• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 04:00
CEST 10:00
KST 17:00
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting10[ASL20] Ro4 Preview: Descent11Team TLMC #5: Winners Announced!3[ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Holding On9Maestros of the Game: Live Finals Preview (RO4)5
Community News
BSL Team A vs Koreans - Sat-Sun 16:00 CET6Weekly Cups (Oct 6-12): Four star herO85.0.15 Patch Balance Hotfix (2025-10-8)80Weekly Cups (Sept 29-Oct 5): MaxPax triples up3PartinG joins SteamerZone, returns to SC2 competition32
StarCraft 2
General
The New Patch Killed Mech! TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting Stellar Fest: StarCraft II returns to Canada herO Talks: Poor Performance at EWC and more... Weekly Cups (Oct 6-12): Four star herO
Tourneys
INu's Battles#13 < ByuN vs Zoun > Tenacious Turtle Tussle SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 19 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $1,200 WardiTV October (Oct 21st-31st)
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 496 Endless Infection Mutation # 495 Rest In Peace Mutation # 494 Unstable Environment Mutation # 493 Quick Killers
Brood War
General
BSL Season 21 BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW caster Sayle BSL Team A vs Koreans - Sat-Sun 16:00 CET
Tourneys
[ASL20] Semifinal B Azhi's Colosseum - Anonymous Tournament [Megathread] Daily Proleagues SC4ALL $1,500 Open Bracket LAN
Strategy
Current Meta BW - ajfirecracker Strategy & Training Relatively freeroll strategies Siegecraft - a new perspective
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Dawn of War IV Nintendo Switch Thread ZeroSpace Megathread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread SPIRED by.ASL Mafia {211640}
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Men's Fashion Thread Sex and weight loss
Fan Clubs
The herO Fan Club! The Happy Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Series you have seen recently... Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion!
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2026 Football Thread MLB/Baseball 2023 NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List Recent Gifted Posts
Blogs
The Heroism of Pepe the Fro…
Peanutsc
Rocket League: Traits, Abili…
TrAiDoS
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1210 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9085

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 9083 9084 9085 9086 9087 10093 Next
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.
Doodsmack
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States7224 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-10-30 00:08:53
October 30 2017 00:07 GMT
#181681
On October 30 2017 08:58 Danglars wrote:


The last four pages show that the only thread objection part of “Trump campaign-Russia collusion” is “Trump campaign.” When Clinton campaign figures lie about financing the dossier, no fucks are given. I mean they even throw the NYT reporting under the bus (Maggie Haberman and Ken Vogel were previously esteemed). You might deny that collusion with Russia is a one-way Street, but your actions show differently. Next time, play up some angle you wouldn’t mind criticizing a Democrat campaign on. You’ll emerge with more credibility that way.


Very shoddy reasoning and conclusion. Russia wanted Trump to win. Russia engaged in full scale efforts to help Trump win. Russia did not do the same with Clinton. Some people on the Clinton campaign lied about who paid for the oppo research. That does not bear on whether there was collusion between the Clinton camp and Russia to help Clinton win.

Anyone with a pea brain can infer from the fact that Russia engaged in full scale efforts to help Trump win that Russia did not collude with the Clinton camp to help Clinton.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23426 Posts
October 30 2017 00:08 GMT
#181682
On October 30 2017 09:07 Doodsmack wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 08:58 Danglars wrote:
https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/924715348376637445

The last four pages show that the only thread objection part of “Trump campaign-Russia collusion” is “Trump campaign.” When Clinton campaign figures lie about financing the dossier, no fucks are given. I mean they even throw the NYT reporting under the bus (Maggie Haberman and Ken Vogel were previously esteemed). You might deny that collusion with Russia is a one-way Street, but your actions show differently. Next time, play up some angle you wouldn’t mind criticizing a Democrat campaign on. You’ll emerge with more credibility that way.


Very shoddy reasoning and conclusion. Russia wanted Trump to win. Russia engaged in full scale efforts to help Trump win. Russia did not do the same with Clinton. Some people on the Clinton campaign lied about who paid for the oppo research. That does not bear on whether there was collusion between the Clinton camp and Russia to help Clinton win.


