|
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 September 20 2017 03:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 01:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2017 01:38 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2017 01:00 LegalLord wrote:WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton criticized Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, telling a packed theater Monday night in the nation’s capital that the U.S. media got “played” and joking that she ran against both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin last year.
Clinton, who is on a media tour promoting her new book, “What Happened,” was introduced at the event to thunderous applause as having won “3 million more votes than the Republican nominee.” Trump now lives in the White House, but Washington remains a Democratic stronghold in which more than 90 percent of the district voted for Clinton last year.
Onstage, Clinton recapped the “infamous” day last October when the Obama administration announced Russia was behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee, the Washington Post broke the “Access Hollywood” tape story, and Clinton’s campaign chairman’s emails began getting released on WikiLeaks. The U.S. intelligence community later accused the Kremlin of feeding the emails to WikiLeaks.
“John Podesta’s emails were stolen — I hate the word ‘hacked’; they were stolen,” Clinton said of her former campaign chairman. She sarcastically called it “such an amazing coincidence” that WikiLeaks dumped his emails within an hour of the Washington Post publishing the tape of Trump boasting about groping women. And she insisted that people close to Trump “certainly” knew about Russia’s interference.
She said that the Russians and their allies — “whoever they turn out to be” — sent the press on a “wild goose chase” over Podesta’s emails because releasing them “created the illusion of transparency.”
“If you think you’re getting something from behind the screen maybe it’s more legitimate even though you’re being played by a bunch of Russians,” Clinton said of the media’s attitude. (Clinton has also recently said that Trump is being “played” by Putin, Russia’s president.) www.yahoo.comShe really needs to know when to back off lest she reveal the Russia matter for the scapegoat-seeking farce that it is. Ah yes, the Hillary mind control technology that allowed her to get Trump to work with so many foreign Russian agents and then lie about it. A really amazing piece of technology. its not like investigators found actual written proof of Russian contacts meeting with Trumps staff in Trump tower to discuss Russia helping him get elected. How fortunate that we have a Russian, living in the US, pretending to be British to help us see to the core of this matter You really ought to cut down on the hyperbolic strawmen in pretty much all of your posts in recent history. It gets sort of stale after the 100th time you do it. I will happily respond seriously when you start posting serious. Rather then trying to claim Hillary invented Trump's Russian collusion. Yeah that's not what's being said and you know it. You do this with pretty much every post you don't like, giving an obtuse interpretation based on a lack of reading comprehension. Fuck, if you acknowledge yourself you have nothing meaningful or serious to add then why talk at all? It's about the productivity of pro-Hillary meming like "but her emails!" The Russia matter is indeed a farce. Maybe not the events, some of which may have happened and others not, but the way it's used in order to try to imply the lack of legitimacy of the president that they just don't like. Hillary reveals it quite well by going and showing that the whole "respect democracy" idea was just relevant only when she won.
Except we keep finding more evidence of their direct meddling. Like with their purchase of ads on Facebook this week?
|
On September 20 2017 03:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 01:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 20 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:
A lot of genuinely interesting and productive stuff that we have developed only saw light first as military developments. The military has never been shy about creating new and useful technologies when necessary. They still do, so at least that money does have something to show for the effort. Unfortunately, it still seems wasteful when incredible sums of money are spent inefficiently on things that are completely unnecessary or erroneously paid for in the military. Furthermore, the service members rarely see this money. It sure as hell isn't in our wages, It rarely turns into new benefits (I can't tell you how many times I've been told, "sorry, that benefit was cut recently, you can't get it anymore"), living conditions are routinely poor (I could tell you quite a few stories about the barracks that I just came from and the galleys I had to eat in), and the gear is substandard (during my recent training, my flak jacket didn't fit and my rifle couldn't fire more than a single round without jamming). Got a better way to spend that money, efficiently or otherwise? Even if inefficient it does get real technological results. Most other things don't get that.
Education, Healthcare, Infrastructure.
|
On September 20 2017 03:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 03:17 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 01:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2017 01:38 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2017 01:00 LegalLord wrote:WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton criticized Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, telling a packed theater Monday night in the nation’s capital that the U.S. media got “played” and joking that she ran against both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin last year.
Clinton, who is on a media tour promoting her new book, “What Happened,” was introduced at the event to thunderous applause as having won “3 million more votes than the Republican nominee.” Trump now lives in the White House, but Washington remains a Democratic stronghold in which more than 90 percent of the district voted for Clinton last year.
Onstage, Clinton recapped the “infamous” day last October when the Obama administration announced Russia was behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee, the Washington Post broke the “Access Hollywood” tape story, and Clinton’s campaign chairman’s emails began getting released on WikiLeaks. The U.S. intelligence community later accused the Kremlin of feeding the emails to WikiLeaks.
“John Podesta’s emails were stolen — I hate the word ‘hacked’; they were stolen,” Clinton said of her former campaign chairman. She sarcastically called it “such an amazing coincidence” that WikiLeaks dumped his emails within an hour of the Washington Post publishing the tape of Trump boasting about groping women. And she insisted that people close to Trump “certainly” knew about Russia’s interference.
She said that the Russians and their allies — “whoever they turn out to be” — sent the press on a “wild goose chase” over Podesta’s emails because releasing them “created the illusion of transparency.”
“If you think you’re getting something from behind the screen maybe it’s more legitimate even though you’re being played by a bunch of Russians,” Clinton said of the media’s attitude. (Clinton has also recently said that Trump is being “played” by Putin, Russia’s president.) www.yahoo.comShe really needs to know when to back off lest she reveal the Russia matter for the scapegoat-seeking farce that it is. Ah yes, the Hillary mind control technology that allowed her to get Trump to work with so many foreign Russian agents and then lie about it. A really amazing piece of technology. its not like investigators found actual written proof of Russian contacts meeting with Trumps staff in Trump tower to discuss Russia helping him get elected. How fortunate that we have a Russian, living in the US, pretending to be British to help us see to the core of this matter You really ought to cut down on the hyperbolic strawmen in pretty much all of your posts in recent history. It gets sort of stale after the 100th time you do it. I will happily respond seriously when you start posting serious. Rather then trying to claim Hillary invented Trump's Russian collusion. Yeah that's not what's being said and you know it. You do this with pretty much every post you don't like, giving an obtuse interpretation based on a lack of reading comprehension. Fuck, if you acknowledge yourself you have nothing meaningful or serious to add then why talk at all? It's about the productivity of pro-Hillary meming like "but her emails!" The Russia matter is indeed a farce. Maybe not the events, some of which may have happened and others not, but the way it's used in order to try to imply the lack of legitimacy of the president that they just don't like. Hillary reveals it quite well by going and showing that the whole "respect democracy" idea was just relevant only when she won. Except we keep finding more evidence of their direct meddling. Like with their purchase of ads on Facebook this week?
Gonna post in gotchas or make a point?
