|
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 July 13 2017 00:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 00:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Remember yesterday when I said all discussions involving GH lack any political nuance whatsoever?
Case in point: Federal Democrats are horrible because there's slave labour in some states.
Slave labour in prisons.
Prison systems which are controlled by the states.
States which are hardcore republican regions. You forgot to include that Hillary is responsible for the slave labor.
Run from a pizza shop basement.
|
On July 13 2017 00:35 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 00:24 mozoku wrote:On July 12 2017 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 23:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 22:58 Nebuchad wrote:On July 12 2017 22:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 22:11 Nebuchad wrote:On July 12 2017 21:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On July 12 2017 20:23 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
He doesn't have any sort of "reliable source of information and analysis," he's simply stuck riding a horse named "Russia is and always has been a distraction" into the sunset, sped along by a singular dislike for Democrats. You can use the truth as a distraction you know Well, I, as a reader, think the Russian thing is huge, and very certainly the most important story of this year. It questions the legitimacy of the POTUS, the future of western democracy, the place of Russia in the world, and could lead to one of the biggest scandals in american political history. The NYT is doing its job by writing about it on a regular basis, and investigating it. Calling it a distraction is a joke. And the Times is covering everything else as usual, if anyone criticizing it bothered to open it. A distraction would mean that they have an agenda and deliberately inflate the story to avoid talking about other things. That's low cost conspiracy theory and it makes absolutely 0 sense. The distraction argument works like this: - The democratic party seems to be doing pretty bad right now, it lost a lot of seats to a party that is the closest thing to "transparently evil" that I've seen in my lifetime. - Perhaps we ought to do something to change that? - If we do something to change that, that's probably not too beneficial for me, me and my ideological friends are the ones in charge right now and after a change, we might not be. So instead of talking about how pathetic it is that we're losing to the Republicans, we're going to talk about how bad the other guys are, that's going to be our strategy. - "Have you seen the other guys?" There's absolutely no need to lie or inflate anything to achieve that. The other guys are bad. We can talk about more than one thing at the same time no? I can assure you there has been plenty of discussions in the time about democratic defeat, Hillary and so on and so on. By your book, everything can be qualified as a distraction. If the Times was talking more about Hillary, it would be a distraction from the Russian investigation? These nonsense accusations lead absolutely nowhere. It just happens that right now the president and his administration seem to have colluded with a foreign power to get elected and have been lying for months about it. But hey HILLARY!!! and it's all gossip (GH, seriousfuckingly, you've been flooding for a year the forum about accusations against Clinton that are nothing compared to what we are talking about. Get real.) Everything can be accused of anything, that's how accusations work. You then assess the particular claim to determine whether it makes logical sense or not, and your mileage may vary there, thus leading to disagreements. In the case that you offered, the accusation doesn't make any sense, which is why it would lead nowhere. In the case that I offered, there is a logic and there is a direction. I suspect you already knew that "some other accusations make no sense" is not a good answer to a particular accusation, so I'm not sure why you went there in the first place. Because that one doesn't make sense either. The Times has had countless articles, editorials and opinion pieces about the failures of the democratic party, and the russian investigation is obviously the biggest story of this news cycle. If they were totally silent about Hillary and Sanders having killed twelve people while engaged on a sale of uranium to north korea and the biggest story on their home page was still the russian thing i would agree, but right now the guys are just doing their job, covering extensively a potential political earthquake while, of course discussing all kind of other things, including the state of the democratic party. The only universe and narrative in which the russian investigation is a smoke screen is the fantasy world in which it is a non story and the DNC business is so much more worth talking about right now. I forgive you because you're in France and you understanably have a very different perspective of how bad things besides Russia US relations are going and getting comparatively no coverage. I mean, in this particular context, you realize we have states (meaning literally the government) dependent on slave labor, that is in turned used to feed corporate bottom lines though cheaper goods and services. Which further undermines the labor market at/near the bottom? Now it might be an acceptable tradeoff to one degree or another if they weren't pocketing profits and meanwhile basically just caging/penning people in half-assed work camps. Here's Alabama for example: Posted April 02, 2017 “ACI utilizes inmate labor to produce goods and services that are sold to governmental entities within the State,” the ACI website states. “The revenues generated go to offset the costs of incarceration and provide inmates with job skills and practical work experience.”
