|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 15 2018 06:40 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 06:33 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? I’m not at all sure what you’re getting at. The issue is, assuming the goal is to cause discord, would it make sense to release RNC leaks? Why exactly is it “obvious” that it would be? There’s an argument that could be made either way. But if the only argument is, “it’s obvious!” as with On_Slaught, the reality is more akin to that there isn’t too much of a justification for why it’s the case. Just conjecture. Which is fine - as you say, people can speculate if they like. But it also means there’s nothing further to discuss. On February 15 2018 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? Because your talking to LL. A Russian shill living the US who occasionally pretends to be British. If it involves Russia there is nothing to discuss. Your immaturity on full display is much appreciated. Because I'm bored I'll throw out one more point you can immediately dismiss. Let's say there is only a 15% chance releasing the RNC leaks accomplishes what they want. Fuck, let's make it 5%. What reason is there to hold on to it if there is any chance it helps you? If it flops who cares, just move on since, like you said, there was so much else going on. There is only upside to releasing.
Leaking is hardly something that cannot backfire. The thing that has to be remembered in all of this is that if the main story becomes "Russia tried to meddle" rather than "X party is pure evil" then the whole operation is fucked. That goes double for if any "principled" stand on leaking gains traction.
The DNC event was perfectly timed for maximum damage and could be called a "safe" leak. If you have all of the contents of that leak and you see how pissed the Sandernistas are, you would know that seeing what those emails demonstrated in writing would cause people to be absolutely livid. Any "principled" approach would instantly go out the window because damn... sabotage Bernie by asking him if he's Jewish or atheist?
Now suppose you had the RNC files and were considering under what circumstances it would make sense to release them. I assume they would contain some fare on gerrymandering or police brutality or how to ignore school shootings and definitely vicious anti-Trump sentiment. But unlike the DNC leaks which serve as a perfect way to crystallize an anti-Clinton narrative, it'd be kind of awkward to do it in the Republican case for any real benefit. It would, for one, turn those folk who were all too happy to peddle DNC leak docs in campaigns against leaking and towards that previously mentioned "principled approach." Already there were a few individuals (I remember macro rubio for one) who were saying "we shouldn't use tainted documents" and if both sides got egg on their face there would be far more of them. As it stands it served more to pit the two sides against each other and to start a bit of a "contents of the leaks vs the fact that it leaked" shit-fight.
And it's not like it would exactly create an anti-Trump narrative. Trump himself makes an anti-Trump narrative; it would have more effect in Congress than anything else. It's not "adding to the noise" that really made the leaks so powerful, it was the pointed and deliberate way in which they undermined the unity narrative for Hillary. There really was no other opportunity like that, and honestly less was probably more.
Now another question would be how to explain the Podesta leaks and their timing, as if to undermine pussygate (which by the way also was likely leaked with timing in mind by an agenda-driven entity). That would be a more meaningful consideration to analyze. But the effect of that one was also kind of delayed, more of a drip-drop of problems than a sharp aggressive downward spiral.
What I think happened was actually a little bit more subtle: it seemed to be less so a desire to see any individual candidate win than to help shape the nature of the post-election climate. If Hillary won, we would still have the same Republican Congress and a dozen concurrent investigations into the latest bullshit thing that people thought might matter, with a Trump TV that claimed the election was rigged once a day. In the reverse we have something similar. I don't see a particularly strong case for that a 30% gambit (the betting odds / 538 odds on Trump's victory right before election day) would have been worth the actions that were done, and there was little to no chance that Trump would be able to have any powerful influence on a highly ingrained foreign policy strategy, so the idea that they hoped Trump would extract concessions was pretty much dead on arrival.
There's also a few other tidbits directly out of Russia that made that "wanted Trump to win" narrative weaker. Putin has said in the past that the unstable nature of Trump might not be good for cooperation. Medvedev said directly after Trump won that they expected no changes on sanctions policy. So on and so forth.
|
I think LL is right on one thing, the RNC emails wouldn’t’ have changed votes. The tribalism is strong in both bases and little that the RNC had is going to change that. It might have depressed voter turnout, but nothing worse than what was already happening. But the margins of victory were so small that who knows what would have happened. But it would have been fun reading and would have confirmed all the things I learned about the GOP in 2016, AKA, they don’t care about anything but winning elections.