Is there something about buying Fakebook ads that tips the scale from "respect Democracy" to "this election was fucked" that you care to elaborate on? Or just that a long enough chain of rumors suddenly make something meaningful ?
|
On September 20 2017 03:25 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 03:18 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 01:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 20 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:
A lot of genuinely interesting and productive stuff that we have developed only saw light first as military developments. The military has never been shy about creating new and useful technologies when necessary. They still do, so at least that money does have something to show for the effort. Unfortunately, it still seems wasteful when incredible sums of money are spent inefficiently on things that are completely unnecessary or erroneously paid for in the military. Furthermore, the service members rarely see this money. It sure as hell isn't in our wages, It rarely turns into new benefits (I can't tell you how many times I've been told, "sorry, that benefit was cut recently, you can't get it anymore"), living conditions are routinely poor (I could tell you quite a few stories about the barracks that I just came from and the galleys I had to eat in), and the gear is substandard (during my recent training, my flak jacket didn't fit and my rifle couldn't fire more than a single round without jamming). Got a better way to spend that money, efficiently or otherwise? Even if inefficient it does get real technological results. Most other things don't get that. Education, Healthcare, Infrastructure.
None of those are cheaper nor more efficient than building military technology. All useful and important, but all the faults with military spending can also be said for all of those. Though yes, all three need to be well provisioned.
|
On September 20 2017 02:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 02:49 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On September 20 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2017 02:03 Mohdoo wrote:On September 20 2017 01:59 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2017 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:On September 20 2017 01:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 20 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:
A lot of genuinely interesting and productive stuff that we have developed only saw light first as military developments. The military has never been shy about creating new and useful technologies when necessary. They still do, so at least that money does have something to show for the effort. Unfortunately, it still seems wasteful when incredible sums of money are spent inefficiently on things that are completely unnecessary or erroneously paid for in the military. Furthermore, the service members rarely see this money. It sure as hell isn't in our wages, It rarely turns into new benefits (I can't tell you how many times I've been told, "sorry, that benefit was cut recently, you can't get it anymore"), living conditions are routinely poor (I could tell you quite a few stories about the barracks that I just came from and the galleys I had to eat in), and the gear is substandard (during my recent training, my flak jacket didn't fit and my rifle couldn't fire more than a single round without jamming). Is this really avoidable, though? As entity gets bigger --> waste gets bigger. Kind of like how big companies lose millions of dollars a year to accounting errors. Is there some nation that we know has an outstandingly efficient military while also being huge? I imagine not. I am sure a lot of work has been done to study "how do huge things not be wasteful?", but it does not seem to have been particularly successful yet. The point is that $80b in additional spending does not necessarily lead to anything like $80b in benefits. Would 1b result in 1b of benefits? It is unclear to me when the entity is considered too big and how the core principles of military competition factor into things. It's not like we're going to split up our "too big to fail" military or something like that. Saying the military shouldn't get more funding because it is used inefficiently doesn't make sense to me because it would still be hugely wasteful at half its size. No, it would not result in $1b of benefits. If you want to get $1b of benefits you would give $100 to the 10,000,000 poorest Americans and watch as they drove it straight back into the economy in the next few days. I was responding directly to the claim that giving the military more money to waste isn't necessarily a waste because the military has been involved in some productive activities, such as materials science research. While that may be true there is no reason to think that another $80b would lead to gains there, and even if it were, it certainly would not be the optimal way of attaining those goals. The military shouldn't get the money because it's a zero sum game, money from one area has to go to another. $80b is a fair chunk of what the UK spends on the NHS annually, for example. It's not about wasteful vs not wasteful. It's about how much you can get for the $. There are a shitton of options, from redistribution to lowering taxes to education to research to healthcare to infrastructure to student loans to the military etc, and I'm not convinced that the productivity from giving the $ to the military is the optimal route. Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. or just give it to the IRS where they get 3 dollars back in unpaid taxes for every dollar of funding they get (as much as people hate the IRS it's one of the few government entities that actually makes money) Putting an artificial cap on IRS funding is a patently absurd policy. We give them $1, they come back with $10, they ask if they can give us $9 and use the remaining $1 to get us another $10, we say no and take all $10.
I really don't see why you don't fund the IRS until returns get to the $3 for every $1 you spend level, or somewhere around there. At that point, you earn enough to fund the IRS, still earn a "profit" that you can spend elsewhere, and the more you spend on IRS, the bigger the incentive there is to not cheat in the first place since you're more likely to get caught. You win everywhere (apart from whoever's cheating the system/gets audited)
|
|
|
On September 20 2017 03:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 03:25 Dapper_Cad wrote:On September 20 2017 03:18 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 01:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 20 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:
A lot of genuinely interesting and productive stuff that we have developed only saw light first as military developments. The military has never been shy about creating new and useful technologies when necessary. They still do, so at least that money does have something to show for the effort. Unfortunately, it still seems wasteful when incredible sums of money are spent inefficiently on things that are completely unnecessary or erroneously paid for in the military. Furthermore, the service members rarely see this money. It sure as hell isn't in our wages, It rarely turns into new benefits (I can't tell you how many times I've been told, "sorry, that benefit was cut recently, you can't get it anymore"), living conditions are routinely poor (I could tell you quite a few stories about the barracks that I just came from and the galleys I had to eat in), and the gear is substandard (during my recent training, my flak jacket didn't fit and my rifle couldn't fire more than a single round without jamming). Got a better way to spend that money, efficiently or otherwise? Even if inefficient it does get real technological results. Most other things don't get that. Education, Healthcare, Infrastructure. None of those are cheaper nor more efficient than building military technology. All useful and important, but all the faults with military spending can also be said for all of those. Though yes, all three need to be well provisioned.
Yet they aren't well provisioned, where as the U.S. military is over provisioned. This is the crux of the argument for why it's more efficient to spend there.
|
On September 20 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 03:23 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2017 03:17 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 01:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2017 01:38 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2017 01:00 LegalLord wrote:WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton criticized Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, telling a packed theater Monday night in the nation’s capital that the U.S. media got “played” and joking that she ran against both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin last year.
Clinton, who is on a media tour promoting her new book, “What Happened,” was introduced at the event to thunderous applause as having won “3 million more votes than the Republican nominee.” Trump now lives in the White House, but Washington remains a Democratic stronghold in which more than 90 percent of the district voted for Clinton last year.
Onstage, Clinton recapped the “infamous” day last October when the Obama administration announced Russia was behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee, the Washington Post broke the “Access Hollywood” tape story, and Clinton’s campaign chairman’s emails began getting released on WikiLeaks. The U.S. intelligence community later accused the Kremlin of feeding the emails to WikiLeaks.
“John Podesta’s emails were stolen — I hate the word ‘hacked’; they were stolen,” Clinton said of her former campaign chairman. She sarcastically called it “such an amazing coincidence” that WikiLeaks dumped his emails within an hour of the Washington Post publishing the tape of Trump boasting about groping women. And she insisted that people close to Trump “certainly” knew about Russia’s interference.
She said that the Russians and their allies — “whoever they turn out to be” — sent the press on a “wild goose chase” over Podesta’s emails because releasing them “created the illusion of transparency.”