We know Russia wanted to disrupt our political system, we don't know Russia wanted (or expected in their wildest dreams) that Trump would win.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Doodsmack
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States7224 Posts
October 30 2017 00:10 GMT
#181683
On October 30 2017 09:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 09:07 Doodsmack wrote:
On October 30 2017 08:58 Danglars wrote:
https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/924715348376637445

The last four pages show that the only thread objection part of “Trump campaign-Russia collusion” is “Trump campaign.” When Clinton campaign figures lie about financing the dossier, no fucks are given. I mean they even throw the NYT reporting under the bus (Maggie Haberman and Ken Vogel were previously esteemed). You might deny that collusion with Russia is a one-way Street, but your actions show differently. Next time, play up some angle you wouldn’t mind criticizing a Democrat campaign on. You’ll emerge with more credibility that way.


Very shoddy reasoning and conclusion. Russia wanted Trump to win. Russia engaged in full scale efforts to help Trump win. Russia did not do the same with Clinton. Some people on the Clinton campaign lied about who paid for the oppo research. That does not bear on whether there was collusion between the Clinton camp and Russia to help Clinton win.


We know Russia wanted to disrupt our political system, we don't know Russia wanted (or expected in their wildest dreams) that Trump would win.


Are you relying on the intel community for this assertion? The intel community says Russia wanted to help Trump win.
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
October 30 2017 00:10 GMT
#181684
On October 30 2017 09:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Every time this gets rehashed I'm desperate to understand why this instance in particular is so significant for people. It's not like we don't collude with foreign political groups to influence elections regularly.

It really seems like everyone is freaking out about 21st century technology lowering the economic barriers to entry and a country that doesn't have our best interest being able to use it against us.

Like there isn't an actual principled stand people are taking, it seems completely driven by self-interest and political point scoring on all sides.

The irony of it all being Russia seems to have a better grasp of what's wrong with our politics than we do.

are you actually desperate to understand it? or is that rhetorical, and you fully understand it, but disagree with the reasons for it?
i.e. do you need an explanation for something or not; it's hard to tell.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23426 Posts
October 30 2017 00:16 GMT
#181685
On October 30 2017 09:10 Doodsmack wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 09:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 30 2017 09:07 Doodsmack wrote:
On October 30 2017 08:58 Danglars wrote:
https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/924715348376637445

The last four pages show that the only thread objection part of “Trump campaign-Russia collusion” is “Trump campaign.” When Clinton campaign figures lie about financing the dossier, no fucks are given. I mean they even throw the NYT reporting under the bus (Maggie Haberman and Ken Vogel were previously esteemed). You might deny that collusion with Russia is a one-way Street, but your actions show differently. Next time, play up some angle you wouldn’t mind criticizing a Democrat campaign on. You’ll emerge with more credibility that way.


Very shoddy reasoning and conclusion. Russia wanted Trump to win. Russia engaged in full scale efforts to help Trump win. Russia did not do the same with Clinton. Some people on the Clinton campaign lied about who paid for the oppo research. That does not bear on whether there was collusion between the Clinton camp and Russia to help Clinton win.


We know Russia wanted to disrupt our political system, we don't know Russia wanted (or expected in their wildest dreams) that Trump would win.


Are you relying on the intel community for this assertion? The intel community says Russia wanted to help Trump win.


I'm not real big on trusting secret assessments from the same intelligence communities that lie as much or more than they tell the truth. It basically boils down to "Putin hated Hillary so we read that as him wanting Trump to win".

On October 30 2017 09:10 zlefin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 09:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Every time this gets rehashed I'm desperate to understand why this instance in particular is so significant for people. It's not like we don't collude with foreign political groups to influence elections regularly.

It really seems like everyone is freaking out about 21st century technology lowering the economic barriers to entry and a country that doesn't have our best interest being able to use it against us.

Like there isn't an actual principled stand people are taking, it seems completely driven by self-interest and political point scoring on all sides.

The irony of it all being Russia seems to have a better grasp of what's wrong with our politics than we do.

are you actually desperate to understand it? or is that rhetorical, and you fully understand it, but disagree with the reasons for it?
i.e. do you need an explanation for something or not; it's hard to tell.