The current state of the Republican party and the massive number of moderates retiring sort of shows the path their party, emails or not. They have been overwhelmed by the tea party base created by the Koch brother’s and others astro-turfing. And the folks in that will be left in the Republican party have never been in the minority or faced a very angry group of Democrats elected by an equally pissed off base.
|
On February 15 2018 07:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 06:40 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:33 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? I’m not at all sure what you’re getting at. The issue is, assuming the goal is to cause discord, would it make sense to release RNC leaks? Why exactly is it “obvious” that it would be? There’s an argument that could be made either way. But if the only argument is, “it’s obvious!” as with On_Slaught, the reality is more akin to that there isn’t too much of a justification for why it’s the case. Just conjecture. Which is fine - as you say, people can speculate if they like. But it also means there’s nothing further to discuss. On February 15 2018 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? Because your talking to LL. A Russian shill living the US who occasionally pretends to be British. If it involves Russia there is nothing to discuss. Your immaturity on full display is much appreciated. Because I'm bored I'll throw out one more point you can immediately dismiss. Let's say there is only a 15% chance releasing the RNC leaks accomplishes what they want. Fuck, let's make it 5%. What reason is there to hold on to it if there is any chance it helps you? If it flops who cares, just move on since, like you said, there was so much else going on. There is only upside to releasing. There's also a few other tidbits directly out of Russia that made that "wanted Trump to win" narrative weaker. Putin has said in the past that the unstable nature of Trump might not be good for cooperation. Medvedev said directly after Trump won that they expected no changes on sanctions policy. So on and so forth.
So because Putin and Medvedev said so, we are left to assume Russia had no preference?
|
|
|
On February 15 2018 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 07:09 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:40 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:33 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? I’m not at all sure what you’re getting at. The issue is, assuming the goal is to cause discord, would it make sense to release RNC leaks? Why exactly is it “obvious” that it would be? There’s an argument that could be made either way. But if the only argument is, “it’s obvious!” as with On_Slaught, the reality is more akin to that there isn’t too much of a justification for why it’s the case. Just conjecture. Which is fine - as you say, people can speculate if they like. But it also means there’s nothing further to discuss. On February 15 2018 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? Because your talking to LL. A Russian shill living the US who occasionally pretends to be British. If it involves Russia there is nothing to discuss. Your immaturity on full display is much appreciated. Because I'm bored I'll throw out one more point you can immediately dismiss. Let's say there is only a 15% chance releasing the RNC leaks accomplishes what they want. Fuck, let's make it 5%. What reason is there to hold on to it if there is any chance it helps you? If it flops who cares, just move on since, like you said, there was so much else going on. There is only upside to releasing. There's also a few other tidbits directly out of Russia that made that "wanted Trump to win" narrative weaker. Putin has said in the past that the unstable nature of Trump might not be good for cooperation. Medvedev said directly after Trump won that they expected no changes on sanctions policy. So on and so forth. So because Putin and Medvedev said so, we are left to assume Russia had no preference?
If politician A says “our government’s policy priorities are Y” what is your take on that proclamation?
|
On February 15 2018 07:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 15 2018 07:09 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:40 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:33 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? I’m not at all sure what you’re getting at. The issue is, assuming the goal is to cause discord, would it make sense to release RNC leaks? Why exactly is it “obvious” that it would be? There’s an argument that could be made either way. But if the only argument is, “it’s obvious!” as with On_Slaught, the reality is more akin to that there isn’t too much of a justification for why it’s the case. Just conjecture. Which is fine - as you say, people can speculate if they like. But it also means there’s nothing further to discuss. On February 15 2018 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:
[quote]
I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? Because your talking to LL. A Russian shill living the US who occasionally pretends to be British. If it involves Russia there is nothing to discuss. Your immaturity on full display is much appreciated. Because I'm bored I'll throw out one more point you can immediately dismiss. Let's say there is only a 15% chance releasing the RNC leaks accomplishes what they want. Fuck, let's make it 5%. What reason is there to hold on to it if there is any chance it helps you? If it flops who cares, just move on since, like you said, there was so much else going on. There is only upside to releasing. There's also a few other tidbits directly out of Russia that made that "wanted Trump to win" narrative weaker. Putin has said in the past that the unstable nature of Trump might not be good for cooperation. Medvedev said directly after Trump won that they expected no changes on sanctions policy. So on and so forth. So because Putin and Medvedev said so, we are left to assume Russia had no preference? If politician A says “our government’s policy priorities are Y” what is your take on that proclamation?