“If you think you’re getting something from behind the screen maybe it’s more legitimate even though you’re being played by a bunch of Russians,” Clinton said of the media’s attitude. (Clinton has also recently said that Trump is being “played” by Putin, Russia’s president.) www.yahoo.comShe really needs to know when to back off lest she reveal the Russia matter for the scapegoat-seeking farce that it is. Ah yes, the Hillary mind control technology that allowed her to get Trump to work with so many foreign Russian agents and then lie about it. A really amazing piece of technology. its not like investigators found actual written proof of Russian contacts meeting with Trumps staff in Trump tower to discuss Russia helping him get elected. How fortunate that we have a Russian, living in the US, pretending to be British to help us see to the core of this matter You really ought to cut down on the hyperbolic strawmen in pretty much all of your posts in recent history. It gets sort of stale after the 100th time you do it. I will happily respond seriously when you start posting serious. Rather then trying to claim Hillary invented Trump's Russian collusion. Yeah that's not what's being said and you know it. You do this with pretty much every post you don't like, giving an obtuse interpretation based on a lack of reading comprehension. Fuck, if you acknowledge yourself you have nothing meaningful or serious to add then why talk at all? It's about the productivity of pro-Hillary meming like "but her emails!" The Russia matter is indeed a farce. Maybe not the events, some of which may have happened and others not, but the way it's used in order to try to imply the lack of legitimacy of the president that they just don't like. Hillary reveals it quite well by going and showing that the whole "respect democracy" idea was just relevant only when she won. Except we keep finding more evidence of their direct meddling. Like with their purchase of ads on Facebook this week? Gonna post in gotchas or make a point? Is there something about buying Fakebook ads that tips the scale from "respect Democracy" to "this election was fucked" that you care to elaborate on? Or just that a long enough chain of rumors suddenly make something meaningful ?
Sure i'l make the point plain and simple.
The 'Russian matter' is not a scapegoat seeking farce but real and more and more evidence of said influence is turning up every month.
The election result was close. Any of a dozen factors could have tipped the balance in the end, be it racism, sexism, Russia, emails, ect.
|
On September 20 2017 03:36 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 03:29 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 03:25 Dapper_Cad wrote:On September 20 2017 03:18 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 01:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 20 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:
A lot of genuinely interesting and productive stuff that we have developed only saw light first as military developments. The military has never been shy about creating new and useful technologies when necessary. They still do, so at least that money does have something to show for the effort. Unfortunately, it still seems wasteful when incredible sums of money are spent inefficiently on things that are completely unnecessary or erroneously paid for in the military. Furthermore, the service members rarely see this money. It sure as hell isn't in our wages, It rarely turns into new benefits (I can't tell you how many times I've been told, "sorry, that benefit was cut recently, you can't get it anymore"), living conditions are routinely poor (I could tell you quite a few stories about the barracks that I just came from and the galleys I had to eat in), and the gear is substandard (during my recent training, my flak jacket didn't fit and my rifle couldn't fire more than a single round without jamming). Got a better way to spend that money, efficiently or otherwise? Even if inefficient it does get real technological results. Most other things don't get that. Education, Healthcare, Infrastructure. None of those are cheaper nor more efficient than building military technology. All useful and important, but all the faults with military spending can also be said for all of those. Though yes, all three need to be well provisioned. Yet they aren't well provisioned, where as the U.S. military is over provisioned. This is the crux of the argument for why it's more efficient to spend there.
Well I just hope that "cutting the military" is code for "reduce pork and unnecessary production lines and be more economical about design of future weapons" rather than "slash R&D budgets, skimp on safety and national security, be stingy on important services for soldiers such as pension, healthcare, and GI Bill funding, and deploy fewer GPS sats." Usually cuts start more along the lines of the latter.
|
On September 20 2017 03:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 03:23 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2017 03:17 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 01:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2017 01:38 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2017 01:00 LegalLord wrote:WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton criticized Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, telling a packed theater Monday night in the nation’s capital that the U.S. media got “played” and joking that she ran against both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin last year.
Clinton, who is on a media tour promoting her new book, “What Happened,” was introduced at the event to thunderous applause as having won “3 million more votes than the Republican nominee.” Trump now lives in the White House, but Washington remains a Democratic stronghold in which more than 90 percent of the district voted for Clinton last year.
Onstage, Clinton recapped the “infamous” day last October when the Obama administration announced Russia was behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee, the Washington Post broke the “Access Hollywood” tape story, and Clinton’s campaign chairman’s emails began getting released on WikiLeaks. The U.S. intelligence community later accused the Kremlin of feeding the emails to WikiLeaks.
“John Podesta’s emails were stolen — I hate the word ‘hacked’; they were stolen,” Clinton said of her former campaign chairman. She sarcastically called it “such an amazing coincidence” that WikiLeaks dumped his emails within an hour of the Washington Post publishing the tape of Trump boasting about groping women. And she insisted that people close to Trump “certainly” knew about Russia’s interference.
She said that the Russians and their allies — “whoever they turn out to be” — sent the press on a “wild goose chase” over Podesta’s emails because releasing them “created the illusion of transparency.”
“If you think you’re getting something from behind the screen maybe it’s more legitimate even though you’re being played by a bunch of Russians,” Clinton said of the media’s attitude. (Clinton has also recently said that Trump is being “played” by Putin, Russia’s president.) www.yahoo.comShe really needs to know when to back off lest she reveal the Russia matter for the scapegoat-seeking farce that it is. Ah yes, the Hillary mind control technology that allowed her to get Trump to work with so many foreign Russian agents and then lie about it. A really amazing piece of technology. its not like investigators found actual written proof of Russian contacts meeting with Trumps staff in Trump tower to discuss Russia helping him get elected. How fortunate that we have a Russian, living in the US, pretending to be British to help us see to the core of this matter You really ought to cut down on the hyperbolic strawmen in pretty much all of your posts in recent history. It gets sort of stale after the 100th time you do it. I will happily respond seriously when you start posting serious. Rather then trying to claim Hillary invented Trump's Russian collusion. Yeah that's not what's being said and you know it. You do this with pretty much every post you don't like, giving an obtuse interpretation based on a lack of reading comprehension. Fuck, if you acknowledge yourself you have nothing meaningful or serious to add then why talk at all? It's about the productivity of pro-Hillary meming like "but her emails!" The Russia matter is indeed a farce. Maybe not the events, some of which may have happened and others not, but the way it's used in order to try to imply the lack of legitimacy of the president that they just don't like. Hillary reveals it quite well by going and showing that the whole "respect democracy" idea was just relevant only when she won. Except we keep finding more evidence of their direct meddling. Like with their purchase of ads on Facebook this week? Gonna post in gotchas or make a point? Is there something about buying Fakebook ads that tips the scale from "respect Democracy" to "this election was fucked" that you care to elaborate on? Or just that a long enough chain of rumors suddenly make something meaningful ? Sure i'l make the point plain and simple. The 'Russian matter' is not a scapegoat seeking farce but real and more and more evidence of said influence is turning up every month. The election result was close. Any of a dozen factors could have tipped the balance in the end, be it racism, sexism, Russia, emails, ect.