Participating prisoners are paid 25 to 75 cents per hour for their work, unlike inmate laborers in Arkansas, Georgia and Texas state prisons, who were not paid as of September. And they make more than federal prisoners, who get just 12 to 40 cents an hour, according to Mother Jones.
They may have it slightly better than inmates in other states, but Alabama prisoners still make far less than Alabama’s minimum hourly wage of $7.25.
That disparity has led to strikes, protests and other issues in recent years.
But ACI, which is a division of the state Department of Corrections, continues to be a productive program. Its products are sold via a showroom in Montgomery, an online catalog and printed order forms.
SourceLike, I get that NK and Russia, and China are dicks, and we're supposed to make them the new axis of evil with Iran, but holy crap, can we end state ran slavery in the US first? That's right, not as important as the tail chasing about Russia, which of course was in the headline because nothing grabs clicks like "Russia", throw in some "slavery" and you have a perfectly contextless story that ignores that America's slavery problem is a special kind of twisted all these years later. The programs are voluntary. Slavery is involuntary basically by definition, so calling the programs slavery doesn't make any sense at all. Ironically, you're using the same rhetorical strategy Trump is (correctly) lambasted for on a regular basis though. Do you consider unpaid volunteers slaves as well? Some of those programs are "voluntary" in the sense that they sent people to solitary confinement for 20+ years if they didn't volunteer
Has that been reported in any reputable news outlet? I did a cursory Google search and only found vague references to a case where that happened reported by "takepart.com", which sounds like a progressive activist site.
|
On July 13 2017 00:53 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 00:35 Nevuk wrote:On July 13 2017 00:24 mozoku wrote:On July 12 2017 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 23:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 22:58 Nebuchad wrote:On July 12 2017 22:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 22:11 Nebuchad wrote:On July 12 2017 21:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
You can use the truth as a distraction you know Well, I, as a reader, think the Russian thing is huge, and very certainly the most important story of this year. It questions the legitimacy of the POTUS, the future of western democracy, the place of Russia in the world, and could lead to one of the biggest scandals in american political history. The NYT is doing its job by writing about it on a regular basis, and investigating it. Calling it a distraction is a joke. And the Times is covering everything else as usual, if anyone criticizing it bothered to open it. A distraction would mean that they have an agenda and deliberately inflate the story to avoid talking about other things. That's low cost conspiracy theory and it makes absolutely 0 sense. The distraction argument works like this: - The democratic party seems to be doing pretty bad right now, it lost a lot of seats to a party that is the closest thing to "transparently evil" that I've seen in my lifetime. - Perhaps we ought to do something to change that? - If we do something to change that, that's probably not too beneficial for me, me and my ideological friends are the ones in charge right now and after a change, we might not be. So instead of talking about how pathetic it is that we're losing to the Republicans, we're going to talk about how bad the other guys are, that's going to be our strategy. - "Have you seen the other guys?" There's absolutely no need to lie or inflate anything to achieve that. The other guys are bad. We can talk about more than one thing at the same time no? I can assure you there has been plenty of discussions in the time about democratic defeat, Hillary and so on and so on. By your book, everything can be qualified as a distraction. If the Times was talking more about Hillary, it would be a distraction from the Russian investigation? These nonsense accusations lead absolutely nowhere. It just happens that right now the president and his administration seem to have colluded with a foreign power to get elected and have been lying for months about it. But hey HILLARY!!! and it's all gossip (GH, seriousfuckingly, you've been flooding for a year the forum about accusations against Clinton that are nothing compared to what we are talking about. Get real.) Everything can be accused of anything, that's how accusations work. You then assess the particular claim to determine whether it makes logical sense or not, and your mileage may vary there, thus leading to disagreements. In the case that you offered, the accusation doesn't make any sense, which is why it would lead nowhere. In the case that I offered, there is a logic and there is a direction. I suspect you already knew that "some other accusations make no sense" is not a good answer to a particular accusation, so I'm not sure why you went there in the first place. Because that one doesn't make sense either. The Times has had countless articles, editorials and opinion pieces about the failures of the democratic party, and the russian investigation is obviously the biggest story of this news cycle. If they were totally silent about Hillary and Sanders having killed