized. There has been no evidence in support of the allegations made other than anonymous CIA sources saying things that could be utter bullshit, and which we know that the FBI is not supporting.
That it is isn't what I would contest. What I am curious about, though, is to what end are they doing this? Are they hoping for a widespread Russophobic reaction? A new Oversightghazi game? The possibilities are endless but few are desirable.
|
On December 13 2016 11:15 LegalLord wrote:
They are also questioning how the CIA folk can be so certain of the motives. And that was my criticism as well.
Yeah, Russia would have accepted any populist candidate with a large social media following that had positive things to say about them. Not just Trump.
|
On December 13 2016 11:48 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 10:57 xDaunt wrote:On December 13 2016 10:46 LegalLord wrote:"CIA veterans" urge caution on revelations and say that something seems politicized. Updated | CIA veterans—none of them fans of Donald Trump–are urging caution about leaked allegations that Russia waged a secret campaign to put the New York Republican into the White House.
“I am not saying that I don't think Russia did this,” Nada Bakos, a top former CIA counterterrorism officer tells Newsweek, in a typical comment. “My main concern is that we will rush to judgment. The analysis needs to be cohesive and done the right way.”
Reports on the alleged Russian effort have been anything but cohesive, or complete. During a closed-door briefing to the House Intelligence Committee last week, a senior FBI counterintelligence official reportedly scoffed at the CIA’s conclusion that Russia had plotted to put Trump in office, calling the evidence “fuzzy” and “ambiguous.” Details of the meeting were leaked to The Washington Post. Source Of course all of this nonsense is highly politicized. There has been no evidence in support of the allegations made other than anonymous CIA sources saying things that could be utter bullshit, and which we know that the FBI is not supporting. That it is isn't what I would contest. What I am curious about, though, is to what end are they doing this? Are they hoping for a widespread Russophobic reaction? A new Oversightghazi game? The possibilities are endless but few are desirable.
Just think about how many people in Washington have something to lose from a Trump presidency. Bureaucrats, media people, lobbyists, the democrat party --- there is a very long list of people who are rightfully scared of what Trump campaigned on. There are a lot of people who have a vested interest in preventing or crippling a Trump presidency. Fortunately, Trump isn't a pussy like other GOP predecessors, so I expect him to eventually put these people in their place.
|
On December 13 2016 12:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 11:48 LegalLord wrote:On December 13 2016 10:57 xDaunt wrote:On December 13 2016 10:46 LegalLord wrote:"CIA veterans" urge caution on revelations and say that something seems politicized. Updated | CIA veterans—none of them fans of Donald Trump–are urging caution about leaked allegations that Russia waged a secret campaign to put the New York Republican into the White House.
“I am not saying that I don't think Russia did this,” Nada Bakos, a top former CIA counterterrorism officer tells Newsweek, in a typical comment. “My main concern is that we will rush to judgment. The analysis needs to be cohesive and done the right way.”
Reports on the alleged Russian effort have been anything but cohesive, or complete. During a closed-door briefing to the House Intelligence Committee last week, a senior FBI counterintelligence official reportedly scoffed at the CIA’s conclusion that Russia had plotted to put Trump in office, calling the evidence “fuzzy” and “ambiguous.” Details of the meeting were leaked to The Washington Post. Source Of course all of this nonsense is highly politicized. There has been no evidence in support of the allegations made other than anonymous CIA sources saying things that could be utter bullshit, and which we know that the FBI is not supporting. That it is isn't what I would contest. What I am curious about, though, is to what end are they doing this? Are they hoping for a widespread Russophobic reaction? A new Oversightghazi game? The possibilities are endless but few are desirable. Just think about how many people in Washington have something to lose from a Trump presidency. Bureaucrats, media people, lobbyists, the democrat party --- there is a very long list of people who are rightfully scared of what Trump campaigned on. There are a lot of people who have a vested interest in preventing or crippling a Trump presidency. Fortunately, Trump isn't a pussy like other GOP predecessors, so I expect him to eventually put these people in their place.
It doesn't seem like they have an organized strategy for dealing with him though. They're kind of flailing around and hoping something sticks.
|
On December 13 2016 12:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 12:02 xDaunt wrote:On December 13 2016 11:48 LegalLord wrote:On December 13 2016 10:57 xDaunt wrote:On December 13 2016 10:46 LegalLord wrote:"CIA veterans" urge caution on revelations and say that something seems politicized. Updated | CIA veterans—none of them fans of Donald Trump–are urging caution about leaked allegations that Russia waged a secret campaign to put the New York Republican into the White House.