I don't know why it should be so surprising to some, that after finding evidence that our election process was tampered with, that maybe we start questioning the result of our most recent election. Trump being a disaster is just bonus, he could be a perfectly fine president and I'd still have a big problem with what happened. But people really don't like that Hillary's saying it, even if it's fucking true.
|
On September 20 2017 03:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 03:23 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2017 03:17 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 01:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2017 01:38 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2017 01:00 LegalLord wrote:WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton criticized Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, telling a packed theater Monday night in the nation’s capital that the U.S. media got “played” and joking that she ran against both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin last year.
Clinton, who is on a media tour promoting her new book, “What Happened,” was introduced at the event to thunderous applause as having won “3 million more votes than the Republican nominee.” Trump now lives in the White House, but Washington remains a Democratic stronghold in which more than 90 percent of the district voted for Clinton last year.
Onstage, Clinton recapped the “infamous” day last October when the Obama administration announced Russia was behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee, the Washington Post broke the “Access Hollywood” tape story, and Clinton’s campaign chairman’s emails began getting released on WikiLeaks. The U.S. intelligence community later accused the Kremlin of feeding the emails to WikiLeaks.
“John Podesta’s emails were stolen — I hate the word ‘hacked’; they were stolen,” Clinton said of her former campaign chairman. She sarcastically called it “such an amazing coincidence” that WikiLeaks dumped his emails within an hour of the Washington Post publishing the tape of Trump boasting about groping women. And she insisted that people close to Trump “certainly” knew about Russia’s interference.
She said that the Russians and their allies — “whoever they turn out to be” — sent the press on a “wild goose chase” over Podesta’s emails because releasing them “created the illusion of transparency.”
“If you think you’re getting something from behind the screen maybe it’s more legitimate even though you’re being played by a bunch of Russians,” Clinton said of the media’s attitude. (Clinton has also recently said that Trump is being “played” by Putin, Russia’s president.) www.yahoo.comShe really needs to know when to back off lest she reveal the Russia matter for the scapegoat-seeking farce that it is. Ah yes, the Hillary mind control technology that allowed her to get Trump to work with so many foreign Russian agents and then lie about it. A really amazing piece of technology. its not like investigators found actual written proof of Russian contacts meeting with Trumps staff in Trump tower to discuss Russia helping him get elected. How fortunate that we have a Russian, living in the US, pretending to be British to help us see to the core of this matter You really ought to cut down on the hyperbolic strawmen in pretty much all of your posts in recent history. It gets sort of stale after the 100th time you do it. I will happily respond seriously when you start posting serious. Rather then trying to claim Hillary invented Trump's Russian collusion. Yeah that's not what's being said and you know it. You do this with pretty much every post you don't like, giving an obtuse interpretation based on a lack of reading comprehension. Fuck, if you acknowledge yourself you have nothing meaningful or serious to add then why talk at all? It's about the productivity of pro-Hillary meming like "but her emails!" The Russia matter is indeed a farce. Maybe not the events, some of which may have happened and others not, but the way it's used in order to try to imply the lack of legitimacy of the president that they just don't like. Hillary reveals it quite well by going and showing that the whole "respect democracy" idea was just relevant only when she won. Except we keep finding more evidence of their direct meddling. Like with their purchase of ads on Facebook this week? Gonna post in gotchas or make a point? Is there something about buying Fakebook ads that tips the scale from "respect Democracy" to "this election was fucked" that you care to elaborate on? Or just that a long enough chain of rumors suddenly make something meaningful ? Sure i'l make the point plain and simple. The 'Russian matter' is not a scapegoat seeking farce but real and more and more evidence of said influence is turning up every month. The election result was close. Any of a dozen factors could have tipped the balance in the end, be it racism, sexism, Russia, emails, ect.
Ok, well that's specific enough that there's enough to unpack.
The election was indeed quite close, and any number of factors could have tipped it. It is probably fair to say as a strong assertion that if all the matters related to Wikileaks had never occurred, then Trump would not have won. Yes, there were other factors to consider, but the sheer force of that reaction as it happened suggests that it most likely made a difference.
But you know what? That's not good enough. That wouldn't be the first time that foreign politics played a role in deciding US elections and it won't be the last. And it's not just the fact that Russia leaked as much as the events surrounding it. Is there some blame to go around for the reaction, the "17 intelligence agencies" misjudging of how Americans would actually see the events, and how much they cared for the truth of a matter that was buried just beneath the surface (indications of DNC conspiring against Bernie)? Is Russia responsible for the fact that the Bernie base is rightfully angry about how Hillary goes on and on about "Bernie isn't a Democrat" as if that is supposed to mean anything? No, even though the DNC leaks may have brought those to the surface, it was the circumstances surrounding them and the tone-deaf response to them that allowed them to explode like they did.
As for Trump's retainers and their secret meetings? We know they're shitty people who would betray their country for a couple gold coins. We knew that from the get-go. It isn't anything special that it's Russia that they chose to have backroom talks with. They can have their time in court and if the judge so desires, they can go to the guillotine and that can be the end of that.
So the real question that makes this look like a farce is, when did it go from "respect the election" to "election invalid because of Russia?" And frankly the answer looks like it was "when Trump won but we have to wait a bit before we start talking about it." No one says that the leaks or the crooks aren't a problem; there's a whole task force and many investigative committees dedicated to understanding just that. But the result of the election was the result of many factors and, using the system that was used, the people decided to vote in Donald Trump for president. Nothing about the past few months really changes the story; Trump and his crew are crooks who haven't served their time in prison yet, and we knew that before the election. Only in the aftermath, after some drip-drip "this asshat did something related to Russia" rumors, it starts to look like "invalidate the election due to Russia." And that is a farce if I've ever seen one.
|
On September 19 2017 23:43 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 23:33 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 15:02 cLutZ wrote:On September 19 2017 14:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
do ya'll really want to be the side arguing trump was *right* about the wiretap, with the implication being the FBI had enough evidence that they went to a judge and got a FISA warrant to do it? like, trump is kind of a nitwit and doesn't know how it works so he's crying wiretap like a victim and probably doesn't know a wiretap on him/ his folks is actually probably a double bad thing, but i would expect better from our posters. I have so many thoughts on this that I'm going to write a too-long post. The TLDR of it is this: The new report does not prove Trump was right, however it does prove that everyone else was lying or incompetent. For instance this part: On September 19 2017 13:25 Tachion wrote:
Are we already forgetting that the DoJ refuted Trump's wiretapping claims? This is just a desperate stretch to try to vindicate his past bullshit. This means the DOJ was lying/incompetent. Knowing that Manafort had been wiretapped, a statement that says, "Trump and Trump Tower were not wiretapped" is a lie by omission if any electronic communications from Trump or Trump Tower were intercepted as a result of a FISA warrant. I find all of the VERY SPECIFIC definitions of "wiretap" coming out of this extremely disturbing. If the cops have a recording of me talking on the phone I have been wiretapped. I worked for a judge, if she found out an official did this in a criminal case he would be placed in contempt (not to mention a mistrial would have to be declared if the jury had been empaneled). So DOJ is the worst. But nearly as bad/incompetent are/were the media. I will focus on Jake Tapper because he was the most angry about it. We have things like this: His only defense of such a position now would be something like this: On September 19 2017 13:16 m4ini wrote:
Yup, the chairman. Not Trump, nor the Trump Tower, as Trump claims.
