|
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 wouldn't call it "his own" until his appointees run it. His nation's intelligence agency or Obama's CIA.
And he isn't fooling anyone with vague accusations of a politicized CIA. It's see-through. It still won't matter because Russia didn't cost Hillary the election. She fumbled on her own behavior in office and her own campaign without sinister Russian spies telling her a private server was a great idea and Wisconsin would be fine.
Point taken that if in two or four years, and the CIA has concluded what's being leaked about directly observed government involvement, Trump can rightly be accused of not doing enough to retaliate against Russia in some measured way (as already mentioned in this thread). It's the spook dance of plausible deniability.
|
Looks like Putin also just hacked Obama's birth certificate... This is some revolutionary hacking technology
|
On December 15 2016 23:19 zlefin wrote:
In terms of retaliation; I'm not sure what to do to russia. Could just mark it up as business as usual and do more espionage without anything clear or specific.
Perhaps a few well-placed insults/snubs. Putin cares alot about Russia's image/prestige; making them seem 2nd/3rd rate nobodies seems like it'd be the right kind of insult.
It'd be ironic if the guy who won the nobel peace prize (Obama) dragged us into WW3 no?
|
On December 16 2016 14:54 LegalLord wrote:
Which type of "crookedness" is more problematic:
1. Having your family administer the hotel with your name on it and raise the price really high, knowing that people will pay it because they want to curry favor with you.
2. Setting up a private email server for public information that classified emails are sometimes sent on without proper authorization.
One of those seems like garden variety profiteering, the other is incompetence. And given all that this election has been, I just really can't bring myself to be outraged at profiteering. Maybe if the other candidate weren't so rightfully disliked by most of the population.
I'm gonna say the first one.
corruption is highly corrosive in the long run, and can be very damaging to everything in a society, especially the economy.
gross incompetence is easier to deal with. and the gov't is pretty lousy at cybersecurity anyways.
|
I was hopeful that Trump wouldn't be as bad as all the lefties said he would be. This last couple weeks is making me think they were right. Almost every single decision he has made so far I disagree with, and I'm not even a democrat. If he doesn't fuck the country up economically, start a civil war, start World War 3, or get impeached for doing something stupid, then it'll be a miracle. I never thought I would say it, but I'm starting to approve of all the efforts to de-legitimize his win. Half hoping a bunch of electors rise up against his election. Fat chance though =(
|
On December 16 2016 23:14 Ayaz2810 wrote:
I was hopeful that Trump wouldn't be as bad as all the lefties said he would be. This last couple weeks is making me think they were right. Almost every single decision he has made so far I disagree with, and I'm not even a democrat. If he doesn't fuck the country up economically, start a civil war, start World War 3, or get impeached for doing something stupid, then it'll be a miracle. I never thought I would say it, but I'm starting to approve of all the efforts to de-legitimize his win. Half hoping a bunch of electors rise up against his election. Fat chance though =(
Yeah, Trump is so bad that dollar/euro went to 1,4 - the last time it did it was in 2003.
|
On December 16 2016 23:14 Ayaz2810 wrote:
I was hopeful that Trump wouldn't be as bad as all the lefties said he would be. This last couple weeks is making me think they were right. Almost every single decision he has made so far I disagree with, and I'm not even a democrat. If he doesn't fuck the country up economically, start a civil war, start World War 3, or get impeached for doing something stupid, then it'll be a miracle. I never thought I would say it, but I'm starting to approve of all the efforts to de-legitimize his win. Half hoping a bunch of electors rise up against his election. Fat chance though =(
fortunately there are limits to how much damage one president can do.
do you classify yourself as an Independent?
|
On December 16 2016 23:14 Ayaz2810 wrote:
I was hopeful that Trump wouldn't be as bad as all the lefties said he would be. This last couple weeks is making me think they were right. Almost every single decision he has made so far I disagree with, and I'm not even a democrat. If he doesn't fuck the country up economically, start a civil war, start World War 3, or get impeached for doing something stupid, then it'll be a miracle. I never thought I would say it, but I'm starting to approve of all the efforts to de-legitimize his win. Half hoping a bunch of electors rise up against his election. Fat chance though =(
You're worried about Trump starting a civil war but you're hoping enough electors flip to deny him the election victory?