I've asked several times and never got an answer that made sense.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3229 Posts
October 30 2017 00:23 GMT
#181686
On October 30 2017 08:56 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 08:35 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 08:32 xDaunt wrote:
If you really want to hang your hat on this is no big deal because only the general counsel for the campaign lied, good luck.

I'm not hanging my hat on anything! Like I said, there's a very good chance they knew about all of it. We're just calling you on claiming stuff is absolutely proven when it's not, then saying bullshit like "I cited it, learn to read" when people dispute it.

Edit:
Here's what one guy says that is on point:

Their claim that nobody in the campaign or the DNC knew anything about the deal doesn’t pass the smell test. When as much as $12 million goes out the window for a document that aimed to win the election — and failed — everybody knows something


Ah, "some guy" said it. I see you're still into the insinuation and anonymous citations. This has been quite a week for you

Maybe someday you'll learn how to properly contextualize information. What I'm quoting is irrelevant. It's just an opinion that I very easily could have presented as my own. But hey, keep working that double standard of yours. I look forward to continuing to not see you call out every poster who pushes assertions suggesting that Trump colluded with the Russians beyond what is actually known.

And again, I can't help it if y'all refuse to read what is right in front of you. I didn't say that the Clinton campaign lied. The reporters did. It's really obvious to me why they used that word. It should be obvious to you as well, but y'all would rather pretend to be ostriches and keep your heads in the sand.

I've had my suspicions that other posters (including on the left) were playing games, but you're the one I thought the case was strongest for. I made the case, you ignored it but now you're butthurt I don't do the same for liberals. So that's fine, feel free to rebut or ignore it as you please. But you're gonna have to offer actual evidence of a "double standard" if you want to be taken seriously.

For the case at hand, there's good evidence that Elias knew. It is as yet unconfirmed that Hillary, Podesta, etc. knew. You might think they probably did; I'd probably guess they did too. But claiming your suspicions as established fact is not a good way to convince us you're not bullshitting us. Like I said, cross your t's and dot your i's.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
October 30 2017 00:24 GMT
#181687
@GH
Well, I can try to come up with an answer that will make sense for you then.
but there's a lot of similar questions which have different answers, and i'm not sure which exact one(s) you're asking.
can you (re)state your exact questions for the record so I can work off those?
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
doomsmacker
Profile Joined October 2017
3 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-10-30 00:43:40
October 30 2017 00:30 GMT
#181688
Through deduction, you can assume that Russia clearly didn't want Clinton since he was clearly the candidate that would smack them the hardest with sanctions and other belligerent actions. This is supported by the advertising bought by Russians on Facebook.

The Russians are reported to have paid for Stein, Sanders and Trump ads. Why Stein and Sanders? Because certain segments of the left hate Clinton just as much as certain segments of the Republican Party, especially when we take into account how poorly some people felt about Clinton's nomination.

Its isn't really rocket science. If Trump wasn't a complete idiot and didn't fire Comey for basically no reason, he'd probably have achieved the same amount of shady shit he's already done with China. But because the guy can't shut up, he can't do much with regards to sanctions and private business deals without looking really, really guilty.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23426 Posts
October 30 2017 00:33 GMT
#181689
On October 30 2017 09:24 zlefin wrote:
@GH
Well, I can try to come up with an answer that will make sense for you then.
but there's a lot of similar questions which have different answers, and i'm not sure which exact one(s) you're asking.
can you (re)state your exact questions for the record so I can work off those?


Why is this instance in particular so significant for people?

Is this a principled position that means they equally or more disturbed by the US's consistent and ongoing colluding with foreign political groups up to and including assassinating democratically elected leaders?

Why wouldn't Russia respond to our interfering in their politics by interfering in ours?