This is an unacceptable level of journalistic malpractice. Lets say you are Mr. Tapper and have a "source familiar with the situation" on the phone after Trump claimed to have been wiretapped: Source: Hey Jake, I know things and neither Trump nor Trump Tower were ever wiretapped. If you are Mr. Tapper which of these things do you do? 1. Jake: Oh cool, thanks Mr. Source, I'll go write an article. or 2. Jake: That is interesting, but I can't just run with that. If it ever comes out that the FBI listened to a Trump phone call I'll look like an idiot. So, do you know if any Trump phone calls were ever intercepted? Source: Jake, we both know that can happen even if you aren't wiretapped. Jake: Of course Mr. Source, but 360 million Americans think wiretaps = intercepting calls. I can only report he wasn't wiretapped if he wasn't and I also know none of his calls were intercepted. Otherwise I have to report that he "Wasn't technically wiretapped, but several of his phone calls were listened to by the FBI." Some people can't stand Trump being even half right. Come on--he tweets random stuff every week. He'll be fully wrong again soon. Secondly, this is the problem with fake news by omission. If politically motivated government sources leak something deliberately misleading, and journalists don't follow up, there's two culpable parties on the way to publication. ...but the best the thread can do is allege Saint Obama's justice department didn't mean anything by it!!! If the Trump administration had done this to Mook, the conflict of interest and implications would suddenly be crystal clear. But you all are so blinded by the specter of Trump that you can't see and admit to the lies (with journalistic incompetence if you presume good motives to journalists) or to how this damages media credibility. I'll watch to see if any of the regular voices can have a clear nonpartisan sentence or two of admitting either. I do want to know if the admission street is still one-way. It was already known at the time of Trump's tweet that people in his campaign were subject to FISA warrant (and therefore, in all likelihood, wiretap). It is only appropriate to judge Trump's tweet by whether it was correct, that is, whether Trump himself or Trump Tower was wiretapped. We already knew at the time of the tweet that it wouldn't be surprising at all if Trump was incidentally picked up by surveillance; after all, the pack of goons surrounding him were subject to FBI surveillance. Here's why the people around Trump were wiretapped: Under Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a person can be targeted if the government establishes probable cause that he or she is the “agent of a foreign power.”Trump specifically claimed that he himself or Trump Tower was wiretapped. The media examined whether that claim was correct, and it was not. You are not successfully obfuscating the issue by deflecting to the media.
The media is, IMO, the only story with regards to the wiretap. It should not be possible for them to report "no wiretap" without clarifying language about how many times Trump calls were monitored if there is a guy close to Trump being tapped. This is not just basic journalism, its basic thinking a kindergartner could do.
|
On September 20 2017 04:35 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 23:43 Doodsmack wrote:On September 19 2017 23:33 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 15:02 cLutZ wrote:On September 19 2017 14:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
do ya'll really want to be the side arguing trump was *right* about the wiretap, with the implication being the FBI had enough evidence that they went to a judge and got a FISA warrant to do it? like, trump is kind of a nitwit and doesn't know how it works so he's crying wiretap like a victim and probably doesn't know a wiretap on him/ his folks is actually probably a double bad thing, but i would expect better from our posters. I have so many thoughts on this that I'm going to write a too-long post. The TLDR of it is this: The new report does not prove Trump was right, however it does prove that everyone else was lying or incompetent. For instance this part: On September 19 2017 13:25 Tachion wrote:
Are we already forgetting that the DoJ refuted Trump's wiretapping claims? This is just a desperate stretch to try to vindicate his past bullshit. This means the DOJ was lying/incompetent. Knowing that Manafort had been wiretapped, a statement that says, "Trump and Trump Tower were not wiretapped" is a lie by omission if any electronic communications from Trump or Trump Tower were intercepted as a result of a FISA warrant. I find all of the VERY SPECIFIC definitions of "wiretap" coming out of this extremely disturbing. If the cops have a recording of me talking on the phone I have been wiretapped. I worked for a judge, if she found out an official did this in a criminal case he would be placed in contempt (not to mention a mistrial would have to be declared if the jury had been empaneled). So DOJ is the worst. But nearly as bad/incompetent are/were the media. I will focus on Jake Tapper because he was the most angry about it. We have things like this: https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/843938220077465600His only defense of such a position now would be something like this: On September 19 2017 13:16 m4ini wrote:
Yup, the chairman. Not Trump, nor the Trump Tower, as Trump claims.
This is an unacceptable level of journalistic malpractice. Lets say you are Mr. Tapper and have a "source familiar with the situation" on the phone after Trump claimed to have been wiretapped: Source: Hey Jake, I know things and neither Trump nor Trump Tower were ever wiretapped. If you are Mr. Tapper which of these things do you do? 1. Jake: Oh cool, thanks Mr. Source, I'll go write an article. or 2. Jake: That is interesting, but I can't just run with that. If it ever comes out that the FBI listened to a Trump phone call I'll look like an idiot. So, do you know if any Trump phone calls were ever intercepted? Source: Jake, we both know that can happen even if you aren't wiretapped. Jake: Of course Mr. Source, but 360 million Americans think wiretaps = intercepting calls. I can only report he wasn't wiretapped if he wasn't and I also know none of his calls were intercepted. Otherwise I have to report that he "Wasn't technically wiretapped, but several of his phone calls were listened to by the FBI." Some people can't stand Trump being even half right. Come on--he tweets random stuff every week. He'll be fully wrong again soon. https://twitter.com/thomashcrown/status/909925552148090881Secondly, this is the problem with fake news by omission. If politically motivated government sources leak something deliberately misleading, and journalists don't follow up, there's two culpable parties on the way to publication. ...but the best the thread can do is allege Saint Obama's justice department didn't mean anything by it!!! If the Trump administration had done this to Mook, the conflict of interest and implications would suddenly be crystal clear. But you all are so blinded by the specter of Trump that you can't see and admit to the lies (with journalistic incompetence if you presume good motives to journalists) or to how this damages media credibility. I'll watch to see if any of the regular voices can have a clear nonpartisan sentence or two of admitting either. I do want to know if the admission street is still one-way. It was already known at the time of Trump's tweet that people in his campaign were subject to FISA warrant (and therefore, in all likelihood, wiretap). It is only appropriate to judge Trump's tweet by whether it was correct, that is, whether Trump himself or Trump Tower was wiretapped. We already knew at the time of the tweet that it wouldn't be surprising at all if Trump was incidentally picked up by surveillance; after all, the pack of goons surrounding him were subject to FBI surveillance. Here's why the people around Trump were wiretapped: Under Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a person can be targeted if the government establishes probable cause that he or she is the “agent of a foreign power.”Trump specifically claimed that he himself or Trump Tower was wiretapped. The media examined whether that claim was correct, and it was not. You are not successfully obfuscating the issue by deflecting to the media. The media is, IMO, the only story with regards to the wiretap. It should not be possible for them to report "no wiretap" without clarifying language about how many times Trump calls were monitored if there is a guy close to Trump being tapped. This is not just basic journalism, its basic thinking a kindergartner could do.
