|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 17 2018 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 03:49 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:
People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right?
Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they?
Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this.
Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. First part is the "say it different" part, what sanctions are you talking about though? I'm not qualified to suggest sanctions. None of us that post here are. But based on my understanding of history, direct attempts to meddle in our democracy warrant some amount of retaliation. We are not retaliating. So vague calls for a retaliation that no one can describe beyond "sanctions" of which Trump's (reluctantly) added the ones congress wanted. Doesn't seem like the people pushing this stuff really have any plan or comprehension of what should be done differently other than the rhetoric and optics.
This is an exceptionally silly attempt to dismiss my views because you have never offered anything like you are describing either. We are all tragically ignorant compared to anyone who matters on these topics. I'd enjoy reading an actual bill you have written. Any form of reform or anything that you have ever suggested (whether racial, foreign, etc) have had a similar level of expertise. You are a nobody. So am I. I don't have a report to hand you describing how to appropriately punish russia. That's what we have governments for. I could list off some list of things based on previous sanctions, but that doesn't make it productive.
You are trying to pretend this argument belongs in a quantitative rather than qualitative space. That's silly and has no justification. We are not fit for quantitative discussion of international retaliation. But we know enough to say when something should or should not happen.
|
On July 17 2018 03:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right? Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they? Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this. https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1018770963813490688 Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control.
The CIA and other agencies are designed to be independent from the political will of the President. There is no reason for him to need them under his “control” to support their findings. Especially on the international stage. If he has grievance with teh CIA, it can be handled at home, in private.
|
On July 17 2018 03:43 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 03:34 kollin wrote:
Peak liberal anguish = screaming treason at perceived collusion by the president with a member of the rapacious capitalist oligarchy because that member is Russian instead of American like all the times before. I don't get what you're trying to say here. it feels like you might be mocking somebody, or being sarcastic, but it's hard to tell who or what. also, did you have anything else to add to try to support your claim about rationality in the hillary vote?
I'm mocking everyone who has suddenly found it in them to leap to a full throated defence of American intelligence agencies, as if they are remotely trustworthy or worthy of leading resistance to Trump, as well as those who think that election fiddling is only legitimate when carried about by rich Americans.
My source for the Iraq thing is David Runciman on his podcast, though I'm too lazy to find anything more substantial than that because I trust him. What I primarily disagree with is your position that Hillary lost for irrational reasons - even if she is better than Trump, it is not unreasonable for people on the eve of election to not have thought that was not the case, or to have perceived there was little difference between the candidates with regards to their lives, or thought that Trump would've made their lives better. Undoubtedly an enormous number of people vote for irrational reasons (in so far as rationality can be anything close to objective, I would call a vote for Hillary in the 2016 primary just as irrational as you might call a vote for Bernie in the same), but I disagree with the idea that Hillary lost because of irrationality - that suggests a complete lack of reflection on the platform she ran on and policies she took, and implies an abandonment of politics as a vehicle for any kind of change that isn't chaotic and arbitrary.
|
Republicans are so losing the next election in my opinion. Being behind Trump should have consequences. 
|
On July 17 2018 03:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right? Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they? Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this. https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1018770963813490688 Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control.
This is the funniest part of all this.
The easiest way to tell if people's positions are partisan or principled is asking what they think about US intelligence agencies.
On July 17 2018 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:49 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right? Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they? Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this. https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1018770963813490688 Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. First part is the "say it different" part, what sanctions are you talking about though? I'm not qualified to suggest sanctions. None of us that post here are. But based on my understanding of history, direct attempts to meddle in our democracy warrant some amount of retaliation. We are not retaliating. So vague calls for a retaliation that no one can describe beyond "sanctions" of which Trump's (reluctantly) added the ones congress wanted. Doesn't seem like the people pushing this stuff really have any plan or comprehension of what should be done differently other than the rhetoric and optics. This is an exceptionally silly attempt to dismiss my views because you have never offered anything like you are describing either. We are all tragically ignorant compared to anyone who matters on these topics. I'd enjoy reading an actual bill you have written. Any form of reform or anything that you have ever suggested (whether racial, foreign, etc) have had a similar level of expertise. You are a nobody. So am I. I don't have a report to hand you describing how to appropriately punish russia. That's what we have governments for. I could list off some list of things based on previous sanctions, but that doesn't make it productive. You are trying to pretend this argument belongs in a quantitative rather than qualitative space. That's silly and has no justification. We are not fit for quantitative discussion of international retaliation. But we know enough to say when something should or should not happen.
