|
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 February 27 2017 06:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2017 04:27 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Another plot to mask the big election defeat foiled by Donald
Seriously though what does he even mean with 'mask the big election defeat'. Is there a movement that's saying the Dems didn't lose? Anyone saying Trump has tiny hands is FAKE NEWS Ladies and gents, the President of the United States. Seriously, he has to stop tweeting, it's a fucking disgrace. All the capital of respect and sympathy that Obama built in the world for America in 8 years is evaporating. Question for my conservative friends here. Would you have trusted Donal Trump to deal with the Cuba missile crisis? I mean, seriously, you are ask to replay the scenario and change JFK for Trump. Would you trust the result? I'm genuinely curious.
JFK took an enormous risk and got lucky that he didn't start ww3 with it,It ended well but it could easily have gone the other way.
|
This thread in a nutshell:
Someone: mentions Russian interference
Danglar: it doesn't matter.
LL: It's all because Hillary and the establishment were evil in the first place.
GH: DNC DNC DNC DNC!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe none of you is real and I'm chatting with bots.
|
On February 27 2017 08:55 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2017 06:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 27 2017 04:27 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Another plot to mask the big election defeat foiled by Donald https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/835916511944523777Seriously though what does he even mean with 'mask the big election defeat'. Is there a movement that's saying the Dems didn't lose? Anyone saying Trump has tiny hands is FAKE NEWS Ladies and gents, the President of the United States. Seriously, he has to stop tweeting, it's a fucking disgrace. All the capital of respect and sympathy that Obama built in the world for America in 8 years is evaporating. Question for my conservative friends here. Would you have trusted Donal Trump to deal with the Cuba missile crisis? I mean, seriously, you are ask to replay the scenario and change JFK for Trump. Would you trust the result? I'm genuinely curious. JFK took an enormous risk and got lucky that he didn't start ww3 with it,It ended well but it could easily have gone the other way.
Quite true, yet that doesn't answer my question. Would any of you trust Trump in a time of crisis? i'm just trying to imagine Trump, his emotional instability and his narcissistic disorder in the shoes of Roosevelt or JFK. Can you? Seriously?
|
On February 27 2017 09:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
This thread in a nutshell:
Someone: mentions Russian interference
Danglar: it doesn't matter.
LL: It's all because Hillary and the establishment were evil in the first place.
GH: DNC DNC DNC DNC!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe none of you is real and I'm chatting with bots.
You forgot to mention electability in your caricature of my responses.
|
On February 27 2017 09:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2017 09:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
This thread in a nutshell:
Someone: mentions Russian interference
Danglar: it doesn't matter.
LL: It's all because Hillary and the establishment were evil in the first place.
GH: DNC DNC DNC DNC!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe none of you is real and I'm chatting with bots. You forgot to mention electability in your caricature of my responses.
No, that belongs to oneofthem.
|
On February 27 2017 09:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
This thread in a nutshell:
Someone: mentions Russian interference
Danglar: it doesn't matter.
LL: It's all because Hillary and the establishment were evil in the first place.
GH: DNC DNC DNC DNC!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe none of you is real and I'm chatting with bots.
This on point for most of the discussions over the last few days.
|
On February 27 2017 09:34 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2017 09:25 LegalLord wrote:On February 27 2017 09:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
This thread in a nutshell:
Someone: mentions Russian interference
Danglar: it doesn't matter.
LL: It's all because Hillary and the establishment were evil in the first place.
GH: DNC DNC DNC DNC!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe none of you is real and I'm chatting with bots. You forgot to mention electability in your caricature of my responses. No, that belongs to oneofthem.
His thing is blaming sandernistas.
|
On February 27 2017 09:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
This thread in a nutshell:
Someone: mentions Russian interference
Danglar: it doesn't matter.
LL: It's all because Hillary and the establishment were evil in the first place.
GH: DNC DNC DNC DNC!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe none of you is real and I'm chatting with bots.
Well there's several different issues with the "RUSSSIA!?!" thing.
There's generically interfering in foreign elections. That's a pretty big deal among a lot of Hillary supporters, but interfering with foreign elections on behalf of a preferred outcome is like a US FP staple.
Then there's "but they hacked a major party", besides the fact that if they handled it with some integrity it wouldn't have been a big deal, again, hacking foreign political parties is basically a Tuesday at the NSA.
Then there's the "now Trump is a puppet of Russia". This one, while hyperbolic, has some weight. Having our president being leveraged over his ego is especially problematic. It's hard to get to the substance of the issue since it's surrounded by a high level of paranoia, partisanship and hyperbole.
That said, there's not much to say other than conjecture and tea leaves readings. Congress isn't interested in an independent investigation so it's probably just going to be a political distraction for the most part unless or until it turns into something of verifiable substance.