Should i put two and two together for you?
If Trump is not selected by the college it's a civil war and societal breakdown guaranteed.
|
On December 16 2016 23:16 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 23:14 Ayaz2810 wrote:
I was hopeful that Trump wouldn't be as bad as all the lefties said he would be. This last couple weeks is making me think they were right. Almost every single decision he has made so far I disagree with, and I'm not even a democrat. If he doesn't fuck the country up economically, start a civil war, start World War 3, or get impeached for doing something stupid, then it'll be a miracle. I never thought I would say it, but I'm starting to approve of all the efforts to de-legitimize his win. Half hoping a bunch of electors rise up against his election. Fat chance though =( Yeah, Trump is so bad that dollar/euro went to 1,4 - the last time it did it was in 2003.
Dollar and euro are on their way to parity right now after all the EU crises coming together to make things terrible.
If Hofer won it would probably already be parity.
|
|
|
The appreciation of the dollar at the moment has more to do with the interest rate decision by the FED and the assumed fiscal policy from Trump (higher deficits which will cause higher interest rates as well). The dollar has been appreciating on a trade weighted basis as well not just against the euro.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DTWEXM
|
On December 16 2016 23:26 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 23:14 Ayaz2810 wrote:
I was hopeful that Trump wouldn't be as bad as all the lefties said he would be. This last couple weeks is making me think they were right. Almost every single decision he has made so far I disagree with, and I'm not even a democrat. If he doesn't fuck the country up economically, start a civil war, start World War 3, or get impeached for doing something stupid, then it'll be a miracle. I never thought I would say it, but I'm starting to approve of all the efforts to de-legitimize his win. Half hoping a bunch of electors rise up against his election. Fat chance though =( You're worried about Trump starting a civil war but you're hoping enough electors flip to deny him the election victory? Should i put two and two together for you? If Trump is not selected by the college it's a civil war and societal breakdown guaranteed.
Electors using the powers given to them by the constitution is not exactly grounds for civil war. It would be grounds to adding an amendment that further specifies and possibly even dictates what powers the electoral body has.
Civil war would be the electors getting shot for doing what the constitution allows them to do in direct revolt to the laws of the united states.
|
On December 17 2016 00:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 23:26 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On December 16 2016 23:14 Ayaz2810 wrote:
I was hopeful that Trump wouldn't be as bad as all the lefties said he would be. This last couple weeks is making me think they were right. Almost every single decision he has made so far I disagree with, and I'm not even a democrat. If he doesn't fuck the country up economically, start a civil war, start World War 3, or get impeached for doing something stupid, then it'll be a miracle. I never thought I would say it, but I'm starting to approve of all the efforts to de-legitimize his win. Half hoping a bunch of electors rise up against his election. Fat chance though =( You're worried about Trump starting a civil war but you're hoping enough electors flip to deny him the election victory? Should i put two and two together for you? If Trump is not selected by the college it's a civil war and societal breakdown guaranteed. Electors using the powers given to them by the constitution is not exactly grounds for civil war. It would be grounds to adding an amendment that further specifies and possibly even dictates what powers the electoral body has. Civil war would be the electors getting shot for doing what the constitution allows them to do in direct revolt to the laws of the united states.
grounds for civil war is whatever people are willing to take up arms and actually die for.
that said civil war is much harder to do these days; as the military is far stronger at the federal level; and state-level militias far less powerful.
while individuals can rise up, an organized army is much harder to pull off.
|
On December 16 2016 14:54 LegalLord wrote:
Which type of "crookedness" is more problematic:
1. Having your family administer the hotel with your name on it and raise the price really high, knowing that people will pay it because they want to curry favor with you.