I suppose those would be a good start.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Nevuk
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States16280 Posts
October 30 2017 00:39 GMT
#181690
Who the fuck cares about Hillary Clinton besides fox news these days?
John Boehner had a barn burner of a politico piece recently.
“Breaking the ice, I mention some news of the day—that Trey Gowdy appears likely to become chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The previous chairman, Jason Chaffetz, had abruptly announced his resignation from Congress; House conservatives had hoped that Jim Jordan, a senior member on the committee, might pursue the chairmanship. Boehner grins. ‘Gowdy—that’s my guy, even though he doesn’t know how to dress,’ he says. Then Boehner leans back in his chair. ‘Fuck Jordan. Fuck Chaffetz. They’re both assholes.'”
Boehner’s beef with Chaffetz, who would later join Fox News as a paid contributor, is not personal—just that he’s a “total phony” who possessed legislative talent but focused mostly on self-promotion. “With Chaffetz,” Boehner says, “it’s always about Chaffetz.”

His problems with Jordan, the founding chairman of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, run much deeper. To Boehner and his allies, Jordan was the antagonist in the story of his speakership—an embodiment of the brinkmanship and betrayal that roiled the House Republican majority and made Boehner’s life miserable. Although he would tell me in later conversations that he holds no grudges against anyone, today Boehner unloads on his fellow Ohioan. “Jordan was a terrorist as a legislator going back to his days in the Ohio House and Senate,” Boehner says. “A terrorist. A legislative terrorist.”


[...]

Boehner was running out of patience. The day before, Reid had blasted him from the Senate floor, saying he ran the House like a dictator. “I don’t do angry. Nobody on my staff has ever seen me angry,” Boehner tells me. “But that little son of a bitch got under my skin.” When he arrived at the White House for a meeting with the president and congressional leaders, Boehner spotted Reid talking with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “I walked right up to him and said, ‘Harry, you can go fuck yourself. You ever listen to that shit that comes out of your mouth?’” Boehner imitates a flustered Reid, then adds: “I thought McConnell was going to have a heart attack.”


Cantor’s loss triggered a leadership shuffle: McCarthy was promoted to majority leader, and Scalise was elected whip. The new chief deputy whip, McHenry—who admits to being “a bomb-thrower” his first three years in Congress and viewing Boehner as a nincompoop—tells me his view changed upon joining the speaker at his daily management meetings. “I’m in there and it’s this realization—Oh, wait a second. Boehner does actually care about policy. He understands the dynamics of the conference. He understands where all these different groups are.” He laughs. “Like, who is this guy?” McHenry wishes other conservatives had his vantage point. “He could see through opportunities without having to make the 50 or 75 phone calls that I made.”

On the golf course in Ohio, Boehner singles out McHenry as an example of how some lawmakers mature after initially acting like “anarchists.” He also makes a prediction: “McHenry’s going to be the speaker one day.”

Boehner worries about the deepening fissures in American society. But he sees Trump as more of a symptom than the cause of what is a longer arc of social and ideological alienation, fueled by talk radio and Fox News on the right and MSNBC and social media on the left. “People thought in ’09, ’10, ’11, that the country couldn’t be divided more. And you go back to Obama’s campaign in 2008, you know, he was talking about the divide and healing the country and all of that. And some would argue on the right that he did more to divide the country than to unite it. I kind of reject that notion.” Why is that? “Because it wasn’t him!” Boehner replies. “It was modern-day media, and social media, that kept pushing people further right and further left. People started to figure out … they could choose where to get their news. And so what do people do? They choose places they agree with, reinforcing the divide.”

He continues: “I always liked Rush [Limbaugh]. When I went to Palm Beach I would always meet with Rush and we’d go play golf. But you know, who was that right-wing guy, [Mark] Levin? He went really crazy right and got a big audience, and he dragged [Sean] Hannity to the dark side. He dragged Rush to the dark side. And these guys—I used to talk to them all the time. And suddenly they’re beating the living shit out of me.” Boehner, seated in his favorite recliner, lights another cigarette. “I had a conversation with Hannity, probably about the beginning of 2015. I called him and said, ‘Listen, you’re nuts.’ We had this really blunt conversation. Things were better for a few months, and then it got back to being the same-old, same-old. Because I wasn’t going to be a right-wing idiot.”

www.politico.com
Good profile, though lengthy
doomsmacker
Profile Joined October 2017
3 Posts
October 30 2017 00:41 GMT
#181691
On October 30 2017 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 09:24 zlefin wrote:
@GH
Well, I can try to come up with an answer that will make sense for you then.
but there's a lot of similar questions which have different answers, and i'm not sure which exact one(s) you're asking.
can you (re)state your exact questions for the record so I can work off those?