I just see it as pointless blathering. No on even knows what they are calling for or why besides how they will feel about it. Quite different than something like abolishing the police.
Surely if Democrats want this stuff their government representatives have that bill you're talking about.
|
On July 17 2018 03:59 sc-darkness wrote:Republicans are so losing the next election in my opinion. Being behind Trump should have consequences.
It makes them more invested in voting since they are doubling down on their sunken cost. Thus they turn out and vote, opposition doesn't (again) and it wins elections?
|
On July 17 2018 03:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right? Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they? Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this. https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1018770963813490688 Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control. The CIA and other agencies are designed to be independent from the political will of the President. There is no reason for him to need them under his “control” to support their findings. Especially on the international stage. If he has grievance with teh CIA, it can be handled at home, in private.
Are you disputing my recitation of what the intelligence agencies did? I presume not. So the only remaining question is whether there is any legitimate justification for what they did. We have yet to see any such justification. We still don’t know what triggered the investigation into Trump’s campaign. If members of the intelligence agencies went rogue and started taking actions against Trump for purely political purposes, surely you’d agree with me that they need to be brought under control.
|
|
|
On July 17 2018 04:24 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right? Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they? Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this. https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1018770963813490688 Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control. This is the funniest part of all this. The easiest way to tell if people's positions are partisan or principled is asking what they think about US intelligence agencies. On July 17 2018 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:49 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right? Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they? Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this. https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1018770963813490688 Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. First part is the "say it different" part, what sanctions are you talking about though? I'm not qualified to suggest sanctions. None of us that post here are. But based on my understanding of history, direct attempts to meddle in our democracy warrant some amount of retaliation. We are not retaliating. So vague calls for a retaliation that no one can describe beyond "sanctions" of which Trump's (reluctantly) added the ones congress wanted. Doesn't seem like the people pushing this stuff really have any plan or comprehension of what should be done differently other than the rhetoric and optics. This is an exceptionally silly attempt to dismiss my views because you have never offered anything like you are describing either. We are all tragically ignorant compared to anyone who matters on these topics. I'd enjoy reading an actual bill you have written. Any form of reform or anything that you have ever suggested (whether racial, foreign, etc) have had a similar level of expertise. You are a nobody. So am I. I don't have a report to hand you describing how to appropriately punish russia. That's what we have governments for. I could list off some list of things based on previous sanctions, but that doesn't make it productive. You are trying to pretend this argument belongs in a quantitative rather than qualitative space. That's silly and has no justification. We are not fit for quantitative discussion of international retaliation. But we know enough to say when something should or should not happen. I just see it as pointless blathering. No on even knows what they are calling for or why besides how they will feel about it. Quite different than something like abolishing the police. Surely if Democrats want this stuff their government representatives have that bill you're talking about. Quit calling people out on the details. Unless you have details of your own. You love to talk down to everyone but never post your own position. Then like 5 pages into the argument where one person has defended there position they post a question to you. And you dodge or say " I never quite said that". If you want his position to be clearer (and I think it is very clear) at least take a position yourself. I hate people that bring up problems all the time but never offer solutions.
Trump should probably be executed, but jailed would be fine with me. Our system is designed to prevent that from happening so all this hand-wringing over Trump-Russia as if that's the problem is petty and pointless. I haven't been shy about that position.
Surely people see the comedy in this "of course we don't know what we are calling for" coming from the same people who expect detailed proposals for anything that doesn't immediately align with their perspective.
|
On July 17 2018 04:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 03:58 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right? Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they? Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this. https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1018770963813490688 Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control. The CIA and other agencies are designed to be independent from the political will of the President. There is no reason for him to need them under his “control” to support their findings. Especially on the international stage. If he has grievance with teh CIA, it can be handled at home, in private. Are you disputing my recitation of what the intelligence agencies did? I presume not. So the only remaining question is whether there is any legitimate justification for what they did. We have yet to see any such justification. We still don’t know what triggered the investigation into Trump’s campaign. If members of the intelligence agencies went rogue and started taking actions against Trump for purely political purposes, surely you’d agree with me that they need to be brought under control.