EDIT: The harping on the DNC makes sense since they just gave the progressive wing the finger and are trying to throw 18 and 20 to the Republicans. Want to make sure they can't act surprised when the Hillary wing floats Hillary/a surrogate for the presidency and we're circling back to the "you have to support us to stop Trump", and we tell them "we told you we wouldn't, you forced it anyway, you're not getting the votes and you knew that when you made those choices".
|
President Donald Trump’s nominee for Navy secretary, Philip Bilden, withdrew from consideration Sunday, becoming the second Pentagon pick unable to untangle his financial investments in the vetting process.
"Mr. Philip Bilden has informed me that he has come to the difficult decision to withdraw from consideration to be secretary of the Navy," Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said in a statement. "This was a personal decision driven by privacy concerns and significant challenges he faced in separating himself from his business interests."
Mattis added that he would make a recommendation to the White House for a new nominee "in the coming days."
Bilden, who built his career in Hong Kong with the investment firm HarbourVest, was a surprise pick for the Navy post but had been Mattis’ preferred candidate.
Yet like billionaire investment banker Vincent Viola, who withdrew his nomination to be secretary of the Army earlier this month, Bilden ran into too many challenges during a review by the Office of Government Ethics to avoid potential conflicts of interest, according to sources familiar with the decision.
"I informed secretary of Defense Mattis with regret that I respectfully withdraw from consideration as Nominee for the 76th secretary of the Navy," Bilden said in a statement Sunday.
insert your own extreme vetting joke.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/nominee-for-navy-secretary-to-withdraw-235418
|
On February 27 2017 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2017 09:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
This thread in a nutshell:
Someone: mentions Russian interference
Danglar: it doesn't matter.
LL: It's all because Hillary and the establishment were evil in the first place.
GH: DNC DNC DNC DNC!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe none of you is real and I'm chatting with bots. Well there's several different issues with the "RUSSSIA!?!" thing. There's generically interfering in foreign elections. That's a pretty big deal among a lot of Hillary supporters, but interfering with foreign elections on behalf of a preferred outcome is like a US FP staple. Then there's "but they hacked a major party", besides the fact that if they handled it with some integrity it wouldn't have been a big deal, again, hacking foreign political parties is basically a Tuesday at the NSA. Then there's the "now Trump is a puppet of Russia". This one, while hyperbolic, has some weight. Having our president being leveraged over his ego is especially problematic. It's hard to get to the substance of the issue since it's surrounded by a high level of paranoia, partisanship and hyperbole. That said, there's not much to say other than conjecture and tea leaves readings. Congress isn't interested in an independent investigation so it's probably just going to be a political distraction for the most part unless or until it turns into something of verifiable substance. EDIT: The harping on the DNC makes sense since they just gave the progressive wing the finger and are trying to throw 18 and 20 to the Republicans. Want to make sure they can't act surprised when the Hillary wing floats Hillary/a surrogate for the presidency and we're circling back to the "you have to support us to stop Trump", and we tell them "we told you we wouldn't, you forced it anyway, you're not getting the votes and you knew that when you made those choices".
You always try to get a lot of play on the fact that we have historically interfered in other countries' politics a lot as some kind of proof that Russian interference isn't actually a big deal. I don't think that's got so much weight as you think it does. First because a lot of the people complaining about Russian interference might think we shouldn't do so much of that either. But also because, and I should think this point would be obvious, that wasn't us getting hacked. In the Trump era moer than ever before, people definitely don't believe in the Golden Rule in foreign policy. Most of those countries that were having their elections influenced by foreign powers were probably very upset about it. When it happens to us, so are we.
If you don't think Russia influenced our election, fine, we can argue about that. If you think they did, but the content of the leaks is what really matters, then we can try to discuss both subjects at some point – the content of the leaks and implications, and the source of the leaks and its implications. But the fact that our intelligence agencies also sometimes influence other coutries' elections is basically a complete non-sequitur, especially given that I don't think we've ever tried to influence another world superpower's elections, at least not in such a blatant way.
Edit: fixed italics tag
|
I suppose you could say "two wrongs don't make a right" in response to the Russians hacking the US when the US hacks abroad.
But in another sense, it's a sort of "you have no moral high ground to complain from" issue. You can't complain about Russia doing it as some sort of unprecedented evil when you do it yourself whenever you think you can get away with it.
|
On February 27 2017 10:20 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2017 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2017 09:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
This thread in a nutshell:
Someone: mentions Russian interference
Danglar: it doesn't matter.
LL: It's all because Hillary and the establishment were evil in the first place.