Why is this instance in particular so significant for people?

Is this a principled position that means they equally or more disturbed by the US's consistent and ongoing colluding with foreign political groups up to and including assassinating democratically elected leaders?

Why wouldn't Russia respond to our interfering in their politics by interfering in ours?

I suppose those would be a good start.


Russia interfering in US politics is expected. But to argue that they didn't bet on a horse is kind of disingenuous since, like the USA, you typically interfere in US politics to get a political party/candidate that you like and best suits your foreign policy goals.

Considering how much of a boner Trump has for Russia and how easily he's influenced by the red carpet treatment (eg. France's military parade, Saudi Arabia throwing gold and money at him), he's clearly the candidate you want if you want the US to get off your back.
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States43166 Posts
October 30 2017 00:42 GMT
#181692
On October 30 2017 04:45 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 04:36 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote:
Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it.

I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however.

What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research?

We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account.

Okay, so they failed to report (to who? the IRS?) the expenditure on oppo research as expenditure on oppo research, they said it was spending on legal services. I assume that's at least illegal somehow (is it a tax thing or something?).

Anything else? Because the right's frenzy on this one seems to go a lot further than "they didn't fill out the proper forms."

Remember the stink over Donald Junior meeting with a Russian agent? This is that, but we know that money actually changed hands.

If we assume that everything here happened the way you're saying it did then it is by definition not a quid pro quo, but rather a transaction. Trump discussed US foreign policy changes in the context of electoral interference from Russia. You're alleging that the Clinton campaign paid for information. That doesn't really work as a comparison. The whole "what are they giving in return for the info" aspect is entirely answered within your allegation, you're alleging they gave money.

I don't accept that any of it happened the way you say it did, but even if it did happen that way, your allegation precludes a quid pro quo.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-10-30 00:45:10
October 30 2017 00:44 GMT
#181693
On October 30 2017 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 09:24 zlefin wrote:
@GH
Well, I can try to come up with an answer that will make sense for you then.
but there's a lot of similar questions which have different answers, and i'm not sure which exact one(s) you're asking.
can you (re)state your exact questions for the record so I can work off those?


Why is this instance in particular so significant for people?

Is this a principled position that means they equally or more disturbed by the US's consistent and ongoing colluding with foreign political groups up to and including assassinating democratically elected leaders?

Why wouldn't Russia respond to our interfering in their politics by interfering in ours?

I suppose those would be a good start.

which "this instance" are you referring to? there's been a whole bunch of different related stuff in thread, and i'm not sure which part(s) you're talking about. I mean, there's trump/russia stuff, clinton/russia stuff, trump subordinate/russia stuff, other russia election actions not linked with any particular campaign.

this will seem slow and pedantic, but I operate best when using precision.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23426 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-10-30 00:51:39
October 30 2017 00:46 GMT
#181694
On October 30 2017 09:41 doomsmacker wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 30 2017 09:24 zlefin wrote:
@GH
Well, I can try to come up with an answer that will make sense for you then.
but there's a lot of similar questions which have different answers, and i'm not sure which exact one(s) you're asking.
can you (re)state your exact questions for the record so I can work off those?


Why is this instance in particular so significant for people?

Is this a principled position that means they equally or more disturbed by the US's consistent and ongoing colluding with foreign political groups up to and including assassinating democratically elected leaders?

Why wouldn't Russia respond to our interfering in their politics by interfering in ours?

I suppose those would be a good start.


Russia interfering in US politics is expected. But to argue that they didn't bet on a horse is kind of disingenuous since, like the USA, you typically interfere in US politics to get a political party/candidate that you like and best suits your foreign policy goals.

Considering how much of a boner Trump has for Russia and how easily he's influenced by the red carpet treatment (eg. France's military parade, Saudi Arabia throwing gold and money at him), he's clearly the candidate you want if you want the US to get off your back.