twelve people while engaged on a sale of uranium to north korea and the biggest story on their home page was still the russian thing i would agree, but right now the guys are just doing their job, covering extensively a potential political earthquake while, of course discussing all kind of other things, including the state of the democratic party. The only universe and narrative in which the russian investigation is a smoke screen is the fantasy world in which it is a non story and the DNC business is so much more worth talking about right now. I forgive you because you're in France and you understanably have a very different perspective of how bad things besides Russia US relations are going and getting comparatively no coverage. I mean, in this particular context, you realize we have states (meaning literally the government) dependent on slave labor, that is in turned used to feed corporate bottom lines though cheaper goods and services. Which further undermines the labor market at/near the bottom? Now it might be an acceptable tradeoff to one degree or another if they weren't pocketing profits and meanwhile basically just caging/penning people in half-assed work camps. Here's Alabama for example: Posted April 02, 2017 “ACI utilizes inmate labor to produce goods and services that are sold to governmental entities within the State,” the ACI website states. “The revenues generated go to offset the costs of incarceration and provide inmates with job skills and practical work experience.”
Participating prisoners are paid 25 to 75 cents per hour for their work, unlike inmate laborers in Arkansas, Georgia and Texas state prisons, who were not paid as of September. And they make more than federal prisoners, who get just 12 to 40 cents an hour, according to Mother Jones.
They may have it slightly better than inmates in other states, but Alabama prisoners still make far less than Alabama’s minimum hourly wage of $7.25.
That disparity has led to strikes, protests and other issues in recent years.
But ACI, which is a division of the state Department of Corrections, continues to be a productive program. Its products are sold via a showroom in Montgomery, an online catalog and printed order forms.
SourceLike, I get that NK and Russia, and China are dicks, and we're supposed to make them the new axis of evil with Iran, but holy crap, can we end state ran slavery in the US first? That's right, not as important as the tail chasing about Russia, which of course was in the headline because nothing grabs clicks like "Russia", throw in some "slavery" and you have a perfectly contextless story that ignores that America's slavery problem is a special kind of twisted all these years later. The programs are voluntary. Slavery is involuntary basically by definition, so calling the programs slavery doesn't make any sense at all. Ironically, you're using the same rhetorical strategy Trump is (correctly) lambasted for on a regular basis though. Do you consider unpaid volunteers slaves as well? Some of those programs are "voluntary" in the sense that they sent people to solitary confinement for 20+ years if they didn't volunteer Has that been reported in any reputable news outlet? I did a cursory Google search and only found vague references to a case where that happened reported by "takepart.com", which sounds like a progressive activist site.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/detainees-sue-private-prison-for-forced-labor
|
On July 13 2017 00:46 Doodsmack wrote:
What is the exact first day he mentioned it? Anyone know?
|
On July 13 2017 01:06 On_Slaught wrote:What is the exact first day he mentioned it? Anyone know?
June 9 at 4:40 pm. Don Jr's meeting with the Russian began at 4 pm on that day.
|
I imagine Jr texting Trump mid-meeting to tell him about stuff to say up to the moment. "Getting word of _____", so Trump immediately tweets "many people are saying _____"
|
United States42539 Posts
Presumably Trump Sr. will insist he had no knowledge of the meeting happening on the floor below his office. Timing doesn't look good though.
|
Let's just presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign something about the Hillary emails during that June 9, 2016 meeting. What would they have said? More specifically, what might they have said that was outside of the sphere of public knowledge at the time? My memory is a little fuzzy, but I don't recall the Russians releasing any information about Hillary's emails. They only [arguably] released the DNC and Podesta emails. But let's further presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign that they had actually had all of Hillary's emails and even told Trump some of what was in there. Who's really compromised at this point? Hillary or Trump?
|
On July 13 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign something about the Hillary emails during that June 9, 2016 meeting. What would they have said? More specifically, what might they have said that was outside of the sphere of public knowledge at the time? My memory is a little fuzzy, but I don't recall the Russians releasing any information about Hillary's emails. They only [arguably] released the DNC and Podesta emails. But let's further presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign that they had actually had all of Hillary's emails and even told Trump some of what was in there. Who's really compromised at this point? Hillary or Trump?