Depends who is saying it and what is said. In the instance you are referring to, saying an unstable nature might be bad for cooperation isn't really policy or anything really. And Medvedev saying what he expects doesn't really mean anything. He could also have expected sanctions to go away, but didn't want to cause resistance in the US by Russia being so bold as to say "yeah we got this rofl".
|
On February 15 2018 07:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 15 2018 07:09 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:40 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:33 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:On February 15 2018 06:07 On_Slaught wrote:
Oh btw, apparently Cohen's little stunt voided the NDA and now Stormy Daniels is "shopping her story."
I know he was trying to avoid violating the law, but damn did he blow this story up.
Also, reported that there are multiple fatalities. Saw someone in handcuffs in TV so they may have the shooter. I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? I’m not at all sure what you’re getting at. The issue is, assuming the goal is to cause discord, would it make sense to release RNC leaks? Why exactly is it “obvious” that it would be? There’s an argument that could be made either way. But if the only argument is, “it’s obvious!” as with On_Slaught, the reality is more akin to that there isn’t too much of a justification for why it’s the case. Just conjecture. Which is fine - as you say, people can speculate if they like. But it also means there’s nothing further to discuss. On February 15 2018 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:
[quote]
I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? Because your talking to LL. A Russian shill living the US who occasionally pretends to be British. If it involves Russia there is nothing to discuss. Your immaturity on full display is much appreciated. Because I'm bored I'll throw out one more point you can immediately dismiss. Let's say there is only a 15% chance releasing the RNC leaks accomplishes what they want. Fuck, let's make it 5%. What reason is there to hold on to it if there is any chance it helps you? If it flops who cares, just move on since, like you said, there was so much else going on. There is only upside to releasing. There's also a few other tidbits directly out of Russia that made that "wanted Trump to win" narrative weaker. Putin has said in the past that the unstable nature of Trump might not be good for cooperation. Medvedev said directly after Trump won that they expected no changes on sanctions policy. So on and so forth. So because Putin and Medvedev said so, we are left to assume Russia had no preference? If politician A says “our government’s policy priorities are Y” what is your take on that proclamation?
Is the head of government a dictator who fixes the elections, is an ex-KGB operative and is well known for just straight up lying?
There is no reason assume Putin or anyone from his government is operating in good faith in any public statement they make. Come on.
|
On February 15 2018 07:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 07:25 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 15 2018 07:09 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:40 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:33 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:09 Logo wrote:
[quote]
I saw that too; if she wants to ensure she doesn't break the NDA wrongly, what sort of process is involved? Like I'd imagine if she just blabs it out now she'd get sued by the Trump team and have to deal with that. Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground. @LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? I’m not at all sure what you’re getting at. The issue is, assuming the goal is to cause discord, would it make sense to release RNC leaks? Why exactly is it “obvious” that it would be? There’s an argument that could be made either way. But if the only argument is, “it’s obvious!” as with On_Slaught, the reality is more akin to that there isn’t too much of a justification for why it’s the case. Just conjecture. Which is fine - as you say, people can speculate if they like. But it also means there’s nothing further to discuss. On February 15 2018 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:
[quote]
Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground.
@LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? Because your talking to LL. A Russian shill living the US who occasionally pretends to be British. If it involves Russia there is nothing to discuss. Your immaturity on full display is much appreciated. Because I'm bored I'll throw out one more point you can immediately dismiss. Let's say there is only a 15% chance releasing the RNC leaks accomplishes what they want. Fuck, let's make it 5%. What reason is there to hold on to it if there is any chance it helps you? If it flops who cares, just move on since, like you said, there was so much else going on. There is only upside to releasing. There's also a few other tidbits directly out of Russia that made that "wanted Trump to win" narrative weaker. Putin has said in the past that the unstable nature of Trump might not be good for cooperation. Medvedev said directly after Trump won that they expected no changes on sanctions policy. So on and so forth. So because Putin and Medvedev said so, we are left to assume Russia had no preference? If politician A says “our government’s policy priorities are Y” what is your take on that proclamation? Depends who is saying it and what is said. In the instance you are referring to, saying an unstable nature might be bad for cooperation isn't really policy or anything really. And Medvedev saying what he expects doesn't really mean anything. He could also have expected sanctions to go away, but didn't want to cause resistance in the US by Russia being so bold as to say "yeah we got this rofl".
So the context for Medvedev was in talking to business leaders, Russian or otherwise, who are interested in knowing what the business climate is going to look like in the coming years. Not a particularly bold proclamation or one that garners much attention (not exactly posted in every news outlet) but more of a simple statement on what the coming 2017 was going to look like. In essence, it was a way to tell the business leaders, "we're not expecting Trump's administration to be different than Obama's on sanctions, so plan your business ventures accordingly." And actual policy that followed was quite consistent with precisely that position.
Hell, why not look at Trump? He says his priorities include trade deals, rebuilding the military, tackling immigration, tax reform, repealing Obamacare, and so on. And that's exactly what he focused on. Results may vary but generally "this is our government's policy" means "this is our government's policy" for stuff like that.
Putin's statement was a bit less direct, a little less timely (was way before the election), and a lot more hedged. In essence he was describing how working with the US would look and just describing different factors of how a Clinton admin and a Trump admin would differ. It was not so different from similar Hillary commentary about possible cooperation with Russia during the debates. Nevertheless it did provide some decent insight into what the concerns surrounding both might be.
|
Source
Top members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus told reporters they are closely watching how House Speaker Paul Ryan navigates the immigration debate as a test of whether they can continue to support him as their leader.
"It is the defining moment for this speaker," said Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., "If he gets it wrong, it will have consequences for him but it will also have consequences for the rest of the Republican Party."
Meadows said there is no conversations "right now" about challenging Ryan's speakership, but Freedom Caucus members made clear there could be if they feel betrayed by leadership on immigration.
Conservatives are closely watching what happens in the Senate on immigration. There is simmering concern that any Senate bipartisan deal will ultimately pass on the strength of Democratic support, which will put similar pressures on the House to do the same.
"On immigration, you really just need a [House] Democrat bill with 30 Republicans to pass something," said Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, "That's not what we promised America we were going to do."
If such a scenario were realized, conservatives like Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., say it might be time for a leadership shake-up. "If the fix is in on something like this it's going to be really really problematic, and as Mark said, not just for our party and for Americans but for the people making big decisions around this place," he said.
Ryan's current management problem on immigration is compounded by last week's passage of a two-year spending deal. It included $300 billion in new spending and a hike in the nation's debt limit that many conservatives say violated the kind of fiscal promises they made when they won control of the House in 2010.
The vast majority of Republicans sided with Ryan—and President Trump—in support of the spending deal, but 67 Republicans opposed it. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, was one of them. He said the vote shook his confidence in Ryan's long-stated commitment to the conservative cause. "Just a few years ago Speaker Ryan was viewed as the individual in our party, in our country, who was focused on fiscal responsibility, and then you saw what happened last week," he said.
Ryan's well-known and more moderate views on immigration are giving conservatives pause, even as he has consistently said he will not bring an immigration bill to the floor that President Trump opposes.
In other news, the dictatorship over the House continues as a small minority of Republicans(67 out of 435 total seat, 238 held by the majority) attempt to hold the rest of their party hostage and kill any immigration bill.
|
On February 15 2018 07:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 07:27 Mohdoo wrote:On February 15 2018 07:25 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 15 2018 07:09 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:40 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:33 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:
[quote]
Her lawyer said as much so they must feel they are on solid ground.