2. Setting up a private email server for public information that classified emails are sometimes sent on without proper authorization.
One of those seems like garden variety profiteering, the other is incompetence. And given all that this election has been, I just really can't bring myself to be outraged at profiteering. Maybe if the other candidate weren't so rightfully disliked by most of the population.
You seem interested in accurately describing Hillary's issue, but simplifying Trump's issue. Bias?
|
On December 17 2016 01:07 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 14:54 LegalLord wrote:
Which type of "crookedness" is more problematic:
1. Having your family administer the hotel with your name on it and raise the price really high, knowing that people will pay it because they want to curry favor with you.
2. Setting up a private email server for public information that classified emails are sometimes sent on without proper authorization.
One of those seems like garden variety profiteering, the other is incompetence. And given all that this election has been, I just really can't bring myself to be outraged at profiteering. Maybe if the other candidate weren't so rightfully disliked by most of the population. You seem interested in accurately describing Hillary's issue, but simplifying Trump's issue. Bias?
The first boils down to bribery and conflict of interest. Is that not "scandalous" enough a description for you?
|
On December 17 2016 01:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 01:07 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 16 2016 14:54 LegalLord wrote:
Which type of "crookedness" is more problematic:
1. Having your family administer the hotel with your name on it and raise the price really high, knowing that people will pay it because they want to curry favor with you.
2. Setting up a private email server for public information that classified emails are sometimes sent on without proper authorization.
One of those seems like garden variety profiteering, the other is incompetence. And given all that this election has been, I just really can't bring myself to be outraged at profiteering. Maybe if the other candidate weren't so rightfully disliked by most of the population. You seem interested in accurately describing Hillary's issue, but simplifying Trump's issue. Bias? The first boils down to bribery and conflict of interest. Is that not "scandalous" enough a description for you?
Okay but I'm just wondering what set of circumstances would cause people to think bribery and conflict of interest in the presidency is okay. Saying "but Hillary" is a red herring.
|
This notion that Putin has a grudge against Hillary is actually a plausible explanation of the hack being pro-Trump.
|
On December 17 2016 01:12 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 01:09 LegalLord wrote:On December 17 2016 01:07 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 16 2016 14:54 LegalLord wrote:
Which type of "crookedness" is more problematic:
1. Having your family administer the hotel with your name on it and raise the price really high, knowing that people will pay it because they want to curry favor with you.
2. Setting up a private email server for public information that classified emails are sometimes sent on without proper authorization.
One of those seems like garden variety profiteering, the other is incompetence. And given all that this election has been, I just really can't bring myself to be outraged at profiteering. Maybe if the other candidate weren't so rightfully disliked by most of the population. You seem interested in accurately describing Hillary's issue, but simplifying Trump's issue. Bias? The first boils down to bribery and conflict of interest. Is that not "scandalous" enough a description for you? Okay but I'm just wondering what set of circumstances would cause people to think bribery and conflict of interest in the presidency is okay. Saying "but Hillary" is a red herring.
We all know what kind of president we have. The people who supported him, the people who opposed him, and the people in between (I fall into this category). We also all know what our alternative was, and that alternative was just horrible for a lot of us. So when people say "you elected a crook" is it not valid to point out, "should we have elected the other crook instead?" Because those were our only two real choices.
On December 17 2016 01:20 Doc.Rivers wrote:
This notion that Putin has a grudge against Hillary is actually a plausible explanation of the hack being pro-Trump.
Hillary Clinton is nothing if not the status quo on US-Russia relations. The FBI explanation of chaos is by far the one that seems most reasonable to me and it's the one I came to independently.
|
Facebook detailed a new plan Thursday to target the rapid spread of fake news across its site, a phenomenon that received renewed attention in the weeks following the 2016 election, with accusations that it may have influenced the behavior of voters.