Both, but only one of those two is the president right now.
|
On July 13 2017 01:02 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 00:53 mozoku wrote:On July 13 2017 00:35 Nevuk wrote:On July 13 2017 00:24 mozoku wrote:On July 12 2017 23:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 23:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 22:58 Nebuchad wrote:On July 12 2017 22:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 22:11 Nebuchad wrote:On July 12 2017 21:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Well, I, as a reader, think the Russian thing is huge, and very certainly the most important story of this year. It questions the legitimacy of the POTUS, the future of western democracy, the place of Russia in the world, and could lead to one of the biggest scandals in american political history.
The NYT is doing its job by writing about it on a regular basis, and investigating it. Calling it a distraction is a joke. And the Times is covering everything else as usual, if anyone criticizing it bothered to open it.
A distraction would mean that they have an agenda and deliberately inflate the story to avoid talking about other things. That's low cost conspiracy theory and it makes absolutely 0 sense. The distraction argument works like this: - The democratic party seems to be doing pretty bad right now, it lost a lot of seats to a party that is the closest thing to "transparently evil" that I've seen in my lifetime. - Perhaps we ought to do something to change that? - If we do something to change that, that's probably not too beneficial for me, me and my ideological friends are the ones in charge right now and after a change, we might not be. So instead of talking about how pathetic it is that we're losing to the Republicans, we're going to talk about how bad the other guys are, that's going to be our strategy. - "Have you seen the other guys?" There's absolutely no need to lie or inflate anything to achieve that. The other guys are bad. We can talk about more than one thing at the same time no? I can assure you there has been plenty of discussions in the time about democratic defeat, Hillary and so on and so on. By your book, everything can be qualified as a distraction. If the Times was talking more about Hillary, it would be a distraction from the Russian investigation? These nonsense accusations lead absolutely nowhere. It just happens that right now the president and his administration seem to have colluded with a foreign power to get elected and have been lying for months about it. But hey HILLARY!!! and it's all gossip (GH, seriousfuckingly, you've been flooding for a year the forum about accusations against Clinton that are nothing compared to what we are talking about. Get real.) Everything can be accused of anything, that's how accusations work. You then assess the particular claim to determine whether it makes logical sense or not, and your mileage may vary there, thus leading to disagreements. In the case that you offered, the accusation doesn't make any sense, which is why it would lead nowhere. In the case that I offered, there is a logic and there is a direction. I suspect you already knew that "some other accusations make no sense" is not a good answer to a particular accusation, so I'm not sure why you went there in the first place. Because that one doesn't make sense either. The Times has had countless articles, editorials and opinion pieces about the failures of the democratic party, and the russian investigation is obviously the biggest story of this news cycle. If they were totally silent about Hillary and Sanders having killed twelve people while engaged on a sale of uranium to north korea and the biggest story on their home page was still the russian thing i would agree, but right now the guys are just doing their job, covering extensively a potential political earthquake while, of course discussing all kind of other things, including the state of the democratic party. The only universe and narrative in which the russian investigation is a smoke screen is the fantasy world in which it is a non story and the DNC business is so much more worth talking about right now. I forgive you because you're in France and you understanably have a very different perspective of how bad things besides Russia US relations are going and getting comparatively no coverage. I mean, in this particular context, you realize we have states (meaning literally the government) dependent on slave labor, that is in turned used to feed corporate bottom lines though cheaper goods and services. Which further undermines the labor market at/near the bottom? Now it might be an acceptable tradeoff to one degree or another if they weren't pocketing profits and meanwhile basically just caging/penning people in half-assed work camps. Here's Alabama for example: Posted April 02, 2017 “ACI utilizes inmate labor to produce goods and services that are sold to governmental entities within the State,” the ACI website states. “The revenues generated go to offset the costs of incarceration and provide inmates with job skills and practical work experience.”