@LL but you can just pull the 80% number out of your ass? Ultimately it matters little what would have happened. Rather, would the Russians have reason to believe releasing the info would have resulted in a certain effect? If you can't even admit that it would be reasonable to think that releasing the leaks would tend to lead to more negative news and backlash against political parties, then we have nothing more to discuss. Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? I’m not at all sure what you’re getting at. The issue is, assuming the goal is to cause discord, would it make sense to release RNC leaks? Why exactly is it “obvious” that it would be? There’s an argument that could be made either way. But if the only argument is, “it’s obvious!” as with On_Slaught, the reality is more akin to that there isn’t too much of a justification for why it’s the case. Just conjecture. Which is fine - as you say, people can speculate if they like. But it also means there’s nothing further to discuss. On February 15 2018 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? Because your talking to LL. A Russian shill living the US who occasionally pretends to be British. If it involves Russia there is nothing to discuss. Your immaturity on full display is much appreciated. Because I'm bored I'll throw out one more point you can immediately dismiss. Let's say there is only a 15% chance releasing the RNC leaks accomplishes what they want. Fuck, let's make it 5%. What reason is there to hold on to it if there is any chance it helps you? If it flops who cares, just move on since, like you said, there was so much else going on. There is only upside to releasing. There's also a few other tidbits directly out of Russia that made that "wanted Trump to win" narrative weaker. Putin has said in the past that the unstable nature of Trump might not be good for cooperation. Medvedev said directly after Trump won that they expected no changes on sanctions policy. So on and so forth. So because Putin and Medvedev said so, we are left to assume Russia had no preference? If politician A says “our government’s policy priorities are Y” what is your take on that proclamation? Depends who is saying it and what is said. In the instance you are referring to, saying an unstable nature might be bad for cooperation isn't really policy or anything really. And Medvedev saying what he expects doesn't really mean anything. He could also have expected sanctions to go away, but didn't want to cause resistance in the US by Russia being so bold as to say "yeah we got this rofl". So the context was in talking to business leaders, Russian or otherwise, who are interested in knowing what the business climate is going to look like in the coming years. Not a particularly bold proclamation or one that garners much attention (not exactly posted in every news outlet) but more of a simple statement on what the coming 2017 was going to look like. In essence, it was a way to tell the business leaders, "we're not expecting Trump's administration to be different than Obama's on sanctions, so plan your business ventures accordingly." And actual policy that followed was quite consistent with precisely that position. Hell, why not look at Trump? He says his priorities include trade deals, rebuilding the military, tackling immigration, tax reform, repealing Obamacare, and so on. And that's exactly what he focused on. Results may vary but generally "this is our government's policy" means "this is our government's policy" for stuff like that.
If Putin wanted Trump to win, he certainly has insufficient incentive to make that clear in the situation you are describing. This is all still entirely public. If Putin said he expected Trump to remove sanctions, Trump would have been under 10x as much pressure to keep sanctions. Putin is correctly viewed as an awful human being by a lot of people. Those people hearing Putin say he expects Trump to help his friends get rich would not go well.
|
Maybe Putin didn't want sanctions to be removed. Maybe he just wanted Trump's instability to ruin international relations. Or, maybe Putin wasn't that smart to predict it all. At the end of the day, we're all humans. Before someone is confused, I'm against Putin so this isn't a post in his favour. It just happens to be mild in this case.
|
On February 15 2018 07:55 sc-darkness wrote:
Maybe Putin didn't want sanctions to be removed. Maybe he just wanted Trump's instability to ruin international relations. Or, maybe Putin wasn't that smart to predict it all. At the end of the day, we're all humans. Before someone is confused, I'm against Putin so this isn't a post in his favour. It just happens to be mild in this case.