Yes, you mischaracterize the reporting on the intelligence services when it comes to Trump in an effort to bolster your position
They never “infiltrated” the Trump campaign. They did some low key fact finding using local asset. It involved asking questions, not joining the campaign.
The intelligence agencies are not leaking in any volume, it is the House GOP members who are leaking documents they request or the White House. There is no reporter on Capitol Hill or in DC who has said otherwise. All of the leaks come from the White House’s petty infighting and the House trying to gain favor with Trump(or protect themselves).
And yeah, Trump has no friends in former directors for the CIA or other agencies. I bet at the end of all of this, the directors who served under Trump won’t have nice things to say either. This should be no shock to anyone since Trump has gone after those agencies from the day he took office.
So there is no reason to “bring them under control.” They were designed to operate exactly as they are, out of the reach of the president and unable to be used as a political tool to attack the president’s enemies.
|
On July 17 2018 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 04:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right? Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they? Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this. https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1018770963813490688 Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control. This is the funniest part of all this. The easiest way to tell if people's positions are partisan or principled is asking what they think about US intelligence agencies. On July 17 2018 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:49 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right? Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they? Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this. https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1018770963813490688 Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. First part is the "say it different" part, what sanctions are you talking about though? I'm not qualified to suggest sanctions. None of us that post here are. But based on my understanding of history, direct attempts to meddle in our democracy warrant some amount of retaliation. We are not retaliating. So vague calls for a retaliation that no one can describe beyond "sanctions" of which Trump's (reluctantly) added the ones congress wanted. Doesn't seem like the people pushing this stuff really have any plan or comprehension of what should be done differently other than the rhetoric and optics. This is an exceptionally silly attempt to dismiss my views because you have never offered anything like you are describing either. We are all tragically ignorant compared to anyone who matters on these topics. I'd enjoy reading an actual bill you have written. Any form of reform or anything that you have ever suggested (whether racial, foreign, etc) have had a similar level of expertise. You are a nobody. So am I. I don't have a report to hand you describing how to appropriately punish russia. That's what we have governments for. I could list off some list of things based on previous sanctions, but that doesn't make it productive. You are trying to pretend this argument belongs in a quantitative rather than qualitative space. That's silly and has no justification. We are not fit for quantitative discussion of international retaliation. But we know enough to say when something should or should not happen. I just see it as pointless blathering. No on even knows what they are calling for or why besides how they will feel about it. Quite different than something like abolishing the police. Surely if Democrats want this stuff their government representatives have that bill you're talking about. Quit calling people out on the details. Unless you have details of your own. You love to talk down to everyone but never post your own position. Then like 5 pages into the argument where one person has defended there position they post a question to you. And you dodge or say " I never quite said that". If you want his position to be clearer (and I think it is very clear) at least take a position yourself. I hate people that bring up problems all the time but never offer solutions. Trump should probably be executed, but jailed would be fine with me. Our system is designed to prevent that from happening so all this hand-wringing over Trump-Russia as if that's the problem is petty and pointless. I haven't been shy about that position. Surely people see the comedy in this "of course we don't know what we are calling for" coming from the same people who expect detailed proposals for anything that doesn't immediately align with their perspective.
Given that we're on the subject, what are the operative facts that warrant Trump's execution?
|
On July 17 2018 03:58 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 03:43 zlefin wrote:On July 17 2018 03:34 kollin wrote:
Peak liberal anguish = screaming treason at perceived collusion by the president with a member of the rapacious capitalist oligarchy because that member is Russian instead of American like all the times before. I don't get what you're trying to say here. it feels like you might be mocking somebody, or being sarcastic, but it's hard to tell who or what. also, did you have anything else to add to try to support your claim about rationality in the hillary vote? I'm mocking everyone who has suddenly found it in them to leap to a full throated defence of American intelligence agencies, as if they are remotely trustworthy or worthy of leading resistance to Trump, as well as those who think that election fiddling is only legitimate when carried about by rich Americans. My source for the Iraq thing is David Runciman on his podcast, though I'm too lazy to find anything more substantial than that because I trust him. What I primarily disagree with is your position that Hillary lost for irrational reasons - even if she is better than Trump, it is not unreasonable for people on the eve of election to not have thought that was not the case, or to have perceived there was little difference between the candidates with regards to their lives, or thought that Trump would've made their lives better. Undoubtedly an enormous number of people vote for irrational reasons (in so far as rationality can be anything close to objective, I would call a vote for Hillary in the 2016 primary just as irrational as you might call a vote for Bernie in the same), but I disagree with the idea that Hillary lost because of irrationality - that suggests a complete lack of reflection on the platform she ran on and policies she took, and implies an abandonment of politics as a vehicle for any kind of change that isn't chaotic and arbitrary.