Participating prisoners are paid 25 to 75 cents per hour for their work, unlike inmate laborers in Arkansas, Georgia and Texas state prisons, who were not paid as of September. And they make more than federal prisoners, who get just 12 to 40 cents an hour, according to Mother Jones.
They may have it slightly better than inmates in other states, but Alabama prisoners still make far less than Alabama’s minimum hourly wage of $7.25.
That disparity has led to strikes, protests and other issues in recent years.
But ACI, which is a division of the state Department of Corrections, continues to be a productive program. Its products are sold via a showroom in Montgomery, an online catalog and printed order forms.
SourceLike, I get that NK and Russia, and China are dicks, and we're supposed to make them the new axis of evil with Iran, but holy crap, can we end state ran slavery in the US first? That's right, not as important as the tail chasing about Russia, which of course was in the headline because nothing grabs clicks like "Russia", throw in some "slavery" and you have a perfectly contextless story that ignores that America's slavery problem is a special kind of twisted all these years later. The programs are voluntary. Slavery is involuntary basically by definition, so calling the programs slavery doesn't make any sense at all. Ironically, you're using the same rhetorical strategy Trump is (correctly) lambasted for on a regular basis though. Do you consider unpaid volunteers slaves as well? Some of those programs are "voluntary" in the sense that they sent people to solitary confinement for 20+ years if they didn't volunteer Has that been reported in any reputable news outlet? I did a cursory Google search and only found vague references to a case where that happened reported by "takepart.com", which sounds like a progressive activist site. http://www.thedailybeast.com/detainees-sue-private-prison-for-forced-labor
If there's already a lawsuit going on, I don't see what there is to complain about? That's the system at work. The allegations aren't even against public prisons.
Apart from coercion by threatening solitary confinement (or other unreasonable means), I don't see an issue with a voluntary program that pays prison laborers less than minimum wage. Their living expenses are being paid by taxpayers, and employing prisoners carries its own risks so it seems reasonable to me. The program offers non-monetary benefits to prisoners and is offered voluntarily (barring illegal action) after all.
|
On July 13 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign something about the Hillary emails during that June 9, 2016 meeting. What would they have said? More specifically, what might they have said that was outside of the sphere of public knowledge at the time? My memory is a little fuzzy, but I don't recall the Russians releasing any information about Hillary's emails. They only [arguably] released the DNC and Podesta emails. But let's further presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign that they had actually had all of Hillary's emails and even told Trump some of what was in there. Who's really compromised at this point? Hillary or Trump?
But Hillary! they exclaimed loudly.
|
On July 12 2017 22:11 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2017 21:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 21:07 Nebuchad wrote:On July 12 2017 20:23 farvacola wrote:On July 12 2017 17:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 17:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 17:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 16:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2017 16:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 12 2017 11:57 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
I went through earlier stages of this thread, in 500 page jumps - and it's so funny to see the narrative of people change.
"Russia didn't do shit, all fake"
"Russia might've done shit, still most fake and exaggerated"
"Russia did shit, but nobody of the trump administration knew"
"Russia did shit, maybe someone knew of it, but nobody knows"
"Russia did shit and some knew, but certainly not the trumps"
"Russia did shit and DonJR knew, but certainly not DonSR"
"Russia did shit but nothing came from it, so who cares"
What's next?
What'll be the excuse of apologists if somehow some shit stucks to DonJR and he gets convicted of something, which Trump without the slightest doubt would pardon immediately?
I mean, at some point, you just have to call the kettle black. Some form of doubt or scepticism is healthy, but we're long past that with some posters here. It's pure denial at this point. I was gonna say that our friends blaming the liberal media for over covering thisstory that obviously is no big deal are awfully silent in the last few pages. Thing is, and I think it should be recognized, that newspapers are doing a remarkable job in that one, and acting, as they should, as a counter power that holds politicians accountable.