Putin is a very smart, calculated man. Major countries have entire teams dedicated purely to political theorizing and wargame scenarios. Russia is clearly one of them. Nothing Putin says or does is without purpose.
|
On the RNC emails, I think there are some things that could drastically change votes. The private nature of the emails and the fact that they were never meant to be seen shows the best insight into the actual mentality of the candidates. It could show a massive betrayal of the people they supposedly represent.
Like, what if there were an exchange between an RNC guy who says, “our voters want X” and another RNC guy says, “this major donor wants Y instead, so let’s imply that X will happen, but secretly assure our donor that Y will happen and then implement Y.”
Something like the tax plan where Trump tells the masses that rich guys are going to take a big hit, but then tells a group of rich donors that they should be thanking him for what he did for them.
Get the actual scheme in written correspondence and even Trump’s base will have a hard time backing him. There’s plenty that could be said privately that would be a complete slap in the face to the white working class that really doesn’t care that much about sexual misconduct or an obnoxious leader, so long as he respects them and delivers on his promises to them.
|
Putin's favoritism towards Trump and vice-versa were well-known during the campaign itself, how is this even a discussion? Oh, right, because LegalLord.
Just because the plot ended up blowing up in people's faces in various ways, doesn't say anything about their obvious intentions. One obvious lesson to learn from Trump is there is little merit to the achievements of criminals and con-artists. Putin's success says more about Russia than it does about Putin, and the same goes for Trump and America.
But given today's news, I'm more interested in Russia's influence on the NRA, and what a destructive force that has been. Abolishing any form of gun-regulations has been a really great way to feign "political influence" while in actuality you're creating havoc and destroying lives. To speak nothing of the NRA's already inherently deplorable nature, an organization so political, dealing with violence, shouldn't be accepting large sums of money from national adversaries.
|
On February 15 2018 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 07:40 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 07:27 Mohdoo wrote:On February 15 2018 07:25 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 15 2018 07:09 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:40 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:33 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 15 2018 06:24 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Ok, so you have just conjecture and no real point beyond “it’s obvious.” Essentially that’s what I expected. Looks like we’re done then. This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? I’m not at all sure what you’re getting at. The issue is, assuming the goal is to cause discord, would it make sense to release RNC leaks? Why exactly is it “obvious” that it would be? There’s an argument that could be made either way. But if the only argument is, “it’s obvious!” as with On_Slaught, the reality is more akin to that there isn’t too much of a justification for why it’s the case. Just conjecture. Which is fine - as you say, people can speculate if they like. But it also means there’s nothing further to discuss. On February 15 2018 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? Because your talking to LL. A Russian shill living the US who occasionally pretends to be British. If it involves Russia there is nothing to discuss. Your immaturity on full display is much appreciated. Because I'm bored I'll throw out one more point you can immediately dismiss. Let's say there is only a 15% chance releasing the RNC leaks accomplishes what they want. Fuck, let's make it 5%. What reason is there to hold on to it if there is any chance it helps you? If it flops who cares, just move on since, like you said, there was so much else going on. There is only upside to releasing. There's also a few other tidbits directly out of Russia that made that "wanted Trump to win" narrative weaker. Putin has said in the past that the unstable nature of Trump might not be good for cooperation. Medvedev said directly after Trump won that they expected no changes on sanctions policy. So on and so forth. So because Putin and Medvedev said so, we are left to assume Russia had no preference? If politician A says “our government’s policy priorities are Y” what is your take on that proclamation? Depends who is saying it and what is said. In the instance you are referring to, saying an unstable nature might be bad for cooperation isn't really policy or anything really. And Medvedev saying what he expects doesn't really mean anything. He could also have expected sanctions to go away, but didn't want to cause resistance in the US by Russia being so bold as to say "yeah we got this rofl". So the context was in talking to business leaders, Russian or otherwise, who are interested in knowing what the business climate is going to look like in the coming years. Not a particularly bold proclamation or one that garners much attention (not exactly posted in every news outlet) but more of a simple statement on what the coming 2017 was going to look like. In essence, it was a way to tell the business leaders, "we're not expecting Trump's administration to be different than Obama's on sanctions, so plan your business ventures accordingly." And actual policy that followed was quite consistent with precisely that position. Hell, why not look at Trump? He says his priorities include trade deals, rebuilding the military, tackling immigration, tax reform, repealing Obamacare, and so on. And that's exactly what he focused on. Results may vary but generally "this is our government's policy" means "this is our government's policy" for stuff like that. If Putin wanted Trump to win, he certainly has insufficient incentive to make that clear in the situation you are describing. This is all still entirely public. If Putin said he expected Trump to remove sanctions, Trump would have been under 10x as much pressure to keep sanctions. Putin is correctly viewed as an awful human being by a lot of people. Those people hearing Putin say he expects Trump to help his friends get rich would not go well.