What?
How is it the medias job to make a lie seem less like a lie when no matter what you say it is 100% a lie?
If you claim your house was wire taped, then it turns out it was just someone else that you called sometimes.. not even necessarily at your house, then you lied about your house being wire taped. No clarifying statement changes it, all it does is confuse the situation.
|
On September 20 2017 04:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 03:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2017 03:27 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 03:23 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2017 03:17 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 01:42 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2017 01:38 LegalLord wrote:On September 20 2017 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2017 01:00 LegalLord wrote:WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton criticized Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, telling a packed theater Monday night in the nation’s capital that the U.S. media got “played” and joking that she ran against both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin last year.
Clinton, who is on a media tour promoting her new book, “What Happened,” was introduced at the event to thunderous applause as having won “3 million more votes than the Republican nominee.” Trump now lives in the White House, but Washington remains a Democratic stronghold in which more than 90 percent of the district voted for Clinton last year.
Onstage, Clinton recapped the “infamous” day last October when the Obama administration announced Russia was behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee, the Washington Post broke the “Access Hollywood” tape story, and Clinton’s campaign chairman’s emails began getting released on WikiLeaks. The U.S. intelligence community later accused the Kremlin of feeding the emails to WikiLeaks.
“John Podesta’s emails were stolen — I hate the word ‘hacked’; they were stolen,” Clinton said of her former campaign chairman. She sarcastically called it “such an amazing coincidence” that WikiLeaks dumped his emails within an hour of the Washington Post publishing the tape of Trump boasting about groping women. And she insisted that people close to Trump “certainly” knew about Russia’s interference.
She said that the Russians and their allies — “whoever they turn out to be” — sent the press on a “wild goose chase” over Podesta’s emails because releasing them “created the illusion of transparency.”
“If you think you’re getting something from behind the screen maybe it’s more legitimate even though you’re being played by a bunch of Russians,” Clinton said of the media’s attitude. (Clinton has also recently said that Trump is being “played” by Putin, Russia’s president.) www.yahoo.comShe really needs to know when to back off lest she reveal the Russia matter for the scapegoat-seeking farce that it is. Ah yes, the Hillary mind control technology that allowed her to get Trump to work with so many foreign Russian agents and then lie about it. A really amazing piece of technology. its not like investigators found actual written proof of Russian contacts meeting with Trumps staff in Trump tower to discuss Russia helping him get elected. How fortunate that we have a Russian, living in the US, pretending to be British to help us see to the core of this matter You really ought to cut down on the hyperbolic strawmen in pretty much all of your posts in recent history. It gets sort of stale after the 100th time you do it. I will happily respond seriously when you start posting serious. Rather then trying to claim Hillary invented Trump's Russian collusion. Yeah that's not what's being said and you know it. You do this with pretty much every post you don't like, giving an obtuse interpretation based on a lack of reading comprehension. Fuck, if you acknowledge yourself you have nothing meaningful or serious to add then why talk at all? It's about the productivity of pro-Hillary meming like "but her emails!" The Russia matter is indeed a farce. Maybe not the events, some of which may have happened and others not, but the way it's used in order to try to imply the lack of legitimacy of the president that they just don't like. Hillary reveals it quite well by going and showing that the whole "respect democracy" idea was just relevant only when she won. Except we keep finding more evidence of their direct meddling. Like with their purchase of ads on Facebook this week? Gonna post in gotchas or make a point? Is there something about buying Fakebook ads that tips the scale from "respect Democracy" to "this election was fucked" that you care to elaborate on? Or just that a long enough chain of rumors suddenly make something meaningful ? Sure i'l make the point plain and simple. The 'Russian matter' is not a scapegoat seeking farce but real and more and more evidence of said influence is turning up every month. The election result was close. Any of a dozen factors could have tipped the balance in the end, be it racism, sexism, Russia, emails, ect. Ok, well that's specific enough that there's enough to unpack. The election was indeed quite close, and any number of factors could have tipped it. It is probably fair to say as a strong assertion that if all the matters related to Wikileaks had never occurred, then Trump would not have won. Yes, there were other factors to consider, but the sheer force of that reaction as it happened suggests that it most likely made a difference. But you know what? That's not good enough. That wouldn't be the first time that foreign politics played a role in deciding US elections and it won't be the last. And it's not just the fact that Russia leaked as much as the events surrounding it. Is there some blame to go around for the reaction, the "17 intelligence agencies" misjudging of how Americans would actually see the events, and how much they cared for the truth of a matter that was buried just beneath the surface (indications of DNC conspiring against Bernie)? Is Russia responsible for the fact that the Bernie base is rightfully angry about how Hillary goes on and on about "Bernie isn't a Democrat" as if that is supposed to mean anything? No, even though the DNC leaks may have brought those to the surface, it was the circumstances surrounding them and the tone-deaf response to them that allowed them to explode like they did. As for Trump's retainers and their secret meetings? We know they're shitty people who would betray their country for a couple gold coins. We knew that from the get-go. It isn't anything special that it's Russia that they chose to have backroom talks with. They can have their time in court and if the judge so desires, they can go to the guillotine and that can be the end of that. So the real question that makes this look like a farce is, when did it go from "respect the election" to "election invalid because of Russia?" And frankly the answer looks like it was "when Trump won but we have to wait a bit before we start talking about it." No one says that the leaks or the crooks aren't a problem; there's a whole task force and many investigative committees dedicated to understanding just that. But the result of the election was the result of many factors and, using the system that was used, the people decided to vote in Donald Trump for president. Nothing about the past few months really changes the story; Trump and his crew are crooks who haven't served their time in prison yet, and we knew that before the election. Only in the aftermath, after some drip-drip "this asshat did something related to Russia" rumors, it starts to look like "invalidate the election due to Russia." And that is a farce if I've ever seen one.
Now your stepping away from "The Russian matter is a scapegoat" to 'the elections are invalid'. I don't see Hillary talking about the election being invalid in the original quote. If she did then I disagree with her.
The idea of them being invalid also sure didn't take a while before being talked about. I remember it being discussed in this thread pretty much right after the elections and I also remember plenty of people (myself included) who thought that the interferes of Russia was real saying that its not a reason to deny Trump. That would lead to complete chaos.