That it is still the case is good news for the vitality of american democracy. Now in all seriousness, I don't want Trump to go. He makes republican look like absolute idiots and doesn't get anything done. That's quite neat. That was the joke before the serious part about Trump making Republicans look bad right? Not at all. I know it's super fashionable to hate "the media" and especially if it's "establishment media"; for my part I am quite amazed at the quality of what I'm reading daily in the NYT. They are professional, relentless, give plenty of space for divergent opinions including hard line republican ones, and are doing a splendid job in the russian investigation reporting. No media is ever perfect. But the WaPo and the NYT are pretty darn good. You're getting taken for a ride, but at least you seem to think it was worth the cost of admission (admittedly pretty low for a spectator). And condescention apart, what is your reliable source of information and analysis? Just curious. He doesn't have any sort of "reliable source of information and analysis," he's simply stuck riding a horse named "Russia is and always has been a distraction" into the sunset, sped along by a singular dislike for Democrats. You can use the truth as a distraction you know Well, I, as a reader, think the Russian thing is huge, and very certainly the most important story of this year. It questions the legitimacy of the POTUS, the future of western democracy, the place of Russia in the world, and could lead to one of the biggest scandals in american political history. The NYT is doing its job by writing about it on a regular basis, and investigating it. Calling it a distraction is a joke. And the Times is covering everything else as usual, if anyone criticizing it bothered to open it. A distraction would mean that they have an agenda and deliberately inflate the story to avoid talking about other things. That's low cost conspiracy theory and it makes absolutely 0 sense. The distraction argument works like this: - The democratic party seems to be doing pretty bad right now, it lost a lot of seats to a party that is the closest thing to "transparently evil" that I've seen in my lifetime. - Perhaps we ought to do something to change that? - If we do something to change that, that's probably not too beneficial for me, me and my ideological friends are the ones in charge right now and after a change, we might not be. So instead of talking about how pathetic it is that we're losing to the Republicans, we're going to talk about how bad the other guys are, that's going to be our strategy. - "Have you seen the other guys?" There's absolutely no need to lie or inflate anything to achieve that. The other guys are bad.
Well, IMO this is a much larger issue than any party's election campaign, and should be a major concern for any nation that wants a functioning political system. It's going to end up being partisan by virtue of the US' entrenched two party system.
But accountability in politics only comes if the voters and the elected officials actually care. And that usually comes in the form of the opposition parties making a scene about it, and the electorate voting so that there are consequences.
|
On July 13 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign something about the Hillary emails during that June 9, 2016 meeting. What would they have said? More specifically, what might they have said that was outside of the sphere of public knowledge at the time? My memory is a little fuzzy, but I don't recall the Russians releasing any information about Hillary's emails. They only [arguably] released the DNC and Podesta emails. But let's further presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign that they had actually had all of Hillary's emails and even told Trump some of what was in there. Who's really compromised at this point? Hillary or Trump?
I think it is fair to assume everything that came out of Wikileaks was at the very least indirectly related to Russia.
But you do also have a great point. If I am being honest, I feel like Clinton was somewhat compromised as well. If I am being wargame scenario'ish, my impression is that Russia determined eliminating Clinton once president would be much harder than just preventing her from being president.
But I also think it is possible that Russia had enough dirt on Clinton that they could get a ball rolling on impeachment. I think that Russia wargame scenarios indicated impeachment had a low chance of success but a very high chance of being started. It would essentially be another Benghazi, but it would ultimately fail. And because Clinton would still be top dog, Russia would deeply suffer as a result. I have no doubt that impeachment would have been pursued after Russia leaking stuff to the GOP after Clinton was elected. But I am not convinced it would have ultimately led to Clinton being removed.
|
On July 13 2017 01:15 KwarK wrote:
Presumably Trump Sr. will insist he had no knowledge of the meeting happening on the floor below his office. Timing doesn't look good though.
Could make a pretty convincing closing argument just on the timing and proximity alone. Surely Mueller' s team is having a field day.
|
On July 13 2017 01:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign something about the Hillary emails during that June 9, 2016 meeting. What would they have said? More specifically, what might they have said that was outside of the sphere of public knowledge at the time? My memory is a little fuzzy, but I don't recall the Russians releasing any information about Hillary's emails. They only [arguably] released the DNC and Podesta emails. But let's further presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign that they had actually had all of Hillary's emails and even told Trump some of what was in there. Who's really compromised at this point? Hillary or Trump? I think it is fair to assume everything that came out of Wikileaks was at the very least indirectly related to Russia.