To be clear, that one was Medvedev's statement on about Nov 9th. Putin's statement was at a completely different time in a completely different situation, as updated in my other post. And it's true, maybe it might be lying and there's an expectation that sanctions are going away soon. But more likely it's an analysis consistent with many before it in both the Russian and the English speaking policy research circles: that Trump would not represent any meaningful shift in the US FP, and that even if there were a grand overture that it would quickly return to the status quo. That is exactly what happened and the policy promoted in Russia properly reflected that in how it went about with its economic planning and military work.
Sure, that doesn't exactly constitute incontrovertible proof, and I didn't say it was either (you singled that point out when it was clearly more of a side-point). But in the context of how policy was actually conducted, and in terms of how events actually played out, it seems fairly reasonable to assume that the statement was a reasonable description of policy. Note that the events don't have to be mutually exclusive - no expected change in sanctions and Trump was the desired result - but then you have to make a better, more reasonable narrative than that hacking was a stunt for sanctions relief.
Your counterargument consists mostly of "Putin is a meanie-poo" and irrelevant whining, which is not unexpected. For that there is little more to say than, "bless your heart."
|
How long ago was it that the State Department threw away the list of who to sanction and got one of Forbes instead?
And your trying to pretend Trump would have no influence on US-Russia FP?
|
On February 14 2018 09:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
I for one think Russian ads didn't do much of squat. They were like .1% of just the campaigns internet advertising budgets. They were neither prevalent or effective.
As far as improperly altering voter roles, it was Democrats in New York that did that, not Russian hackers. Then you have Ohio for Republicans and Arizona where it was apparently a ghost.
If we want to restore faith in our elections we need to start with the idiots running them not faceless Russians.
sorry I'm lat here, but given how you turn rabid at the mention of Hillary, and how many anti Hillary and pro bernie ads were sponsored or outright stated by russians, I think they may have had an effect on at least you and some of the other people on this very board.
|
On February 15 2018 08:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 07:48 Mohdoo wrote:On February 15 2018 07:40 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 07:27 Mohdoo wrote:On February 15 2018 07:25 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 07:20 Mohdoo wrote:On February 15 2018 07:09 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:40 On_Slaught wrote:On February 15 2018 06:33 LegalLord wrote:On February 15 2018 06:27 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
This isn't a court of law. People have the right to speculate on this stuff, and when you can see a clear chain of events that the most basic of deduction explains then why not go with that? I’m not at all sure what you’re getting at. The issue is, assuming the goal is to cause discord, would it make sense to release RNC leaks? Why exactly is it “obvious” that it would be? There’s an argument that could be made either way. But if the only argument is, “it’s obvious!” as with On_Slaught, the reality is more akin to that there isn’t too much of a justification for why it’s the case. Just conjecture. Which is fine - as you say, people can speculate if they like. But it also means there’s nothing further to discuss. On February 15 2018 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Because your talking to LL. A Russian shill living the US who occasionally pretends to be British.