The problem reached a breaking point two weeks ago when a gunman entered a pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C., to investigate an internet-based conspiracy theory about a child-sex ring that does not exist.
Now the move from the internet’s largest social-media platform has some intentional fake-news writers, who created their websites to “satirize” right-wing conspiracies or exploit Facebook’s algorithm, believing they’ll soon be out of business.
But the new program also has conspiracy theorists, ones who believe Hillary Clinton’s fictitious ties to the occult are the “real news,” excitedly drawing battle lines over the future of the news on social media.
Should Facebook’s fact-check initiative take off and result in censorship of propagandist sites, editors at websites like Infowars and alt-right leaders insist it will only reinforce the belief that certain ideas are being suppressed in favor of facts from mainstream outlets. One editor told The Daily Beast the Facebook plan proves that now the “‘Infowar’ isn’t a cliché, it’s perfectly apt.”
If Facebook’s experiment is applied correctly, authors of intentionally fake news face a potential hurdle for generating advertising revenue for their sites, if not the banning of their stories from the social network outright.
Marco Chacon, the creator of the intentional fake news website RealTrueNews.org, says Facebook is finally taking a positive step toward making sure websites like his no longer go viral on the social network. In an article for The Daily Beast in November, Chacon wrote that he created his site to make those who share fake right-wing news on Facebook more aware that they’re “susceptible to stories written ‘in [their] language’ that are complete, obvious, utter fabrications.”
Chacon’s larger aim, he wrote, was to force Facebook to work out a solution for a fake-news epidemic he believed was “deeply entrenched” and easily monetized.
“This is the right approach,” said Chacon of Facebook’s new plan Thursday. “The people who fear censors fear a whitelist of ‘approved news sites.’ This sounds like a more intelligent heuristic that is exactly the kind of thing a company like Facebook should employ.”
Chacon, who said he was preparing for NBC News to interview him about his antics in his home later in the day, added that the new safeguards “will give people some greater responsibility in what they spread.”
Source.
We'll have to wait and see what Facebook actually does, but it is becoming pretty clear that these major tech platforms (particularly Twitter) are aligning themselves with the Left. I tend to think that this is going to be a mistake long term.
|
On December 17 2016 01:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 01:12 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 17 2016 01:09 LegalLord wrote:On December 17 2016 01:07 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 16 2016 14:54 LegalLord wrote:
Which type of "crookedness" is more problematic:
1. Having your family administer the hotel with your name on it and raise the price really high, knowing that people will pay it because they want to curry favor with you.
2. Setting up a private email server for public information that classified emails are sometimes sent on without proper authorization.
One of those seems like garden variety profiteering, the other is incompetence. And given all that this election has been, I just really can't bring myself to be outraged at profiteering. Maybe if the other candidate weren't so rightfully disliked by most of the population. You seem interested in accurately describing Hillary's issue, but simplifying Trump's issue. Bias? The first boils down to bribery and conflict of interest. Is that not "scandalous" enough a description for you? Okay but I'm just wondering what set of circumstances would cause people to think bribery and conflict of interest in the presidency is okay. Saying "but Hillary" is a red herring. We all know what kind of president we have. The people who supported him, the people who opposed him, and the people in between (I fall into this category). We also all know what our alternative was, and that alternative was just horrible for a lot of us. So when people say "you elected a crook" is it not valid to point out, "should we have elected the other crook instead?" Because those were our only two real choices. Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 01:20 Doc.Rivers wrote:
This notion that Putin has a grudge against Hillary is actually a plausible explanation of the hack being pro-Trump. Hillary Clinton is nothing if not the status quo on US-Russia relations. The FBI explanation of chaos is by far the one that seems most reasonable to me and it's the one I came to independently.
So long as the claim is not "conflicts of interest are okay in the presidency". Trump should do things to mitigate that, and to his credit, if the Trump Org is not going to make any new deals during his presidency, that's a good thing. But it's not okay for Trump's children to be running the company. Divestiture is the best answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