I would suspect Putin could identify Trump as a lying idiot pretty quickly and that he would be ineffective at getting anything done, and if anything, Trump winning has turned anti-Russia media up 10 notches.

We could assume Putin wanted Trump to win, but we don't know that was his intention (and would have been labeled a futile and crazy plan by anyone saying it's what he intended if suggested before the election)

On October 30 2017 09:44 zlefin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 30 2017 09:24 zlefin wrote:
@GH
Well, I can try to come up with an answer that will make sense for you then.
but there's a lot of similar questions which have different answers, and i'm not sure which exact one(s) you're asking.
can you (re)state your exact questions for the record so I can work off those?


Why is this instance in particular so significant for people?

Is this a principled position that means they equally or more disturbed by the US's consistent and ongoing colluding with foreign political groups up to and including assassinating democratically elected leaders?

Why wouldn't Russia respond to our interfering in their politics by interfering in ours?

I suppose those would be a good start.

which "this instance" are you referring to? there's been a whole bunch of different related stuff in thread, and i'm not sure which part(s) you're talking about. I mean, there's trump/russia stuff, clinton/russia stuff, trump subordinate/russia stuff, other russia election actions not linked with any particular campaign.

this will seem slow and pedantic, but I operate best when using precision.


"this instance" would mean Russia interfering in our 2016 election.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Nevuk
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States16280 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-10-30 00:51:13
October 30 2017 00:48 GMT
#181695
I feel like this strategy hasn't been fully thought through by Trump. If he's alleging that cooperating with Russia is bad, it will at the end of the day make it even harder to lift sanctions, angering Putin, something Trump has gone hilariously far out of his way to avoid until now. Feels like desperate, random flailing. I'm just going to wait until the indictments come out.

Aside from the WSJ's crazed demand to fire Mueller, no one else has really made any actually significant assertions or demands.

It's all vague insinuations, which don't matter.
WolfintheSheep
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada14127 Posts
October 30 2017 00:53 GMT
#181696
On October 30 2017 09:44 zlefin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 30 2017 09:24 zlefin wrote:
@GH
Well, I can try to come up with an answer that will make sense for you then.
but there's a lot of similar questions which have different answers, and i'm not sure which exact one(s) you're asking.
can you (re)state your exact questions for the record so I can work off those?


Why is this instance in particular so significant for people?

Is this a principled position that means they equally or more disturbed by the US's consistent and ongoing colluding with foreign political groups up to and including assassinating democratically elected leaders?

Why wouldn't Russia respond to our interfering in their politics by interfering in ours?

I suppose those would be a good start.

which "this instance" are you referring to? there's been a whole bunch of different related stuff in thread, and i'm not sure which part(s) you're talking about. I mean, there's trump/russia stuff, clinton/russia stuff, trump subordinate/russia stuff, other russia election actions not linked with any particular campaign.

this will seem slow and pedantic, but I operate best when using precision.

Rough summary of GH's opinion is:

1) Everyone in politics does this all the time, everyone is hypocrites for caring about Trump doing this.
2) The entire system is broken, burn it down and replace it.

And my rebuttal to that is these rules and regulations may have loopholes and doublespeak, but that's why you build and improve on them. Any replacement system is going to be just as flawed, or worse, in the beginning. But if you don't actually enforce the laws and rules that do exist, it's meaningless to even talk about making new ones.
Average means I'm better than half of you.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23426 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-10-30 00:57:51
October 30 2017 00:56 GMT
#181697
On October 30 2017 09:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 09:44 zlefin wrote:
On October 30 2017 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 30 2017 09:24 zlefin wrote:
@GH
Well, I can try to come up with an answer that will make sense for you then.
but there's a lot of similar questions which have different answers, and i'm not sure which exact one(s) you're asking.
can you (re)state your exact questions for the record so I can work off those?


Why is this instance in particular so significant for people?

Is this a principled position that means they equally or more disturbed by the US's consistent and ongoing colluding with foreign political groups up to and including assassinating democratically elected leaders?

Why wouldn't Russia respond to our interfering in their politics by interfering in ours?