Your initial line that I ridiculed waslest she reveal the Russia matter for the scapegoat-seeking farce that it is .I am happy to see that we have now both come to the conclusion that the Russia matter was in fact not a scapegoat-seeking farce.
|
Perhaps "the Russia matter" that is a farce needs clarification.
What I do NOT mean by that: the extent of Russian involvement in the influence of the election and the investigation therein.
What I DO mean by that: the media frenzy surrounding the investigation including the tolerance for inappropriate handling of privileged material on a large scale, and the insinuations that people make, including Hillary Clinton, that the election isn't legitimate.
The latter is a farce.
|
I think it's that LegalLord sees so many trillions of reasons for Clinton to walk away from this humiliated and defeated that hearing people talk about things that make it less her fault drives him insane. Talking about things outside her control, when so many things were totally within her control and would have won her the election, feels silly. Which I can somewhat understand. But it is important to look at both. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it looks from here.
|
On September 20 2017 04:58 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 04:35 cLutZ wrote:On September 19 2017 23:43 Doodsmack wrote:On September 19 2017 23:33 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 15:02 cLutZ wrote:On September 19 2017 14:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
do ya'll really want to be the side arguing trump was *right* about the wiretap, with the implication being the FBI had enough evidence that they went to a judge and got a FISA warrant to do it? like, trump is kind of a nitwit and doesn't know how it works so he's crying wiretap like a victim and probably doesn't know a wiretap on him/ his folks is actually probably a double bad thing, but i would expect better from our posters. I have so many thoughts on this that I'm going to write a too-long post. The TLDR of it is this: The new report does not prove Trump was right, however it does prove that everyone else was lying or incompetent. For instance this part: On September 19 2017 13:25 Tachion wrote:
Are we already forgetting that the DoJ refuted Trump's wiretapping claims? This is just a desperate stretch to try to vindicate his past bullshit. This means the DOJ was lying/incompetent. Knowing that Manafort had been wiretapped, a statement that says, "Trump and Trump Tower were not wiretapped" is a lie by omission if any electronic communications from Trump or Trump Tower were intercepted as a result of a FISA warrant. I find all of the VERY SPECIFIC definitions of "wiretap" coming out of this extremely disturbing. If the cops have a recording of me talking on the phone I have been wiretapped. I worked for a judge, if she found out an official did this in a criminal case he would be placed in contempt (not to mention a mistrial would have to be declared if the jury had been empaneled). So DOJ is the worst. But nearly as bad/incompetent are/were the media. I will focus on Jake Tapper because he was the most angry about it. We have things like this: https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/843938220077465600His only defense of such a position now would be something like this: On September 19 2017 13:16 m4ini wrote:
Yup, the chairman. Not Trump, nor the Trump Tower, as Trump claims.
This is an unacceptable level of journalistic malpractice. Lets say you are Mr. Tapper and have a "source familiar with the situation" on the phone after Trump claimed to have been wiretapped: Source: Hey Jake, I know things and neither Trump nor Trump Tower were ever wiretapped. If you are Mr. Tapper which of these things do you do? 1. Jake: Oh cool, thanks Mr. Source, I'll go write an article. or 2. Jake: That is interesting, but I can't just run with that. If it ever comes out that the FBI listened to a Trump phone call I'll look like an idiot. So, do you know if any Trump phone calls were ever intercepted? Source: Jake, we both know that can happen even if you aren't wiretapped. Jake: Of course Mr. Source, but 360 million Americans think wiretaps = intercepting calls. I can only report he wasn't wiretapped if he wasn't and I also know none of his calls were intercepted. Otherwise I have to report that he "Wasn't technically wiretapped, but several of his phone calls were listened to by the FBI." Some people can't stand Trump being even half right. Come on--he tweets random stuff every week. He'll be fully wrong again soon. https://twitter.com/thomashcrown/status/909925552148090881Secondly, this is the problem with fake news by omission. If politically motivated government sources leak something deliberately misleading, and journalists don't follow up, there's two culpable parties on the way to publication. ...but the best the thread can do is allege Saint Obama's justice department didn't mean anything by it!!! If the Trump administration had done this to Mook, the conflict of interest and implications would suddenly be crystal clear. But you all are so blinded by the specter of Trump that you can't see and admit to the lies (with journalistic incompetence if you presume good motives to journalists) or to how this damages media credibility. I'll watch to see if any of the regular voices can have a clear nonpartisan sentence or two of admitting either. I do want to know if the admission street is still one-way. It was already known at the time of Trump's tweet that people in his campaign were subject to FISA warrant (and therefore, in all likelihood, wiretap). It is only appropriate to judge Trump's tweet by whether it was correct, that is, whether Trump himself or Trump Tower was wiretapped. We already knew at the time of the tweet that it wouldn't be surprising at all if Trump was incidentally picked up by surveillance; after all, the pack of goons surrounding him were subject to FBI surveillance. Here's why the people around Trump were wiretapped: Under Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a person can be targeted if the government establishes probable cause that he or she is the “agent of a foreign power.”Trump specifically claimed that he himself or Trump Tower was wiretapped. The media examined whether that claim was correct, and it was not. You are not successfully obfuscating the issue by deflecting to the media. The media is, IMO, the only story with regards to the wiretap. It should not be possible for them to report "no wiretap" without clarifying language about how many times Trump calls were monitored if there is a guy close to Trump being tapped. This is not just basic journalism, its basic thinking a kindergartner could do. What? How is it the medias job to make a lie seem less like a lie when no matter what you say it is 100% a lie? If you claim your house was wire taped, then it turns out it was just someone else that you called sometimes.. not even necessarily at your house, then you lied about your house being wire taped. No clarifying statement changes it, all it does is confuse the situation.
The media being terrible is no defense of Trump. Trump is still terrible and wrong on this point (but it is arguable if one is being charitable to Trump, that perhaps Trump has a pedestrian/normal vernacular on wiretaps and when he saw this considered it one). The problem is in its vigor to "factcheck" Trump, they played themselves/got played by sources. Anyone who had enough information to definitively say Trump was not tapped also should have known Manafort was, and thus any article that says, "Trump was not wiretapped per sources" should also include a statement, "however XX number of Trump phone calls were incidentally intercepted." This is because, the latter is actually bigger news, and the former without the latter is a lie by omission.