GH: DNC DNC DNC DNC!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe none of you is real and I'm chatting with bots. Well there's several different issues with the "RUSSSIA!?!" thing. There's generically interfering in foreign elections. That's a pretty big deal among a lot of Hillary supporters, but interfering with foreign elections on behalf of a preferred outcome is like a US FP staple. Then there's "but they hacked a major party", besides the fact that if they handled it with some integrity it wouldn't have been a big deal, again, hacking foreign political parties is basically a Tuesday at the NSA. Then there's the "now Trump is a puppet of Russia". This one, while hyperbolic, has some weight. Having our president being leveraged over his ego is especially problematic. It's hard to get to the substance of the issue since it's surrounded by a high level of paranoia, partisanship and hyperbole. That said, there's not much to say other than conjecture and tea leaves readings. Congress isn't interested in an independent investigation so it's probably just going to be a political distraction for the most part unless or until it turns into something of verifiable substance. EDIT: The harping on the DNC makes sense since they just gave the progressive wing the finger and are trying to throw 18 and 20 to the Republicans. Want to make sure they can't act surprised when the Hillary wing floats Hillary/a surrogate for the presidency and we're circling back to the "you have to support us to stop Trump", and we tell them "we told you we wouldn't, you forced it anyway, you're not getting the votes and you knew that when you made those choices". You always try to get a lot of play on the fact that we have historically interfered in other countries' politics a lot as some kind of proof that Russian interference isn't actually a big deal. I don't think that's got so much weight as you think it does. First because a lot of the people complaining about Russian interference might think we shouldn't do so much of that either. But also because, and I should think this point would be obvious, that wasn't [i]us[i] getting hacked. In the Trump era moer than ever before, people definitely don't believe in the Golden Rule in foreign policy. Most of those countries that were having their elections influenced by foreign powers were probably very upset about it. When it happens to us, so are we. If you don't think Russia influenced our election, fine, we can argue about that. If you think they did, but the content of the leaks is what really matters, then we can try to discuss both subjects at some point – the content of the leaks and implications, and the source of the leaks and its implications. But the fact that our intelligence agencies also sometimes influence other coutries' elections is basically a complete non-sequitur, especially given that I don't think we've ever tried to influence another world superpower's elections, at least not in such a blatant way.
Like Legal kind of mentioned the "we do it too" is for the crowd who thinks this is some unprecedented evil act. I don't think anyone here thinks Russia didn't influence our election. To what extent and how significant it is seems to be where most of the contention is.
The leaks shouldn't have been a big deal, but as was pointed out Democrats and Hillary responded in one of the worst ways imaginable. Short of saying "we rigged it and there's nothing you can do about it. Nana, nana. Boo boo." it's hard to come up with how they could have handled it worse. So the interference is on Russia, the fallout is almost all Democrats/Hillary.
The question is, if we're outraged about Russia's interference, what are we going to do about it? We already have the answer... Nothing, other than Democrats possibly rekindling a cold war with Russia so Trump can prove he's not their bitch.
Could we find out some valuable information with an independent investigation into Trump, the Russians, and the election? Probably, but we're not getting one so there's not much to talk about. Just presume they'll be able to do it next time and not write things in email they don't want public, or even better, don't chuckle about how you're violating the charter of the party and undermining a candidate. Oh and don't put people you know were cheating in charge of your stuff, or people who intentionally undermined Sanders during the primary. Oh and FFS don't go out of your way to install a chair who doesn't even know how to chair a meeting just to stop a progressive who jumped through all of your hoops.
|
On February 27 2017 10:24 LegalLord wrote:
I suppose you could say "two wrongs don't make a right" in response to the Russians hacking the US when the US hacks abroad.
But in another sense, it's a sort of "you have no moral high ground to complain from" issue. You can't complain about Russia doing it as some sort of unprecedented evil when you do it yourself whenever you think you can get away with it.
First, it is unprecedented. Major world powers hacking each other's elections is very different from major world powers hacking tiny fledgling countries' elections. I'd oppose both, but the former is clearly a much bigger deal with greater consequences.
Second, what's moral high ground got to do with it? The liberals criticizing it probably do have moral high ground, insomuch as they oppose election interference when we do it to. The conservatives supporting Trump don't care about moral high ground - "America First" is completely unreconcileable with any Golden Rule- or morality-based foreign policy. So whether you're coming at it from the morality-based "countries should respect each others' sovereignty" position or the self-interest-based "America first, fuck everybody else" position, Russia interfering in our sovereignty is a big deal.
|
First, it is unprecedented. Major world powers hacking each other's elections
It's this type of phrasing that led to 50% of Democrats thinking Russians hacked vote totals and is at the core of a lot of the more hyperbolic rhetoric.