I don't think that this can be presumed yet. Yeah, it's a possibility, but I think that it is also equally as likely that someone on the inside who was unaffiliated with Russia leaked the emails. This is particularly the case with the DNC server (Podesta seems more like a hacking job). And the part that really rubs me the wrong way with the DNC server leak is that the DNC still hasn't let the FBI do a forensic study of it. That fact alone speaks volumes.
|
On July 13 2017 01:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 01:26 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign something about the Hillary emails during that June 9, 2016 meeting. What would they have said? More specifically, what might they have said that was outside of the sphere of public knowledge at the time? My memory is a little fuzzy, but I don't recall the Russians releasing any information about Hillary's emails. They only [arguably] released the DNC and Podesta emails. But let's further presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign that they had actually had all of Hillary's emails and even told Trump some of what was in there. Who's really compromised at this point? Hillary or Trump? I think it is fair to assume everything that came out of Wikileaks was at the very least indirectly related to Russia. I don't think that this can be presumed yet. Yeah, it's a possibility, but I think that it is also equally as likely that someone on the inside who was unaffiliated with Russia leaked the emails. This is particularly the case with the DNC server (Podesta seems more like a hacking job). And the part that really rubs me the wrong way with the DNC server leak is that the DNC still hasn't let the FBI do a forensic study of it. That fact alone speaks volumes.
Podesta was a downright social engineering hacking job no two ways about it. If we know that Russia was trying to find ways to inject negative information about the DNC into American politics, most clearly through these meetings with Jr, I think we have a lot more reason to say it was Russia than anyone else. Intent, capability and even evidence of success have already been shown in one instance. I think it is strange to think Russia would have no interest in doing the things that you are saying are unknown at this point. Are you saying that if you had to bet, you would bet on Russia not being responsible? Or are you saying that you technically don't have reason to be certain of it? It feels like you are giving devil's advocate a little too much sway here. They already did a bunch and at the very least attempted to feed stuff to the Trump campaign. One of the world's best e-war powers not being involved in one of the more potent attacks against the DNC seems extremely unlikely.
If I am getting a little too comfortable wearing a tinfoil hat: You could also wonder if China tried to impersonate Russian operatives once they realized Russia was already attacking the DNC. China should want Russia and the US getting along as poorly as possible while China continues to invest in Africa and beyond.
As a side note: Am I correct in my belief that China directly benefits from US-Russia troubles?
|
On July 13 2017 01:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 01:26 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign something about the Hillary emails during that June 9, 2016 meeting. What would they have said? More specifically, what might they have said that was outside of the sphere of public knowledge at the time? My memory is a little fuzzy, but I don't recall the Russians releasing any information about Hillary's emails. They only [arguably] released the DNC and Podesta emails. But let's further presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign that they had actually had all of Hillary's emails and even told Trump some of what was in there. Who's really compromised at this point? Hillary or Trump? I think it is fair to assume everything that came out of Wikileaks was at the very least indirectly related to Russia. I don't think that this can be presumed yet. Yeah, it's a possibility, but I think that it is also equally as likely that someone on the inside who was unaffiliated with Russia leaked the emails. This is particularly the case with the DNC server (Podesta seems more like a hacking job). And the part that really rubs me the wrong way with the DNC server leak is that the DNC still hasn't let the FBI do a forensic study of it. That fact alone speaks volumes.
Have the FBI even requested to do an investigation into that server?
Someone clicked on a fishing email link, which is a fairly cut-and-dry cause as far as hacking is concerned.