Ignoring Trump's idiocy for a minute, the whole thing is too clever for its own good. Its like if your wife storms in and say, "You slept with my MOTHER, IN THIS HOUSE!" and you say no because you did not. But actually you are, in fact, sleeping with her father in motel 6.
|
On September 20 2017 05:11 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2017 04:58 IyMoon wrote:On September 20 2017 04:35 cLutZ wrote:On September 19 2017 23:43 Doodsmack wrote:On September 19 2017 23:33 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 15:02 cLutZ wrote:On September 19 2017 14:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
do ya'll really want to be the side arguing trump was *right* about the wiretap, with the implication being the FBI had enough evidence that they went to a judge and got a FISA warrant to do it? like, trump is kind of a nitwit and doesn't know how it works so he's crying wiretap like a victim and probably doesn't know a wiretap on him/ his folks is actually probably a double bad thing, but i would expect better from our posters. I have so many thoughts on this that I'm going to write a too-long post. The TLDR of it is this: The new report does not prove Trump was right, however it does prove that everyone else was lying or incompetent. For instance this part: On September 19 2017 13:25 Tachion wrote:
Are we already forgetting that the DoJ refuted Trump's wiretapping claims? This is just a desperate stretch to try to vindicate his past bullshit. This means the DOJ was lying/incompetent. Knowing that Manafort had been wiretapped, a statement that says, "Trump and Trump Tower were not wiretapped" is a lie by omission if any electronic communications from Trump or Trump Tower were intercepted as a result of a FISA warrant. I find all of the VERY SPECIFIC definitions of "wiretap" coming out of this extremely disturbing. If the cops have a recording of me talking on the phone I have been wiretapped. I worked for a judge, if she found out an official did this in a criminal case he would be placed in contempt (not to mention a mistrial would have to be declared if the jury had been empaneled). So DOJ is the worst. But nearly as bad/incompetent are/were the media. I will focus on Jake Tapper because he was the most angry about it. We have things like this: https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/843938220077465600His only defense of such a position now would be something like this: On September 19 2017 13:16 m4ini wrote:
Yup, the chairman. Not Trump, nor the Trump Tower, as Trump claims.
This is an unacceptable level of journalistic malpractice. Lets say you are Mr. Tapper and have a "source familiar with the situation" on the phone after Trump claimed to have been wiretapped: Source: Hey Jake, I know things and neither Trump nor Trump Tower were ever wiretapped. If you are Mr. Tapper which of these things do you do? 1. Jake: Oh cool, thanks Mr. Source, I'll go write an article. or 2. Jake: That is interesting, but I can't just run with that. If it ever comes out that the FBI listened to a Trump phone call I'll look like an idiot. So, do you know if any Trump phone calls were ever intercepted? Source: Jake, we both know that can happen even if you aren't wiretapped. Jake: Of course Mr. Source, but 360 million Americans think wiretaps = intercepting calls. I can only report he wasn't wiretapped if he wasn't and I also know none of his calls were intercepted. Otherwise I have to report that he "Wasn't technically wiretapped, but several of his phone calls were listened to by the FBI." Some people can't stand Trump being even half right. Come on--he tweets random stuff every week. He'll be fully wrong again soon. https://twitter.com/thomashcrown/status/909925552148090881Secondly, this is the problem with fake news by omission. If politically motivated government sources leak something deliberately misleading, and journalists don't follow up, there's two culpable parties on the way to publication. ...but the best the thread can do is allege Saint Obama's justice department didn't mean anything by it!!! If the Trump administration had done this to Mook, the conflict of interest and implications would suddenly be crystal clear. But you all are so blinded by the specter of Trump that you can't see and admit to the lies (with journalistic incompetence if you presume good motives to journalists) or to how this damages media credibility. I'll watch to see if any of the regular voices can have a clear nonpartisan sentence or two of admitting either. I do want to know if the admission street is still one-way. It was already known at the time of Trump's tweet that people in his campaign were subject to FISA warrant (and therefore, in all likelihood, wiretap). It is only appropriate to judge Trump's tweet by whether it was correct, that is, whether Trump himself or Trump Tower was wiretapped. We already knew at the time of the tweet that it wouldn't be surprising at all if Trump was incidentally picked up by surveillance; after all, the pack of goons surrounding him were subject to FBI surveillance. Here's why the people around Trump were wiretapped: Under Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a person can be targeted if the government establishes probable cause that he or she is the “agent of a foreign power.”Trump specifically claimed that he himself or Trump Tower was wiretapped. The media examined whether that claim was correct, and it was not. You are not successfully obfuscating the issue by deflecting to the media. The media is, IMO, the only story with regards to the wiretap. It should not be possible for them to report "no wiretap" without clarifying language about how many times Trump calls were monitored if there is a guy close to Trump being tapped. This is not just basic journalism, its basic thinking a kindergartner could do. What? How is it the medias job to make a lie seem less like a lie when no matter what you say it is 100% a lie? If you claim your house was wire taped, then it turns out it was just someone else that you called sometimes.. not even necessarily at your house, then you lied about your house being wire taped. No clarifying statement changes it, all it does is confuse the situation. The media being terrible is no defense of Trump. Trump is still terrible and wrong on this point (but it is arguable if one is being charitable to Trump, that perhaps Trump has a pedestrian/normal vernacular on wiretaps and when he saw this considered it one). The problem is in its vigor to "factcheck" Trump, they played themselves/got played by sources. Anyone who had enough information to definitively say Trump was not tapped also should have known Manafort was, and thus any article that says, "Trump was not wiretapped per sources" should also include a statement, "however XX number of Trump phone calls were incidentally intercepted." This is because, the latter is actually bigger news, and the former without the latter is a lie by omission. Ignoring Trump's idiocy for a minute, the whole thing is too clever for its own good. Its like if your wife storms in and say, "You slept with my MOTHER, IN THIS HOUSE!" and you say no because you did not. But actually you are, in fact, sleeping with her father in motel 6.
Except in this case it would be someone you associate with is sleeping with her father in a motel 6 and you have know idea he is doing it. Again, I see nothing wrong with saying trump was not wiretapped because he wasn't. If I walk into a mob bar (without knowing it is one) and am caught on a wiretap placed by the FBI that in no way shape or form means *I* was wiretapped.
I walked by the filming of a movie on the pier once (Had someone holding up signs saying don't look at actors/ camera) Does not mean I would ever say I was in the movie even though you might catch a glimpse of me in the background
|
On September 20 2017 05:09 LegalLord wrote:
Perhaps "the Russia matter" that is a farce needs clarification.
What I do NOT mean by that: the extent of Russian involvement in the influence of the election and the investigation therein.
What I DO mean by that: the media frenzy surrounding the investigation including the tolerance for inappropriate handling of privileged material on a large scale, and the insinuations that people make, including Hillary Clinton, that the election isn't legitimate.
The latter is a farce.
The media goes where the ratings take them and the President being illegally aided by the US's biggest historical enemy is a pretty big deal.
I'm not sure how much leaking is actually happening, but yes there is no need for it. Aren't things like Subpoena's not public knowledge tho?
already responded on the legitimacy above.
|
On September 20 2017 05:09 Mohdoo wrote:
I think it's that LegalLord sees so many trillions of reasons for Clinton to walk away from this humiliated and defeated that hearing people talk about things that make it less her fault drives him insane. Talking about things outside her control, when so many things were totally within her control and would have won her the election, feels silly. Which I can somewhat understand. But it is important to look at both. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it looks from here.
It's not so much about walking away defeated, it's more about moving on and about letting the country move on. One of the few bright spots of a Trump win is that we as a country get to shed the choking influence of the Clinton cancer on our country. But the longer she plays the game of the sore loser who doesn't want to understand that about three-fourths of the country is saying "just fuck off, Hillary" the harder it is to clean house and move on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