They hacked a major political party and that does happen with reasonable frequency. But is it the "hacking" or the interfering that's the primary offense in your view?
|
On February 27 2017 09:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
This thread in a nutshell:
Someone: mentions Russian interference
Danglar: it doesn't matter.
LL: It's all because Hillary and the establishment were evil in the first place.
GH: DNC DNC DNC DNC!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe none of you is real and I'm chatting with bots.
BtU: here's my bad summary of what you wrote, now let me tell you why the summary is the most ridiculous bullshit ever!
Coding for bots that deflect from Hillary ethics and thin-gruel Russian stories should be pretty easy. You're up to what, three times through dismissing the entire thing and recentering on angles you'd prefer to talk about (In which case you'd be better off talking to bots switching areas so quickly! Humans generally like responses on subject)
|
On February 27 2017 10:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +First, it is unprecedented. Major world powers hacking each other's elections It's this type of phrasing that led to 50% of Democrats thinking Russians hacked vote totals and is at the core of a lot of the more hyperbolic rhetoric. They hacked a major political party and that does happen with reasonable frequency. But is it the "hacking" or the interfering that's the primary offense in your view?
That's a bizarre question. You mean, if they had hacked the DNC but then not leaked the info, would it be as bad? I mean, I guess not, but I don't see what's the use of the question. Perhaps I misunderstood what you're asking?
No, Russia probably didn't hack vote totals. But the idea of a foreign power, particularly a hostile one, being able to play kingmaker and sway US elections toward the candidate of its choice should be concerning to anyone who values American democracy or sovereignty, which I would have thought would be damn near everyone in the country. If the US similarly interfered in some third world country's elections I expect their citizens would feel similarly concerned.
I mean really, the US has assassinated/tried to assassinate foreign heads of state before. Does that mean we wouldn't have a right to be upset if Russia assassinated/tried to assassinate the president? Would we not get to call that "unprecedented?"
|
So what do people actually expect us to do about the Russia thing?
Like okay, suppose we accept that it was a big deal. It's not clear to me the course of action here beyond "make sure there aren't people in Trump's administration that are actively colluding with Russia against US interests" and "make sure it doesn't happen again". Both of which are things that would happen anyway at this point. It's not clear to me what there is to discuss beyond that, outside of some delusional Democrats who think there's anything to be gained from overturning the election result.
|
On February 27 2017 11:05 TheYango wrote:
So what do people actually expect us to do about the Russia thing?
Like okay, suppose we accept that it was a big deal. It's not clear to me the course of action here beyond "make sure there aren't people in Trump's administration that are actively colluding with Russia against US interests" and "make sure it doesn't happen again. Both of which are things that would happen anyway at this point. It's not clear to me what there is to discuss beyond that, outside of some delusional Democrats who think there's anything to be gained from overturning the election result.
An independent investigation to ensure this would be a good start, and is by no means guaranteed to happen at this point.
|
There are enough people with vested interest in Trump's fuckups that I find it hard to believe that information would stay buried for long if it exists, even if Congressional Republicans are too craven to pursue it.
|
On February 27 2017 10:44 ChristianS wrote:
First, it is unprecedented. Major world powers hacking each other's elections is very different from major world powers hacking tiny fledgling countries' elections. I'd oppose both, but the former is clearly a much bigger deal with greater consequences.
That's not true either. The US has never shied away from influencing other elections whoever the other country may be (plenty of instances in which Russia accused the US of meddling in elections, generally through "NGOs"). Certainly, the methods tend to be different - inciting revolt and funding opposition - but the result is the same. Arguably the biggest difference here is in how well it worked, and in the methods used. Leaking hacked information is a pretty Russian strategy; the US doesn't do that quite as much, perhaps because of how blatant it is. But whether the goal was to undermine the US political system or to elect Trump, it worked swimmingly.
On February 27 2017 10:44 ChristianS wrote:
Second, what's moral high ground got to do with it? The liberals criticizing it probably do have moral high ground, insomuch as they oppose election interference when we do it to.
Well if you talk about how evil Russia is for breaking into the system, you would do well to acknowledge that they're just playing the same game that the US started. None of us did that personally, but the government in charge of us did it - and we are collectively responsible for that government. Bush, Trump, Obama, or anyone else.
On February 27 2017 10:44 ChristianS wrote:
The conservatives supporting Trump don't care about moral high ground - "America First" is completely unreconcileable with any Golden Rule- or morality-based foreign policy. So whether you're coming at it from the morality-based "countries should respect each others' sovereignty" position or the self-interest-based "America first, fuck everybody else" position, Russia interfering in our sovereignty is a big deal.
The Trump people take a more "if Russia did it, then they did us the favor of exposing true documents highlighting Clinton corruption" approach to it all. That's just painful partisanship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