ok, so you have no more evidence to present.
you've presented nowhere near enough evidence to establish your claim that hillary's loss wasn't about irrationality, and you make an internally inconsistent position. (and of course many of the points you presented earlier had serious defects or were countered, and you haven't addressed those counters)
as you both admit "Undoubtedly an enormous number of people vote for irrational reasons"
but then say "but I disagree with the idea that Hillary lost because of irrationality"
given that irrational behavior need not be a purely random effect, but can have clumping patterns associated with it, an enormous number of irrational votes, with a trend one way or the other, could easily constitute a reason for a loss.
How familiar are you with hillary's actual platform, and the extensive policy papers therein which present actual implementable solutions for problems?
at any rate, I assume you, as with others, have no good basis to call a vote for hillary in the primary irrational, and your belief is likely based on similar misinformation as sc-darkness's.
personally; in the primary i'd say they each had considerable ups and downs, and neither was vastly better than the other on the whole.
as to politics and chaos:
are you going to claim that politics isn't heavily chaotic and arbitrary?
that her loss was because of irrationality doesn't mean the change is entirely chaotic; it's just mostly arbitrary, and over time the small bits that aren't can accumulate and help. but there's a LOT of noise and nonsense. that's just how it is for the most part. it's also most definitely a chaotic system.
you want some of the scholarly research on the topic to look at? (some relevant books)
|
|
|
On July 17 2018 04:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 04:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right? Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they? Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this. https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1018770963813490688 Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control. This is the funniest part of all this. The easiest way to tell if people's positions are partisan or principled is asking what they think about US intelligence agencies. On July 17 2018 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:49 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right? Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they? Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this. https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1018770963813490688 Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. First part is the "say it different" part, what sanctions are you talking about though? I'm not qualified to suggest sanctions. None of us that post here are. But based on my understanding of history, direct attempts to meddle in our democracy warrant some amount of retaliation. We are not retaliating. So vague calls for a retaliation that no one can describe beyond "sanctions" of which Trump's (reluctantly) added the ones congress wanted. Doesn't seem like the people pushing this stuff really have any plan or comprehension of what should be done differently other than the rhetoric and optics. This is an exceptionally silly attempt to dismiss my views because you have never offered anything like you are describing either. We are all tragically ignorant compared to anyone who matters on these topics. I'd enjoy reading an actual bill you have written. Any form of reform or anything that you have ever suggested (whether racial, foreign, etc) have had a similar level of expertise. You are a nobody. So am I. I don't have a report to hand you describing how to appropriately punish russia. That's what we have governments for. I could list off some list of things based on previous sanctions, but that doesn't make it productive. You are trying to pretend this argument belongs in a quantitative rather than qualitative space. That's silly and has no justification. We are not fit for quantitative discussion of international retaliation. But we know enough to say when something should or should not happen. I just see it as pointless blathering. No on even knows what they are calling for or why besides how they will feel about it. Quite different than something like abolishing the police. Surely if Democrats want this stuff their government representatives have that bill you're talking about. Quit calling people out on the details. Unless you have details of your own. You love to talk down to everyone but never post your own position. Then like 5 pages into the argument where one person has defended there position they post a question to you. And you dodge or say " I never quite said that". If you want his position to be clearer (and I think it is very clear) at least take a position yourself. I hate people that bring up problems all the time but never offer solutions. Trump should probably be executed, but jailed would be fine with me. Our system is designed to prevent that from happening so all this hand-wringing over Trump-Russia as if that's the problem is petty and pointless. I haven't been shy about that position. Surely people see the comedy in this "of course we don't know what we are calling for" coming from the same people who expect detailed proposals for anything that doesn't immediately align with their perspective. Given that we're on the subject, what are the operative facts that warrant Trump's execution?