|
|
|
On July 13 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 01:26 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign something about the Hillary emails during that June 9, 2016 meeting. What would they have said? More specifically, what might they have said that was outside of the sphere of public knowledge at the time? My memory is a little fuzzy, but I don't recall the Russians releasing any information about Hillary's emails. They only [arguably] released the DNC and Podesta emails. But let's further presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign that they had actually had all of Hillary's emails and even told Trump some of what was in there. Who's really compromised at this point? Hillary or Trump? I think it is fair to assume everything that came out of Wikileaks was at the very least indirectly related to Russia. I don't think that this can be presumed yet. Yeah, it's a possibility, but I think that it is also equally as likely that someone on the inside who was unaffiliated with Russia leaked the emails. This is particularly the case with the DNC server (Podesta seems more like a hacking job). And the part that really rubs me the wrong way with the DNC server leak is that the DNC still hasn't let the FBI do a forensic study of it. That fact alone speaks volumes. Podesta was a downright social engineering hacking job no two ways about it. If we know that Russia was trying to find ways to inject negative information about the DNC into American politics, most clearly through these meetings with Jr, I think we have a lot more reason to say it was Russia than anyone else. Intent, capability and even evidence of success have already been shown in one instance. I think it is strange to think Russia would have no interest in doing the things that you are saying are unknown at this point. Are you saying that if you had to bet, you would bet on Russia not being responsible? Or are you saying that you technically don't have reason to be certain of it? It feels like you are giving devil's advocate a little too much sway here. They already did a bunch and at the very least attempted to feed stuff to the Trump campaign. One of the world's best e-war powers not being involved in one of the more potent attacks against the DNC seems extremely unlikely. If I am getting a little too comfortable wearing a tinfoil hat: You could also wonder if China tried to impersonate Russian operatives once they realized Russia was already attacking the DNC. China should want Russia and the US getting along as poorly as possible while China continues to invest in Africa and beyond. As a side note: Am I correct in my belief that China directly benefits from US-Russia troubles?
I don't at all doubt that Russia, China, and other foreign countries direct their intelligence services to gather adverse information about prominent Americans and American politicians. And I'm sure that they no bones about using illicit/illegal methods to do so. There are really two issues here. The first is who got the information. The second is, of those who got the information, who released it. There could have been multiple parties who did both.
|
On July 13 2017 01:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2017 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 01:26 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign something about the Hillary emails during that June 9, 2016 meeting. What would they have said? More specifically, what might they have said that was outside of the sphere of public knowledge at the time? My memory is a little fuzzy, but I don't recall the Russians releasing any information about Hillary's emails. They only [arguably] released the DNC and Podesta emails. But let's further presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign that they had actually had all of Hillary's emails and even told Trump some of what was in there. Who's really compromised at this point? Hillary or Trump? I think it is fair to assume everything that came out of Wikileaks was at the very least indirectly related to Russia. I don't think that this can be presumed yet. Yeah, it's a possibility, but I think that it is also equally as likely that someone on the inside who was unaffiliated with Russia leaked the emails. This is particularly the case with the DNC server (Podesta seems more like a hacking job). And the part that really rubs me the wrong way with the DNC server leak is that the DNC still hasn't let the FBI do a forensic study of it. That fact alone speaks volumes. Podesta was a downright social engineering hacking job no two ways about it. If we know that Russia was trying to find ways to inject negative information about the DNC into American politics, most clearly through these meetings with Jr, I think we have a lot more reason to say it was Russia than anyone else. Intent, capability and even evidence of success have already been shown in one instance. I think it is strange to think Russia would have no interest in doing the things that you are saying are unknown at this point. Are you saying that if you had to bet, you would bet on Russia not being responsible? Or are you saying that you technically don't have reason to be certain of it? It feels like you are giving devil's advocate a little too much sway here. They already did a bunch and at the very least attempted to feed stuff to the Trump campaign. One of the world's best e-war powers not being involved in one of the more potent attacks against the DNC seems extremely unlikely. If I am getting a little too comfortable wearing a tinfoil hat: You could also wonder if China tried to impersonate Russian operatives once they realized Russia was already attacking the DNC. China should want Russia and the US getting along as poorly as possible while China continues to invest in Africa and beyond. As a side note: Am I correct in my belief that China directly benefits from US-Russia troubles? I don't at all doubt that Russia, China, and other foreign countries direct their intelligence services to gather adverse information about prominent Americans and American politicians. And I'm sure that they no bones about using illicit/illegal methods to do so. There are really two issues here. The first is who got the information. The second is, of those who got the information, who released it. There could have been multiple parties who did both.
The issue is that Trump was offered information by a foreign nation and went "yes please".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