I suppose those would be a good start.

which "this instance" are you referring to? there's been a whole bunch of different related stuff in thread, and i'm not sure which part(s) you're talking about. I mean, there's trump/russia stuff, clinton/russia stuff, trump subordinate/russia stuff, other russia election actions not linked with any particular campaign.

this will seem slow and pedantic, but I operate best when using precision.

Rough summary of GH's opinion is:

1) Everyone in politics does this all the time, everyone is hypocrites for caring about Trump doing this.
2) The entire system is broken, burn it down and replace it.

And my rebuttal to that is these rules and regulations may have loopholes and doublespeak, but that's why you build and improve on them. Any replacement system is going to be just as flawed, or worse, in the beginning. But if you don't actually enforce the laws and rules that do exist, it's meaningless to even talk about making new ones.


Maybe I missed all the calls from Russiagaters about putting an end to the US interfering in foreign politics? Selective rule enforcement is kinda our shit. Going all the way back to ignoring that the Constitution made slavery illegal before the 13th amendment (which actually legalized slavery).
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States43166 Posts
October 30 2017 00:57 GMT
#181698
I'm almost caught up and it seems like xDaunt is just highly confused by the idea of a company having suppliers. If you pay company A for a service and company A pays companies B and C as part of the process of providing that service that does not mean that you have paid company B and C, not even indirectly. It's just not how it works. But I guess in the xDaunt world all companies manufacture all products for themselves in house and none of them pay any salaries because that would also be a third party transfer of money, instead all employees are shareholders with varying levels of equity.

Why draw the line at the opposition researchers, why not go another layer deeper and list all of the employees of the opposition researchers? Then add another layer, their landlords also got Clinton money in their rent payments.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
doomsmacker
Profile Joined October 2017
3 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-10-30 01:03:33
October 30 2017 00:59 GMT
#181699
On October 30 2017 09:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 09:41 doomsmacker wrote:
On October 30 2017 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 30 2017 09:24 zlefin wrote:
@GH
Well, I can try to come up with an answer that will make sense for you then.
but there's a lot of similar questions which have different answers, and i'm not sure which exact one(s) you're asking.
can you (re)state your exact questions for the record so I can work off those?


Why is this instance in particular so significant for people?

Is this a principled position that means they equally or more disturbed by the US's consistent and ongoing colluding with foreign political groups up to and including assassinating democratically elected leaders?

Why wouldn't Russia respond to our interfering in their politics by interfering in ours?

I suppose those would be a good start.


Russia interfering in US politics is expected. But to argue that they didn't bet on a horse is kind of disingenuous since, like the USA, you typically interfere in US politics to get a political party/candidate that you like and best suits your foreign policy goals.

Considering how much of a boner Trump has for Russia and how easily he's influenced by the red carpet treatment (eg. France's military parade, Saudi Arabia throwing gold and money at him), he's clearly the candidate you want if you want the US to get off your back.


I would suspect Putin could identify Trump as a lying idiot pretty quickly and that he would be ineffective at getting anything done, and if anything, Trump winning has turned anti-Russia media up 10 notches.

We could assume Putin wanted Trump to win, but we don't know that was his intention (and would have been labeled a futile and crazy plan by anyone saying it's what he intended before the election)


He's a lying idiot but he's also a guy who sees nothing wrong with a little bit of quid pro quo. He's doing it with regards to China behind the scenes (Kushner debt forgiveness, Ivanka's shoe factories and vanishing audits) but few people are really reporting it because he's not bringing attention to it. Trump gets away with the most things when he shuts up and stays quiet. Its also when his approval ratings are the highest.

The Russia allegations only really went overdrive after the fired Comey, after it was reported that he was turning up the Russia election meddling investigation. Because of the timing and Trump's reason, no one really bought his reason for doing so. If he had said "sure OK, investigate me I'm innocent", you could dismiss anti-Russia allegations pretty easily as a conspiracy theory.