Besides being a blight on humanity? I mean I said "should probably" not because I thought I could prove that he earned it in our farce of a justice system.
But I mean he should be jailed for any number of crimes he's committed long before he was ever even running for president. But again, our system is designed to empower and enrich people like him, not hold them accountable.
That was really more to poke at the "Trump is treasonous" stuff. That's what the US does with traitors though. Though most people are still walking the line that he's selling out the US to Russia for his own personal benefit but that's not treason. Or some variation where they speculate about it endlessly but maintain a facade of "waiting for the facts" so that somehow when he isn't held accountable they can attempt to reconcile the ideas that Trump sold out the US to Russia but our system completely failed to h old him accountable.
|
A criminal complaint was unsealed today in the District of Columbia charging a Russian national with conspiracy to act as an agent of the Russian Federation within the United States without prior notification to the Attorney General.
The announcement was made by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jessie K. Liu, and Nancy McNamara, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.
Maria Butina, 29, a Russian citizen residing in Washington D.C., was arrested on July 15, 2018, in Washington, D.C., and made her initial appearance this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She was ordered held pending a hearing set for July 18, 2018.
According to the affidavit in support of the complaint, from as early as 2015 and continuing through at least February 2017, Butina worked at the direction of a high-level official in the Russian government who was previously a member of the legislature of the Russian Federation and later became a top official at the Russian Central Bank. This Russian official was sanctioned by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control in April 2018.
The court filings detail the Russian official’s and Butina’s efforts for Butina to act as an agent of Russia inside the United States by developing relationships with U.S. persons and infiltrating organizations having influence in American politics, for the purpose of advancing the interests of the Russian Federation. The filings also describe certain actions taken by Butina to further this effort during multiple visits from Russia and, later, when she entered and resided in the United States on a student visa. The filings allege that she undertook her activities without officially disclosing the fact that she was acting as an agent of Russian government, as required by law.
The charges in criminal complaints are merely allegations and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The maximum penalty for conspiracy is five years. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. If convicted of any offense, a defendant’s sentence will be determined by the court based on the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
The investigation into this matter was conducted by the FBI’s Washington Field Office. The case is being prosecuted by the National Security Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the National Security Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Source
Apparently Sessions wasn't notified about this. And now I'm curious what persons/ orgs she was trying to influence.
User was warned for this post.
|
On July 17 2018 04:45 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +A criminal complaint was unsealed today in the District of Columbia charging a Russian national with conspiracy to act as an agent of the Russian Federation within the United States without prior notification to the Attorney General.
The announcement was made by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jessie K. Liu, and Nancy McNamara, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.
Maria Butina, 29, a Russian citizen residing in Washington D.C., was arrested on July 15, 2018, in Washington, D.C., and made her initial appearance this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She was ordered held pending a hearing set for July 18, 2018.
According to the affidavit in support of the complaint, from as early as 2015 and continuing through at least February 2017, Butina worked at the direction of a high-level official in the Russian government who was previously a member of the legislature of the Russian Federation and later became a top official at the Russian Central Bank. This Russian official was sanctioned by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control in April 2018.
The court filings detail the Russian official’s and Butina’s efforts for Butina to act as an agent of Russia inside the United States by developing relationships with U.S. persons and infiltrating organizations having influence in American politics, for the purpose of advancing the interests of the Russian Federation. The filings also describe certain actions taken by Butina to further this effort during multiple visits from Russia and, later, when she entered and resided in the United States on a student visa. The filings allege that she undertook her activities without officially disclosing the fact that she was acting as an agent of Russian government, as required by law.
The charges in criminal complaints are merely allegations and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The maximum penalty for conspiracy is five years. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. If convicted of any offense, a defendant’s sentence will be determined by the court based on the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
The investigation into this matter was conducted by the FBI’s Washington Field Office. The case is being prosecuted by the National Security Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the National Security Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. SourceApparently Sessions wasn't notified about this. And now I'm curious what persons/ orgs she was trying to influence.
One report I am reading is the NRA. That she might be the reason a large amount of Russian money got dumped into the NRA in the last 2 years.
|
On July 17 2018 04:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 04:45 ticklishmusic wrote:A criminal complaint was unsealed today in the District of Columbia charging a Russian national with conspiracy to act as an agent of the Russian Federation within the United States without prior notification to the Attorney General.