“I am not saying that I don't think Russia did this,” Nada Bakos, a top former CIA counterterrorism officer tells Newsweek, in a typical comment. “My main concern is that we will rush to judgment. The analysis needs to be cohesive and done the right way.”
Reports on the alleged Russian effort have been anything but cohesive, or complete. During a closed-door briefing to the House Intelligence Committee last week, a senior FBI counterintelligence official reportedly scoffed at the CIA’s conclusion that Russia had plotted to put Trump in office, calling the evidence “fuzzy” and “ambiguous.” Details of the meeting were leaked to The Washington Post. Source Of course all of this nonsense is highly politicized. There has been no evidence in support of the allegations made other than anonymous CIA sources saying things that could be utter bullshit, and which we know that the FBI is not supporting. That it is isn't what I would contest. What I am curious about, though, is to what end are they doing this? Are they hoping for a widespread Russophobic reaction? A new Oversightghazi game? The possibilities are endless but few are desirable. Just think about how many people in Washington have something to lose from a Trump presidency. Bureaucrats, media people, lobbyists, the democrat party --- there is a very long list of people who are rightfully scared of what Trump campaigned on. There are a lot of people who have a vested interest in preventing or crippling a Trump presidency. Fortunately, Trump isn't a pussy like other GOP predecessors, so I expect him to eventually put these people in their place. It doesn't seem like they have an organized strategy for dealing with him though. They're kind of flailing around and hoping something sticks.
Correct, which is why they'll fail in the end. They haven't figured out that their old playbook won't work against Trump.
|
The funny thing about Rex W. Tillerson as SoS isn't the people who will vote against him, it's the Democrats that are going to support him.
President-elect Donald Trump will name Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state Tuesday morning, sources tell CBS News.
Article
|
I actually do like the Tillerson choice after giving it some thought. Seems like the transition team felt the same way.
|
I don't know enough about Tillerson and his world view yet to really conclude whether he's a good pick (other than the fact that his selection confirms and concludes Trump's multi-week teabagging of Romney). I do hope that he brings a heavy dose of Exxon's cutthroat corporate culture to the State Department and cleans it out. I do like the fact Trump is appointing people to important State Department positions who have close ties to important foreign leaders. That should serve him well going forward.
|
On December 13 2016 12:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 12:09 LegalLord wrote:On December 13 2016 12:02 xDaunt wrote:On December 13 2016 11:48 LegalLord wrote:On December 13 2016 10:57 xDaunt wrote:On December 13 2016 10:46 LegalLord wrote:"CIA veterans" urge caution on revelations and say that something seems politicized. Updated | CIA veterans—none of them fans of Donald Trump–are urging caution about leaked allegations that Russia waged a secret campaign to put the New York Republican into the White House.
“I am not saying that I don't think Russia did this,” Nada Bakos, a top former CIA counterterrorism officer tells Newsweek, in a typical comment. “My main concern is that we will rush to judgment. The analysis needs to be cohesive and done the right way.”
Reports on the alleged Russian effort have been anything but cohesive, or complete. During a closed-door briefing to the House Intelligence Committee last week, a senior FBI counterintelligence official reportedly scoffed at the CIA’s conclusion that Russia had plotted to put Trump in office, calling the evidence “fuzzy” and “ambiguous.” Details of the meeting were leaked to The Washington Post. Source Of course all of this nonsense is highly politicized. There has been no evidence in support of the allegations made other than anonymous CIA sources saying things that could be utter bullshit, and which we know that the FBI is not supporting. That it is isn't what I would contest. What I am curious about, though, is to what end are they doing this? Are they hoping for a widespread Russophobic reaction? A new Oversightghazi game? The possibilities are endless but few are desirable. Just think about how many people in Washington have something to lose from a Trump presidency. Bureaucrats, media people, lobbyists, the democrat party --- there is a very long list of people who are rightfully scared of what Trump campaigned on. There are a lot of people who have a vested interest in preventing or crippling a Trump presidency. Fortunately, Trump isn't a pussy like other GOP predecessors, so I expect him to eventually put these people in their place. It doesn't seem like they have an organized strategy for dealing with him though. They're kind of flailing around and hoping something sticks. Correct, which is why they'll fail in the end. They haven't figured out that their old playbook won't work against Trump.
Keep in mind you two are believing the CIA sources that happen to conform to your opinion. Other sources say other things and unfortunately, Obama would need to release the info for us to know for sure.
But let's at least agree that Russia should be retaliated against with a well timed cyber attack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