Russia, from the dossier to Trump's business ties to his own personal relationships with Russians, has a lot to gain from a pro-Russia presidential candidate (or as pro as a US president can be). This is a guy who sees nothing wrong with their actions in Ukraine and clearly doesn't want to do anything about implementing additional sanctions.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23426 Posts
October 30 2017 01:02 GMT
#181700
On October 30 2017 09:59 doomsmacker wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 09:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 30 2017 09:41 doomsmacker wrote:
On October 30 2017 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
On October 30 2017 09:24 zlefin wrote:
@GH
Well, I can try to come up with an answer that will make sense for you then.
but there's a lot of similar questions which have different answers, and i'm not sure which exact one(s) you're asking.
can you (re)state your exact questions for the record so I can work off those?


Why is this instance in particular so significant for people?

Is this a principled position that means they equally or more disturbed by the US's consistent and ongoing colluding with foreign political groups up to and including assassinating democratically elected leaders?

Why wouldn't Russia respond to our interfering in their politics by interfering in ours?

I suppose those would be a good start.


Russia interfering in US politics is expected. But to argue that they didn't bet on a horse is kind of disingenuous since, like the USA, you typically interfere in US politics to get a political party/candidate that you like and best suits your foreign policy goals.

Considering how much of a boner Trump has for Russia and how easily he's influenced by the red carpet treatment (eg. France's military parade, Saudi Arabia throwing gold and money at him), he's clearly the candidate you want if you want the US to get off your back.


I would suspect Putin could identify Trump as a lying idiot pretty quickly and that he would be ineffective at getting anything done, and if anything, Trump winning has turned anti-Russia media up 10 notches.

We could assume Putin wanted Trump to win, but we don't know that was his intention (and would have been labeled a futile and crazy plan by anyone saying it's what he intended before the election)


He's a lying idiot but he's also a guy who sees nothing wrong with a little bit of quid pro quo. He's doing it with regards to China behind the scenes (Kushner debt forgiveness, Ivanka's shoe factories and vanishing audits) but few people are really reporting it because he's not bringing attention to it. Trump gets away with the most things when he shuts up and stays quiet.

The Russia allegations only really went overdrive after the fired Comey, after it was reported that he was turning up the Russia election meddling investigation, because no one really bought his reason for doing so. If he had said "sure OK, investigate me I'm innocent", you could dismiss anti-Russia allegations pretty easily.

Russia, from the dossier to Trump's business ties to his own personal relationships with Russians, has a lot to gain from a pro-Russia presidential candidate (or as pro as a US president can be). This is a guy who sees nothing wrong with their actions in Ukraine and clearly doesn't want to do anything about implementing additional sanctions.


I could see Putin thinking "Hey wouldn't it be crazy if Trump won?", but I have a hard time thinking he would have considered Russia's efforts a failure if Hillary was elected.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Prev 1 9083 9084 9085 9086 9087 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 2h
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PartinGtheBigBoy 377
SortOf 25
OGKoka 6
StarCraft: Brood War
Zeus 3004
Sea 2282
firebathero 803
TY 323
Larva 255
PianO 200
Killer 113
Shine 71
Aegong 49
Sharp 30
[ Show more ]
soO 21
Bale 21
Sacsri 17
Dota 2
XaKoH 279
League of Legends
JimRising 631
Reynor109
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1077
shoxiejesuss705
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King119
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor155
Other Games
summit1g14279
WinterStarcraft598
ceh9441
C9.Mang0321
Happy127
Organizations
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 25
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• LUISG 20
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Rush1883
• HappyZerGling97
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
2h
Monday Night Weeklies
8h
Replay Cast
15h
WardiTV Invitational
1d 3h
WardiTV Invitational
1d 6h
PiGosaur Monday
1d 16h
Replay Cast
2 days
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
2 days
The PondCast
3 days
WardiTV Invitational
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
RSL Revival
5 days
WardiTV Invitational
5 days
Afreeca Starleague
6 days
Snow vs Soma
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
WardiTV Invitational
6 days
CrankTV Team League
6 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Acropolis #4 - TS2
WardiTV TLMC #15
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
EC S1
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual

Upcoming

SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
RSL Offline Finals
RSL Revival: Season 3
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
CranK Gathers Season 2: SC II Pro Teams
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.