The announcement was made by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jessie K. Liu, and Nancy McNamara, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.
Maria Butina, 29, a Russian citizen residing in Washington D.C., was arrested on July 15, 2018, in Washington, D.C., and made her initial appearance this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She was ordered held pending a hearing set for July 18, 2018.
According to the affidavit in support of the complaint, from as early as 2015 and continuing through at least February 2017, Butina worked at the direction of a high-level official in the Russian government who was previously a member of the legislature of the Russian Federation and later became a top official at the Russian Central Bank. This Russian official was sanctioned by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control in April 2018.
The court filings detail the Russian official’s and Butina’s efforts for Butina to act as an agent of Russia inside the United States by developing relationships with U.S. persons and infiltrating organizations having influence in American politics, for the purpose of advancing the interests of the Russian Federation. The filings also describe certain actions taken by Butina to further this effort during multiple visits from Russia and, later, when she entered and resided in the United States on a student visa. The filings allege that she undertook her activities without officially disclosing the fact that she was acting as an agent of Russian government, as required by law.
The charges in criminal complaints are merely allegations and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The maximum penalty for conspiracy is five years. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. If convicted of any offense, a defendant’s sentence will be determined by the court based on the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
The investigation into this matter was conducted by the FBI’s Washington Field Office. The case is being prosecuted by the National Security Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the National Security Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. SourceApparently Sessions wasn't notified about this. And now I'm curious what persons/ orgs she was trying to influence. One report I am reading is the NRA. That she might be the reason a large amount of Russian money got dumped into the NRA in the last 2 years.
NRA is definitely high on the list. What's crazy to me is a 29 year old was a key person in this operation, seems rather young (she was like 25-26 circa 2015 when this started).
|
On July 17 2018 04:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 04:24 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2018 04:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right? Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they? Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this. https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1018770963813490688 Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control. This is the funniest part of all this. The easiest way to tell if people's positions are partisan or principled is asking what they think about US intelligence agencies. On July 17 2018 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:49 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2018 03:43 Mohdoo wrote:On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote:People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right? Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they? Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this. https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1018770963813490688 Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action. First part is the "say it different" part, what sanctions are you talking about though? I'm not qualified to suggest sanctions. None of us that post here are. But based on my understanding of history, direct attempts to meddle in our democracy warrant some amount of retaliation. We are not retaliating. So vague calls for a retaliation that no one can describe beyond "sanctions" of which Trump's (reluctantly) added the ones congress wanted. Doesn't seem like the people pushing this stuff really have any plan or comprehension of what should be done differently other than the rhetoric and optics. This is an exceptionally silly attempt to dismiss my views because you have never offered anything like you are describing either. We are all tragically ignorant compared to anyone who matters on these topics. I'd enjoy reading an actual bill you have written. Any form of reform or anything that you have ever suggested (whether racial, foreign, etc) have had a similar level of expertise. You are a nobody. So am I. I don't have a report to hand you describing how to appropriately punish russia. That's what we have governments for. I could list off some list of things based on previous sanctions, but that doesn't make it productive. You are trying to pretend this argument belongs in a quantitative rather than qualitative space. That's silly and has no justification. We are not fit for quantitative discussion of international retaliation. But we know enough to say when something should or should not happen. I just see it as pointless blathering. No on even knows what they are calling for or why besides how they will feel about it. Quite different than something like abolishing the police. Surely if Democrats want this stuff their government representatives have that bill you're talking about. Quit calling people out on the details. Unless you have details of your own. You love to talk down to everyone but never post your own position. Then like 5 pages into the argument where one person has defended there position they post a question to you. And you dodge or say " I never quite said that". If you want his position to be clearer (and I think it is very clear) at least take a position yourself. I hate people that bring up problems all the time but never offer solutions. Trump should probably be executed, but jailed would be fine with me. Our system is designed to prevent that from happening so all this hand-wringing over Trump-Russia as if that's the problem is petty and pointless. I haven't been shy about that position. Surely people see the comedy in this "of course we don't know what we are calling for" coming from the same people who expect detailed proposals for anything that doesn't immediately align with their perspective. Bullet to the back of the head like your man Lennin and Stalin. Why even have a trial. Who else should we murder while we are at it? And who should have this power, you personally or someone else?