If it involves Russia there is nothing to discuss. Your immaturity on full display is much appreciated. Because I'm bored I'll throw out one more point you can immediately dismiss. Let's say there is only a 15% chance releasing the RNC leaks accomplishes what they want. Fuck, let's make it 5%. What reason is there to hold on to it if there is any chance it helps you? If it flops who cares, just move on since, like you said, there was so much else going on. There is only upside to releasing. There's also a few other tidbits directly out of Russia that made that "wanted Trump to win" narrative weaker. Putin has said in the past that the unstable nature of Trump might not be good for cooperation. Medvedev said directly after Trump won that they expected no changes on sanctions policy. So on and so forth. So because Putin and Medvedev said so, we are left to assume Russia had no preference? If politician A says “our government’s policy priorities are Y” what is your take on that proclamation? Depends who is saying it and what is said. In the instance you are referring to, saying an unstable nature might be bad for cooperation isn't really policy or anything really. And Medvedev saying what he expects doesn't really mean anything. He could also have expected sanctions to go away, but didn't want to cause resistance in the US by Russia being so bold as to say "yeah we got this rofl". So the context was in talking to business leaders, Russian or otherwise, who are interested in knowing what the business climate is going to look like in the coming years. Not a particularly bold proclamation or one that garners much attention (not exactly posted in every news outlet) but more of a simple statement on what the coming 2017 was going to look like. In essence, it was a way to tell the business leaders, "we're not expecting Trump's administration to be different than Obama's on sanctions, so plan your business ventures accordingly." And actual policy that followed was quite consistent with precisely that position. Hell, why not look at Trump? He says his priorities include trade deals, rebuilding the military, tackling immigration, tax reform, repealing Obamacare, and so on. And that's exactly what he focused on. Results may vary but generally "this is our government's policy" means "this is our government's policy" for stuff like that. If Putin wanted Trump to win, he certainly has insufficient incentive to make that clear in the situation you are describing. This is all still entirely public. If Putin said he expected Trump to remove sanctions, Trump would have been under 10x as much pressure to keep sanctions. Putin is correctly viewed as an awful human being by a lot of people. Those people hearing Putin say he expects Trump to help his friends get rich would not go well. To be clear, that one was Medvedev's statement on about Nov 9th. Putin's statement was at a completely different time in a completely different situation, as updated in my other post. And it's true, maybe it might be lying and there's an expectation that sanctions are going away soon. But more likely it's an analysis consistent with many before it in both the Russian and the English speaking policy research circles: that Trump would not represent any meaningful shift in the US FP, and that even if there were a grand overture that it would quickly return to the status quo. That is exactly what happened and the policy promoted in Russia properly reflected that in how it went about with its economic planning and military work. Sure, that doesn't exactly constitute incontrovertible proof, and I didn't say it was either (you singled that point out when it was clearly more of a side-point). But in the context of how policy was actually conducted, and in terms of how events actually played out, it seems fairly reasonable to assume that the statement was a reasonable description of policy. Note that the events don't have to be mutually exclusive - no expected change in sanctions and Trump was the desired result - but then you have to make a better, more reasonable narrative than that hacking was a stunt for sanctions relief.
Your counterargument consists mostly of "Putin is a meanie-poo" and irrelevant whining, which is not unexpected. For that there is little more to say than, "bless your heart."
I said nothing like this, but nice straw man. If this is all you've got, I'll consider that a concession. Have a nice day ^^
|
Fuck me... fatalities up to 17 according to CNN.
|
This thread was already a bit iffy, but it's pretty sad that over the last few pages it's given into complete Russia hysteria where any implication seems to be acceptable so long as it involves Russia somehow.
pro bernie ads were sponsored or outright stated by russians
Putin's favoritism towards Trump and vice-versa were well-known during the campaign itself
Putin is a very smart, calculated man. Major countries have entire teams dedicated purely to political theorizing and wargame scenarios. Russia is clearly one of them. Nothing Putin says or does is without purpose.
Because your talking to LL. A Russian shill living the US
Show nested quote +Lets say there's 15% chance that releasing it gets you what you want, but there's an 80% chance that you could get something else you want - repeatedly over the course of 4(?) years - by threatening to release it. Maybe its a good idea to keep it. Fair enough (see pee tape). Though it wouldnt help as much if the Republicans lost...
The Trump admin wanted to lift sanctions right away. This is a fact, and it tells you a lot.
Like this is all crazy. There's plenty of things going on that we actually know about that aren't sourced as "officials said X tried to do Y" all of this is unnecessary and ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