You do know that the US still has the death penalty, right? And that treason is a capital crime punishable by many things including the death penalty?
edit: without arguing for or against the initial argument, yours is just stupid.
|
On July 17 2018 04:50 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 04:48 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2018 04:45 ticklishmusic wrote:A criminal complaint was unsealed today in the District of Columbia charging a Russian national with conspiracy to act as an agent of the Russian Federation within the United States without prior notification to the Attorney General.
The announcement was made by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jessie K. Liu, and Nancy McNamara, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.
Maria Butina, 29, a Russian citizen residing in Washington D.C., was arrested on July 15, 2018, in Washington, D.C., and made her initial appearance this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. She was ordered held pending a hearing set for July 18, 2018.
According to the affidavit in support of the complaint, from as early as 2015 and continuing through at least February 2017, Butina worked at the direction of a high-level official in the Russian government who was previously a member of the legislature of the Russian Federation and later became a top official at the Russian Central Bank. This Russian official was sanctioned by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control in April 2018.
The court filings detail the Russian official’s and Butina’s efforts for Butina to act as an agent of Russia inside the United States by developing relationships with U.S. persons and infiltrating organizations having influence in American politics, for the purpose of advancing the interests of the Russian Federation. The filings also describe certain actions taken by Butina to further this effort during multiple visits from Russia and, later, when she entered and resided in the United States on a student visa. The filings allege that she undertook her activities without officially disclosing the fact that she was acting as an agent of Russian government, as required by law.
The charges in criminal complaints are merely allegations and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The maximum penalty for conspiracy is five years. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. If convicted of any offense, a defendant’s sentence will be determined by the court based on the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
The investigation into this matter was conducted by the FBI’s Washington Field Office. The case is being prosecuted by the National Security Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the National Security Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. SourceApparently Sessions wasn't notified about this. And now I'm curious what persons/ orgs she was trying to influence. One report I am reading is the NRA. That she might be the reason a large amount of Russian money got dumped into the NRA in the last 2 years. NRA is definitely high on the list. What's crazy to me is a 29 year old was a key person in this operation, seems rather young (she was like 25-26 circa 2015 when this started).
I think it's a levels of separation thing. She reported to someone who reported to someone...etc.
|
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/397245-mccain-trump-performance-disgraceful
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/16/john-mccain-says-trump-abased-himself-before-putin-at-summit.html
"RINO"s are coming out to play.. McCain still using his seat to throw fire under Trump. It's pretty obvioust that McCain is teetering a fine line when it comes to his party, and his actual thoughts of the current party.
"Today’s press conference in Helsinki was one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory. The damage inflicted by President Trump’s naiveté, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate. But it is clear that the summit in Helsinki was a tragic mistake.
President Trump proved not only unable, but unwilling to stand up to Putin. He and Putin seemed to be speaking from the same script as the president made a conscious choice to defend a tyrant against the fair questions of a free press, and to grant Putin an uncontested platform to spew propaganda and lies to the world.
It is tempting to describe the press conference as a pathetic rout – as an illustration of the perils of under-preparation and inexperience. But these were not the errant tweets of a novice politician. These were the deliberate choices of a president who seems determined to realize his delusions of a warm relationship with Putin’s regime without any regard for the true nature of his rule, his violent disregard for the sovereignty of his neighbors, his complicity in the slaughter of the Syrian people, his violation of international treaties, and his assault on democratic institutions throughout the world.
Coming close on the heels of President Trump’s bombastic and erratic conduct towards our closest friends and allies in Brussels and Britain, today’s press conference marks a recent low point in the history of the American Presidency. That the president was attended in Helsinki by a team of competent and patriotic advisors makes his blunders and capitulations all the more painful and inexplicable.
No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant. Not only did President Trump fail to speak the truth about an adversary; but speaking for America to the world, our president failed to defend all that makes us who we are—a republic of free people dedicated to the cause of liberty at home and abroad. American presidents must be the champions of that cause if it is to succeed. Americans are waiting and hoping for President Trump to embrace that sacred responsibility. One can only hope they are not waiting totally in vain.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
